BI Bardcom Options Rating

[TheKartingWikipedian]

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

[Enric_Naval]

You broke ANI!

I also like how Bardcom is just trying to get British Isles to be used only as a geographical term, while TheKartingWikipedian is misrepresenting that by saying that Bardcom is plain out removing the term from everywhere, which is not correct. I dunno how many other facts you might have gotten wrong.

Anyways, an Arbcom case has been opened on the matter, and this means that this will be solved fairly, because Arbcom always gets all its stuff right, right? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Fix'ed. Thanks, Milton.

This post has been edited by Enric_Naval:

[Milton Roe]

You broke ANI!

I also like how Bardcom is just trying to get British Isles to be used only as a geographical term, while TheKartingWikipedian is misrepresenting that by saying that Bardcom is plain out removing the term from everywhere, which is not correct. I dunno how many other facts you might have gotten wrong.

Anyways, an Arbcom case has been opened on the matter, and this means that this will be solved fairly, because Arbcom always gets all its stuff right, right? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

I think you mean you broke ANI. Fix the link.

[dogbiscuit]

Note that Bardcom sites Wikipedia Review as a reason for his action coming to light - yet he does not deny it is what he is doing, just that what he is doing is not an obsessive one man campaign.

I wonder what other obsessives are slowly going around corrupting others work? What would a historian do in 100 years time if they tried to use Wikipedia as some form of snapshot of world opinion of the early 21st century?

[wikiwhistle]

Bardcom's been blocked again for his British Isles insertions edit warring. This time for 24 hours.

[Moulton]

Note that Bardcom sites Wikipedia Review as a reason for his action coming to light - yet he does not deny it is what he is doing, just that what he is doing is not an obsessive one man campaign.

I wonder what other obsessives are slowly going around corrupting others work? What would a historian do in 100 years time if they tried to use Wikipedia as some form of snapshot of world opinion of the early 21st century?

An historian might conclude that Wikipedia was dominated by an ad hoc ochlocracy comprised of anankastic antagonists.

[ComeGetMe]

Bardcom's been blocked again for his British Isles insertions edit warring. This time for 24 hours.

Methinks Bardcom has made some enemies....

He's saying he shouldn't have been blocked - that the 3rd edit wasn't a revert. Ha ha - I'm off to get some popcorn and watch the fun...

[guy]

Welcome, ComeGetMe.

[Milton Roe]

Note that Bardcom sites Wikipedia Review as a reason for his action coming to light - yet he does not deny it is what he is doing, just that what he is doing is not an obsessive one man campaign.

I wonder what other obsessives are slowly going around corrupting others work? What would a historian do in 100 years time if they tried to use Wikipedia as some form of snapshot of world opinion of the early 21st century?

With the intelligence and computational power of that far into the future, considering Moore's law, individual editing styles of individual minds of today will be about as obvious as a mother being able to tell, with her eyes shut and half asleep, which of her kids is crying and how badly they've been hurt. And the various editorical changes will be about as complex to read and easy to follow as the crayon scriblings of a 5 year-old on your wallpaper. So far as anything recorded goes, we textual analysis amateurs, with our limited time and resources, now see through a glass darkly-- but so long as it's preserved to history, all will be clear as day to the computers and minds of tomorrow. It would be sort of like having the computers at today's NSA break Enigma-- an afternoon's coding. Unfortunately, there are consequences to being able to do it in approximate "real-time" in 1943 instead of 2008. Some damage is being done now on WP that can't be undone. If somebody leaves the project NOW, THAT article never does get written. When it is finally written, it's not the same one. Meanwhile it isn't there to influence something else. A butterfly effect.

MR

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

[Dzonatas]

This is very interesting.

93.107.68.59 makes an edit to change the British Isles text in an article. If you look at that IPs contributions, then you will notice several of the same changes.

ThrankunColl calls it vandalism:

Please stop vandalising pages by imposing political viewpoints on them. Otherwise you will be reported for sockpuppetry. TharkunColl 14:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

On the RFAR appear, Flonight makes an assertion that appears to include such comment as above by TharkunColl:

Accusations of wikistalking, misuse of edit summaries, labeling another user's edits as vandalism are several problems I noticed when taking a quick look. Likely that these issues are preventing the resolution of the content dispute. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The heart of the dispute, on the RFAR:

Statement by Kendrick7

This is rather silly. They haven't been the British Isles since 1919. That Americans still lazily refer to them as such is simply a reflection of our own ignorance of European history. I applaud any editor fighting such ignorance; if this appears to be an "obsession" it's only because the anachronism is so widespread among our pages. -- Kendrick7 05:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Bastun

A quick read of the article and its associated articles and talk pages clearly shows User:Kendrick7 is incorrect - the term is still in use worldwide, including by a minority on the island of Ireland (and I've just reverted his change to the lede of the BI article making it 'past tense').

On the RfA itself - User:Bardcom does seem to have an issue with the term and does try to eliminate it from many articles, some removals being dubious, some being valid, in my opinion. But its a content dispute and certainly not yet appropriate for an RfA. Bastun 09:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There is some related history in The Trouble case, but I only glanced at that one, so far.

WMC's involvement in this relates to another event with
93.107.68.59, subthread link.

This RFAR makes it look like 93.107.68.59 actually fixed it to modern terms, but the dispute is to continue to use the old terms (BI), and Ireland is the rope in the tug of war.

Is there a WR-Popcorn fund?

[wikiwhistle]

This RFAR makes it look like 93.107.68.59 actually fixed it to modern terms, but the dispute is to continue to use the old terms (BI), and Ireland is the rope in the tug of war.

The term is still widely in use in the UK/England, and it's not inaccurate. Just arguably it's a geographical, rather than a political term.

Bardcom does often change the term without even looking if his edit makes sense or is factual. See here as one of many instances. He changes British Isles to England wih a spurious reason, one can only think he sort of gets 'on a roll' and goes on a rampage of doing it.

93.thingy was Goldheart though, not Bardcom.

[Dzonatas]

This RFAR makes it look like 93.107.68.59 actually fixed it to modern terms, but the dispute is to continue to use the old terms (BI), and Ireland is the rope in the tug of war.

The term is still widely in use in the UK/England, and it's not inaccurate. Just arguably it's a geographical, rather than a political term.

Bardcom does often change the term without even looking if his edit makes sense or is factual. See here as one of many instances. He changes British Isles to England wih a spurious reason, one can only think he sort of gets 'on a roll' and goes on a rampage of doing it.

Hmmm, and the side panel even shows the location as "England," too. Does anybody else think that edit by Calton, to change it to BI, looks like WP:OR? There is only one secondary source listed for the first paragraph of the article and the external links (mainly primary sources). That change is in the second paragraph that has no citation.

This post has been edited by Dzonatas:

[Gold heart]

This RFAR makes it look like 93.107.68.59 actually fixed it to modern terms, but the dispute is to continue to use the old terms (BI), and Ireland is the rope in the tug of war.

The term is still widely in use in the UK/England, and it's not inaccurate. Just arguably it's a geographical, rather than a political term.

Bardcom does often change the term without even looking if his edit makes sense or is factual. See here as one of many instances. He changes British Isles to England wih a spurious reason, one can only think he sort of gets 'on a roll' and goes on a rampage of doing it.

93.thingy was Goldheart though, not Bardcom.

You make a charge of "spurious", without even making a case, typically Wikipedia-ish. What is spurious about his edit in that particular instance. All he is doing is editing and encyclopedia and correcting instances of the term British Isles, a relic of a term from a dead empire. But the "empire" may not be totally dead yet, the British Isles Brigade are quick on Bardcom's heels, and wildly snapping. Think it's going to ArbCom soon, before it sinks Wikipedia. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[guy]

The trouble is that there's no simple alternative to the term "British Isles" if you want to mean The United Kingdom, the Irish Republic, the Isle of Man and the Channel Isles. Many Irish people say "these islands", but you can't very well use that phrase in an encyclopaedic article to be read in America.

[TheKartingWikipedian]

The trouble is that there's no simple alternative to the term "British Isles" if you want to mean The United Kingdom, the Irish Republic, the Isle of Man and the Channel Isles. Many Irish people say "these islands", but you can't very well use that phrase in an encyclopaedic article to be read in America.

Would that be "in America -- for example"?

[guy]

Would that be "in America -- for example"?

If you wish. Obviously it would make equally little sense in Uzbekistan. However, I believe that there will be more readers of the English Wikipedia in America.

[Gold heart]

The trouble is that there's no simple alternative to the term "British Isles" if you want to mean The United Kingdom, the Irish Republic, the Isle of Man and the Channel Isles. Many Irish people say "these islands", but you can't very well use that phrase in an encyclopaedic article to be read in America.

This is where some lateral thinking comes in, Ireland and Britain don't have to have a collective name. Sardinia and Corsica don't have a collective name, even though they are right beside each other. The Japanese Archipelago excludes islands that belong to Russia, and there is no collective name for the islands around Iceland or NewZeland for that matter. So the term British Isles was correct until 1922 when Ireland ceded interest in remaining with Britain in the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", what a mouthful. Out of mutual respect, and in conjunction of parity that Europe & EU offers, if the islands need to be called by a collective noun, then it should be "The British and Irish Isles". Most people from Ireland say "Britain & Ireland", alphabetically to show no bias, and biggest first too. Map-makers rarely use the term anymore, and it is avoided by the American Administration, the British Administration, and naturally by The Irish Administration amongst others. Barcom's substantive point is that the term is being used in an incorrect manner, and that is why he is making the changes.

[TheKartingWikipedian]

if the islands need to be called by a collective noun, then it should be "The British and Irish Isles".

Maybe it should. I wouldn't object. It's still a bit of a mouthful, but what the hell. Point is though, it isn't called that. It's called British Isles, like it or not. Wikipedia isn't the place to try and influence these matters. Please show me where, anywhere, it was agreed, by anyone, that BI ceased to exist in 1922.

Oh no, this is getting like a Wikiepdia Talk page. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) Forget that last sentence.

[TheKartingWikipedian]

Tell you what, he's a tenacious old bugger is Bardy. Have you seen his Talk page; he just won't give in to this block. Next thing the numbskull admins 'll be blocking his Talk as well. That happened to me when I was blocked for turning over a series of Bardy's edits. Could I persuade them to unblock me - not on your black and white telly! And I was completely in the right. The no-nothing blighters just would not listen, but then, admins, so what do you expect.

Give it up Bardy. You'll be back on tomorrow anyway. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

[wikiwhistle]

Tell you what, he's a tenacious old bugger is Bardy. Have you seen his Talk page; he just won't give in to this block. Next thing the numbskull admins 'll be blocking his Talk as well. That happened to me when I was blocked for turning over a series of Bardy's edits. Could I persuade them to unblock me - not on your black and white telly! And I was completely in the right. The no-nothing blighters just would not listen, but then, admins, so what do you expect.

Give it up Bardy. You'll be back on tomorrow anyway. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

If/ when he finally gets blocked indef maybe they'll let you back (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)