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.

Comments

Triton Rocker does make mention of things that are in effect true, things that have been even before he came to Wikipedia - especially about individuals working in tandem with each other. When one finds a suggestion/change/edit they don't like they'll revert open a discussion then say wait and see what other opinions will arise and low-and-behold the same crowd always come to lend a hand in quashing any debate knowing that by drowning out a lone voice or two will almost always work. One minute they'd cry about censorship, POV, and unreliable sources, then they'd try to censor other stuff with pov claims not backed up by any source whatsoever and use weight of numbers to carry the day - always the same editors, several of which who clearly show their lack of neutrality on certain issues such as HighKing.

But what can be done when Wiki doesn't take a stand on such "ganging-up". Editors like Triton should try to be more patient and counter them with verifiable and reliable sources, however even that doesn't stop the same old group, and its easy to see why Triton has imploded so many times out of frustration and anger. Triton should control himself better but its easy to see why he doesn't when there are editors out there who treat Wiki as their own nationalistic propaganda tool. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The other issue, however, is that this topic is controversial - and therefore well-watched, and politically/emotionally-charged. We have no room for emotions/politics on Wikipedia for the very reason that T-R is showing us: they believe it's their way or nothing. The problem is, dozens of editors all have their own identical thrust, and dozens of immovable objects clashing together is going to be problematic. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not a question of "their way or nothing". It is a question of putting aside personal interests or agendas and accepting what already is (and why).

What you have going on with the British Isles issue is a sustained politically, or rather nationalistically, motivated renaming campaign that defies what is accept as a standard in academia. Especially in non-political topics which are the only ones I am interested in.

How does the Wikipedia deal with that? --Triton Rocker (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite block

I've blocked you indefinitely for this edit summary (in which you attack another editor) and this edit ("nationalistically motivated campaign").

You have been told time and time again to knock off the attacks on other editors, and to focus on content not contributors (or whatever motives you may personally ascribe to individuals or groups of editors). It is clear that - at this time - you are unable to edit collaboratively. I hope that this will change, and that you will at some point be able to edit with other editors, without resorting to name-calling and editorialising. If you are able to make a commitment to addressing the issues which have resulted in this and your previous blocks, then I would have no objection to you being unblocked.

I intend to take this to WP:ANI for review. Should you wish to comment at ANI I will, of course, be happy to copy anything you write here to ANI on your behalf. TFOWR 11:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Triton you should agree to avoid any mention of any possible motive on the BISE page in future, and avoid saying anything that could be considered an attack on other editors. If you agree to that your indef block may be lifted. You should know by now that the slightest step out of line on the BISE page will have your actions reported by certain editors, so it is not worth taking any risks. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A complete and humorless overreaction TFOWR --- we were discussing HighKing denial over chestnuts.

OK, before I compose something for WP:ANI, can we just confirm one thing

• are we dealing with a "nationalistically motivated campaign" on HighKing's and others behalf, or not? That is all I want to know.

In plain English, is 'your rule' that we are suppose to accept there is an "elephant in the room" but just not mention it?

This comment is not for WP:ANI. It is for you right now. Let's look at the specific content related issues instead.

• HighKing states no one in Ireland uses the word "conkers" (chestnuts) --- and yet I show you that the Ireland has a conker team and the Irish Tourist Board promotes a Conker Championship.
• I show you that a company clearly states its statistics are for the "UK, RoI, IoM and CI" --- and your nationalistically motivated tag team demand to state it is UK and RoI only.
• I could easily point you to Isle of Man government information about the most predominant Elms growing in the Isle of Man being Wych Elms (Ulmus glabra) --- and yet you are going allow HighKing is going to remove the word British Isles off that too.

And then YOU chose to "indefinitely ban" the person who is CORRECTING the content, adding references to support the FACTS, and not punish the ones seeking to or PUSH a nationalistic motivated agenda!?!

Are you interested in the exactitude of the Wikipedia at all, or are you just not impartial? Why appease someone adding such incorrect content?

The bottomline is, TFOWR:

• a) You are not qualified enough about the specifically related subjects to be making such "power" decisions influencing the content.

If you were qualified at all, you would realise just HOW out of proportion HighKing's claims are. You really need to consider this and speak to someone that does know a little and is impartial.

• b) You seem to not be willing to do even the most tiniest amount of checking up on the specific and related subjects to see how and if HighKing is running you and others around.
• c) You are leaving the door wide open to someone grinding an axe to fill the Wikipedia full of false statements and twist it to suit their nationalistic motivated agenda.

You do what you like but you know that time and time again I have come up with the facts and the references.

--Triton Rocker (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The block addresses your behaviour, so, no, we are not 'dealing with a "nationalistically motivated campaign" on HighKing's and others behalf', we're dealing with your behaviour.

I couldn't care less whether you/we/whoever 'accept there is an "elephant in the room" but just not mention it' - provided you don't mention it at WT:BISE. There are plenty of venues available to discuss concerns with other editors: WT:BISE is not one of them.

My indefinite block had nothing to do with the discussion per se: it was for the reasons given in your block notice, i.e. for a continuing pattern of behaviour, including attacks on other editors. I'm sorry if you regard my block as "humourless". Your "humour" has been, and remains, unhelpful (and, dare I say it, not particularly humorous). If you were able to continue to come up with references, and leave the petty incivility and the tendentious editing at the door you'd be more than welcome to continue. I believe I made that clear in my block notice, above. If it was insufficiently clear I'll remake the point: if you are able to commit to avoiding the kind of behaviour that has resulted in numerous blocks then I would have no objection to your current block being lifted. TFOWR 13:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Are we supposed to honestly believe you wrote the edit summary "HighKing's nuts" solely referring to chestnuts? That it never once crossed your mind that it would most likely be read differently? I don't believe that for a second. I don't care what other things it can be read as; the sense of "HighKing is crazy" is clearly the most salient meaning and the notion that you didn't realize this is just not credible. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know.

Is he being crazy denying that the Irish call conkers conkers --- as an excuse to remove "British Isles" from a topic --- when the Government of Ireland promotes an annual Conker Championship and they have a national conker team?

Either he is crazy, pushing a nationalist POV, or have you just got someone that is SERIOUS uninformed running around introducting false information into the Wikipedia.

What would you rather have? I gave you the facts and references. I could give you plenty more. --Triton Rocker (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to just avoid making any comments on highking at all. Stick to the case itself to avoid getting yourself into trouble. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

TR you have been blocked for making personal attacks on other editors and you continue to do it. This clearly demonstrates to me that you will never learn. Bjmullan (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of indef-blocking, when there's no edit-warring involved. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Tourism Ireland

In answer to HighKing's misleading and distracting statement, "Tourism Ireland" is funded by the Republic of Ireland's Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism --- to give it its full title.

The point being, it is an officially sponsored organisation and not just some travel website. Fact. I apologise if time did not allow for the full and precise details --- but there they are.

• NB The 10th Annual Irish conker championships was held in Freshford, County Kilkenny.

How much more blatantly obvious FACTS do you need --- and why is it the indefinitely banned person giving them too you whilst the "allowed to" editor continues to try and twist the facts? --Triton Rocker (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You're conflating two separate issues: WT:BISE (and the discussion there regarding "flora") and your block. The two are separate: you don't get to disparage another editor/other editors and then get a free pass because the other editor(s) was wrong about something. Ideally I'd be at WT:BISE right now, looking at flora. Instead I'm - once again - here and at ANI. It's precisely because your kind of behaviour stymies the process at WT:BISE that it needs to be firmly prevented from recurring. TFOWR 14:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You posted this link. Go to the very bottom of the page and click on the "About us" link which takes you here. My posting at BISE was a *direct quote* from that page. Also, if you check the corporate site for Tourism Ireland it states Tourism Ireland was established under the framework of the Belfast Agreement of Good Friday 1998. We are jointly funded by the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive on a two to one ratio, and operate under the auspices of the North/South Ministerial Council through the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland and the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism in the South. and further on states Tourism Ireland works with the two tourist boards on the island, Fáilte Ireland and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, who are responsible for product and enterprise development and marketing to tourism consumers within the island of Ireland. --HighKing (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI comment

I would like to make three things clear:

a) I was not topic banned. The only thing I was "banned" from doing was adding the term "British Isles" from topics. I am allowed to edit any article.

b) My point of view (and interest) is non-political and relates solely to non-political uses of the term. A position which I have sustained clearly and accurately with academic quotes, e.g. "used widely in academia without reflecting the United Kingdom's hegemonic interests", e.g. see: here.

c) I have been utterly consistent in this arguing against the politicisation and nationalist use of the term from any nationalist point of view. (I am not English and do not support British abuses of power in Ireland or anywhere else).

Now, please allow us to discuss the "elephant in room" for one moment and get a straight answer.

You have an Irish editor --- supported by others --- widely recognised to be engaged in a campaign to remove the term British Isles despite the above. What is HighKing's motivation?

What cracks me up is how far out of proportion with reality, or any reasonable responsibility to check the facts, his attempts are.

• Forget the distraction TFOWR is causing by scapegoating me just like Black Kite before him --- what we are really here discussing is conkers. It could equally have been Wych Elms.

HighKing claims no true Irishman calls them conkers to remove the term British Isles. Yet the Government of Ireland promotes Conker Championships.

HighKing claims there are no Wych Elms on the Isle of Man to remove the term British Isles. Yet the Government of the Isle of Man states they are the most common (and forget too 'Flora of Guernsey and the Lesser Channel Islands etc').

Now --- this 'opposition to reality' going on and on and on at WT:BISE. I could pick out at least tens of equivalently ridiculous examples and I am sure HighKing has a list more.

Why should we really have to bear the burden that such an 'opposition to reality' for the sake of a nationalist cause is causing just to keep the Wikipedia accurate?

If they have a problem with the naming convention, they need to go to the International Organization for Standardization to sort it out.

Not skew the Wikipedia. --Triton Rocker (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

May I also ask, is this a typical trick, banning someone from editing so that they cannot defend themselves on an admin page? It is not the first time. --Triton Rocker (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done here. Requesting review of a block is unusual: I did it, following tradition, after my first block, but apart from that I'd typically only ever do it if the block was of, say, an established editor (as is the case3 here) or otherwise likely to be controversial. As happened last time, it's been explained to you that you can request comments be posted at ANI by using the {{adminhelp}} template. I've also offered to copy your posts across on both occasions. TFOWR 15:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems you were wrong. You over reacted. And you are no longer impartial in the matter. You should have at least raised it FIRST at ANI and allowed me to defend myself. What you are doing is not engendering respect for either you or the Wikipedia.

So, was I right or wrong about the conkers? --Triton Rocker (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Block reduction

User:DGG has for this reason... 16:42, 6 September 2010 DGG (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Triton Rocker (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (account creation blocked) ‎ (Appropriate follow up after one week prior block ) .. I suggest your find some enjoyable areas of the wikipedia to contribute to when you return, you are as usual still able to request unblocking with a template for whatever reason you may have. Off2riorob (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI comment 2

I want to be able to discussion and defend myself at WP:ANI.

By any standard, it is highly unethical to ban someone indefinitely and disallow them from defending themselves.

I am entirely happy to keep from editing any topic page until the matters are fully dealt with.

I want to defend myself directly without suffering the humiliation of having to wait on my "judge and jailer" to do so for me.

Note how all HighKing's usual supporters rush to the distraction of putting the boot into Triton Rocker but no one want to actually discuss to HighKing's conker statement and how wrong it was, how wrong the Wych Elm and others are too.

As I keep point out, the punishment is all a little bit asymmetric. --Triton Rocker (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You re not indef blocked you are blocked for 2 weeks and you were not blocked for what HK said but because of your own actions, this is not about the action of HK but the actions of TR and TFWOR has said they will post anything you need in your defense and also you can also request an unblock. Mo ainm~Talk 18:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

What ya put in your posts & edit summaries is irrelevant to me. But, it's obviously relevant to others. 'Tis best to avoid such posts & summaries in future. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 6 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 a correct reason whatever it might be (--- I do not know, so please fill one in or use your imagination here) :And to respond at WP:ANI. :The block has already gone down from indefinite to two weeks and my Brythonic chums are current discussion a fair, symmetrical block on all involved editors. Coming off a block, I did not even edit topics. All I did was make two talk page edits and mention chestnuts once. :TFOWR is a relatively new admin, arguably out of their depth with a difficult case, who may not be entirely impartial due to the remnant cultural residues of centuries worth of hegemonic oppression under the cruel Westminister fist (--- so don't mention Culloden nor North Sea oil). :Thanks.

Decline reason:

See WP:GAB and WP:NOTTHEM before posting any further requests please. I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:51, 7 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.

• By the way, if you want to add anything to the discussion at ANI add it here with a note that you want it copied over. I'll leave a note there asking them to watch for any such postings. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

...and also by the way, future unblock requests that are at all similar to the one above will lead to a removal of your talkpage rights, which will prevent your continued participation on the ANI thread - and that won't be unethical, because it will be your own damned fault. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:10, 7 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:

Well, that is hardly a surprising result, isn't it? :* What sense can a system make in which one ongoing situation is interrupted by another random, driveby admin with no involvement in it? : I am sorry Beeblebrox but you are making your own false assumptions which are not helpful here. : You show me the "damage" I did --- there was none --- and I'll show you where the disruption is happening. : You seemingly know nothing of the ongoing situation or are playing blind to it to continue this ritual humiliation or power trip --- which is all it is. : Now if another of the original blocking admin would allow me to respond in an adult fashion to the ANI, without causing additional burdens to other editors/admins, I would very much appreciate it. : That is all I am asking. I accept the term of the block from topic editing. : Thank you.

Decline reason:

Just so you know, you are not going to be unblocked as long as you attack other users and refuse to acknowledge your mistakes. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:58, 8 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.

{{unblock|Uninvolved user FASTILY's comment seems to have no relevance to my current situation. 

I have stated I accept the terms of the block. What more can I say?

I am only asking to defend myself where I am being discussed at ANI and not be held like a prisoner, dependent on some other user's random good will, and using up their time and energy.

Is making a small pun about chestnuts on a talk page really such a terrible crime requiring a ritual humiliation and the punishment of not allowing one to defend oneself?

How can I possibly do any evil in the current situation?}}

• I have turned off this request. You say you accept the block, and yet you appeal it. An avenue is provided for you to defend yourself, and instead of doing that you complain about the block and claim you can't defend yourself, even though you just said you accepted the block. My advice to you is to practice what you preach. If you accept the block, then accept it and stop appealing. If you don't accept it stop claiming that you do. What you are doing now seems very inconsistent and certainly does not strengthen whatever case you are trying to make to be unblocked. It is a ridiculous hyperbole to say you are a prisoner. You are locked out, not locked in. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:35, 9 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:

I am making perfect sense Beeblebrox. Please be honest or at least spend more than a nano-seconding reading what I have written. :I accept being banned from editing on topics and talk pages, and making comments about nationalist editors etc. Therefore I accept. :All I am asking to do is defend myself on the ANI discussion about me. :That --- is a basic ethical right. :It is highly unethical, at the very least, to accuse and condemn someone whilst disallowing them to defend themself. And it has happened to me more than once now. The discussion after doing so is obviously oneside or asymmetrical --- just like the all bannings. :The point being --- unless I am able to post WHERE IN THE DISCUSSION (correct context) or at the relevant point in the discussion, and WHEN I can, my comments are going to irrelevant, out place, open to misinterpretation. If one cannot post at the right time, discussion will go off at random and false impression be set.

Decline reason:

This request is only about your wish to contribute to WP:ANI#WT:BISE and User:Triton Rocker: indef block review request. But in order to be unblocked you must address the reason for your block.  Sandstein  06:31, 9 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.

{{Unblock|:It is a highly unethical - and specifically invidious practice - to indefinitely block someone FIRST --- and then disallow them from engaging in a prejudicial conversation about them or defending themselves.

It is just as unethical to disadvantage them by the humiliation of insisting on copying and pasting comments out of time and context.

As I have said, I have accept the terms and reason for my block. I have never argued against it. It is a very good and fair block. How can you say I have not addressed it, Sandstein? Just tell me which ass I have to kiss and how exactly I have to kiss it to your satisfaction and I will happily do so.

(I guess they just need to develop the underlining software so it can block editors from editing on topics etc but at least allow them to defend themselves on admin pages).

☠}}

As you have been repeatedly told that you will not be unblocked just to comment at ani and you still persist on posting these unblock requests, I have revoked your ability to edit this page. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment to be posted at ANI

I see the last comment was not copied despite the promises

The easiest way to avoid ridiculous is not be ridiculous.

I was indefinitely block for an admins interpretation of a summary note, one of two talk page edits I made, It read, "HighKing's nuts" and referred to ridiculous discussion about chestnuts, in this case HighKing insisting no Irish personal called them conkers. I prove with refereces that they most certainly did. The circumstance was "ridiculous" because it was being use as a pretext for yet another removal of the term British Isles.

Please note, HighKing never complained about the summary. I doubt it bothers him at all --- of course, the events after are too his advantage, so why should he complain?

For the record, I was not making a pun about his alleged insanity. I was making a pun about his testicles. In British English, testes are nuts and I was imagining cupping them in my hand and squeezing them. Grabbing something or someone "by the balls" or "by the nuts" is equivalent to taking a bull "by its horn" (an unfortunate image if ever there was one).

This is, again, a figure of speech in English. Someone who needs their balls squeezed needs to wake up, stop their nonsense or whatever. Please look it up.

Therefore, I was indefinitely banned for an admin's interpretation of something no one complained about and about a figure of speech I was not asked to clarify.

How right does that sounds?

Now, putting all that aside, where is the real abuse, not imagined abuse, happening?

The real abuse of other editors' time and energy by such petty and ridiculous ploys. We had another at the same time for Wych Elm ... again another attempt at British Isle removal on the basis that one reference did not mention IoM. The IoM government stated it was their most common elm. Again, I had to correct.

Surely, the onus of responsibility lies with HighKing to check, check and triple check the resources until he is sure about what he is talking --- not ours to educated him.

Why should others pay for his education? I checked. It is actually against Wikipedia policy. --Triton Rocker (talk) 05:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Copied to ANI.  Sandstein  06:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Highking went and complained about it right after you said it. As ive mentioned before, people are watching your actions closely Triton, the second you slip up your enemies will jump on you and you will end up with another longer block. Once this current one has expired you really need to try and avoid making any comment or doing any action which could be considered against the rules. Getting yourself an indef block will solve nothing except provide a victory for some who would like to see all of those opposed to the removal of the British Isles on wikipedia taken out of the dispute. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

References to "enemies" and "victories" are a bit silly and unhelpful. TR doesn't have "enemies" here - but, as in every community, there are people who abide by WP rules and guidance, and try to make sure that other people abide by those standards as well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Could we please not do this? TR is blocked and cannot comment here until the block expires, there is little to no point in continuing with any sort of discussion here for the remainder of the block period. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)