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)

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)

Second Comment for ANI

All this talk of "anger", "battle" and "incivility" is a projection and a distraction.

Thank you Gimmetoo. Yes, I was observing TB01. I did not edit war and yet Bjmullan --- who reported my comments here --- did break the sanction and has walked away Scot free.

People, I am perfectly calm. I am also a grown up who writes in a formal manner. I know how to be uncivil. I chose not to be. Yet a new admin decided --- on the basis of an interpretation only --- decides that I was. I offer to you that it was simple inexperience or over-enthusiasm on his behalf and an overreaction which I do not hold against him. However, I do still suggest that Bjmullan's reporting was a deliberate and tactical move within the greater British Isles naming dispute rather than a good faith one and can provide the evidence if requested.

• For all the distractive discussion, I note that no one is willing to address the inciting incident. Bjmullan's removal of the term British Isles --- AGAINST SANCTIONS --- and its --- ERRONEOUS --- replacement with "United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland" at British Sky Broadcasting. A factual error which remains 14 days later, see: [1].

• Additionally, I note that it contains a confusing piped link which we also agreed at WT:BISE to avoid.

One of the comments that has been made before is that all the blocks, bans and sanctions that are being thrown around in this dispute are one sided. Here we have another case where one editor breaks a sanction inserting Republic of Irelan d and it is overlooked and another editor defending the correct use of British Isles (from good references) raises the issue, and is banned.

One of the problems with Cailil's original sanction is that it was not well defined, that its real meaning was hidden. The term "incivility" is too broad, open to abuseful misinterpretation and not helpful for new admins.

In my opinion, and please allow me to be open and honest, Cailil's original sanction was really as simple as, "Stop pointing out that the editors removing the term "British Isles" are Irish republicans or nationalists ... even if they self-disclose their nationalist sentiments on their user or talk pages". Whereas I do not think that I have really been "uncivil", it is true that I did repeatedly point out that the editors removing the term "British Isles", and campaigning against its use, are Irish republicans or nationalists, and I stopped.

As an aside, I do think that discussions at ANI should be "without prejudice" (in its legal meaning), exempt from petty interpretations of "incivility" and not permissible as further evidence against an individual --- It is impossible to discuss an issue without discussing an issue, e.g. that there are nationalist agenda's at play here which need to be taken into consideration and discussed at a place like this. I do not know where is the correct place is.

• My position is neither 'pro' nor 'con' either side of the nationalist dispute but remains that politics should be kept out of non-political areas.--Triton Rocker (talk) 04:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Reponse to Cailil

"And for clarity TR was given the chance to make a redaction of that edit ... Cailil talk 16:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)"

Actually, no. I made one small edit, placed one comment, and was working on a different response to the ongoing discussion altogether at which point I found myself blocked.

One question. As you are the one who defined my ban --- whilst a false but prejudicial checkuser was ongoing and I was blocked from defending myself --- can I ask if it is truly punitively "uncivil" to bring into consideration that so many of the individuals involved in this attack against me are self-disclosed Irish or of Irish descent?

Please note, I am politely asking permission to raise this issue here first --- not raising it.

Thank you. --Triton Rocker (talk) 05:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Latest material copied as requested. LemonMonday Talk 10:13, 30 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, [2]) --- 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". [3]. :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 [4], you will see I was again careful to use honorific titles and ask permission before asking personal questions, for example, here [5]. :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.

Looie496's Original ANI - Breach of civility parole

For the record, as this is current under discussion, this was new admin Looie496's original erroneous block. --Triton Rocker (talk) 04:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block.

---

Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Looie496's Revised Block

This was his later revised block after I raised the issue of his error. --Triton Rocker (talk) 04:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

Discussion

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[6] 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)

I find the whole thing very funny, and it speaks volumes for the type of person who gets to be an admin (not singling out anyone in particular). Block appeals are rarely, if ever, successful. Why? Because of two things; 1) Admins are always right, even if they're wrong. 2) You were blocked because YOU were at fault, even if you weren't. The admin cabal is one of the major shortcomings of Wikipedia. LemonMonday Talk 17:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have to say "(not singling out anyone in particular)" as part of your comment, then you ought to stop and rewrite your comment to be more civil, and less assuming of bad faith, and less violating of WP:BATTLE. Jehochman ^Talk 20:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

... and I have unblocked my fair share of editors. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as an ordinary user here, I can tell you I've seen many a user unblocked (me included) when the user calmed down and objectively realized that they had gone over the line. Writing an unblock request while still angry is not likely to yield a good outcome. It's better to let it simmer a few days. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

SarekofVulcan, you have before messed around with my talk page during an ANI discussion about before, and blocked access disallowing me to defend myself.

I would like to ask you politely not to do so. You either seem not to understand what was being said, or are seeking to provoke the situation further as you did edit-warring with me as I tried to develop the British Manual of Style pages. --Triton Rocker (talk) 04:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You were asked to strike the edit here (at 17:10, 25 October 2010) and here (at 17:13, 25 October 2010). You weren't blocked until 05:17, 26 October 2010 (over 12 hours later). The "one small edit, plac[ing] one comment" you made was here (16:03, 25 October 2010) (13 hours prior to your block). A civility parole was suggested by Cailil at ANI, and modified and agreed by the community—as you already know. The implication that an editor's nationality or descent affects their editing constitutes as "ill-considered accusation of impropriety". Incidentally, nearly all the editors involved at BISE are British or Irish, or of recent British or Irish descent (I'm using the "recent" qualifier to avoid including Canadian or New Zealand editors, etc). TFOWR 08:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Third Comment for ANI

TFOWR, my friend, I don't live online or on the Wikipedia all day. You seem to be spending ten hours a day on this website. I cannot keep up. I sleep 8 hours when I can and, unlike others I suspect, I have to go to work in the real world. I don't know how and where to follow all the page changes, discussions and reporting that go on, as others appear to be able to. I guess am a good bit older than many of you. I don't even know how to report someone or where, and it is really not in my nature to.

What I remember is Cailil pushing the one month block through very quickly through before I responded to it --- even after I politely requested that the accusation wait until the bogus Checkuser was complete, my request not even being acknowledged. I was blocked from defending myself by Sarek of Vulcan, I think, had my talk page reverted to hide comments I was working on at the time etc. I see that Sarek of Vulcan has even been back again. Like I said, knew nothing of this recent block until I went to preview another detailed page I was working on at the time.

• This British Sky Broadcasting episode --- which even you have not corrected yet --- illustrates yet again what is going on at the Wikipedian British Isles Renaming Task Force.

Despite there being inarguable references [7] to the fact that British Sky Broadcasting broadcasts to the whole of the British Isles, the usual Irish contingent (HighKing, Bjmullan etc) ignore it, continue to revert to the factually erroneous "UK + RoI", and invests endless time and energy in banning anyway who calls them at their game and provides the citations to prove them wrong --- just as I did with the "conkers episode" in which I was also correct, supported by citations, yet earned the one month ban.

How much more evidence do you require? I am happy to provide it.

It appears that I am not allowed to respond to your comments regarding the nationalist allegiances of editors --- for fear of it being used as a excuse to censor me yet again --- but allow me to say that I have not come across any British Nationalist Party members on the Wikipedia yet and share no sympathies with them.

Keep politics out of non-political areas. --Triton Rocker (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Picking up on a few points:

• When I do something I think may be controversial, I do it when I have the time to deal with any consequences. Admin actions I try and do in the morning when I know I'll be around in the afternoon. I'd suggest that if you want to behave controversially then make sure you have the time to deal with the consequences. It's not unreasonable to expect you to monitor posts you've made for responses, at least for a few hours (and that should apply whether or not you expect the posts to be controversial - I hang around for a response even when I'm sating something as non-controversial as "good morning!")
• This British Sky Broadcasting episode --- which even you have not corrected yet --- illustrates yet again what is going on at the Wikipedian British Isles Renaming Task Force. Comments like this are a real concern for me. I note you claim age and maturity: I'm afraid I've not previously seen much evidence of that. Comments like this demonstrate to me WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - an inability to read or understand the posts you're replying to. You repeat this statement like a mantra, without apparently reading or understanding the replies made. You apparently believe yourself to be correct - my replies to you (and there have been at least two now) have shown, not that you're incorrect, but that your absolute belief is misplaced. Until and unless you're able to read and understand counter-arguments I'm sceptical as to how much value you can bring to discussions.
• Your comment about the BNP seems to be a non sequitur. You are repeatedly try to draw attention to editors' political beliefs - real or imagined. No one has, so far as I'm aware, suggested that you are a member of or supporter of the BNP. Believe it or not, it shouldn't actually matter: I have worked with BNP supporters (at other articles, outside the British Isles area) and I don't have a problem with their political beliefs so long as those beliefs don't affect their editing.

I understand that BISE is a challenging area to work in: I find it challenging. I understand, too, that there are issues that have not yet been dealt with. These areas are not going to get dealt with until progress is made in other areas. You'll be aware, for example, that other editors have engaged in sock-puppetry. (I am in no way pinning the blame for that on you, by the way, I'm merely using it as an example of a problem that you and I are both aware of). But progress requires a degree of improvement from all participants. Sock puppetry can be dealt with. What's more challenging is the behavioural problems like civility, like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I hope that as time goes on participants will be more civil, and will behave with increased maturity. Some participants are already capable of seeing that there are often (not always, granted, but often) two quite legitimate sides to a discussion. I don't believe that you're at that point yet - you still seem to believe that in any almost every case "British Isles" is the only option, as shown by your consistent refusal to see beyond your narrow viewpoint in the BSkyB issue.

Believe it or not, I do not want to see editors blocked or banned. I do not believe it's inevitable in most cases. Sock puppets - it's inevitable. In your case - it's far from inevitable. As far as I can see you've done good work in non British Isles areas, and I have no doubt that you could also do good work in the British Isles area too. I've worked in a number of WP:POV areas - Greece/Macedonia, Arabia/Persia, and recently around Israel/Palestine. Could I suggest you take a look at some of these areas (areas where you would normally have no involvement)? The reason I suggest that is because seeing other editors pushing a POV could be really helpful to you: you'd understand better why a neutral point-of-view is desirable, how it's achievable, etc. Right now you apparently believe that you're neutral, non-political, etc. That's understandable - most editors (myself including) believe that. I also believe, however, that it's only once we become aware of where our own biases are that we're able to truly edit in a neutral manner.

(Incidentally, I've replied here rather than copy this to ANI, as it seemed to be purely a response to me rather than a comment that needed to be addressed at ANI). TFOWR 09:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR, and for the sake of others that read these comments, can we please examine the language by which you present me?

Let us start by taking the comment, "shown by your consistent refusal to see beyond your narrow viewpoint in the BSkyB issue".

a) "Consistent refusal". FACT. I only made one short comment, here [8].

It is not possible to 'refuse consistently' by only making a single comment. There are plenty of issues I have taken no side on.

b) "My narrow viewpoint". FACT. BSkyB broadcast and markets to the "United Kingdom, Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man" --- NOT "United Kingdom and Ireland". That is not my "narrow viewpoint" that is a sustainable fact support by the references. I offered the company report, try Jane's space directory for the sake of HighKing here: Volume 11. Wilson, Andrew 1995. "All transmissions were encrypted, confining reception to the British Isles: services began 29 Apr 1990."

The combination of United Kingdom, Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man is "the British Isles". It is a non-controversy and yet now I see discussion suggest that the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are included in the UK [9]!

That, therefore, leads us then to ask on what basis you are moderating this? To speak openly and honestly about it --- which does not appear permissible --- It is just a question of appeasement to equate "United Kingdom and Ireland" to "United Kingdom, Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man" --- a question of "one to one side and one to the other side" --- or is it based on fact?

Unbelievably, I read HighKing write recently, "The British Isles does not have a coast"! [10]. Try, 'Flora of the British Isles'. Arthur Roy Clapham, T. G. Tutin, D. M. Moore - 1990 "Distribution not fully known, but appears to be frequent round the coast of the British Isle". 'The Environment of the British Isles, an Atlas'. Andrew Goudie, Denys Brunsden - 1994.

And this is the man who said "no one in Ireland uses the word conkers" despite --- as I pointed out --- the Irish Government doing so. Can you honestly not see how far consistently out of perspective that is?

• The one issue that does remain to be decide for once and for all whether "United Kingdom + Ireland" equals "British Isles". The argument that "it is sometimes used" really does not go far enough. Yes, it is sometimes used --- just as England is used around most of the World for Britain (much to the chagrin of the Scots).

Both are being used 'erroneously' --- and that is a fact (not my opinion).

I can imagine those editors campaigning to remove every possible British Isles reference will fight tooth and nail against that issue ever being brought to a decision. --Triton Rocker (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You need a mentor, for when your block expires. Somebody who can keep ya away from getting yourself into trouble. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You've commented at least three times on BskyB: at BISE, here (copied to ANI), and again above in the post I replied to (and then a fourth time, in the post I'm now replying to). That seems to me to be "consistent refusal" (once, fair enough - second, third and fourth times - not so much).

"Both are being used 'erroneously' --- and that is a fact (not my opinion)". No, it's your opinion. You've presented a source that supports your POV. Great. I've presented two sources that challenge your POV. I don't know which is correct - but I'm not assuming it's "a fact (not my opinion)". Until you learn that you can't cherry-pick the sources that support your POV there's not much progress going to be made. You have to accept that sometimes sources differ. If they didn't, our work here would be easy. TFOWR 14:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblock Request

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:

As per :a) the invitation to edit from admin TFOWR above, and :b) the ANI discussion filed as "unresolved" --- which generally saw the length of block for this single edit [11] as being excessive. : Thank you. --Triton Rocker (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No valid reason to unblock has been stated. No administrator can overturn a community sanction unless there is a discussion resulting in a consensus to do so. No such consensus exists here. The "invitation to edit" is not grounds for unblocking, and per the comment below, no such invitation was issued. Jehochman ^Talk 15:18, 1 November 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.

You do realize that if an ANI entry goes off archived/unresolved, it means "status quo remains" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I also didn't extend an "invitation to edit"—though I can see how my comment could possibly be interpreted that way. Rather I suggested that—while blocked— TR look at other POV areas. Right now I'm not seeing any indication that TR understands the reason for their block, and I would have no confidence in the block being lifted at this time. I remain hopeful that this will change, and that lifting the block would become possible. TFOWR 14:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR, I understand perfect. You know that I understand. We both know what is going on.

What I note --- and what is of more importance to the Wikipedia --- is that time and time again you cannot or will not repond regarding the content issue I am raising. The issue which has brought all this to a head. The errors which are being inserted into the Wikipedia.

• That is to say --- "United Kingdom and Ireland" does not equal "United Kingdom, Ireland, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man".

You, yourself, have admitted when you said that "we all know" that Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not in the United Kingdom.

What have we here?

• Bjmullan --- an Irish editor who is a long term supporter of the Irish editor HighKing's campaign to remove the term British Isles - removed British Isles from BSkyB and replaced it was United Kindom and Ireland, see: [12], against the sanction. He is not sanctioned and the factual error remains.
• Bjmullan then immediately reports me on my return for a contrived misconduct against after a single edit, here: [13] and is successful at having me sanctioned again with the support of other, usual, Irish activists.

One of the other activist Cailil, who construed the terms of my sanction, is further seen lobbying on other admins pages known to be antipathetic to other editors involved. (see below).

It is time the Wikipedia stopped and took a serious look at this British Isles renaming campaign. Too many people's time is being wasted. Too much goodwill which would otherwise be put into the Wikipedia is being destroyed.

I am sorry to say this but you have stepped beyond the neutral point in these matters now and the content quality is suffering by allowing.

You played a part in escalating this business. I showed good faith in continuing to edit and find references. Now you show me the "Good Faith" by allowing me to carry on editing in other areas. It is that simple. --Triton Rocker (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Problem is though, you keep commenting on editors. GoodDay (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ublock Request II

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 do not accept my block being reviewed by Jehochman. :* Jehochman has an extensive history of dispute with individuals related to the British Isle renaming issue who have had to reject the idea that his ability to review is neutral or objective in any way. See, here: [14]. :* Furthermore, he has been subject to lobbying from one of the Irish editors involved in the British Isles renaming dispute, Cailil. See, here: [15]. : Therefore, my point remains, the non-involved editors of good faith saw the length of block for the perfectly civil single talk page edit I made [16] as being excessive I believe they were correct and that Looie496's, a new admin with only a couple of week's experience, interpretation of my words was over-enthusiastic. : Please note that the length of this ban was determined by a previous one month block based again on a single edit to a talk page, here [17] --- again, in itself, perfectly formal and polite enough. : Cailil construed a report is here: [18] using prejudicial accusations relating to an outstanding checkuser report, here [19] which was later overturned as "conclusively unrelated". :I requested that such discussion of Cailil accusation was delayed until the checkuser findings were delivered. That polite request was ignored. I was never given a fair chance to defend myself against it as I was blocked from editing even my talk page at the time. --Triton Rocker (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Whether Jehochman is biased with respect to you is moot now that your block has been reviewed by the community.

The result of the discussion is that there is no consensus to lift your block at this time. Several editors have commented that they would either shorten the block to three months or consider another appeal after three months. Accordingly, you may make another appeal three months after the start of the block.  Sandstein  22:49, 4 November 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.

You don't get to choose your unblock reviewer, Triton; you get whichever one shows up. I, for one, think your block is entirely deserved and is based on your own actions, not others' as you seem to feel the need to suggest in your unblock requests. I'd decline your unblock request, but since I've already blocked you once, I'll see if there can't be some other admin so there'll be fresh eyes on this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reasonableness.

Perhaps but looking more closely at the issue, I see that Jehochman also indefinitely blocked LemonMonday, here [20], for the making the smallest of comments, here [21] and refused MickMacNee here [22] almost immediately beforehand. He seems to have been acting intemperately.

Now, again, coincidentally, all these blocks and bans are coming down in the Irish favour against editors that have raised questions, in a reasonable fashion, about the conduct of editors involved in HighKing (talk · contribs · logs) campaign to remove all use of the term British Isles and are being coordinated by Irish editors like Bjmullan, Cailil who had me blocked etc.

I think one needs to step back and look at what is happening in the bigger picture. It has gone way beyond coincidence and WP:AGF. When is someone going to take the matter seriously?

Let us take MickMacNee's last comments, "Opinion's like Cailil's are priceless, he even freely admits he never had anything to do with me until that last ANI, yet form somewhere he has magically shown evidence of behaviour sufficient to warrant this sort of obscure back channel stitch up. Yet for him to even begin to investigate an accusation of GAME behaviour in the British Isle area, he want's RFCs in triplicate, presumably then assessed by neutral observers. It's hypocritical bull. "

• There is no smoke without fire. --Triton Rocker (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Because this is a block in application of community sanctions, I have put your request on hold and am referring it as a sanctions appeal to WP:AN.  Sandstein  12:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for beating on my drum over this but I have to say blocking some from being able to defend themselves, or engaging in the discussion about them, really is quite unethical.

I have no desire to "disrupt the project" but this whole situation arose because an initial decision was rushed through referring to false and prejudicial checkuser accusation before I was able to make any defense.

I politely requested more than once that the discussion/decision wait until the checkuser cleared and the requests were ignored - I feel deliberately - by Cailil. --Triton Rocker (talk) 05:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblock Request III

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:

: Unblock request on the basis of 'double standards', as being applied here [23]. Note unblocking admin Jehochman had immediately previous refused an unblock to allow me to defend myself at ANI as per Gavin.collins. : From my point of view, this request is actually a retrospective request going back to the first one month block, the terms of which were construed by Cailil, here and which I have never been allowed the chance to even query or have defined. : Cailil rushed through his punitive block and the terms of it --- the terms of sanction he is now using to defend inspection of his own actions --- whilst a prejudicial checkuser accusation was in place and whilst I was being refused the right to response/defense/input. See; here. I polite requested that it wait until the checkuser was cleared and it was all ignored. There was no "community census" or input into the terms. He wrote it himself. : Please note: :* This one year ban arose because I made a single comment that said Bjmullan broke a sanction --- which Bjmullan then reported --- and a general comment that we had encounter bad faith from him at the British Isles discussions in the past. :* Bjmullan goes on to states at the latest ANI discussion I will repeat here again so that (Triton Rocker) may understand, I am under NO sanctions at BISE. :* Yet what the WP:GS/BI sanction actually states is, "Any editor who systematically 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." Mullan did just that. : My perfectly polite and formal comment here is decreed "uncivil" and punishable by a years block because I questioned the bad faith element --- and yet : "How can it be ever considered a country when it doesn't even have a flag never mind an army or a foreign secretary for that matter. For what it's worth competing in the I was raped and pillaged by the British games ... Bjmullan (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)" --- is neither punished nor accept as evidence of said "bad faith", nor even extreme Irish nationalist sympathies? :* Calling the Commonwealth Games, the I was raped and pillaged by the British games with a sneaking piped link does not suggest a tiny degree of questionable POV or prejudice? All of my blocks have been for far less. "Rape" is not a term to throw about jokingly. : At no point in the discussion was the issue of whether Bjmullan had demonstrated bad faith addressed, nor were the ethics of blocking someone from defending themselves and ignore their request for a short delay taken into consideration. I argue that had the negative checkuser result being published first, the first block would not have occurred. :This issue is highlighting a serious systemic failure which requires a both a bureaucratic and a software fix.  : That is to say, :* a) individuals should be allowed the right to defend themselves as a matter of policy. Refusing the right of a defence is an open door to admin abuse. :* b) the software should be developed so that user in question cannot edit on topics/talkpage but only reply at ANI or the bureaucratic pages where they can defend their case. "Truth" is normally a very solid defence. :* c) the terms of the sanction were so broadly written so as to be open to abusive interpretation and exploitation --- as they are now being used. :(Despite protestations, experience shows that comments are NOT copied over from talk pages to ANI in either a timely fashion or at all. In this area, we are now seeing a pattern of admin SarekOfVulcan either blocking talk pages or even blocking the user who has done so in the past). : Lastly, please let us not forget, what we are discussing here are : a) issues relating to a minority of the Irish editor's sentiments towards the inclusion of the Republic of Ireland in the term "British Isles" and that the Irish editor Bjmullan (talk • contribs • logs) is a chief support of the primary Irish campaigner in the renaming dispute, HighKing (talk • contribs • logs), and : b) that what they are attempting is to institute a factually erroneous standard into the Wikipedia --- (United Kingdom + Ireland does not equal British Isles). :In that context, it is impossible for us to over look that Irish admin Cailil feels strong enough Irish sentiments to want to fly an national flag on his page and even User:SarekOfVulcan is, obviously, also of Irish descent with a name like Garrett Fitzgerald. :* Please excuse me if I repeat again that it all appears increasingly and ridiculously one sided; :: Irish accusers on one hand, :: those defending the use of the term "British Isles" --- blocked --- on the other (MickMacNee, Lemonmonday, Levenboy, myself etc ...). : --Triton Rocker (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The community declined your last unblock -- the only remaining appeal at this time is to Arbcom. Since you can contact them by email, I am removing your access to this talkpage to prevent further abuse of the unblock process. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:20, 5 November 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.

File:Cutting off the nose to spite the face.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cutting off the nose to spite the face.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/British Isles-related articles

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/British Isles-related articles, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Manual of Style/British Isles-related articles and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Manual of Style/British Isles-related articles during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:British-naturism-logo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:British-naturism-logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. GMG^talk 16:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)