Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bardcom


 * The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.  

Closed by agreement.

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 19:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

A proposal to avoid the continuation of this dispute
I make the following proposal to avoid the continuation of this dispute. If the stakeholders think this proposal is a good idea, endorse here, and then we can close the RfC. My proposal is to develop a wikipedia policy (or whatever the correct technical term would be) outlining the use of "British Isles" in pages. This was done for the Gdansk/Danzig controversy, for the British/American spelling controversy, and many others, and I think it could work here. I have written what I think might be a decent start at User:Tb/British Isles. But that's just one person's guess; endorsing here does not mean that you agree with User:Tb/British Isles; it means only that you agree to work together on a policy for the usage of the term. If this seems good to you, endorse here, and if the stakeholders endorse, we can close this RfC and start a more productive process in its place.
 * 1) Tb (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  Canterbury Tail   talk  11:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3)  Dan Beale-Cocks  22:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A proposal to close this dispute
As there does not seem to be any resolution in sight, I propose that the stakeholders agree to close this RfC.
 * 1) -Crispness (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) -78.19.97.158 (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Tb (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) --Domer48 (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) -Sarah777 (talk) 09:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me add a note: I'm more interested in the future than in the past. Please read and comment on WP:British Isles. Tb (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement of the dispute
This user has made a very large number of edits, apparently by searching for the term "British Isles" across Wikipedia, and made contentious changes to eliminate the terminology he finds offensive. His disruption produced a huge fracas on British Isles, which he has spread to many other articles by making such changes. A review of a number of such changes can be seen in Talk:British Isles. Of particular worry is that many of his changes are wildly inaccurate, as he himself has admitted in particular cases, for example, in History of Jersey and Episcopal Church in the United States.

I requested him to reconsider his strategy, which he interpreted as a personal attack; many have asked him not to do this and have explained why they believe it is disruptive.

His claims are often inconsistent; he conducts each discussion as if it were not part of a pattern initially, so that each community of editors he encounters often is unaware of the larger trolling his behavior is a part of. His claims are often inconsistent, for example, that "British Isles" is a geographical term and is inappropriate when referring to political entities (even the UK in the 19th century, when all the islands were a united political entity), and he has claimed that the term is irreducably political and should not be used to refer in geographical contexts.

In the case of Episcopal Church in the United States he violated WP:3RR, but was not blocked because he realized he was incorrect about the facts shortly after his fourth revert.

Many users have asked him to stop, but he is apparently tireless. Complaints have been made for weeks. Complaints are met with templated warnings about personal attacks.


 * An addendum. Many seem to think this is about the use of the language. There is no policy in Wikipedia about which terminology should be used, except that it should be accurate.  Perhaps we need one, as with the Gdansk/Danzig matter, perhaps not; I don't know.  This RfC is about User:Bardcom's technique for enforcing what he thinks the rule should be, and his careless and destructive way of doing it. Tb (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Desired outcome
I would like a clear understanding by User:Bardcom that his practice is inappropriate, and that the general policy on Wikipedia prohibits trolling of this sort. He should be requested not to alter the terminology "British Isles" on any pages, without first securing consensus.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Also forced a rename here, which led to further misunderstanding.
 * (Jersey isn't even part of the United Kingdom!)
 * 
 * 

When he was made aware that his behaviour was disruptive, Bardcom claimed to have stopped but, as can be seen from the difs above, has continued to make such edits despite the objections that have been raised.

The individual is in question also edits articles for the sole purpose of changing BCE to BC, another discouraged and antagonistic practice.
 * 

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:POINT
 * WP:CONFLICT

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
The first 8 links above under disputed behavior are after the first resolution attempt listed in the previous section.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * Tb (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Secisek (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Waggers (talk) 10:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * Canterbury Tail  talk  22:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.''

Excuse the length of this response, I tried to be concise but there's a lot here.

The very first line of this RfC summarizes the real motives: This user has made a very large number of edits, apparently by searching for the term "British Isles" across Wikipedia, and made contentious changes to eliminate the terminology he finds offensive. Also here

The heart of the issue is that certain editors think it is wrong to remove the term "British Isles" from wikipedia for any reason. Doesn't matter if the edit is correct. If the term "British Isles" even loosely fits - in their opinion, whether there is a more precise term or not, or reasons why it shouldn't be used in the context, it doesn't matter, they'll insist on using the term "British Isles". I do not find the term "British Isles" offensive in the slightest, but it would suit certain editors to believe that they are dealing with a drooling anti-British Irish nationalist with IRA tattoos on both knuckles of both hands dragging along behind me on the ground. It couldn't be further than the truth. Please note how even this RfC has degenerated into a "British Isles" debate - I maintain, as I always have, this my edits are with a view on accuracy, were done in good faith, and I have always welcomed discussion and debate.

Please note that the current posse involved in this RfC have been canvassing support to try to ensure a decision based on numbers rather than discussion.


 * 
 * 
 * 

Some relevant background information. The following snippet on the Talk:British Isles page is is why I initially started being curious about the anomaly involving wikipedia and the term "British Isles":
 * Try a Google search on "british isles" and you will find that more than seven million people disagree with you. TharkunColl (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * :Thark, of the 7 million pages indexed by Google that contain the phrase "British Isles", over 6 million are hosted on the wikipedia.org domain. (Compare, all results vs. all results minus WP). Telling, huh? --sony-youth pléigh 01:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

''[Google, when busy, is known for returning pretty random counts. Over time, the numbers should be returned as roughly over 7 million hits for the open search, and less than 800K hits excluding the wikipedia site.]'' This appears to suggest more than a slight bias on wikipedia for this term. I wonder why? Then again, looking at the bullying, ad hominen attacks, name calling, organized ganging up, etc, that I've been subjected to over the past couple of days, it's easy to see why this is so.

I've assured the community in the past that I have no problem with the term, and I've stated and explained the precise reasons for my edits when asked:
 * 
 * 

There was an earlier exact same incident involving user:Waggers earlier last month in which he objected to changing the term "British Isles" too. All of the articles cited by Wagger for this incident were all correct edits except for "North Channel (British Isles)" where he asked for consensus to be reached before changing. This discussion is here user talk:Bardcom/Archives/2008/March and is also relevant. As you can see, I conducted myself civilly, despite broad bullying and name calling, and Waggers posted a nice note afterwards user talk:Bardcom/Archives/2008/March

'But this RfC is supposed'' to be about conduct. Not content.'''

The policies I have been accused of violating are: WP:NPOV, WP:POINT and WP:CONFLICT.

There is no explanation provided as to what breaches occurred, just a list of links.

WP:NPOV - I have corrected articles where the term "British Isles" is used imprecisely and incorrectly. Given that these editors have trawled through my edit history, it's noteworthy that they chose to not point out the edits made to other articles at the same time that they don't appear to object to, but don't mention either as it makes it damages their attempt to use a broad brush to cover all my edits:
 * Black tie
 * 6th century BC
 * Wars of Scottish Independence
 * Peppermint
 * March 25
 * June 23

I have reviewed many articles involving the term, and when challenged to name the ones which I view as using the term legitimately, I did so here.

WP:POINT - Not sure what I can respond to here in the absence of anything in particular to respond to - it's a very broad policy. It would really depend on what each persons point of view is. Was I acting in genuine good faith or not? Was I genuinely interested in correcting and improving articles? There's not a lot I can say on this, I hope my actions and conduct speak for themselves. I have editted numerous articles not remotely connected with the term "British Isles", I sometimes monitor "Recent Changes", I have contributed to numerous articles, and I hope that I've improved wikipedia in whatever I have done.

WP:CONFLICT - I have made every reasonable effort to resolve this in the proper non-personal and non-confrontational way, despite the efforts of the editors supporting this RfC. Again, all I can suggest is that people read the threads, look at my contributions, and decide themselves. In summary though,


 * I stopped editing the minute it became obvious that user:Tb started an edit war and violated the the 3RR policy  .  He accuses me of violating this policy incorrectly - check the history and the talk page for confirmation.
 * user:secisek and user:Waggers have both certified that they tried and failed to resolve this dispute. No attempts were made by either of these editors to do so on this occasion.  Waggers was involved in the previous episode, and both users have violated WP:CIVIL on numerous occasions through name calling, not assuming good faith, and general bullying, and especially ad hominen attacks.
 * Secisek contributions
 * Wagger contributions: None, although he has added extra links on this page relating to a previous incident.  (See above for the link to the previous incident, which I believe we had resolved.  Also note his breaches of civility throughout, and his refusal to retract any statements even when he was shown and agreed that the edits were correct.  And he's an admin!) All of the cited articles were using the term incorrectly, and were all subsequently changed with references.  (As an aside, isn't is a pretty one-sided arrangement where you can use the term "British Isles" with no citations at all, but in order to change the term you need citations?)

Summary I find it hard to assume good faith on the part of the editors involved. Their constant ad hominen attacks are a crude tactic to bully editors into being afraid to edit. Even the language used in this RfC includes several ad hominen attacks and leaves a lot to be desired in terms of assuming good faith. Despite constant warnings and pleas to stop with personal attacks and to focus on the content, they pretty much refused and continued - user:Tb continues to needle on my talk page. I posted two warnings on user:Tb's talk page, both of which he removed straight away. Not once was I uncivil. Not once did I refuse to explain my edits which I tried to do so in a logical and reasonable way. I moved the disputed edits to the talk:British Isles page to encourage the community to decide. I made it clear that I will abide with whatever the community decides. I constantly asked for proper consideration of the edits, and was constantly returned with comments. Many of my edits were reverted with comments such as "Reverted because the editor is pushing their nationalist POV". And then, when they can't argue with the edits, they revert to attacking the person, selectively picking edits and pushing a view that there is a secret and sinister plot to remove the term "British Isles" from wikipedia. Rubbish. I hope that if anyone takes the time to follow the threads and the discussions, they can clearly see that this type of bullying, as a tactic, has to stop. And that edits, even unpopular edits, should be evaluated for accuracy and preciseness.

Finally, I sincerely believe that this RfC is in direct violation of the guidelines - it is a thinly disguised attempt to harass and subdue.}

Users who endorse this summary:
 * user:bardcom
 * user:Crispness
 * user:Sarah777
 * user:Aatomic1
 * user Talk:78.19.164.54

Outside views
''These are summaries written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Outside view by Crispness
The term British Isles is contentious, particularly amongst the Irish community. In many cases of its use on WP, it can easily be replaced by a more appropriate term. Certainly with the evidence quoted above, I wouldn't see anything contentious with the first 6 examples. The seventh example may be slightly contentious and has certainly been discussed at length on the talk page. But RfC? Really? This is an OTT reaction. Crispness (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And since the additional 'evidence' has been added it may be worth pointing out that whilst there may be a slight point to the Jersey edit, the Act of Settlement BI reference was later changed by User:tb themselves and the Iceland edit was reverted incorrectly, given that the Iceland website lists no stores outside the UK. Can anyone provide a citation verifying that they have any stores anywhere outside the UK? This is becoming laughable. 2 possibles out of 11 evidential citations? Will someone please close this charade before it gets out of hand? Crispness (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Crispness (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) --Domer48 (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Garycompugeek (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) 78.19.97.158 (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Sarah777 (talk) 05:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) PhilKnight (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by User:78.19.7.28
A little bit premature opening this RfA, while the topic is being discussed on talk:British Isles. The term British Isles to include Ireland is disputed by many people throughout the world. The British Government, and the Irish Government refuse to use the term. The same with the American Government. The wast majority of modern day mapmakers do not use the term any longer. Many of the British editors say that it is merely a geographical term only, but still insist in using the term in articles about history, culture and politics. I maintain that the term is very often used in the wrong context, and that it is certainly not POV to reexamine its usage in certain articles. The term was coined in around 1620 when Britain dominated Ireland, and was a political term then. It's a very contentious issue.
 * 1) 78.19.7.28 (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) --Domer48 (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Garycompugeek (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Sarah777 (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Agree. I'm not sure if this user conduct RfC is premature or just wrong - shouldn't this be a content RfC? PhilKnight (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by User:TharkunColl
Contrary to what has been stated above, the term British Isles has been in use since Ancient Greek and Roman times in their respective languages. It is not a political term, though has been turned into one by those with a certain agenda. It is the normal term in the English language for the group of islands that it names, and has nothing to do with the British state which it predates by some 2000 years. Furthermore, the term is used in the Irish media, parliament, and by government ministers. Only a tiny but vocal clique of Wikipedia users appear to oppose it.
 * 1) TharkunColl (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Waggers (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Tb (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) special, random,Merkinsmum 20:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by User:iktae
I have to agree that this is very much an Over the Top reaction by Tb. Besides, the user 78.19.7.28 is quite correct in saying that this issue is still being discussed on the talk page. The complainant Tb is from the U.S. so most likely doesn't understand the contentiousness of the term "British Isles" over here, and the endorser Canterbury Tail (with due respect to my fellow 'Brit') hails from N. Ireland so is hardly neutral. We British have a long and very troubled history in Ireland, and we should be sensitive to this reality. User 87.19.7.28 is spot on when saying that the term "British Isles" is not employed by cartographers. Although a geographical term, it has not been used in UK geography books (including NI) since I began teaching the subject in 1980. I think this is one of those occasions when we need to accept that 'British Isles' is an outdated term, is seldom used (even the British Met office eschews it), and allow common sense to prevail rather than insist on the term. With Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams now sitting together (miracle of miracles) it’s obvious times have changed. Some folk on Wiki need to get their heads out of their rear-ends and stop playing language police.


 * 1) --Domer48 (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Sarah777 (talk) 05:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3)  Dan Beale-Cocks  22:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC) comment I'd suggest Arbcom sanctions on "The Troubles" are considered with this rfc, but not just with respect to Bardcom, but to all involved editors.

Outside view by User:Domer48
I would just like to point out that TharkunColl was canvassed to come here. And their opinion on the subject is flawed as can be seen here. I consider this discussion should clarify were they are coming from, and why they came here. I do agree that the issue needs to be addressed, but not this way. Before anything is considered, I suggest the background of the issue involved should be reviewed.


 * 1) Garycompugeek (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) 78.19.97.158 (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Sarah777 (talk) 05:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Garycompugeek
First let me blunt in saying I have always thought of the region as Great Britain and Ireland or the United Kingdom. I have read the talk pages and Good Faith rarely seems to be observed with personal attacks in abundance. Bardcom does not appear to me to be as malicious as advertised and seems to be trying to win consensus. This is a heated debate with nationalities coming to the fore. I feel a bit of moderation is in order but would not single out Bardcom. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * user:Aatomic1

Outside view by User:Wotapalaver
It seems that Bardcom may have been somewhat cavalier on occasion, but several of his corrections seem reasonable or even accurate. For instance, the Storm of 1703 was originally described in the article as being the biggest in "The British Isles". Barcom changed it and is under attack. 2 mins of seaching finds academic reports that say things like "The major storm in Britain of 7-8th December (new calendar) 1703, the subject of Daniel Defoe’s The Storm, was probably the most severe event for parts of Britain for the last 300 years and contributed to the death of several thousand people." Note PARTS OF BRITAIN. The west of Scotland probably sees worse storms every few decades. Shetland probably gets worse storms every few years. The 1703 storm is said to have possibly deepened to ~950mb. Let's read on in the same report. "It was at the end of the 1830s that probably the major storm of the past 300 years occurred. The events of the 6th January 1839 affected the north side of Dublin most severely, though no part of the city escaped unscathed. Some 20-25 percent of all houses in Dublin suffered damage in ‘The Night of the Big Wind’ as a depression probably as deep as 918hPa tracked eastwards to the north of Ireland (Shields and Fitzgerald, 1989)."

On the Irish Met office site we read ""The night of the Big Wind" on the 6th-7th January 1839 probably caused more widespread damage in Ireland than any storm in recent centuries. Winds reached hurricane force and between a fifth and a quarter of all houses in Dublin had damage ranging from broken windows to complete destruction. In more recent times, 1974 began with a very stormy period, record speeds occuring at a number of locations on the night of the 11th-12th of January. Trees were blown down, many buildings were damaged and electricity supply to 150,000 homes was interrupted. It was during this storm that a gust of 124 m.p.h. was recorded at Kilkeel in County Down, making it the highest sea-level wind speed recorded in Ireland." This reported wind is higher than the estimated 120mph in 1703 and supposedly in the worst storm in The British Isles.

A reference on the page about the storm says "The December 7-8, 1703 Windstorm (November 26 -27 on the old calendar still used in England at the time) was the most damaging to have affected the southern part of Britain for at least 500 years." but it says nothing even about other parts of Britain. Oh dear, we've got at least a fighting chance that the 1703 storm was the biggest storm in England, or the south of England, rather than the biggest in "The British Isles".

If anything, Bardcom has shown that use of the term "The British Isles" should be checked very carefully to see if it isn't being used inaccurately, lazily, or just plain inappropriately. However, if I am not mistaken, his checking seems - at least sometimes on other articles - to have been slightly less than rigorous. Tsk tsk tsk all around. Wotapalaver (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I read a little more on what Bardcom did and didn't change. He seems to have been fairly reasonable in general. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.