User talk:Zsero/Archive Indiana

Removal of another editor's comments
Please do not remove comments left by an editor on someone else's talk page. I understand you have a running disagreement with this editor, but right or wrong, it is not your place to remove someone else's comments on someone else's page, as you did here. In addition, do not edit another another editor's comments as you did on WP:AIV here. Wikipedia has a place for discussions and administrator intervention, as you know, at WP:AIV. Please wait for admin help there, and do not engage in an edit war while waiting. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comments at WP:ANI
Please don't continually revert. Please realize that by refusing to discuss these issues and abide by wikipedia rules, you are willfully violating WP:3RR and engaging in edit war. Discuss the matters at WP:AIV, please. I understand that you're upset at the situation, but violating the policies of wikipedia just to make a point won't help. Snowfire51 (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a game. Even if I were violating WP policies, which I'm not, are those policies more important than doing the right thing?  There are real people behind those accounts and IPs, with real feelings, and real legal rights not to be defamed.  Put yourself in their shoes and think how you'd feel to find those accusations on your talk page.  -- Zsero (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, please don't. Regardless of your feelings, you're not qualified to judge another editor's comments and warnings by yourself. Please let due process handle this. Snowfire51 (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * and if you need help, ask for it. DGG (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry for the random comment that a banned sockpuppet left on your page, I seem to be making friends of the wrong sort today.

By the way, I didn't further revert anything last night, and I won't. Other admins have defended your actions, and that's good enough for me to verify something's going on that will take some investigation. Good luck with the situation at WP:ANI, hopefully with other editors and admins getting involved, that situation will be resolved soon. Good luck! Snowfire51 (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. Vegetationlife (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. &mdash; slakr \ talk / 22:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Except that it isn't a personal attack. It is a warning from another editor who believes what they saw was link spamming. Daedalus (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * An accusation of spamming is inherently defamatory and a personal attack. -- Zsero (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:NPA. I'm afraid you're wrong. - auburn pilot   talk  23:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Spammers are objects of intense hatred. Alleged spammers routinely get threats.  Just look around the 'net to see how much they are despised.  Nowadays an accusation of spamming is almost as bad as one of paedophilia or racism.  It's per se defamation, just as in an earlier era accusations of homosexuality or having "a loathsome disease" were per se defamation.  This was no gentle warning template, it was a page-full of near-gibberish (to an outsider) like a scarlet letter.  No user should have to log on to WP and confront such an accusation on their talk page, when they had in fact done nothing wrong.  -- Zsero (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You also removed conflict of interest warnings, which usually draws considerably less heat on the internet than spammers. -- slakr  \ talk / 23:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If the coi template had been the only such warning there, I'd have left it, with an assurance to the user that she should ignore it and was entitled to remove it if she liked. But as it was, it was part of a whole, the total effect of which was a false and defamatory accusation.   I point out that removal of libelous material is in fact one of the listed exceptions from 3RR. -- Zsero (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That may be the case sometimes, however, this is Wikipedia. If there is a warning, it will be looked into.  It is how things work around here.  Warnings aren't supposed to be gentle, nor are they supposed to be hard.  Only blunt.  Walking around the bush is unncessary.  Although some of your opinions may be just, it still stands that you are not allowed to remove such warnings, only the user or an admin is.  Those are the rules for this site, whether you like them or not, you need to follow them. Daedalus (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I keep trying to tell you, this is not a game. WP rules are not the most important thing, and they must give way before common sense and decency.  An accusation likely to hurt the user and scare them away from WP should not be left up because of overly-zealous adherence to some picayune rule (not that I believe I have actual broken any such rule).  -- Zsero (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, hasn't Daedalus gone over 3RR too? Considering that the consensus at ANI seemed to be that the warnings he was restoring was unwarranted, he can't claim to be undoing vandalism. He certainly can't claim to be undoing defamation. So what exactly justifies his edit-warring? -- Zsero (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And I keep telling you to stop saying that, I know it isn't a game. But guess what, rules are not always a thing in games.  Such as rules we have in the USA to not kill another person.  Rules are not strictly for games, as it seems you think.  As for common sense and decency, you were already told you were wrong by two admins.  They are important here, whether you believe so or not.  If they were not, vandalism would run rampant, with no sign of stopping.  We wouldn't have a police force(the admins) to keep others in check who do such things.  Rules are dearly important here.
 * The USA has laws, not rules. But even laws are not the most important thing in the world, and there are times when it is right to ignore them.  Here, however, we are not discussing a law, let along a divine edict, but an internal rule of one web site, and what's more, one that has a provision for IAR.  Such rules certainly do not stand before more important considerations.  In this case I do not concede that I broke any rules, but in the even that I did those rules needed to be broken.  -- Zsero (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * However, if this was not a time that they needed to be broken, and in fact, as stated by an an op. You were wrong.  Also:"1. In general, a rule of being or of conduct, established by an authority able to enforce its will; a controlling regulation; the mode or order according to which an agent or a power acts. [1913 Webster]"  So yes, they are the same thing, at least at WP.  And although you did not state it in your post again, the fact that you were implying that I think WP is a game is insulting. Daedalus (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In reguards to your above post, yes. It takes two to edit-war. However, I justify my reverts, in that they were reverts to the orignal, as stated, only the user in question, or an admin, may remove said warnings. Later I made a mistake, and reverted my own mistake, noting it. You however did not see your own mistakes, and used mine as 'justification' to continue what you thought was right. Second. I read the discussion at ANI, it did not state that they were unwarnnted, simply that they were overkill. However, whatever the consensus at ANI may be, it is not your place to remove said warnings.

And last, but not least, is it an edit war when one continuely removes vandalism by another user? Removeing warnings is. Whether you think it or not. Daedalus (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted User:Ashleylmack and explained the situation to her, and she has blanked her talk page, which she has every right to do. And if the false accusation is reposted to her talk page she will know what is going on and she will blank it herself. Therefore I can in good conscience promise that I will not do so for her. Thus there is no longer any reason for me to remain blocked, whichever way you look at it. -- Zsero (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have requested additional eyes on this at the administrators' noticeboard diff. R. Baley (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that User:Daedalus969 is at it again, restoring false accusations to User talk:Klpalmer‎, User talk:Stephena‎, User talk:134.68.173.135‎ and User talk:134.68.172.247‎. K. L. Palmer and Stephen A. have not edited since mid-2006, so they're unlikely to be directly harmed by coming across this themselves, but is that a reason for false accusations to remain there forever? Is Daedalus969 not edit-warring by restoring it, just to make a WP:POINT?

In any case, the situation is as follows: I was blocked for reverting User Talk:Ashleylmack more than 3 times, and at the time I could not promise not to keep doing so if unblocked. As soon as I contacted Ms Mack this morning I did make this promise. As far as the other pages are concerned, if unblocked, I will revert them once. If Daedalus continues to vandalise them, I will not edit-war with him/her but seek help from others. There is no issue at any other page. Thus, there is no reason for me to remain blocked. Keeping me blocked serves no preventative purpose, and is therefore by definition against the rules that the blockers hold so dear. Meanwhile, could someone try to make Daedalus see reason? -- Zsero (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not vandalizing anything. You are not the owner of others' talk pages, and therefore do not have the right to remove warnings, unjust or not.  Only admins and the user in question may do such.  You are not an admin, and what you are doing is closer to vandalism then what I am.  The reason you should remain blocked is because you feel you have the right to remove warnings of another's userpage because of your opinion of said warnings.  Until you can understand that this is wrong, and you should not do such things, I cannot see why you should be unblocked. Daedalus (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not blocked for removing warnings, I was blocked for 3RR. Since I have said I will not repeat that offense, I am entitled to be automatically unblocked.  As for low-level edit-warring, that is exactly what you have done by restoring the false accusation.  -- Zsero (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ashleylmack has removed the false accusations from her page, and the accusations on the other four pages have now been removed by an admin. I hope that satisfies Daedalus, and s/he will no longer keep restoring them. I can now promise that I will not edit-war on any of those pages, therefore there remains no reason at all why I should continue to be blocked. -- Zsero (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reguarding those pages, it has. However, I will not be happy, not that it matters, until you understand that you cannot remove warnings on any user talk page but your own.  Your wording was very specific. Daedalus (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't care whether you're happy, so long as you will not continue to put those false accusations on these users' pages, and therefore I will have no cause to remove them. Since that is the case, continuing my block would seem to be against the very rules that you feel so passionately about.  -- Zsero (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Daedalus, an incorrect warning can be removed by anyone. As for the warnings in question, in the case of a GOOD FAITH user linking to an academic resource, as opposed to someone spamming their personal website, it is much more helpful to engage the user than to template them.  By leaving a personal message, you can be welcoming to a new user and invite a discussion on the appropriateness of this link.  We obviously have no idea who this user is relative to the school, but when academics want to contribute to Wikipedia, we should WELCOME THEM, not template them. --B (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for the clarification. I cannot remember who put the other idea in my mind, either way, thankyou. Daedalus (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi B, I wish you would talk to Hu12 about this, after his last comment at AN, I was unable to type anything in keeping with WP:Civil. Sorry Zsero, I'm going to have to step away from the Wiki for a bit.  R. Baley (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As I wrote here, the root of this problem still remains. No one who was involved in this edit war and three-day go-round is sorry for their actions, because the original question that inspired the WP:3RR violations hasn't been addressed and everyone still feels as if they were acting in the right. If that's not settled with admin attention, we're just setting ourselves up for another round. Snowfire51 (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a good point. We could flip a coin to see who "wins" or we could just settle with everyone was a little bit right and a little bit wrong.  Both sides were wrong to edit war.  Both sides were wrong to use the rollback button in a dispute.  Daedalus969 and Hu12 were wrong to reinstate the warnings and not consider something more appropriate (like a personal message).  Call it a draw? --B (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And in the meantime, while we're doing all this, can we unblock me? I remind you that according to the rules, since there is no prospect that unblocking me will lead to an edit war or other rule violation, there is no reason for my remaining blocked. -- Zsero (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I 100% agree, but I'm also not going to unilaterally override the blocking admin on this. It's probably moot at this point as it will expire in 2 hours on its own, but except for an incorrect/abusive block, admins tend to get desysopped for undoing each other's blocks without overwhelming support from other admins. --B (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then what's the point of the unblock template? Isn't that supposed to be reviewed by any uninvolved admin, who should make their own decision?  And don't the rules require that when a block is no longer preventative it must be removed?  -- Zsero (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, what the heck, it's only two hours left, the blocking admin says on AN that he doesn't care all that much. I have removed the block.  Please stay away from Daedalus and the issue that resulted in the block. --B (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the welcome. I was not aware that adding the links would cause such a fuss. I was simply hoping I could get some useful information to the public. Are you an administrator on Wikipedia? I am not too sure how the system works and I wanted to know who keeps tabs on all of the information going in and who is it that makes these kinds of "spamming" accusations and such. If nothing else I will be sure to keep tabs on my account from now on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleylmack (talk • contribs) 15:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Go you
Just wanted to say how nice it is to see someone stand up against injustice - well done. Vegetationlife (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback restored
I've restored your rollback. Using it on Hu12 and Daedalus969 was not a great idea, but fair enough, they did the same and since they've still got it, so why should you be picked on? Like I said, if you come across something like this in the future, please get other admins involved. I'll be glad to help. Mistakes happen, people over-react, we are none of us perfect. All the best and good luck! Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)