QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Mon 13th October 2008, 10:38pm)
From the amount of sqwaking you're doing, Goldie, I'd say there's at least a chance of it being true. But let me guess.. HighKing is "fighting the good fight" and TharkunColl is "Vandalizing Wikipedia".
Quite frankly, if they hadn't agreed to voluntarily quit it with the "insert British Isles" "Remove British Isles" crap, they would have been forced to. Both of them should know better by now.
But it is entertainment or sorts (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)
The edit historys of both editors shows that Tharky and his merry meatpuppets won this battle. They got clean away with some very poor behaviour. Im surprised HK didnt kick up more considering his past.
Chronologically going through this, youd be hard pressed to point to anything he did wrong to be called up to arbcom. BRD is all well and find so long as the D part happens, but it never did. So HK would make an edit. The merry meatpuppets would revert. HK would ask on the Talk page to discuss. After a while, hours/days, of nothing HK would revert again, invariably getting reverted in minutes. Hed ask on Talk. Nothing. Repeat cycle. (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)
When HK reports LemonMonday and Blue Bugle as sockpuppets, BB gets blocked and LM gets warned by Alison to not follow HK around reverting his edits. A few days later, LM is back reverting. Does anything happen? Alison? SirFozzie? Turning a blind eye?
HK reports Tharky at WQA. Personally I might have chosen a different and more direct route but whatever. Blah, blah, blah resulting in HK being asked to stop editing instead. While HK tries to get Tharkys behavior looked at, SirFozzie lumps them into The Troubles arbcom and threatens HK with an editing ban. Then HK is accused of being a GH sockie.
On one side we have an editor that appears to be trying to resolve an issue, is following policy, but comits a henious crime because he is removing British Isles from articles. Consensus is that he may be overzealous on occasion but mostly gets it right. Appears willing to explain his edits. His edits are in line with the task force. Not abusive. A bit anal and wikilawyering over references sometimes...
On the other we have Tharky (and the MP gang) ignore policy, revert without any attempt to explain their actions, and leave rude remarks in edit summaries, all round generally abusive.
Wiki result? Lets stop HK antagonizing the British editors. No more removing the term. Yeah, sure, they cause the disruption, but its easier to get HK to change his ways than Tharky (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)
Scoring: Tharky wins because he got what he wanted. He stopped HK, introduced the term into a couple of new articles, and recruited some puppets to revert any of HKs edits. But his biggest score is for the WQA and ArbCom results. Poor behaviour and good behaviour? Lets reward the poor behaviour. Masterful performance by Tharky (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)
Other notable performances: SirFozzie gets a star for extending The Troubles arbcom to cover any disruption, and for doing a great admin job of stopping disruption. But performed poorly in dealing with "Tharky and the MeatPuppets", and obviously failed to appear impartial.