![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
TheKartingWikipedian |
![]()
Post
#1
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 121 Joined: Member No.: 7,007 ![]() |
Get a load of this editor. Yes, it's British Isles Bardcom. This guy has had it in for the British Isles for a while now, but has been losing arguments about getting rid of the article. So what's he doing about it? He's delinking it! Yes, this anti-British Leprechaun from Dublin is trawling the entire encyclopedia and removing every reference he finds to the British Isles. He's been at it for months now and so far has removed several hundred links to the main article. There's no stopping him. Every reason under the sun is given for getting rid of the dreaded term. Some of them are quite laughable. Sometimes he claims OR, often there's no reference, so out it goes. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)
Funny thing is, it seems that Wikipedia is supporting him in this anti-British POV. A few have tried to stop him, but none have so far succeeded. Old Bardy has the world's longest watchlist - he watches EVERY article he's ever had the pleasure of removing British Isles from, and if anyone is foolish enough to re-instate it he calls them a vandal and threatens to block them. Not that he's an admin you understand. Not yet, anyway, but he seems lke suitable material. Oh yes, and there's the ad hominem (or ad homineN as he likes to call it) attack, that everyone whose had any dealings with him has been accused of. Right now he's facing an RfA and he's also had an RfC, but he breezed through that and looks like doing the same with the RfA. He's so far managed to deflect all criticism and continues on his quest to rid the world of the British Isles. Reckon it'll be September time when the main article doesn't link to anything anymore, then it can go as well. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) But there's good sport to be had here. At his most prodigious the old bugger gets rid of one BI link a minute and it's hard to keep up the reverts, but why not give it a go. Next time you spot him on a campaign revert his changes as fast as he's making them. You end up with dozens of simultaneous edit wars; it's bloody good fun I can tell you. But then you get banned, like I did. So do it as an IP. That really gets him going. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bardcom |
![]() ![]() |
Robert Roberts |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 171 Joined: Member No.: 890 ![]() |
I've come across him a few times, he's a tool - he's not particular interested in "truth", he's interested in pissing off Muslim editors. He's a troll.
|
wikiwhistle |
![]()
Post
#3
|
Postmaster ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,928 Joined: Member No.: 3,953 ![]() |
I've come across him a few times, he's a tool - he's not particular interested in "truth", he's interested in pissing off Muslim editors. He's a troll. Yes but it's still a fact- why hide it unless others have an agenda. Goldy- thark was banned for a fortnight in jan or something, since then he's been back and had to behave a bit around the muhammad article. I thought he was risking being blocked over the recent Bardy reverts to be honest. How he behaves over Irish, Islam and so on articles merely reflects the perspective of a lot of English people or people worldwide who don't have a POV pushing pro-Irish republican agenda, and our views are not necessarily represented on those articles due to the high numbers of Irish or pro- Irish editing on there. Not that I'm anti-Irish, just saying at the current time there's not many people representing the views Thark is trying to make sure are including in these articles, and he's not alone in holding these views,but they've been forced out. However, I can't claim to be unbiased, that's why I'm not going to chip in much on any Arbcom etc about it from now on- or I will make sure I let my own allegiances be known. The reason being that Thark is a personal friend of mine in real life, and we're meeting him for drinks on Sunday for social or reasons largely unrelated to wiki, but which will include a great deal of celebration. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: |
Gold heart |
![]()
Post
#4
|
Lean duck! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Inactive Posts: 938 Joined: Member No.: 5,183 ![]() |
I've come across him a few times, he's a tool - he's not particular interested in "truth", he's interested in pissing off Muslim editors. He's a troll. Yes but it's still a fact- why hide it unless others have an agenda. Goldy- thark was banned for a fortnight in jan or something, since then he's been back and had to behave a bit around the muhammad article. I thought he was risking being blocked over the recent Bardy reverts to be honest. How he behaves over Irish, Islam and so on articles merely reflects the perspective of a lot of English people or people worldwide who don't have a POV pushing pro-Irish republican agenda, and our views are not necessarily represented on those articles due to the high numbers of Irish or pro- Irish editing on there. Not that I'm anti-Irish, just saying at the current time there's not many people representing the views Thark is trying to make sure are including in these articles, and he's not alone in holding these views,but they've been forced out. However, I can't claim to be unbiased, that's why I'm not going to chip in much on any Arbcom etc about it from now on- or I will make sure I let my own allegiances be known. The reason being that Thark is a personal friend of mine in real life, and we're meeting him for drinks on Sunday for social or reasons largely unrelated to wiki, but which will include a great deal of celebration. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) And why is Churchill being protected from similar by British Nationalists? Actually Thark was one of my favourite editors on WP, and he doesn't hide his pro-British pov under a bushel, he so much reminds me of some of my English cousins in many ways. Didn't realise the block was for two weeks, and personally I'd be more in favour of a topic-ban for two weeks. I once told him that I could easily imagine him at the bottom of his garden, raising the Union Jack every morning at dawn to the sound of GodSaveTheQueen from an old gramophone record, and lowering it lovingly, each evening at dusk. I will differ from you about your general thrust here, Wikipedia is top heavy with pro-British editors, pushing a British pov. It's not a conspiracy theory, as those same editors don't even realise that they are basking in their own pov. All you have to do is read the British based history articles, where there is a lot of pov. Sometimes a lone Irish editor comes along and tries to rectify a sentence about the Earl of Essex, or Cromwell and suddenly about twenty pro-British editors come out of the "woodwork", and chew the head off him, he won't go back there again! Recently there was a spate of pro-British-pov editors throlling on the Irish Famine page, an aspect I found rather disgusting. Anyway, give Thark my regards, and have a nice Sunday and weekend. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) The moral is that everone has their POV, and to deny that is akin denying their ones own mortality, I guess. I think the big challenge is for everyone to recognise that aspect of themselves within their own editing. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) |
wikiwhistle |
![]()
Post
#5
|
Postmaster ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,928 Joined: Member No.: 3,953 ![]() |
And why is Churchill being protected from similar by British Nationalists? That's the way it goes on Wikipedia, most of the articles have a degree of WP:OWN by one 'side' or the other of an argument. Such as pro- or anti- a particular cult or whatever. QUOTE Actually Thark was one of my favourite editors on WP, and he doesn't hide his pro-British pov under a bushel, he so much reminds me of some of my English cousins in many ways. Didn't realise the block was for two weeks, and personally I'd be more in favour of a topic-ban for two weeks. I once told him that I could easily imagine him at the bottom of his garden, raising the Union Jack every morning at dawn to the sound of GodSaveTheQueen from an old gramophone record, and lowering it lovingly, each evening at dusk. I think/know he enjoys the arguments greatly, he's rarely upset by it and finds the completely, to him, outlandish views of for instance G2Bambino and various other editors on articles about the royals etc. hilarious. Unless someone has really strong views about these issues, some people would admit to finding his antics sort of funny in a way, perhaps, in as much as they are shocked as they're not "politically correct," and people like to sometimes have a break from political correctness. even if t's not with something that's identical to their own viewpoint. As you say about your cousins, he's not the only one in England/ the UK in particular with these views. He is not as posh or outmoded as to have a flag, or sing god save the queen etc. I'd imagine him more as the average bloke down the pub but with a bit more intellect, who enjoys a good row or mock of people over his pint. QUOTE I will differ from you about your general thrust here, Wikipedia is top heavy with pro-British editors, pushing a British pov. It's not a conspiracy theory, as those same editors don't even realise that they are basking in their own pov. I've not seen any other than tharky, but it's not my particular subject area so I only read the rows he's involved in as a friend, so I only see the mad-keen ones he's debating with, such as G2Bambino. I don't know if you know of G2Bambino's edits, but he has a thing about Canada and some minutiae of terminology about the status of the Queen there. While technically true, they seem bizarre at first glance and Thark obviously enjoys arguing about them. QUOTE Recently there was a spate of pro-British-pov editors throlling on the Irish Famine page, an aspect I found rather disgusting. I don't know much about the article, except it's not even called 'Irish potato famine' is it, which is what everyone/the media in the UK refer to it as. Isn't it the one that's randomly called 'the great hunger'? QUOTE Anyway, give Thark my regards, and have a nice Sunday and weekend. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) I wil, and you. Do you know any WP editors in real life? There seem not to be that many of us in a town, either that or people are too ashamed too admit it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) QUOTE The moral is that everone has their POV, and to deny that is akin denying their ones own mortality, I guess. I think the big challenge is for everyone to recognise that aspect of themselves within their own editing. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) True but people, especially perhaps some of "The Cabal" are mad keen to deny they have a bias and assert that their interpretation of an issue is The Truth. Of course with a lot of academic subjects nowadays, such as anthropology etc, I would say that stuudents are encouraged to be aware of their own bias. Then of course, those with a viewpoint different from that of the upper eschelons on wiki probably end up being blocked if they're too vocal about it. As to a topic ban- Thark was explicitly warned that it was perceived misbehaviour on the Muhammad article that would lead to further blocks. Topic bans tend to be used less often than blocks in general, because they usually need more discussion or Arbcom rather than one admin just 'sorting it out' on their own with a block. I keep fearing that some of this will end with an Arbcom... but despite appearances with the Bardy issue, things are actually more amicable now on some of the articles about the royals etc. I think User:GoodDay or whatever he's called is a calming presence. This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: |
powercorrupts |
![]()
Post
#6
|
. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 716 Joined: Member No.: 6,776 ![]() |
As to a topic ban- Thark was explicitly warned that it was perceived misbehaviour on the Muhammad article that would lead to further blocks. Topic bans tend to be used less often than blocks in general, because they usually need more discussion or Arbcom rather than one admin just 'sorting it out' on their own with a block. I keep fearing that some of this will end with an Arbcom... but despite appearances with the Bardy issue, things are actually more amicable now on some of the articles about the royals etc. I think User:GoodDay or whatever he's called is a calming presence. GoodDay is a pro-British Canadian 'Republican' that befriends everyone and turns up everywhere around Britain and Ireland. He is anti 'edit warring' to the extreme - sometimes threatening going to an admin when people try things. I personally don;t see him as helpful to the project (as his influence can be quite sly) - but I had seen him as relatively benign and well-meaning. Since I saw him calling on a reduction for Tharkuncolls '2 weeks' though it made me look at him in a new light. As for you calling Tharkuncoll's gross behaviour regarding Islam as "perceived misbehaviour" - you are just showing your true colours. His language was continually inflammatory, insulting, bating, belittling and racist. And like all racists, he tars everyone with the same brush ('those Jews..' etc). He had a number of previous blocks too. He might be your mate, but you should seriously think twice (or perhaps have a better look and read a bit of politics) before defending him. This post has been edited by powercorrupts: |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |