QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Fri 18th July 2008, 12:49am)
Bardcom seems to be starting to realise he needs to step back, show some faith in others over their reverts of him (ie curtail the 'crusade'), and not rely on dishing out the templates to clear his path. Looks like his short block has had a good effect.
While I wuz bored and looking for excuses to get more popcorn I checked out all Bardys edits. I mean llike all of them. Sad. (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)
OK - surprise! Bardy did a good job. He was consistent and explained his reasons any time he was asked. Sure he was incessent and he got a few wrong, but nearly all were good. So his enemies decided to go after him and said hes an irish republican with anti-british POV rather than discuss his edits. And it worked too. He's been very quite this week - calm before the storm or beaten into submission?
WMC, Chillum1=2, Tharky, and a bunch of anon IP editors on one side. Once the admins arrived he hadnt a hope.
REPLY: Where are these IP's? They tend to be on Bardcom's side if anything! I think Bardcom's seen sense myself (not beaten into submission!).
Look at his recent edits. CarterBar and Tharky are stalking and commenting on every edit. Look at
Young Ambassadors edits where Bardy made a good edit using the Young Ambassadors official website for the reference to use UK and not BI, and Tharky just reverts anyway. Or look at the Furry Dance article. Looks to me like a bunch of very British editors got together and cabalized him. Proper like.
Oh the injustice! How can wikipedia be allowed to operate like this! (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)
Heh heh. Schmuck. (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)
REPLY: Nobody has said Barcom has not found examples where the term was misused... It is unfortunate that Tharkuncoll has got involved - he is a fool of the highest order. But Bardcom brought all this on himself.
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Fri 18th July 2008, 12:49am)
Mind you, there is Alison's email.
"Oh Danny boy,...
But did she do anything about it? Leaving aside telling us all here that Bardy had asked for help?
REPLY: She said she hadn't the time. Unless she replies we don't know how she feels on it. This was something for her Talk page - I don't like it at all that it was dealt with by email. Do you? Especially when the admin who finally gave Bardcom the block (after other admins were critical) could be ganged-up on over this. If you didn't know, there is quite a powerful "nationalist" (used in quotes) contingent on Wikipedia that often pull together in these matters.
I wonder how many others he asked, I wonder how many others unofficially sanction the very British pro-BI cabal, exactly how many editors are locked onto his contrib lists, and do they accept membership? (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)
REPLY: Britain is something that exists. Fully independent Scotland etc doesn't. It's easy to forget that when describing this . It is easy to call editors like CarterBar "pro-British" is a derogative way - but it is also foolish. He is British - and this about a geographical term, and not Britain anyway. The arguments get smudged.
If CarterBar wasn't there, Bardcom would have gone on unchecked and removed countless scores of "British Isles" by now - with about a third having correct uses, a third with acceptable neutral usues, and maybe (yes) a third that were contentious (and needed to go). The point is that for a period he was removing examples of all three, literally one after the other - and dishing out warning templates to people, literally just for criticising him (which he saw as "ad hominem" attacks).
Did Bardcom do all of the good jobs hiself, or was it the people who forced him to compromise on certain articles? Nobody has claimed (inc. CarterBar) that at times the the term was used incorrectly and needed revising or removing - the whole point was that for a period Bardcom was removing every use he could - even when the context was there.
Often the 'favourable edit' came in afer CarterBar got involved and they edit-warred then talked.
How can CarterBar be "stalking" him anyway, when it's all on the same subject? He told Bardcom upfront that he'll be watching the continual BI-related edits. I wonder where that sits with WP law too - surely CarterBar has a right to do this?
OK, TharkunColl‎ has got involved (not a pleasant editor at all - infact one that has trolled his anti-Islamism so many times, and so deliberately insultingly, that is is almost racist of Wikipedia that he isn't banned by now) - but that doesn't change the issues.