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

[powercorrupts]

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.

But check out Bardcom's slightly snide sidekick Crispness - he backs Bardcom up on the British Isles removal and he uses m for every single edit he makes! (no kidding - he has it on a permanent lock).

What is it with obsessives and Wikipedia? They don't seem to realise that nothing (for the less important anyway) is hidden.

Mind you, there is Alison's email.

"Oh Danny boy,...

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[ComeGetMe]

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.

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)

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.

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)

This post has been edited by ComeGetMe:

[powercorrupts]

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.

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.

[wikiwhistle]

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.

Wikipedia has blocked Tharkie in the past for his actions on the 'Muhammad' article, but he hasn't done anything objectionable on that article for several months I don't think. He had to stop or Neil said he would block him for three months and he would face escalating blocks. So, they have disciplined him for it, it's not like they let him continue doing what he did on the Muhammad article.

However, TharkunColl was rightly trying to include the fact that Muhammad had a consummated marriage with a girl when she was 9 years old- this is a fact and if others don't want to include it, that is a cover-up practiced for their own agenda. Of course in the context of child marriage, that wasn't an aberration in Muhammad's culture at the time. It's covering things up that is POV pushing and misleading in this case.

The same with the pictures of Mohammed- if some Muslims don't want them they're free to create their own Islamopedia or something whose rules are those of Islam. I even saw on the village pump or something someone saying that there being '5 pillars of wikipedia' is an insult to Islam or something, as there are 5 pillars of Islam. None of this helps the cause of making people think there's such a thing (which I presume there is) as moderate Islam.

If you look at bits of Bardy's talk page, over articles such as Ireland etc, I think they are actually coming to a working compromise- Bardy has made others think, and others are also providing a counterbalance to Bardy.

There's a moment on B's talkpage, where he actually says he agrees with TharkunColl, with using "British Isles" in a geographical context in an article. So I do think they will come to some grudging way of working together (although of course, both of them might overstep it sometimes.)

In other words, pretty effective "dispute resolution" for the English Wikipedia. Sadly, the only way to get a bona fide dispute resolved in that dysfunctional environment is to create a drama storm, because that's the only way you'll ever get any sort of attention.

I think there comes a point where if people have any reasoning powers, they realise they have to start playing by the rules or face an Arbcom etc or block. People still tend to occassionally lapse back into trying to get away with things, though. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

I think there comes a point where if people have any reasoning powers, they realise they have to start playing by the rules or face an Arbcom etc or block. People still tend to occassionally lapse back into trying to get away with things, though. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

You can't get anywhere on Wikipedia by following the rules, so why bother? Nah, the way to success on Wikipedia is schmooze, schmooze, schmooze. Just like in real life.

[wikiwhistle]

I think there comes a point where if people have any reasoning powers, they realise they have to start playing by the rules or face an Arbcom etc or block. People still tend to occassionally lapse back into trying to get away with things, though. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

You can't get anywhere on Wikipedia by following the rules, so why bother? Nah, the way to success on Wikipedia is schmooze, schmooze, schmooze. Just like in real life.

Lol good point. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)