User talk:TruthWay

Welcome!

Hello, TruthWay, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ground Zero | t 17:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Zero, under no circumstances do I wish to ever converse with you again unless the situation is absolutely unavoidable. Please respect that wish and do not write on my talk page again unless you can not avoid it

Re your messasge

I'm sorry you feel I've made a mistake. My post was not intended to tell the IP to "take Alexnia's apology and shut up", and if it reads that way (which I don't believe it does), it's certainly not intentional.

Re your accusation that Alexnia swore at and insulted the IP editor, I'd be grateful if you could you provide diffs for that.

I'd also be grateful if you could explain why you believe I have 'censored' things. I've removed nothing from any talk pages, and deleted no content (check the page histories).

Re signing posts, from WP:SIG: "Signing your posts on talk pages and other Wikipedia discourse is good etiquette and facilitates discussion by helping other users to identify the author of a particular comment. The responder can navigate to talk pages and address their comments to the specific relevant user(s). Discussion is an important part of collaborative editing because it helps all users to understand the progress and evolution of a work." That explains it better than I could.

Regards, EyeSerene^talk 17:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, your are right you did not censor it, that is my mistake but someone definitely did because before that talk page had a long discussion between the two. The reason I feel someone has removed it is simple - becasue they have. There was a long discussion on that page before and now its gone. That should definitely be addressed

Now about proving he swore at the poster - how can I? It has been deleted. Test Alexnia's honesty and ask him. He might admit there was a discussion involving swearing and insulting.

But the fact the discussion has been removed is part of my point in writing to you, there is simply no way anyone would be happy with someone swearnig at them and insulting them in the exact same thread that the apology took place. What compounds things more is the actions of GroundZero and his contribution in the discussion page. I can not understand how someone can have views such as his and be an admin - that is just not understandable to me

The signature thing is also something many, many writers would object to, which is why I think it should not be a demand which is constantly being made. I generally sign my post, excluding this page but I can not see where the obession comes from. TruthWay (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Truthway,

the claim that I swore at the IP in the Roman A incident is not true but I have to give in that I accidentally got angry at the IP when he kept forgetting to sign his comments since he was already warned by sign bot. But please I hope we can all forget this incident , I've spent 2 hours trying to solve this problem and I will regret it when someone presses Restore.

your regards , Alexnia (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will accept it should die but only after you come clean. Did you or did you not write something like and "ForGodsake" sign your post? If yes then you did in fact swear at that person and that is exactly what me and the poster are reacting to. But just so we are clear, I am much calmer now and it looks like the other person has given up posting completely. I am just trying to clarify where this errupted from. Also, where did the discussion go? EyeSerene stated he did not delete it

TruthWay (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do clarify that I broke the good faith rule by getting angry and posting "forgodsake sign your comment" If you want I won't hesitate to get a few days ban I think I deserve it for you know what case but that was the only word I swore . Can you please verify to me that you are not a sock-puppet of the two IP users who ruined my day. Alexnia (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what two IP users you are talking about - that is a fact. I am also not sure I understand the term sock-puppet but I believe you mean someone working on their behalf. In that regard I am defending one of them, I thought that was obvious. I am not aware of another. I do not wish you to be banned and never implied anything of the sort, in fact I did not see much wrong with your actions other than swearing at him/her. I simply wanted it clarified because it was implied that it did not happen TruthWay (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier version of Alexnia's talk page, just before he archived it, can be viewed here. His comment ("I already reported this incident to the admins and I'm waiting for a response for removal of the warning I also want to notice that I have also wasted my time trying to solve this problem what do want anyway and forgodsake sign your comments.", towards the end of the page) is impolite, but isn't personal, and seems born of frustration on Alexnia's part that he is making an effort to put right his mistake, and believes (incorrectly I think) that his good faith is not being reciprocated. An apology has been made, the incorrect warnings have been removed, and I see no benefit in making a big deal about something that's basically over. There's no chance any admin would block over this.

I don't know what more to say about signatures. It's no more controversial than signing, say, a letter or email. Perhaps it exercises some editors rather more than it should when a newbie constantly forgets, but it's really a non-issue ;) EyeSerene^talk 18:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who said block anything? I was just mentioning it is not correct. I can not believe you agree Eyeserene that an admin swearing at someone is not a problem. The comment clearly says forGodsake. To someone of the Christian faith and possibly others that is the very definition of swearing at them.

Anyway, I have had my say, not sure it has been considered but I have said it. So yes in regards to Alexnia I see no point in continuing. He does appear to try and act on good faith and with conscience, I can not say the same of the other admin in question (not you Eyeserene) but it does not appear to be going anywhere. I believe I made the correct decision in the past

TruthWay (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, my 'block' comment was re Alexnia's post above (he said he would submit to being sanctioned if required, which I wanted to make clear to him was not a concern). Also, 'forgodsake' is a pretty tame epithet - I don't think it would have made my Grandmother blink - but I can understand that some may find it offensive. EyeSerene^talk 18:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those same people would find your comment "Pretty tame epithet" even more offensive. You do not have the right to judge others and decide what they should or should not be offended by. You want to moderate fine, don't presume to tell others what is or is not "tame". Not everyone has a nihilist European attitude toward the world or very weak attitude toward morals (not saying you do). The poster clearly did not like the comment and that is all that was said

Resources for you

On EyeSerene's talk page you suggested that I should ask administrators not involved in Roman Abramovich dispute for comment instead of EyeSerene. As you have engaged me in a side discussion that is not of concern to EyeSerene, I am responding on your talk page, not his/hers.

I have asked two administrators for comment on my behaviour. If you wish to ask others for comment, you may do so at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You may also be interested in reading Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I hope these resources are useful to you. Ground Zero | t 16:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is normal for you to respond to my comments. I accept that

I do suggest you pick a neutral source though. Picking two sources that are British/British Heritage, when involved in a dispute with someone of American Heritage, is far from a neutral platform. The history of Wiki and its admins has proven that time and time again.

I also suggest you stop disrespecting other editors, which you are again doing here

One last thing let me clear something up for you, I did not only suggest getting admins not previously involved, which you did not do anyway, I suggested that and getting neurtal soucres, as in non-British/British heritage. That you did not do either, so basically the two admins you choose are meanlingless. That is like choosing Clan members to arbitrate on a racially motivated incident. TruthWay (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TruthWay, I asked two admins who were familiar with the dispute to comment on my behaviour as a gesture of good faith, and as a good test for myself. You have decided that that is not good enough for you, and have told me what to do to satisfy you. I did not ask for their comments to satisfy you, but for myself. I have given you some advice on how you can get other administrators involved if you wish, and you have chosen not to do so. You cannot reasonably expect any other editor on Wikipedia to do your bidding. If you want other comments on my behaviour, you can solicit them yourself. Ground Zero | t 14:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I told you how to get a fair answer. I never once told you, you should do it at all. The word suggest means to prompt another not tell another. That can be for you or whoever you choose. The way you have done it is pointless and simply a public reconfirmation. Hardly useful when the outcome was an almost certainty. But I am not stupid, I am fully aware of why you brought in the other admins, and I am fully aware why you choose other admins that you did. You want to play silly games with people, insult them and generally be abusive then you should be held accountable. Same goes for the way, you insult someone then throw out a link to the guidelines that way if they report you, you can claim the good little admin who tried to show them the Guidelines when in fact in its really just a tuant and a trick to use as a weapon later should you push for a ban. If you really intended to help you would post the guidelines first not after the fact. You are transparent and anyone that is fooled by you is easily fooled indeed.

You want to sit on articles and prevent them from being neutral by blocking the publics attempts to correct them - then that is your option but it should not be allow and it should be pointed out to you. I am pointing it out to you.

You want to open a discussion by being insultive and then when you get a response you want to pretend innocence, that is also your option but do not expect me to not reply. Also, do not expect me to say "oh sorry really it was my fault" or anything like that because that will never happen. You attack and you will get a defense to your attacks. I will continue to reply so long as you maintain your flippant and abusive style against others, specifically me.

I considered the "other" means first but then thought about the history of Wiki and decided it would be an absolute waste of time and EyeSerene more or less confirmed that for me.

So you do want you want, and I will also. As it stands it appears you choose to use rumors and gossip as supporting evidence for articles when it suites your motives, you appear to prefer to use bullying tatics when you are not getting your own way and in the end you prefer to ignore Wiki's guidelines in reference to yourself but then hold everyone else to your very loose interpentations of them.

Its just a shame that its so easy to become admin and almost impossible to have it removed.

Having said that I believe GroundZero the next step should be Abritration. I have not yet entered a request but it will be the next step should your actions continue. I would like to use other means but sadly none actually exist that are correct for this issue

TruthWay (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration should not be the next step, but the last step. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee:

"Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process–it is a last resort, only to be employed when all else has failed. Try other steps first, including discussion between disputants and, where appropriate, mediation. The Arbitration Committee only deals with the most serious disputes and cases of rule-breaking."

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Mediation would be more appropriate places to start, but of course it is up to you to decide how you want to proceed. I will continue working to improve the article. Ground Zero | t 12:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation has nothing to do with this issue. Given the lack of options Arbitration is the next and only step. I am trying to decide if its worth it. The truth is the average admin has the same holier than thou attitude so its unlikely to help the bigger picture, and from my perspective it is equally unlikely that you would learn anything

I don't need you posting links or version of explanations - its more than obvious I am aware of the process since I mentioned the steps. All the other steps have been used and Mediation has nothing to do with this. With regards to the article its hopeless and its hopeless because you either do not understand how to edit/admin or are not willing to do so. That is a seperate issue TruthWay (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]