Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/BISE/September 2010

WT:BISE and User:Triton Rocker: indef block review request


Long-time fans of ANI will recall several prior threads about this editor and their enthusiasm for the term "British Isles". WT:BISE exists to consider usages of this term through the project, and Triton Rocker has been very active at WT:BISE. They were the first (and to date, only) editor to be subject to a topic ban, and have been blocked several times for violating the topic ban, disruptive editing and edit warring.

WT:BISE brings together multiple different groups of editors. It is vital that these disparate groups discuss issues with as little acrimony as possible. In short, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are as important at WT:BISE as they are elsewhere in the project. To that end I have been removing personal attacks and warning editors. Triton Rocker has been warned before about this.

Triton Rocker has just completed a week block for edit warring at Terminology of the British Isles. Two of their first edits, post block, were this one and this one. On the face of it, a humorous edit summary: "HighKing's nuts" (in a discussion which, among other things, did involve horse chestnuts) and a mostly on-topic post in which Triton Rocker's views on other editors' motivations played a relatively small part: "This is just another ridiculous and desperate attempt in a nationalistically motivated campaign, defying logic, that should not be entertained."

I've blocked Triton Rocker for these latter two edits. The block is indefinite, as it follows on from several blocks relating to editing in the British Isles area. I feel the block is justified because these two edits demonstrate that Triton Rocker has failed to take on board the concerns expressed by the community, here at ANI, and at WT:BISE. I do not accept that these edits are minor: they were, I am certain, calculated to allow the maximum wikilawyering possible: in short, they were designed to game the system and provide the editor with a degree of deniability. I do not regard that as acceptable. I regard both edits as overt/covert attacks on one or more editors.

I have told Triton Rocker that I would have no objection their block being lifted - if they make a commitment to addressing the issues raised in this and prior blocks. That offer stands. I've also offered to copy any comments Triton Rocker wishes to make here, to ANI, so that they are able to fully participate in this discussion. The last time I did this the comment I copied was, frankly, unacceptable and attacked several editors including am admin. Nevertheless, I remain prepared to assist Triton Rocker. I believe, deep down, there is a good editor there - one who is struggling to adapt to frustrations of working in POV areas.

As this block is an indefinite block against an established editor I am seeking review here. TFOWR 11:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems a bit severe. Off2riorob (talk) 12:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) Triton needs to accept that he can not make any comment on BISE which could in any way be against the rules or considered as against the rules. If he agrees to finally accept that properly then the indef block should be lifted. He knows he is going to be watched closely, he knows there are people that may want him out of the way, i do not get why he continues to act in the way he does especially after just coming off a block. The only way to play this game is by the rules. I hope Triton accepts hes got to be far more careful with his comments so he can be given another chance.  BritishWatcher (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are nuts called conkers in Ireland? This whole BISE has become a POV joke. Off2riorob (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently Conkers are called Conkers in Ireland too yes, and conkers are nuts. The problematic bit of his comments is the "nationalistically motivated campaign" in my opinion. Whilst that is exactly what has happened (often known as the Crusades), and there is a clear case of censorship now taking place on Ireland articles, we are meant to avoid any comments on possible agendas on the BISE page. If triton agrees to avoid such comments again the indef block should be lifted. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe Horse Chestnuts do get called "conkers" when used in sport. Part of the problem with this, as with so many POV areas, is civility - rather than work together to drive the process forward, a popular past time is to see how far one can take incivility. In other POV arenas I've even seen editors question just how far they go, without any apparent trace of irony. The reason I've been removing WP:CIVIL-vios and warning editors is that civility (or a lack thereof) has a profound impact on the overall process: once the attacks start they continue, unless dealt with. I'm not keen on civility blocks, but I see no way to avoid them in POV areas where civility is seen as just another weapon in the POV warrior's toolkit. This is basically a vicious circle in several ways: incivility spawns further incivility, just as systematic removal of a term has resulted in systematic addition of the same term. TFOWR 12:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (in reply to Britishwatcher) Thats a big troupe of elephants (herd) in the room to not be able to mention. I think it would be better for Triton if he was unblocked and topic baned for a couple of months, that way he will get the chance to watch it all and see it for the joke it is. If TRocker can leave this issue behind him he has the look of a decent contributor. Off2riorob (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, TR is already topic banned. TFOWR 12:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So here we are again at AN/I discussing more British Isles related problems. I wonder when, if ever, the movers and shakers at Wikipedia will grasp the fact that all these problems, even the current one, can be traced back to one single user, HighKing, and his relentless drive to eliminate British Isles from Wikipedia. This user has developed a whole industry around getting rid of British Isles including "guidelines" and a special examples page at WP:BISE. It's that very page which has resulted in this latest uncalled-for block on an editor who just by chance came across the diabolical situation regarding British Isles and tryed to do something about it. He is the latest victim of the continuing, subtle crusade to remove British Isles. I urge his block be lifted and an immediate topic ban placed on all the protagonists at British Isles, otherwise we'll be back here again, and again and again and other editors who stumble into the mayhem will no doubt be consumed by it in the same way Triton Rocker has. Wake up to reality! LevenBoy (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * TR is "topic banned" is he? So tell me - what can I do regarding British Isles that he can't? LevenBoy (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * TR is topic baned. What you need there is TB3 which restricts him talking about it also. Off2riorob (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not support any form of ban which restricts people from raising matters on the BISE page, unless we are ALL banned from talking about it. Id submit to a complete ban if certain editors were included. We could then all get on with our lives or other things. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You can add British Isles somewhere, Highking will revert it and then we will have to debate it for the next few weeks. If Triton adds it anywhere, it will be reverted and he will also get a block, of atleast 1 week. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. LevenBoy (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It does seem that a lot of people closely related to this issue are having problems with HighKing and I feel that you would be remiss to deal with Triton but not address this other user's behaviour also. Having said that, it does appear to be wikilawering of the highest order. Especially if those are the first two edits after a block. A reasonable discussion with Triton about what other topics he may wish to edit if his band is lifted seems like a very good idea. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair, they were the 3rd and 4th edits after the prior block. If Triton Rocker were to edit outside the British Isles arena, I gather than British motorcycles is a subject with which they have a huge amount of familiarity, but I dare say there are other areas too.
 * I became involved at WT:BISE after this ANI thread, which named 2/3 editors as being "problematic". Since I've been involved none of these 2/3 editors has given me significant cause for concern. These 2/3 editors include High King (and a participant in this thread).
 * I absolutely do not accept that dealing with one editor's problematic behaviour requires that we also consider another editor's behaviour: each case can - and should be - considered individually, on its own merits/demerits. Otherwise it simply becomes a question of shouting loudly about one editor whenever a "comrade" is threatened. Take a read of WT:BISE (and its archives) and see how many threads degenerate into a "High King is responsible for global warming"-type rants. TFOWR 12:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * While you're taking in the discussions at BISE and the archives, pay attention and see if you can identify the core group of editors who continually disrupt with breaches of CIVIL and other policies, full stop. And you may also with to note the tactic whereby any discussions of these editors at ANI or WQA or SPI also get hijacked into an anti-HighKing tirade (just like they're trying to do here). Thankfully the community is also wising up to this and Cailil made a good point at a previous ANI. --HighKing (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * TR lasted a total of 4h 25 min after coming off his last ban before he made an edit which got him this ban. TR needs to be taught a lesson and the ban is fully justified. This has nothing to do with HK or any other editor other than TR. No one else is to blame for his actions. Bjmullan (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think an indefinite ban is a bit much, but agree that he has strayed past whatever thin lines of civility exist on BISE. I recommend his ban be lifted, but that he not participate on BISE for a period of time. Hopefully this will give him time to cool down. I disagree with the attacks on HighKing, he has a POV definitely, but as far as I can tell he does his best to remain civil at all times, even under attack. Chipmunkdavis (talk)
 * On a point of order: it's an indefinite block, not a ban. I opted for indefinite as it was clear that short-term blocks weren't working. However, being indefinite, i.e. not "infinite", it can be lifted at any point. Indeed, I've made clear to Triton Rocker what action I'd want to see in order for the block to be lifted. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 13:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer the idea, above, of a Third option, whereby TR is banned from "British Isles" related topics - actually all British-nationalist-related topics, including Talk pages. Perhaps if this can be agreed at the BI general sanction as TB03, the indef block could be lifted and TB03 applied.  --HighKing (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Far too broad. TRocker should be able to edit articles related to the British Isles and any British Nationalist articles but is only to be restricted from inserting or removing or discussing the expression British Isles and it should have a time limit of some months. Off2riorob (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is some form of ban on stopping people from even joining a debate at BISE then it has to be for a limited amount of time. Banning someone for a few months from even joining the debate, when some editors have been involved in this dispute for years seems extreme. But if he agrees to follow the rules and avoid any comments like he made today he should certainly have his indef block lifted. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The block is appropriate. Triton Rocker should remain blocked until he recognizes site policy and standards, per normal procedure with repeatedly blocked users operating under restriction. If TR acknowledges site policy and standards and agrees to abide by his restriction then he should be unblocked and the topic ban should be given a limited duration (ie 6 months from the time of unblock). I'd suggest adding civility parole but wouldn't make it conditional on an unblock. On a separate point it is becoming fairly clear that editors (on both "sides") don't understand that the 'British Isles' topic is under probation and therefore any edits (to articles or talk space) in that area will be scrutinized and if out of line will be sanctioned (that includes here) . @Off2riorob, Triton Rocker is already restricted as you suggest-- Cailil  talk 14:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A 6 month topic ban if he agrees to play by the rules is far too extreme. (if by topic ban, it means not being allowed to even discuss the BI issues.)BritishWatcher (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BW, Triton Rocker is already topic banned and it is to that ban which I'm referring (the one that restricts him from adding/removing the term BI from articles). His ban currently has no duration which may mean Black Kite was imposing and indefinite topic ban. In light of that and the fact that a 6-12 month topic bans are the norm, this would be a step forward for TR. Also abiding by the rules is a minimum requirement for all editors, it should not be seen as an achievement for anyone to do so-- Cailil  talk 15:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * An indefinite restriction from the whole wikipedia is not appropriate at all user Calil, its excessive. We are a contributory website and we are obliged to do our best to allowusers to contribute in some good faith way. This isn't a police state and his disruption is for minimal than deserves a site ban. I didn't apply it so I don't have to live with it. Off2riorob (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahem, Rob I didn't propose an indefinite restriction - my proposal is conditional unblock on agreement to abide by the rules. Please do not misrepresent what others say Rob. I have not mentioned a 'site ban' in my above post at all-- Cailil  talk 15:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I believe you are commenting as an independent I was not surprised to see you are flying the I am proud to be Irish flag on your userpage. We are all requested to rise above our partisan opinions and allow this user to edit in whatever way possible, I did not misrepresent your comments, ban block call it what you like yo8u supported an indefinite restriction as appropriate, I don't. Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Rob I stated that I would not allow anyone to be subject to personalized comments based solely on their nationality. You have directly speculated on my motivations based solely on my country of origin. I said in relation to Triton Rocker that I would escalate the matter then - I will do the same now - I will give you one chance to redact that remark if you don't take it I will escalate it immediately. Also as a point of order there is a HUGE difference between a block and a ban. And I support the indef block as TFOWR applied it (which is one based on a conditional unblock)-- Cailil   talk 15:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a disgraceful comment and a breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. --HighKing (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No its not, its a simple statement without any accusations at all. Off2riorob (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)The whole point of an indef is that it can be listed IF the editor concerns undertakes to behave differently. Despite multiple blocks Triton persistently refused to admit any fault and immediately reverts to the same behaviour within hours of coming back.  At this stage the community needs Triton to acknowledge the issue and undertake to behave differently.  Otherwise I suggest a full topic ban (at the moment he just has a sanction not to add "British Isles") on the subject so he can do good work elsewhere.  The demonisation of HighKink is getting silly - that editor has abided by all the rules for well over a year now.  -- Snowded  TALK  15:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Demonisation, bit strong isn't it. I think it is clear that if Highking was removed from the issue there would be no issue at all, no problem, nothing to deal with, no threads at ANI no BISE action page, nothing just a calmer less disrupted wikipedia with a few links to Bisles that suggest such excessive terrible things such Conkers is not the correct word for all the BIsles and flaura and fawna perhaps should be only in the Northern Ireland and Uk. and such tedious miniscule issues. Off2riorob (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really, High King has co-operated fully with the nomination process. Also for the last few months the vast majority of cases are British Watcher, Triton etc.  inserting (or nominating the insertion of) British Islands and/or related proposals on stable issues such as Derry/Londonderry.  This whole area is not one where one group can place all the blame on others, or argue that removing one editor would mean the problem would go away.  -- Snowded  TALK  19:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not been exposed to HighKing's previous actions, but from what I've seen, no matter what he has done in the past, he has been an active, and constructive, contributor to the BISE page. Let's stick to the discussion of TR's block shall we? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you actually ever read essays like WP:TE and WP:CPUSH, or considered that WP:CIVIL is a behavioural guideline that is infact about a lot more than just being polite, and then actually taken a good long hard look at HighKing's long term contributions and tactics at venues like BISE? The idea that he is being 'demonised' is frankly ludicrous, it's borderline insulting to the intelligence of everyone who is familiar with this dispute, as is the often pushed idea that the pro-BI crowd's misbehaviours exists in a vacuum unrelated to him. The only thing 'silly' about this dispute, is that things like TE are routinely ignored, let alone the total apparent invisibility of guidelines like WP:GAME, even by the people supposedly monitoring the discussions, and people are getting blocked and gamed off the issue left right and centre, for simply calling a spade a spade and then flipping out, instead of not simply bending over and taking it when facing some extremely high-end acts of gamery and tendentious campaigning. There a a hundred and one behavioural policies that he breaches all the time, practically daily, when you realise what they actually say, which is really not constructive for the pedia when the underlying issue is just his complete and utter misunderstanding of content policies like NPOV. As can be seen by this yet another ANI, when it comes to oversight in this dispute, the only thing that anybody ever bothers with is the low-hanging fruit - the people who are just being meanies!, or providing block reasons to people on a plate. Everything else is simply left alone, in the obvious favour of those who have the greatest staying power and ideological will to play the long game. And in this dispute, the outstanding leader in that respect is HighKing, 100%. He's supposedly not a campaigner. Well, has he ever, ever, put sustained editing effort into any other cause on Wikipedia? MickMacNee (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Mick, thanks for pointing out WP:CPUSH, I wasn't aware of it. Having now read it I find it quite astounding how it so accurately describes HighKing. Let's look at the introductory bullet points:

Wikipedia, and specifically the dispute resolution process, has a difficult time dealing with civil POV pushers. These are editors who are superficially polite while exhibiting some or all of the following behaviors:


 * They often edit primarily or entirely on one topic or theme.
 * They attempt to water down language, unreasonably exclude, marginalize or push views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV, or give undue weight to fringe theories – pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, marginal nationalist or historic viewpoints, and the like (PCCTL for short).
 * They revert war over such edits.
 * They frivolously request citations for obvious or well known information.
 * They argue endlessly about the neutral-point-of-view policy and particularly try to undermine the undue weight clause. *They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that "it is verifiable, so it should be in."
 * They argue for the inclusion of material of dubious reliability; for example, using commentary from partisan think tanks rather than from the scientific literature.
 * They may use sockpuppets, or recruit meat puppets.
 * They repeatedly use the talk page for soapboxing, and/or to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times.
 * They hang around forever wearing down more serious editors and become expert in an odd kind of way on their niche POV.
 * They often make a series of silly and time wasting requests for comment, mediation or arbitration again to try to wear down the serious editors.

Every single one of those is HighKing to a T; quite remarkable. LevenBoy (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Can we please take the advice of Chipmunkdavis and stick to the discussion of TR's block and let's try and get away from the school boy excuse of he made me do it. Bjmullan (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Having only registered in November 2009, Chipmunkdavis's advice is probably not informed by the fact that most arbitration cases, and certainly all the repeat ones, are always founded on what you laughingly want to dismiss here as a school boy excuse. Can we? Probably. Should we? Absolutely not. MickMacNee (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I did only register recently, which is why I said that I judged HighKing based on what I've seen. If he's no longer running his campaign or whatever it was, we should give him the benefit of the doubt. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Did TR continue edit-warring, upon his block expiration? If so? indef. If not? don't indef. I don't wish to see anybody indef-blocked because of their posts and/or edit summaries. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rocker's response for ANI
Copied from Triton Rocker's talkpage per my offer and TR's request. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 15:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

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)
 * It does seem a mightly strange thing to do, I must say. LevenBoy (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and that's a pure load of shyte. The editor has been told in the past that while blocked, he may request to have his input into the ANI copied from his talkpage into ANI.  Just because he blanks his talkpage rather than archive it, does not mean he's not already aware of the process. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 09:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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 here by unblock-declining  Sandstein   06:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC))


 * To "have someone by the balls" is to have a position of power and extreme influence over them - typically used in extortion situations (i.e. "I have a photo of you and that goat - I've got you by the balls now!"). I highly doubt that you were imagining gently and lovingly fondling his testicles. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 11:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Again TR is blaming all around them for their actions and from what I see their "disruption" will continue when the block is over as they feel it is others that are at fault and not them. Mo ainm  ~Talk  17:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Length of block
I do not consider it acceptable to follow up on a 1 week block with an indefinite block. Even arbcom does not do this is handing out sanctions: they double it each time. That's normally what we should be doing here; further, this was on a talk page, not article space. And no block longer than 1 week has been yet tried. I sense the frustration of those previous involved, but as someone with no prior involvement in this entire topic area, I have therefore shortened the block to 2 weeks.  DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's quite a magnanimous move but I wonder, might you consider removing it altogether? Look at what was said, and the history behind this scandalous situation. TR is no better, nor worse, than the average contributor here. The problem stems from his original, and wholly inappropriate, restriction. If it was not for that then we wouldn't be here at this page (again) today. As I've said before - look at the fundamental problem here, not the symptoms that we now have. LevenBoy (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that LevenBoy's characterisation of TR's conduct as "no better, nor worse, than the average contributor here" (I assume by "here", we mean WP:BISE) is accurate. Triton has been substantially worse than many and in fact, I would say, all recently. Others like LevenBoy are also less than helpful to a calm, rational discoursive atmosphere. I am glad to see the rules being properly enforced, which is what we need. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that procedure should be followed here. If doubling the block is the way it has been done then it only seems reasonable. Especially so if Triton can be encouraged to not repeat any action (no matter how seemingly innocuous) that might trigger a large conflict with other editors or be seen as deliberately provocative. Encouraging him to engage in other topics for a while once the block is lifted appears to be a good solution. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is standard procedure? so be it. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think DGG's characterization here is an oversimplification. Doubling is not by any means a required or even standard procedure; it's just one way that can be used. No clear opinion on this particular reduction, but the notion that a one-week block cannot be followed by indef is not supported by policy. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it can be followed by indef, but it usually shouldn't; I was referring to what seems the customary arb com AE practice, as an example for us. I suppose we have the right to be more arbitrary than they even on smaller matters than they deal with, and escalate penalties when we are exasperated, instead of being judicious. Blocks are for prevention, and no block longer than a week has yet been tried & perhaps this may make an impression. I do not want to think that our   penalties here have no proportion to the situation, but rather we take it upon ourself  to judge whether someone is likely to be capable of improvement. A practice of    routinely blocking for indef, and then change it if someone says sufficient to make us believe they've repented  strikes me of being very much like  BITE--it will perhaps induce someone to hypocritical statements of conformity, but it will bot produce improvement. Slow increase pressure is much more likely to do so, without driving away editors. The only way to judge improvement is to give the person a chance to show it.    DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Wedging this in here, as it seemed the most logical place: there's an unblock request. I'm not sure I understand it, but I suspect Triton Rocker may think I'm Scottish and consequently not impartial. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 16:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So TFOWR, hows chafing under a cruel westminster fist? Not the best of unblock requests, almost a Personal Attack really. Mayhaps 2 weeks isn't long enough. I also think he should be kept of BISE for at least another week or so after the block expiry, to see if he will try to understand more fully the situation and calm down a bit. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm... more OK with attacks on me than I am with attacks on others. I'm supposed to have a thick skin. In this case, it's not so much an attack as an error - I believe TR may think I'm Scottish/British. I was a British subject (until 2003), and as I (currently) live in Scotland I am subject to Scottish, British and European law. But they're all equally evil, and no more evil than New Zealand law (well, 20% VAT instead of 12.5% GST is pretty evil...) The issue here is: am I biased by virtue of living in Scotland? I don't believe so, but I'm not hugely surprised to see the suggestion that I might be. Every admin I've ever seen working in POV areas has been accused of bias at some point or other. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 09:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible fix
How about we just restrict every editor that has ever posted on WT:BISE from adding or removing the term "British Isles" from articles? Such removal or addition could still be suggested on that page, but could only be actioned by an uninvolved admin. That wouldn't prevent the usual arguments at the talkpage, and we'd probably end up with a few mysterious new accounts/IPs doing the addition and removal, but that could be reverted (again by someone uninvolved) with a link to WT:BISE ... and frankly I can't think of anything else now. The only other option is a complete topic ban and that would be a nightmare to administer and might also stop those editors doing actually useful work. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No probs. Wowsers, that's what I've been practicing all along. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Some editors, mentioning no names, think it's like that already. LevenBoy (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Each has his/her own way of volunteering for these things. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is what the vast majority of editors are doing Black Kite, if you check out the BISE page then you will see progress being made.  If you want to make a wikipedia wide restriction then that might make sense, but penalizing all editors who have ever contributed to the page is neither fair nor needed.  All we have here is one editor who is consistently refusing to change their behaviour even after several blocks.  -- Snowded  TALK  19:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It has merit BK, placing a list of editors (perhaps, as you suggest all of those who edited at WT:BISE- although as Snowded points out there are those from both sides who are not misbehaving) on a form of probation (ie banned from adding/removing the term 'British Isles' and placed on civility parole) and perhaps explaining/outlining how the topic is also under probation could work. Also as an FYI Þjóðólfr popped up again asking for a block review. They're claiming to have read this thread - which is a bit odd-- Cailil   talk 19:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly object.  I for one have never added or inserted the term, but have taken a case by case approach to nominations for insertion or deletion by other editors.  neither have I ever broken any civility rules.  That is also true for the vast majority of editors who have engaged on the page.   Placing those editors under probation is the equivalent of holding the whole school in detention because one kid has scrawled an obscenity on a wall.  -- Snowded  TALK  19:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I know Snowded, and I sympathise, but I'm trying to think of some way to prevent this continually bouncing back to ANI with little result. Please feel free to throw some more radical proposals our way, because I'm really struggling to think how to do this.  (Well, I can think of a very simple method, but it wouldn't be too popular with the subset of editors that it would affect). Black Kite (t) (c) 19:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be very simple to (i) apply progressive bans to editors like Triton rather than a series of one week/one day ones despite no indication he has learnt (ii) adopt a zero tolerance to any personal accusations, speculation on motives etc. A few weeks of that would do the trick.  To be honest the issue which keeps coming here is Triton, otherwise although there is a civility problem its not going too badly at the moment.  I'm not going to even bother with controversial pages (and I have spent a very patient two years here and put up with a lot of abuse) if the reward is to be labeled as needing a "probation".  -- Snowded  TALK  20:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I regularly contribute to that page with a view to attempting to create a rational, NPOV basis for each item discussed and hopefully not be too snippy with people. Under this proposal, would I end up with a block record which any future editor glancing at my profile will think indicates bad behaviour on my part? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would you end up with a block record? Black Kite (t) (c) 19:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I take it that means I wouldn't. Fair enough. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflicts) Hold on we're trying to thrash this out. BK has suggested every editor, I'm not 100% behind that and as I suggested a list. (the next logical step would be to discuss what/who would be on that list). And James - no an editing restriction is effectively a contract made with the community it doesn't come up on a block log unless said agreement is violated. Our other potion is a stricter form of topic probation. No warnings just escalating blocks for anything out of line comment/edit/report etc - I'm not sure how I feel about this or how it would be enforced though, but it's an option-- Cailil  talk 20:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Id suport a complete ban on involved editors adding / removing British Isles from articles, i wouldnt say that should include every single editor thats ever posted on the BISE though. It has always struck me as odd that Triton is the only one actually prohibited from adding or removing British Isles. However i am unclear from the wording exactly what is being proposed. Are we saying that involved editors like myself and highking would not be allowed to propose changes at BISE, only allowed to debate them when raised by uninvolved editors. If that is the case, again i would support that on the condition we deal with all outstanding cases, because there are a few major ones that need resolving. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand BK's suggestion everyone could suggest changes - but per my proposal the restricted would be under a strict civility parole too. My suggestion for a wording would be: "Listed editors are on probation in regard to the British Isles naming dispute. They are banned from inserting, removing or in any way editing the term British Isles or words associate with it anywhere in Wikipedia. Listed editors may still contribute to WT:BISE where they may suggest changes. An uninvolved admin will review these suggestions and may (or may not) make such changes. Listed editors are also subject to civility parole"-- Cailil  talk 20:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This sounds good to me. I would ideally like TFOWR to continue as our "resident admin" if he is agreeable, although presumably others are welcome to take an interest too. Would this mean he would still make the final change for us? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont like the sound of this "civility parole". I do not mind submitting to a complete ban on adding / removing the term BI from wikipedia articles, and i do not mind being extra careful with my comments on the BISE page, but i can not volunteer to be held to a "higher civility" standard elsewhere on wikipedia that would put those of us who agree to this at a disadvantage in debates. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)Ensuring that any insertion or deletion is discussed before a change is made is actual practice for the majority of editors already. So making it a general rule is a very good idea.  Making it a probation should only apply to editors who have broken laws of civility or edit warred.  If you want editors to spend considerable time, and put up with vandalism etc. on controversial pages then some support would be appreciated, not a very unfair label.  So if you want to organise a review of the behaviour of all editors who have contributed and only "list" those who have not behaved properly, but don't start tarring everyone with the same brush.  -- Snowded  TALK  20:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I've thought about this again now, and you're probably right; still, there was no harm in a bit of blue sky thinking.  As far as Triton's concerned, the next block should be indef.  There are only so many times one can test the boundaries. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand too Snowded but we need to thrash things out and yes of course listed people would be those who violated policies. I recognize the good work you and others have done at WP:BISE and consider the topic lucky to have those of you how do work within site policy there. As BK said we need to entertain these thoughts even if we decide not to implement them.  And to be clear if in future broad disruption does occur I would support the above wording being implement only for those who are repeat offenders of site policy not all involved  at WP:BISE-- Cailil   talk 23:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood; I am just contributing to the "thrashing out" and your general interventions on this are most welcome. Personally (as I say below) I think the current sanctions are fine they just need enforcing (but I don't propose thrashing there although it is tempting)  -- Snowded  TALK  05:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Snowded, as far as I can tell that has been the de facto practice all along. My only issue with a general probation about the words and "words associated with them" would that it may hinder some editors form making constructive edits elsewhere. I feel that this may possibly be abused by some to try and lock other editors up. I'd prefer a little bit of leeway for editors who abide by the rules and conventions of the page, but I guess if a blanket ban is needed, the admins would have sufficient discretion. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Beats the hell out of me why for this current situation, we appear to be having trouble managing "Triton Rock" for editing violations, and the hand-wringing and heart-wrenching appeals for run-arounds on what was threatened the last time (and the time before) he violated. And has he demonstrated that he recognizes what the problem is?  His Talk page tells a very different story.  And it bothers me, because hand on heart, I and others know that I wouldn't be treated so leniently.  I've said it from the very start - it's time we applied stricter civility and behaviour standards.  I recommend a review of individual editors recent civility and behavior should be done at BISE and other BISE-related pages and BISE-related postings.  Persistent breaches should result in those editors being placed on a list.  After that, no warnings just escalating blocks for anything out of line comment/edit/report.  --HighKing (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For a couple of weeks now we have had the strict enforcement of comments at BISE, I think its been counter productive and damaged the environment and debate there but as people think thats whats needed there ive gone along with it. The idea that strict civility stuff is spread to other articles which someone deems "BISE related" or "BISE related postings" and would only apply to some editors is totally not fair and completely unjustified. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, since you are one of the editors with a history of disrupting SPI and ANI threads by turning them into anti-Highking rants, and accusing all editors who disagree with you as being on a crusade to rid the WP of the term British Isles, I can understand why you'd want to prevent enforcement of a core policy like civility. And it's not even strict civility - a pattern of systematic incivility has spread like a virus from a hardcore group of editors which is only now being detected and fully appreciated, and it is only right that the community recognizes how damaging, disruptive, unproductive and time-wasting that behaviour is, and takes steps to remedy the situation.  --HighKing (talk) 11:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe my comments are in line with present rules and until i am told otherwise i will continue to make the comments i do. I have been told not to use the term crusade on the BISE page, since being told not to, i have avoided all such comments on that page. The BISE page certainly now does have strict civility enforced, if that is the environment we have to work in fine but such restrictions should not apply to every conversation on the matter of BISE or articles relating to BISE. I think there is clear evidence that a crusade took place to remove British Isles from wikipedia, 100s of diffs can be provided to show this has been taking place. I believe that is at the heart of the disruption, that is the trigger that has caused us all to be involved in this dispute today. I certainly never had any intention to worry about "British Isles" when i originally joined wikipedia, that was until i witnessed attempts to rid wikipedia of the term, including totally unacceptable attempts to move the British Isles article itself as if it was no longer used. All of that of course does not justify anyone breaking the rules, and that includes Triton but the idea that it is those who support inclusion who are to blame for everything simply is not true. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Systematic incivility across a range of articles and Talk pages, directed mainly at a single editor, are hardly "in line with present rules". And I believe a review of recent contributions relating to behaviour and civility for all BISE editors will reveal a telling pattern.  If the powers that be are really serious about knocking this problem on the head, it would take less than 30 minutes to identify a solution that actually targets the problems, rather than proposing a catch-all idea that penalizes those who constructively contribute.  --HighKing (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well according to the debate below such a catch all idea is no longer being considered. Ive said a few times i think it would be a good idea for all "involved editors" to agree to never add or remove British Isles from articles but i agree that it should not be applied to all editors, and it should be a matter of choice to submit to such restrictions as most of us have done nothing wrong. Ive certainly not been adding lots of British Isles to articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's exactly my point. Rather than spend 30minutes examining the behaviour and civility of the editors involved at BISE across the range of articles and Talk pages, the only suggestion is to tar everyone with the same brush, or nothing.  And behaviour and civility extends beyond whether you added lots of British Isles to articles.  --HighKing (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has contributed at WT:BISE, can I say that there is a world of difference between saying "well, you know what the procedure is, so you have no excuse not to follow it" and "you are topic banned from this activity in case you ever decide not to follow the procedure", and I VERY MUCH object to being topic banned for having attempted to make helpful contributions to something. To be a real topic ban (and to answer Jamesinderbyshire's query above which was rather brushed off), it would have to be recorded as such. Yes James, community sanctions such as topic bans ARE recorded centrally and CAN be looked up by other. The idea of adding a civility probation on top of that, due to the extreme civility restriction on the board, is just outrageous.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Myself, I like Black Knights earlier suggest that none of the prior editors add or remove the term from where it or one of the disputed equivalents exist. But I will always oppose jumping to indefinite in situations like this--the situation could have been avoided if progressively longer blocks had been tried earlier, instead of repeated blocks for 1 week or less. We need to treat everyone fairly, & an editing ban about the term, applying to everyone involved, would be the fairest.   DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * At the moment only two editors, Triton and LevenBoy are adding the term without discussion at BISE, all other editors are respecting the BISE process.  Not so long ago ANI agreed to sanction any editor who added or deleted BI without agreement.  So far only Triton has been sanctioned, and has refused to accept the sanction, breaking it after each block.   The remedy is in place and just needs enforcement, along with a no tolerance policy to breeches of WP:Civil.  Fairness is all about enforcing community sanctions, it does not require treating people who have followed the letter and spirt of the rules in the same way as those who have flagrantly and persistently broken them.  -- Snowded  TALK  04:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose such an arbitrary restriction on editors who have just posted onto a given page, the vast majority of contributors there are trying to address the issue, to tar all of them with a topic ban is ridiculous and unjustifiable, if there is an issue with an editor address that editor not the whole of the project. Codf1977 (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * At the moment the system is applied to everyone involved: systematic addition or removal of "British Isles" results in a topic ban; continued additions/removals post-ban result in blocks. I'm open to the idea that we move straight to an effective topic ban on everyone, but "everyone" is the problematic part - everyone at WT:BISE is easy enough to determine, but then there'll be editors who either have no idea that WT:BISE exists, or who know and avoid it like the plague. I like the current (topic ban) system because it can apply to any editor: an editor who has never posted at WT:BISE engages in systematic addition/removal, they get warned (and told about WT:BISE), they continue, they get topic banned. If we now topic ban everyone at WT:BISE we place the good faith contributors at a disadvantage relative to non-WT:BISE editors. I think there are issues we, as a community, need to firm up, however:
 * What scale of blocks are applied to editors who violate their topic ban? This is currently ad hoc. A quick look at TR's block log shows blocks of increasing and diminishing length, varying with the nature of the offence (some of which, in my view, were vios of the topic ban but not logged as such). I've heard at least two suggestions, neither of which provide a clear indication as to at what point we should say "enough!" and move to an indef block:
 * 1:1:1:1 (one day, one week, one month, one year);
 * Double the length each time.
 * Civility. I'm not big on civility blocks, but attacks and incivility have a tendency to escalate drama rapidly and bog down discussions. I don't believe enforcing civility is that much of an issue: we have one or two policies in place that adequately cover this. It is likely, however, to get worse before it gets better - enforcing civility is going to increase in the short term the amount of wikilawyering.
 * Consensus. WT:BISE tends to attract more participants than article talkpages, but that isn't always the case. How do we handle situations where there is a consensus at WT:BISE but article editors haven't participated?
 * I still have confidence in the WT:BISE process, and the issues I've seen are all issues I've seen in other POV areas, but this is one area that seems to appear at ANI far too often. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 10:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Elen just so you understand TR was banned for disruption edits made to to make a point in a topic area under probation. Not because of anything else. And you are incorrect Elen. While we do retain a list of editors who are under active sanction / probation (at WP:GS) but unless they break that it does not appear in a block log. James asked: "would I end up with a 'block record which any future editor glancing at my profile will think indicates bad behaviour on my part?" and that question was answered. As above I'd prefer any such future list comprise only those who have already and are repeating policy violations. While I understand your objection to civility parole I don't agree at all. Over the last 6 months I have seen a number of accounts conflate people's nationality with their motivations which is in breach of every tenet of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:TPG. Such comment creates a poisonous atmosphere and will have to be stamped out. Civility parole happens to be a uniform sanction that is easily understood by outside sysops and is therefore easily enforced.  And as DGG points out if the enforcement had followed the usual escalation in Triton Rocker's case, he may have gotten the point sooner. That said I am not suggesting it be applied generally - just to those repeat offenders-- Cailil   talk 20:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Having been one of those subject to the conflation you mention then I fully support the idea of civility probation if, and only if it is applied to repeat offenders. I think Elen is objecting to it applying to all editors on the page.   Its also worth while having a look at Triton's responses to his recent blog.  They show no sign whatsoever of any recognition of the reasons for multiple blocks.  TFOWR' use of a indef block to try and force acknowledgement was the correct action and its a great pity it was reduced to two weeks without discussion.   We are getting exactly the same drawn out pattern we had with Irvine22 that went on for over a year on a broad range of articles.  Indeed its noticible that Triton used some of Irvine's pet "attack" subjects after the first block.  If you want a radical proposal then ban single purpose editors (reasonably broadly construed).  They are without exception disruptive.  Also reinstate the indef given Triton's unblock requests, its more than justified-- Snowded  TALK  05:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Elen is objecting to it applying to all editors on the page Too bloody right I am. The proposal was to impose a topic ban and civility parole to ALL editors of that page - I can read as well as anyone else.  If that were to happen (and there seems to be support for it among some of the contributors here), then the sanction would HAVE to be listed on the appropriate page, or else it would not be an enforceable sanction.  By all means, if I fail to follow the procedure regarding the use of the term, any admin is welcome to block me, because I DO know the procedure, so I have no excuse for not following it. If I am incivil on the page then block me, as I am aware that the page is on a civility restriction. However, this is worlds apart from attempting to impose a topic ban and civility parone ON ME PERSONALLY, just because I entered into a discussion on a talkpage.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Triton Rocker has asked to be able to defend themselves here, which obviously can't happen while they are blocked. I have advised them to make any such posting on their talk page. It should then be copied over to here. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's kind of you, however Triton Rocker should already be aware of the process from a previous block as well as their current block. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 17:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest we keep things as is. If TR causes trouble again, then 1 month then 3 months. If we unfortunately get to that point, we can discuss where to go next. Other editors don't need to be punished with difficulties on the account of a handful of users who are causing trouble. I'd suggest to administrators that if you think a conduct issue is too minor to enforce by a longer block in regards to this particular user, don't bother because short blocks are evidently not working in this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Snowded mentioned the blocked account of Irvine22, this has caused my sockery senses to heighten. IMHO, the TR account has come across as being similiar to the Irvine22 account (being basically a sh-t disturber). GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * ANI discussion resulting in Irvine22's comm ban. Not seeing a huge connection, myself, but I've zero experience with Irvine22. The one thing that caught my eye was "latest fad is to find any Irish or Welsh person with an English birthplace and label them as “English” or equivalent" - I have seen Triton Rocker do that, though with an editor rather than an article's subject. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 14:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So now people are talking about imposing a topic ban and civility parole on myself, Snowded, James and others because of a sock of Irvine22. Cracking. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect sockery, but an SPI would need to be convened to confirm such a suspicion. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * TR admitted long long ago that he was a returning editor. He did not say of whom. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 11:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Elen, I appreciate your concern but I think it's overstated. I don't at this stage support the topic ban and civility parole, but if it were implemented I truly believe it wouldn't affect you in the slightest. You - and the editors you mention - don't add or remove BI from articles - you discuss the usage at WT:BISE. Likeiwse, I've never known you to be anything other than civil. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 15:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I get a clarification on what the affect of a blanket ruling for all the editors of BISE would be? Right now it seems like everyone will be dumped on a list somewhere to watch, which seems unnecessary. Additionally, people know to be civil, and a defacto system has been built up to inform TFOWR of any incivility. This seems to have improved the situation so far, I reckon we should see what happens with this, let it run its course. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * First there is no support for that. BK mentioned it and then decided against. I stated that it should be applied to a list of repeat offenders only. Currently DGG said it might be the fairest way but I don't see anyone agreeing with that at present. Currently there is no resolution to enforce a blanket sanction. From my reading of this I would suggest that in future if problems persist repeat offenders only would be sanctioned - that is my position and if I understand him correctly TFOWR's. That said from a perusal of edits there is currently far too much ad hominem and incivility in the topic area. For instance this comment by User:Scolaire (which they have been warned for). None of this is acceptable and you all need to understand that this topic is under probation - if editors step out of line it will be sanctioned. If that message doesn't get through and in some cases (and I emphasize some) it isn't. These cases are appropriate for civility parole if behaviour doesn't change soon-- Cailil  talk 18:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * From my reading of this I would suggest that in future if problems persist repeat offenders only would be sanctioned - that is my position and if I understand him correctly TFOWR's. That's correct. My understanding is that that's the current community view: ANI established sanctions to be applied to "repeat offenders". Regarding civility parole, I'd prefer it if it weren't necessary but have no qualms about applying it when needed - the atmosphere turns toxic very quickly. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 20:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fairy snuff. Thanks for clarifying. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the subject of this crazy debate cannot now contribute to it AT ALL (he's been banned from his own Talk page) maybe it's about time it was closed. The situation is quite ridiculous, you'll allow. LevenBoy (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Appears that TR can now edit his own Talk page. LevenBoy (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

He was able to edit his talk page up until just now. I have just revoked that ability because he is persistently posting unblock requests which show a high level of deliberate deafness. As a result he in will not be able to contribute to this conversation for the duration of the block unless he wants to do it by email or something. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A prudent move, Bee. GoodDay (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I do understand the point he is making. Imagine for an instant that he was innocent or that we were dealing with someone who was innocent. The practice not allowing those who are blocked to directly defend themselves of serious charges skewers the playing field. The point that TR made of "copying and pasting comments out of time and context" is a valid complaint. His voice has been distorted. Unfairness breed discontent which breeds drama. This practice should stop.--scuro (talk) 11:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ...but the "injustice" of Triton Rocker's block should be handled through an request: the vast majority of blocked editors don't have their cases discussed at ANI. The original purpose of this thread was to request review of my actions, not Triton Rocker's. (Since then, this thread sprawled into other areas, like the WT:BISE process in general, but that's by-the-by). <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 12:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If judgement comes from the community and the process is: that things are discussed, consensus is reached, and actions are taken....how is it fair that one side is silenced at the start? The current process creates bias, discontent, and drama. An unblock request does not solve the problem. The playing field is tilted before the process even starts.
 * You are right, I am probably not helping things here with another tangent. Point me in the right direction so that the issue can be looked at by the wikipedian community at large. :) I know little about this case but with regards to process I hear what TR stated.--scuro (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But "one side" isn't silenced. One editor has been blocked. Other editors are still free to comment here, and at WT:BISE. Several editors have posted here opposing an indefinite block of Triton Rocker; one admin even reduced the block from indefinite to two weeks. That doesn't suggest - to me - a process that's tilted against Triton Rocker's "side". Really, going forward, this is down to Triton Rocker - if they want to participate in the process they need to learn to comply with the same policies that the rest of us comply with. I hope Triton Rocker takes that on board when their block expires. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 20:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Really I know nothing about this case. My beef is with the process and TR's talk page put that into focus for me. Perhaps he is worthy of the block and he doesn't have a leg to stand on...I wouldn't know and frankly I am not invested in this case. That doesn't mean that the process isn't independently flawed beyond this case. Can not a contributor be blocked and silenced while their critics pile on? Can't such a forum even get onto the process of judgment before the other party has an equal voice? I'd be happy to talk about this somewhere else, and even happier to have community input. Recognize what is wrong and fix it for the betterment of wikipedia. :)--scuro (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually Scuro this isn't a trial. This is a review of a block - not a process by which an editor is being punished. Triton Rocker was blocked for abusing the talk space. His editing privileges on his user page were revoked (by another sysop) when he then abused the unblock template. These actions were taken to prevent further disruption not as a punitive measure. This thread existed to assess the block (whether it its too harsh or not) not to ascribe guilt to TR (that TR broke the rules is not actually in question here - the POV that it is is actually a misunderstanding of what this type of thread is for). And the thread functioned in that other sysops reviewed the block and decided to reduce it, explain why and came to a consensus on it. The points TR is raising in his argument are about other editors - he has never addressed the behaviour that got him blocked hence his comments have been repeatedly off topic and therefore POINTY. You are making an argument that is really about community processes and policy, and you'd be better raising it at the village pump. However I'd advise you that a) ANi is not a court; and b) in the case of RfArs there is an existing practice to unblock editors so that they can ONLY edit at the RfAr (but this is revokable if they abuse the talk space there too)-- Cailil  talk 01:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Really I have no interest in any of this beyond what you stated in your last sentence about revoking a block. I am sorry if I am unfamiliar with the process above or the objective...or if I butted in when I shouldn't have. But my hope is that I can help make wikipedia a more humane place. I just feel that any major wikipedian process whereby a contributor's reputation could be tarnished should not begin until that contributor is on equal footing with his accusers, or at least that they have been given the opportunity to defend themselves on an equal footing. Using your, "revoke of block", example that would mean that a person shouldn't have to worry about getting the revoke AND also worry about another major process that has already started. In such an instance bias is created in such a process by an inability to communicate or distorted communication(cut and paste out of sequence). But if they blow it before they begin with unseemly behaviour...well at least an attempt at fairness was made. Is this idea unreasonable?--scuro (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If TR's reputation is tarnished? it's nobody's fault, but TRs. Having said that, it's TR, who must strive to fix that reputation. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand you're aspiration Scuro but my point is that a block review thread just doesn't fit with what you're talking about. In this situation it is long past the point that that would be helpful, as in order for TR to be in this position, they had to disregard a full series of warnings, numerous community and administrative urgings (including another Ani thread) to abide by policy, disrupt the project to make a point and edit war significantly enough to be topic banned, then ignore that ban 4 times and be blocked for violating that ban, and then blocked again for related incivility. What you're proposing is similar to some mediation strategies and the ideal for what RFC/U should be - it is absolutely a productive and reasonable form of dispute resolution it's just that threads like this one are usually beyond the point that such a strategy is tenable i would suggest taking this to the village pump or to the mediation cabal for feedback on where this would fit and could be implemented-- Cailil  talk 14:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I apperciate the information given. Thank you.--scuro (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)