User talk:Triton Rocker

<center">I think that there is not enough peace,

love and understanding on the Wikipedia

and it damages the goodwill of community.

♥ TRITONROCKER ♥

If you wish to share some love, please do so below.

Wiki-Love

As I am currently blocked from defending myself at WP:ANI (here), I am making alonger statement here so it can be read by those admins and those following the issues relating to the British Isles naming dispute on the Wikipedia.

Thank you for your patience. --Triton Rocker (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

How are you blocked from ANI? Merely post what you want there 'here' & get an administrator to transfer it to the ANI. If I recall correctly, you've been made aware of this, numerious times before. PS: Get a new pair of glasses, hehehe. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• In my experience --- and from my recent observation of how LevenBoy was treated --- it does not happen. To suggest it is a faultless system is not true. if you wish to, please do (see below).
• A number of the admins involved in this dispute appear to prefer to block individuals first and then exclude them from defending themselves. Cailil, SarekOfVulcan etc ... this is not my first time. It is deeply unethical. Far more unethical than any imagined incivility I might have committed.
• Even if comments are transfer, it still does work because they are not transfer at the right time into the right place in the discussion and hence become either meaningless or even self-damaging.

If you judge me by contributions, I have actually done basically nothing of "damage" the project. Unblocking me to allow me to defend myself at ANI is no threat to the project. Since understanding the system, I have been formal and polite in my interaction with other. I have a very good record of working from references even in quite obscure areas. --Triton Rocker (talk) 03:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Which article did Bj replace 'British Isles' in, without going to BISE first? GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment to ANI

Looie496 made a very serious procedural mistake (there was no Arbcom sanction) --- and misinterpretation. And yet he block appears to be based on his own further interpretation.

I agree "saying you are a stupid liar" is "as uncivil as you can get" but I did not say it. It is as simple at that. I address a difficult situation, in a difficult context of which Looie496 knows little ... in a formal, polite and civil manner. I really did.

Bjmullan could easily have doubled check on Google before entering an error into the Wikipedia. He did not. That is the sort of integrity I would expect of a Wikipedian --- BEFORE --- they made a edit in an area strewn with POVs and laid the onus of proof onto others.

Satellite Broadcasting

Contributing to an Encyclopedia also requires some applied intelligence. I am sure Bjmullan is intelligent. The question is, did he chose to apply it? Now, anyone considering Satellite Broadcasting in the British Isles for 3 seconds --- least of all someone involved in along term political dispute over it --- would realise that any signal to Britain and Ireland is going to hit the Isle of Man (which is in neither). Therefore, to change a correct "British Isles" to an incorrect "Britain and Ireland" --- AGAINST THE SANCTION --- could be a a bad faith edit.

In response to TOFWR, think again about the accuracy of the content. Satellite Broadcasting has two parts, the signal --- which can goes everywhere --- and the marketing of that signal. In the case of a company, we are not taking about satellite broadcasting per se but the commercial marketing of that signal ... which according to the company report was to the British Isles.

Civility

Again, I did NOT say "Mullan's edit was a bad faith edit". I said, " In my opinion, Mullan's edit ...". In the professional circles to which I am used, that is applying civility in an area of disagreement. It is suggesting that I could have been wrong. I spoke in general about intelligence and integrity. I did not say, "Bjmullan is being stupid and has no integrity" --- which would most certainly have been uncivil.

Lastly, in every legal or legalistic procedure I know, "truth" is a pretty good defence. In this case,

the individual who insert the factual content error walks away free,

the individual who drew people's attention to the correct facts is being blocked for a year

endless hours of wasted efforts and energy are expended--Triton Rocker (talk) 03:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC).

I think we need to our eye on the issue of accurate content, value it and give it the first priority. Can we focus the discussion on that rather than what one individual imagines what another individual, whom he has never met, has said?

Topic ban

• I would accept a topic ban from British Isles related topics --- IF --- that topic ban is also extended to Bjmullan. My 'partner' in this 'crime'.

The logic for this is based on Bjmullan history in the area of British Irish naming dispute, and his direct interest in my editing. In short, it takes two to tango. Bjmullan has time and time again played a support roll in HighKing British-Irish naming dispute, doing exactly what he has done in this case. If requested, I am prepared to do the work to evidence this by way of diffs. Most people involved know his position well.

Honestly folks, the British Isles naming dispute has gone well beyond normal standards of "assuming good faith". It has become a contest or Wiki-war with its roots in a nationalistic political dispute going back several hundred years.

I will happily accept defeat on the matter and remove myself if he is fairly taken out of it as well for his part in stirring up this drama. --Triton Rocker (talk) 03:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You're gonna have to remove the comments on other editors, before you can get this transfered to ANI. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Block Review

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:

I have read and agree with all of the policy pages drawn to my attention regarding the "Commonsense", "Good Faith", "Civility", "NOT" and other policy pages :What I am requesting here is an unblock on the basis of a Procedural defense. :Given the severity of the block, and clear procedural error, I am responding to this in a serious manner. :* As stated, the blocking admin Looie496 is a very recent admin (see RfA Oct 11 2010). :* Looie497 prematurely and unilaterally found me "guilty" and erroneously "sentenced" me to a one year ban for a far worse "crime" than I actually committed, a "crime" against an enforcement by an arbitration decision. :* There was no such enforcement an arbitration decision. :As Looie497 has since changed this, I am reverting this page to his original "verdict". I consider this evidence that in his mind something much worse was happening and that my blocking was premature as there is still ongoing discussion at WP:ANI where I should be allowed to defend myself. :Actual Sanction :Looking at the actual sanction at Wikipedia Task Force for the British Isles, it states that any editor who adds or removes the term "British Isles" ... or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, may be added to the list of topic-banned editors. Obviously, I did not add or remove the term "British Isles" as it is against my sanction. :* Remarkably, we have to note that the user Bjmullan who reported my alleged "offence" did actually "add, remove or edit-war" with a new user over the term "British Isles" (see here, [1]) --- who made surely, an accurate and good faith edit inline with easily available references --- re-entering into the Wikipedia a factual error that BSkyB only broadcasts to the UK and Ireland. :According to the British Sky Broadcasting company report, ::"This constitutes the Annual Report of British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (the Distributed Channels includes the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands". [2]. :Summary :The position we have at present is that despite evidence of a continued campaign to remove even accurate uses of the term "British Isles" against sanctions, we find ourselves in the position where ::a) the individual who knowingly broke that sanction to remove the term (and reported me) is free to continue editing ::b) the individual who point out the factual error politely and formally in context is banned for one year. :In my comments to the community, I politely addressed the individual breaking a sanction with the politeness of an honorific title yet my action is considered "uncivil". Noting his and my last interaction with Dr Keirnan on the Elizabeth II topic, here [3], you will see I was again careful to use honorific titles and ask permission before asking personal questions, for example, here [4]. :Consequently, I genuinely find it difficult to understand why I am considered to be so uncivil on a website where even administrators who have banned me are allowed to use profanities on their own pages, and hurl abuse at others directly. :Please note :As background information to this incident, please note that: :a) immediately prior to being blocked I was also attacked with a false sockpuppet accusation by these individuals in which my accuser Bjmullan was noted to engaged in editing warring precisely over my edits and these issues. It is not new. :b) as I have mentioned before, these banning and blockings to all rather appear to be onesided in the British Isles. :c) I am new to these appeals and the bureaucracy o the Wikipedia in general, and I am still struggling with the software. --Triton Rocker (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were told "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." Subsequently you posted a message which more than one administrator judges to be uncivil and a personal attack. It is as simple as that, and it is not helpful to confuse the issue with numerous other matters which, whether true or false, are not pertinent to the reason for your block. In particular, I suggest you read WP:NOTTHEM. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:41, 28 October 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.

Original ANI - Breach of civility parole

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User Triton Rocker. Thank you.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

(Note: this template replaces one that incorrectly described this as an arbitration enforcement block.)

Your account has been blocked for 1 year for violation of your British Isles civility parole (WP:GS/BI) in this edit. An editor who can't make three edits after coming off a one-month block without major incivility is not going to be able to contribute here. Looie496 (talk) 05:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Just go and do something usefull with your life Triton. You have nothing to gain from learning how to play this game, and take it from me, when the only answer you ever get back to a content point is, 'you must AGF!', then you are still a normal, cluefull person, who probably has more to lose by becoming a full on Wikipediot, than this topic would ever gain. It is infested with pure POV nonsense and POV pushing editors, who are the real SPAs here, which no ordinary Joe admin has even the first clue about how to deal with properly on their own, or even in counsel at ANI, not while Bjmullen is rattling the cage for action anyway, in one of the most blatant bits of gamery I've seen in a while. But take some heart in the fact that in the real world, these changes don't have much effect. That's just obvious whenever you see a true outsider comment on any one of those BISE 'discussions', even true green British hating Irish people. It's also why there will never ever be a community accepted guideline that follows some of ideas being served up there, even though they laughingly call that the task force's purpose of existence. As seen in Israel-Palestine and the Macedonia dispute, the enforcement situation won't get any more cluefull until it reaches arbcom. MickMacNee (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Triton - FWIW, I do think that was awfully harsh - one year for a borderline uncivil statement (and make no mistake, it was borderline uncivil). I might be willing to support an unblock if and only if you damned well agree to walk on eggshells for the rest of the year. In other words, you can edit, but you absolutely must must must be so polite to the opposing sides that it would make your kindergarten teacher proud. If you can't agree to that, then nevermind. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your sentiments Mick and that you took time to post on my talk page and ANI --- from where I am yet again censored from defending myself. --Triton Rocker (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

TR, you already know how to get your comments posted to ANI - to claim censorship from it is a lie. Any more BS like that, someone will be forced to remove your talkpage access for the duration of the block. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the correct blocking template above. Switching it again is likely to get talk page access removed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Concur with Sarek - this[5] diff carefully hides a changing of the blocking admin's notice by TR. I suggest any reviewing admin examine this diff in which TR posted their unblock reuest before unblocking. Wikipedia is not a game--Cailil ^talk 12:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't exactly "carefully hide" it, considering that he called attention to it in his unblock request -- but it's still not an acceptable change. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The first block summary said it was to enforce an arbcom decision. That was later modified to say it was simply disruptive editing. I think we can chalk up any concerns with Triton's change to the discrepancy from the original blocking admin. Now, which one is actually claimed as a basis for this block? Is this really a one year block for "disruptive editing" - for making one talk page post? Gimmetoo (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

If it was contrary to his civility parole - of which he has already received blocks for - then it's protecting the project from someone who simply does not get it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The second said the block was to enforce community sanctions, which is correct. TFOWR 13:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Where was this particular application of this particular community sanction discussed? Where was the discussion prior to implementing the "civility parole"? Gimmetoo (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATriton_Rocker&action=historysubmit&diff=388005540&oldid=387554304 -- link provided in that diff. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Both were discussed at either AN or ANI. Give me a second and I'll dig out links/diffs. I wasn't involved in the block discussion so that one may take longer for me to find. TFOWR 13:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion that led to the current block is currently at ANI: Wikipedia:ANI#TR_Blocked. TFOWR 13:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of that link, Sarek. I mentioned that link on the ANI, remember? One point at issue was the phrasing of the supposed civility parole; I still don't see the phrasing discussed at that linked discussion. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive641#Expansion_of_sanctions_at_WP:GS.2FBI. TFOWR 13:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the same link. Where in that discussion is the phrasing of the supposed civility parole discussed? Gimmetoo (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure it's the same link? In the one I posted above Cailil proposes Therefore I am bringing this here as I wish to add the issuing of 3 lesser editing restrictions to the current probation system, and to add a full topic ban to the list of remedies at WP:GS/BI. The lesser restriction are as follows: Civility Parole: a strict enforcement of WP:TPG, WP:EDITSUMMARY, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS. in the section "Expansion of sanctions at WP:GS/BI". A discussion then follows. TFOWR 14:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Gimmetoo, wikipedia is not a court. Users do not need advocacy. This restriction has been discussed 3 times and has community consensus for its exitance, for its wording and for its implementation (in this instance and previous ones). Stop attempting to wikilawyer it is tendentious--Cailil ^talk 14:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a one-year block for something that is at most a minor fault. I think the block is wrong. We've gotten to this point because of discussion of the block. Are you trying to restart that discussion? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't a better place to discuss the block be at Wikipedia:ANI#TR_Blocked? It's an ongoing discussion, and will have far more visibility than this talkpage. TFOWR 14:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a better place, but people keep responding here with statements that have been challenged there, as if that discussion isn't happening. I am quite fine with stopping discussing here. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify something. The direct cause of the block was the line "It takes no degree of intelligence or integrity to surmise that...". This is an indirect way of saying you are a stupid liar -- it's about as uncivil as you can get. An editor who can't even recognize that such a statement is uncivil does not belong on Wikipedia. And this was the third edit after coming off a one-month block. There is really no room to move forward here unless TR demonstrates an understanding of why the statement was uncivil. Looie496 (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Your quote: Not going to happen. It's pretty clear that you completely fail to understand how universal the rejection of your approach to editing is, at least among admins. That says it all, doesn't it. The approach among admins is no more relevant than the approach among any group, so I'm wondering why you made that statement. LemonMonday Talk 19:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I qualified the statement because TR is by no means the only editor who treats Wikipedia as a battleground. That approach is rejected by pretty much every admin and the great majority of other editors, but it wouldn't be correct to say that TR is the only editor who favors it. The practical reason for saying "at least among admins" is that block appeals are handled by admins, and an appeal won't succeed unless there is at least one admin who sees it as valid. Looie496 (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Text copied

Hi Triton, I've copied your submission to ANI as requested. Good luck with it. LemonMonday Talk 17:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)