User talk:Triton Rocker

The Triton

<center"> I think that there is too much snooping and snitching on the Wikipedia

and it selfishly damages the goodwill of others -- ☠✠ Triton Rocker

If you wish to harass me, please do so below.

Harassment

Ya wanted to know

Responses at my talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Your edit here is in violation of all talk space policies as it is speculative, personal and assumes bad faith. This post along with other edits[1][2] are off topic, personalized and harassing. If you do not stop making personalized comments about other users intentions, motivations, and abilities, you will be prevented from making them. Per WP:GS/BI your topic ban allows you to "participate in [British Isles naming dispute] related discussions so long as [you] engage in appropriate conduct" - disruptive or inappropriate comments are in breach of that ban. I urge you to reconsider your choice to make this type of edit and instead make constructive additions to the project--Cailil ^talk 03:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Further explained as requested[3]--Cailil ^talk 16:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Conkers

Can you use the {{BID}} to let talkpage editors at Talk:Conkers know about the discussion you opened at WT:BISE? It's not fair on article editors to hold this discussion without notifying them. If you're not sure how to use the template, let me know and I can walk you through it. TFOWR 09:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

In case ya haven't noticed, I support having British Isles at that article. GoodDay (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

BI

You should undo your edit, you know you are not meant to insert British Isles.. you will simply get a block for it so why even bother adding it. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a bit harsh, I disagree with the addition (and have reversed it), but s/he is adding something on the BI article which just happens to use BI. --Snowded ^TALK 09:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

And he/she is NOT allowed to do that. Next time you will not get a warning, certainly from me, you can just read about it at ANI. Bjmullan (talk) 09:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The addition was a needless risk. I really do not understand why people want to walk a tightrope, it accomplishes nothing. He could easily get himself out of the sanctions and out of the danger area of getting lots of blocks if he wanted. I just dont get it. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You know, I did not even think about it because I was busy working. It all seems incredibly petty.

The sentence could easily have been written without those two fateful words and it was not POV warring BI versus B + I. As the topic is about the British Isles, there can be no conflict in its use.

The Telegraph, which is what I used, is also a reliable source widely used on the Wikipedia.

Where do I apply to get this sanction removed or refined? --Triton Rocker (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes the paragraph could have been added without the BI needing to be mentioned. Simply saying "The area..." etc. It is a petty issue, but whilst sanctions apply you are not permitted to add it at all so there is no need to take the risk. As for getting the sanctioned lifted, youd have to wear a halo for a month or two to show you have changed. You should try it in a months time after this block is over. It is not hard to stay within the rules most of the time. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Triton, until you acknowledge the sanction you are going to get no where with an unblock request. I think this was innocent (unlike the last), but your constant refusal to acknowledge any fault means that there is no sympathy left in the community. I really suggest you amend the request. --Snowded ^TALK 10:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

When does TR's sanction expire? GoodDay (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

He is welcome to apply to have it lifted in a couple of months, as he was already advised. It will need to be done in WP:ANI, but only after he has been incident-free for at least 2 months (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for 1 month for violation of your topic ban. You were aware after your recent 12hr block for a minor violation that the project was serious. You knew then that the next block would be a month. Here it is. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Triton Rocker (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

How and where do I apply to get the current general sanction --- not the current block --- clarified as it is

a) too broad and not well defined,

b) unnecessarily punitive, and

c) open to petty exploitation and or vindictive gaming by other interest parties seeking to do nothing but exclude my comments

In many people's opinion, the sanction --- of not being able to use the term British Isles on ANY topic or even carry out agreed maintenance work --- has been rather singularly and asymmetrically applied.

It came about within the context of a dispute brought about by nationalist editors carrying on a campaign to replace every "British Isles" with "Britain and Ireland" which has now stopped. Largely at the cost of my efforts to raise the issue --- and my scapegoating.

I believe it was erroneously applied because it assumed that I have an opposition nationalist point of view, whereas in fact I do not.

Progress is now being made at the appointed discussion page which I participate in and my work --- when I am allowed to get to it --- has always been based on good references.

I would like unblock only to make such an application in the correct place.

And let's just be honest. There are a number of editors trying to trip me up for the tiniest petty reason completely disproportionately to any "crime" I have carried out. --Triton Rocker (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You'll be able to discuss policy and topic bans when you return from this block in a month. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If this has to do with the addition to the article British Isles? I must disagree with the block. GoodDay (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You miss the point: earlier this week he was blocked for 12hrs for doing the exact same thing, even though the terms of his restriction would be that he would receive an immediate month-long block. I was generous then, but he was advised to not do it again or else he would get his month. Well, he chose to walk the tightrope, and there is no choice. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I took a large look into your edits, and the cause of the topic ban, and I have to say you've had a lot of chances. The block was harsh, but you chose to reinsert the material, and your militant placing of the term British Isles in articles leads me to believe you are not here to establish a neutral encyclopedia in collaboration with other editors, rather to push the point of view on the British Isles. You walked the thin line, and I do not buy for a second that you didn't realize what you were doing. Worse, you did exactly the wrong thing - you blamed other editors for your unblock request (see WP:GAB). I see no indication you are the slightest bit aware of what's wrong with your edits, nor that you care to take steps to address them. If you place a second unblock request, I will decline it for exactly this reason unless you can clearly explain how you will not insert the phrase BI into any articles at all, no matter what, saving obvious vandalism (not vandalism bc it disagrees with your POV). Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Triton Rocker (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

• For Magog the Ogre :Sorry, Magog the Ogre, I did not see this as I was writing at the time and I do not know any other way of contacting you except for writing this. :*I did not place the term British Isles in the lead. :*I was banned for placing a British Isles in the middle of an article with 64 other mentions of the term. I can hardly be accused of contravening the spirit of sanction which is not to add new incidents of it and not engage in edit wars against editors attempt to insert "Britain and Ireland" --- which I have stuck to --- or weighting a topic with POV. :The same is true of the previous ban, re Isle of Man, which I think you refer to. :I did not add a new incident. I reverted [a previous insertion] which was removed erroneously by a disputant, Snowded, again in the middle of a topic, who [his error] and the edit remains good. :The request for unblocking was to specifically request clarification of the sanction as I believe that the spirit of it was to stop edit warring between British Isles versus Britain and Ireland --- which it has --- not simple agreed administrative work etc. :Believe it or not, I simple just forgot and [this edit] could easily had written "It" or "Britain and Ireland" as per the reference. It makes no difference. :The source is 'The Daily Telegraph' or Quality of Life Index research conducted by Research Insight not "uSwitch" as Snowded states.

Decline reason:

Your topic ban is unambiguous in this regard, it states you are not to add that term to Wikipedia. There are no qualifications or exceptions to that. In light of you returning to edit in this regard immediately after the prior short block, I am unsympathetic to your not knowing what your restrictions would entail. You were specifically told the other day to NOT test the boundaries of your restrictions. You did so. You should therefore be unsurprised that a block resulted. Jayron32 00:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

To GoodDay

The joke is, if I had written "According to a recent report in 2010, the 'Britain and Ireland' have become the worst place to live in Europe due to higher prices, longer working hours and poor public services in comparison to those of other European nations". The word police would not have been able to ban me yet again. What I cannot understand is how petty adherence to random rulings take priority over accuracy.

The issues you really have to follow up on is the latest discussion with Snowded, Fmph etc regarding the false statement "Britain and Ireland is a valid equivalent for British Isles".

• It is actually part of a larger problem for the Wikipedia to resolve.

Yes, some references DO use "Britain and Ireland" for British Isles

No, it is wrong or inaccurate.

• What do we do when references do exist --- but are known to be wrong or inaccurate?

It is specifically a problem with "British Isles" when one can trawl references from over a century's worth of world literature --- because of the history of British or rather English chauvinism even within academia.

If we look at HighKing's original motivation, it really was just to add "Ireland" at ever possible opportunity. I guess to make it as important as Britain.

That is fine.

However, if that is the over-riding principle, then we have to extend the same courtesy to the Isle of Man and Channel Islands because they are not Great Britain or the UK. That is, exclude both British and Irish chauvinism.

Logically, every statement should become "Channel Islands, Britain, Ireland and the Isle of Man" which is silly --- or "British Isles" which is the accepted shorthand in academia and encapsulates the lot.

The "British" in 'British Isles' is not of 'Great Britain'. It is a different British of which Ireland is geographically part and has culturally made.

If I am not going to be unblocked, you need to address that with Snowded, or take it to some other authority. Snowded is intelligent enough to KNOW this. You need to ask why he is refusing it and make him look at the wider principle of it.

• What DO we do when references do exist --- but are known to be wrong, inaccurate or outdated?

In the real world, the answer is simple. You throw out the old, wrong and inaccurate.

That is perfectly reasonable, intelligent logic. Yet it is a banned point of view --- whereas purely nationalist or partisan motivations, and underhanded tactics, remain perfectly acceptable.

I suspect that 99.9% of international Wikipedian have no idea that the IoM and CI are not the UK and the significance of all this. I suspect most of them use "England" for "Britain". Some people are willing to try and exploit that. Others, you will never get through to.

Fault me if any of that is wrong. --Triton Rocker (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ya gotta put the horse before the cart. Restrain yourself from adding British Isles to 'anything' for next 2 months. Until you comply with that? your frustrations won't be satisfied. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Alone at BISE

It's very difficult for me, when I'm arguing for 'British Isles' addition, with you & LB continuiously volunteering for forced wiki-breaks. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Although I have no doubt one of the others would have snitched on me given time, Bjmullan enjoys that pleasure, I think according to this comment you have thank BritishWatcher, here, to alerting my overlords to my absent minded indiscretion. I honestly forgot and would never have thought it could possibly apply to the actual British Isles topic.

I don't understand the principle.

It can only be that "submissiveness to the admins" is more important that "standing up for accuracy" (--- and, yes, it really is objective accurate)? --Triton Rocker (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ya just gotta remember to stay away from the edit-button (concerning adding/deleting British Isles), for the next 2 months. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Really that two months is a red herring, if after the two months were over Triton was to return to similar edit patterns it would still go badly for him. I am afraid the game is up, forget about it, if Triton likes editing wikipedia he should take all those drama pages off his watchlist and never look back. Off2riorob (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Time will tell. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well i posted about it because i wanted you to undo your edit which may have spared you a block because it was obvious the change would be noticed by everyone. If once you return from your block you do not add BI anywhere on articles and you avoid getting into trouble for comments... you could get your sanctions lifted after a month or two. Although all that will mean is if you do not get double your previous block. Any addition of BI without agreement will likely be reverted still. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's it TR blame me or BW for what happens to you, never take responsibility for your own actions. The only surprise is that you didn't mention HK as well. I suggest that that during your block you just forget your password and not log back in again because if your edits at BI or Elizabeth II is anything to go by your a disruptive editor who seldom seeks consensus before making edit. Bjmullan (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Triton said above: "It can only be that "submissiveness to the admins" is more important that "standing up for accuracy". Complete rubbish. You are in this mess entirely because you keep (a) making offensive remarks about and to other editors and (b) are unable to comply with community guidelines when very clearly spelled out to you. If you can't do better, you have no place in Wikipedia. Admins have behaved quite properly and, in my view, with excessive restraint towards you. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

ANi September 26 2010

I have opened a thread to discuss placing you and LevenBoy on a six month civility parole at WP:ANi. I have also as the community to discuss adding time limits to editing restrictions and as yours is currently without a duration it is being considered as an indefinite topic ban - I'm suggesting this be reduced. If consensus agrees with my point your civility parole and new topic ban (with a finite duration) will begin at the time of your unblock. Please be aware that further disruption during or after the period of these finite restrictions will result in their escalation - I hope this will not be necessary and that you will come to terms with site policy during your current period of blocking and return to productive editing. As you are currently blocked if you wish to make a brief to the point comment relating to the thread on ANi please do so below. Please note inappropriate remarks will not be moved there, as will comments that fail WP:NOTTHEM--Cailil ^talk 23:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Could I humbly suggest that we allow the Checkuser [4] to run first so that you can decide whether you are trying one person or two?
• Could you define what you mean by "inappropriate"?

I have to say it does seem a little unethical to me to try someone whilst they are blocked from defending themselves. --Triton Rocker (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You are free to use this talk page to defend yourself. Anything you write here in response to the ANI thread will be pasted into the discussion for you. --Jayron32 05:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Eh, TR already knows that. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Please note TR you are not on trial - this is a moderation issue. Inappropriate posting is well explained here and is covered by WP:CIVIL--Cailil ^talk 10:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• I am sorry Cailil, but could you answer regarding the checkuser accusation? I think the ANI should wait until it is over.

As it remains unsolved, it will remain prejudicial. It would seem daft to accuse and try two individuals if they are only one. And highly unfair to accuse one of everything, when there are actually two involved.

Call this trial what you like, but having censored me from the decision at WT:BISE just as it has reached its most important point, and now threatening to censor any defence I make, I would like specific definitions --- or assurances that you are not going to gag me further.

For example, why is it not "uncivil" of banning admin Bwilkins to state, "This user does not give a fuck"; and yet it is apparently "uncivil" of me to point out the obvious --- that you are yet another Irish editor taking an aggressive stance in a matter involving the promotion of Irish nationalism on the Wikipedia and the use of the term "British Isles".

Action which will alter the balance in that discussion significantly.

The first question we really need to address is whether the initial motivations have been one of nationalism or not --- and whether that is according to policy.

Everything else is within that context and consequent to it. --Triton Rocker (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

a) the SPI is unrelated - it does not matter if we find that 2 people have been uncivil or violated WP:NPA or merely 1 ... other than if it turns out to be only 1 person, the severity of the level of protection of the project will be signfiicantly higher.

b) the fact that I "do not give a fuck" is not uncivil - it's a personal state of being. It allows me to not get all worked up about BS, and is a self-reminder to back away from situations, rather than become a WP:DICK. Your actions of incivility and NPA are significantly more directed at others, rather than yourself. There's a major difference.

c) you are WP:BLOCKed and not WP:BANed. Know and understand the difference.

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Bwilkins has explained this and as a warning you will have 1 chance to redact comments that conflate nationality/race with bad faith. I warned you previously and furthermore that type of incivility will result in this account's talk page access being revoked--Cailil ^talk 19:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You are being watched

According to mzmcbride's toolserver 36 people are watching this talk page.

Please don't be shy. Come and introduce yourself here. --Triton Rocker (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I tend to watchlist every user talkpage I've ever posted on. I try to remove IPs from time to time, as most of them are vandals I warned two years ago... TFOWR 13:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have 63. It's normal. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have possibly over 200, mostly female editors. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Troublemakers acquire more TPS'ers. Admins gain even more. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I only have 144. I'll be talking to GoodDay later, trying to get some hints and tips. TFOWR 14:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Took a peek & wowsers, I've got less then 30. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You're too modest! TFOWR 14:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoah, I'm sexier then I thought. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

188 here... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

132. Whoo hoo. My Centijimbo count is getting there LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I've updated my link. No one told me we had to consider centijimbos... TFOWR 15:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I assume the way to make progress is post something inflammatory in any three talk pages of those related to Climate Change, British Isles, Persian Gulf, China/Taiwan, Libertarianism and Barack Obama. You will then be well on your way. It also might help to regularly say dumb but annoying things at that ANI page. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe I've already introduced myself above, although I don't think you were very fond of my message. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Seen this cover up? [5] --87.113.177.162 (talk) 08:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What cover up? Editing anonymously = more of a cover up LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Also notice how the report on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bjmullan was deleted by TFOWR. Somewhat sinister?--87.112.8.151 (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

...or, alternatively, by a completely different admin. Still, don't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory, eh?! TFOWR 11:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have absolutely no doubt that Bjmullan and NorthernCounties are a socks for O Fenian. --87.112.8.151 (talk) 11:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've concerns that this IP is another sock of TMC. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see 87.112.8.151 has dropped me from the list of O Fenian sockpuppets lol Mabuska ^(talk) 16:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Civility parole

Per consensus at the administartor's noticeboard you are being placed under civility parole (sometimes described as "civility restriction" or "civility supervision" as explained on WP:RESTRICT), per remedy CP01 as listed on the British Isles probation log. The following is an explanation of the terms of this sanction:

You are being placed under a behavioral editing restriction. This account may be blocked if it is used to make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.

If I am either unwilling, unable, or unavailable to deal with an appeal of this sanction then: I will approve for this restriction to be reviewed by the community as long as you have not violated it for a period of six consecutive months of activity on wikipedia. This does not prevent you from any other normal editing on Wikipedia, however it requires that your behaviour match both the spirit and the letter of site policies and guidelines as regards the civility of your edits and your general conduct--Cailil ^talk 23:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk page editing disabled

As you just called an archived thread on WP:AN/I an "ongoing discussion", violated your properly-established civility restriction by calling the community discussion a "kangaroo court", and removed a unblock decline, I have removed your ability to edit this talk page for the duration of your block.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)