User talk:Badgerpatrol/Archive 2

Zoe's talk page
Hello, Badgerpatrol. Regarding the question in your edit summary, Zoe has left Wikipedia. It seems that she was very badly hurt by the public rebuke which, in my view was undeserved, since (regardless of whether you agree with her reaction to Pierce's assignment or not) she was certainly acting in good faith, and had absolutely no way of knowing that the matter had been dealt with. While I'm quite happy that Jimbo put a stop to the contacting of Mr Pierce and the University, I don't think that it's a simple case of Stop=good and Leave-to-continue=bad. If Jimbo had simply posted a message saying that he had spoken to Mr Pierce on the phone, Mr Pierce had apologized and promised not to do it again, and Jimbo wanted the matter dropped, I think the matter would have been dropped. So it would certainly have been possible to put a stop to it without humiliating Zoe. Then we have to ask did humiliating and hurting Zoe bring any benefit to the encyclopaedia that would outweigh the disadvantage? I can't see that it did. While I'm not Zoe, and therefore have no obvious right to revert comments on her talk page, I do strongly believe (you'll find evidence of this if you look through my posts on user talk pages and on project pages) that people have the right to remove unwanted comments from their own pages if they wish (other than things like block notices for the duration of a block), and I have seen Zoe removing such comments before. Wikipedia, as the anon said, is not censored. But that simply means that we can't go around removing images of private parts of the body from articles on those subjects. It does not mean that we have to condone kicking someone who's down. Most decent people do not post "I-told-you-so" messages to someone who has been publicly smacked and is upset, and is leaving. Unless you actually want to cause further pain to Zoe, I would strongly urge you not to restore that comment. It's in the history if she wants to read it. I can state categorically that she would not want it left there. Musical Linguist 13:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. the orange bar lit up with your message as I was previewing this. I opened in another window in my browser. If there's anything in particular to respond to, I might reply later.

I am unable to respond to ML's post as his page is locked so I will leave this here:

I think the attacks on my edits have been pretty amazing - Wikipedia needs to decide what it's about - either IP addresses can edit or they cannot. If they can edit, then the edit needs to be taken on their merits. My remarks on Zoe's page have been taken as kicking her while she is down - I don't see it that way. Surely an administrator needs to be able to take and listen to honest remarks about conduct - it's not like I'm saying that Zoe is a terrible person or a terrible admin. As for "kicking her when she is down" - I really don't see that, people some times wish to hear honest feedback - but that's why it should be given. There is frankly not much reflective practice from everyone gathering in a circle-jerk saying "come back and let's forget about it!" - far more productive to say "come back and let's learn from this". I also like how Elaragirl talks about my posts being trolling and then slurs everyone at the University of Leeds - nice double standard there. There is a very very basic point at threat here - the right of IP addresses to comment (nobody says they have to listen) and the ability for ordinary wikipedians to be able to comment on events - trying to silence people is never the answer. And no I will not get a account - wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, if you don't like that, you need to change policy - not whine at people who are keeping within and acting with good faith. --129.11.76.230 15:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * cross-posted from my talk page, replying to Badgerpatrol
 * First of all, please do not mischaracterize my remarks. Nowhere did I say or even imply that Jimbo's remarks were "designed to humiliate or hurt Zoe". Of course they were not. My regret is that in posting his remark at AN/I, he did not make sufficient effort not to hurt or humiliate her. If you've ever read Emma, you may recall that Emma made a rather cruel joke to the village bore, and was later reprimanded by Mr Knightley. It's obvious that Emma wasn't motivated by a desire to hurt or humiliate Miss Bates; the problem was that not hurting Miss Bates was not sufficiently high on her priorities to prevent her from saying what she did. I disagree that Jimbo apologized, by the way. He softened his statement, and I appreciate that he did that. But to say he's sorry if his remarks sounded harsh is not apologizing in the sense of acknowledging some blame. ("I'm sorry your wife died" is not a confession of murder.) Nor do I feel any wish to post any "you-should-apologize-to-Zoe" messages on his page. I think too highly of him to believe that he isn't sorry that his hastily-worded public rebuke caused so much pain. And I wouldn't be surprised if he is trying to undo some of that hurt by private e-mail &mdash; though that really isn't my business, or anyone else's.


 * It's interesting, though, that Jimbo is generous enough not to turn up at her talk page and start posting "I hope you've learned your lesson", "I hope you'll learn something from this", "I hope you'll listen to other people in future", "I hope you won't be so arrogant again" "have you apologized to Pierce yet?" type of messages. As I believe his remark at AN/I was a once-off, hastily-written, completely uncharacteristic post from a very kind person who has always, except in this instance, shown huge respect for the dignity of other people, I do not think he would be happy with people posting that stuff on her page now. To say that some of the remarks on her page were not uncivil is to miss the point. It is unkind to add to the hurt she's feeling. It won't achieve anything. It will make it more difficult for her to come back. And if the motive of those "I-hope-you've-learned-your-lesson" posts is to make her feel some contrition, then there's even more reason to remove them, since even elementary psychology should tell you that they're likely have the exact opposite effect.


 * I disagree entirely with your statement that the benefit of the rebuke ensuring that Zoe "doesn't do it again" outweighs the disadvantage of hurting and humiliating her, as you fail to consider if a gentler method would also have ensured that she "doesn't do it again". A public statement (preferably immediately after his phonecall to Pierce, though it seems that he wasn't online for several days, so that may not have been possible) on AN/I saying that Pierce had apologized and had promised not to do it again, and a private e-mail to Zoe, expressing some his dissatisfaction would have been perfectly adequate. Nobody has suggested that Zoe would do it again if Jimbo had told her, nicely, that he'd prefer that such matters were left to the Foundation.


 * As for your concern about Zoe attempting to precipitate an investigation by Pierce's employers (if he didn't promise never again to set an assignment for his students to vandalize Wikipedia &mdash; you leave out that bit), while I certainly wouldn't have done what she did, I think that if what Pierce did was completely inoffensive, his employers would just think Zoe was a crank, and if it was something disgraceful, then it wouldn't be wrong to make them aware of it. I wouldn't want people contacting my employers, and I certainly wouldn't have contacted Pierce's, but the posts on AN/I about Zoe trying to ruin a man in the real world and get him sacked were as OTT as people say Zoe's reaction was. If I put paper in the bin instead of recycling it, and you tell my employer, it won't harm me in the least. If I molest children and you tell my employer, it will cause me serious harm, and it will serve me right. If Pierce had not refused to give an assurance to Zoe that he wouldn't do it again, or if Jimbo had informed us at AN/I that Pierce had given that assurance to him this distressing situation could have been avoided.


 * One final point &mdash; I notice that you suggest that my eyes "are too blinkered to accept just and good-faith criticism just because it is directed at friends". Aren't you jumping to conclusions? It's almost insulting to suggest that the only possible reason I could have for wishing to spare another human being further distress is that she's a buddy of mine. Look at the favourite quotation at the top of my talk page. (And don't bother to say that the message I removed wasn't a "taunt": King Lune would certainly have considered it unmanly to go to someone's talk page with "honest criticism" when that person is smarting from a public rebuke from the Founder.) My history on Wikipedia shows that I am totally against adding further humiliation to people who have been in some way humiliated, regardless of whether I like them or not. I try to refrain from posting on talk pages of blocked users with whom I've been in dispute. I recently asked somebody not to revert a user I had indefinitely blocked who was removing other people's comments from his talk page, as I thought, he's been blocked anyway, so let him keep a little dignity.) For the record, I know nothing about Zoe. We've never edited the same articles. Before this happened, I think I had posted twice ever on her talk page. I never checked her talk page messages. I have had a very, very limited amount of e-mail correspondence with her &mdash; relating to a user she had blocked, who had come back under a different identity, and about whom I also e-mailed other admins. This has nothing to do with supporting a friend. This has to do with the fact that not adding to someone's humiliation is apparently higher on my priorities than on yours or on 129.11/76.230's.


 * I not do not intend to be drawn into any further discussion about Jimbo's role in this. For one thing, I like him, and think that he generally does a great job. (His contributions show that he was not around for a few days before making that post, and that he didn't post anything else for nearly two days afterwards, so that would explain why Zoe wasn't told that the matter had been dealt with, and suggests also that he was particularly busy and just forced himself to take time to write a message to put a stop to the whole matter.) For another, I believe that lengthy discussion about his handling of this matter &mdash; or of any other &mdash; is not good for the Project. My view on Zoe is that she's hurt, and that if you can't bring yourself to post something kind, you should stay away from her talk page. Zoe is a human being; she is not a Wikipedia article that has to report all points of view. Musical Linguist 21:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If Zoe had been reasonable from the out set there would have been no need for Wales to step in. Still she shows no contrition, judging from the strawman (Wales supports vandals) argument she has left on her user page. Being outraged at the messengers misses the whole point. David D. (Talk) 15:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Badgerpatrol, we'll have to agree to differ on this, but I do thank you at least for keeping the discussion civil. I have never had very much contact with Zoe, and was not in any way involved in the Pierce discussion, but I can assure you that if you were upset and left Wikipedia in similar circumstances, then regardless of whether or not I liked you, and regardless of whether or not I felt that you had been in the wrong, I would certainly feel distressed at seeing people turning up at your talk page to offer unsolicited advice about not being so arrogant in future, or to hope you had learned your lesson, and I would take exactly same approach. Regards. Musical Linguist 00:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Your statement is unwelcome. Feel free not to bother replying.
I don't have to justify myself to you. I don't assume good faith when someone starts off with "whitewash" and continues on by saying she's intransigenent and dismissive of the community. The only reason I can see you getting involved in this is that you are one of these people who likes to put the idea of "good faith" in front of common sense. It's clear Zoe was hurt. It's clear comments like this aren't seen as constructive by MULTIPLE PEOPLE. The idea that it's okay for some random IP to make what I happen to see as uncalled for remarks, and that we should let them stand and not call trolls trolls is .. mindboggling. If the issue is settled, why make the comment? I can't assume good faith on the IP's, part, and after you called Peter a hypocrite (nice personal attack, by the way) I can't consider that you're really thinking about Zoe or acting in good faith either. I have no intention of kowtowing to some interfering passerby simply because YOU feel outraged. -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 00:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * By the by, it's probably rather hypocritical to accuse someone else of being a hypocrite, and accusing someone of personal attacks, when you make statements like "an indication of the level of her intellectual capabilities" in a manner that indicates they are subpar. It is always nice to know when someone is talking out both sides of their mouth. -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 00:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just ignore them badgerpatrol, I side with you on this one. FYI, I reverted another blanking of the section on Elara's talk page by Peter. David D. (Talk) 04:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, it even escalated a bit from there too. Anyway, I've said my piece that's enough drama for me. David D. (Talk) 09:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Smiley Award
Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

 For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Awardoriginated by Pedia-I  (Explanation and Disclaimer) Bushcarrot ( Talk·Desk ) 21:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

RFC/discussion of article World War II
Hello, User:. As a prominent contributor to World War II, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:World War II, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- Krellis 01:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate place for comment in WWII dispute
Hi Badgerpatrol. I've noticed you participating in this dispute for some time. I think you meant to put your comment under "Statements by editors previously involved in dispute". Please move it to the appropriate place. Haber 17:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary
If you are going to follow me around and change content, please be careful not to mark as "minor" something that is a significant change. I am talking about this edit. See Wp:edit if you are unsure how to summarize your edits. Haber 00:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)