User talk:BostonMA/RegardingDBachmann

This is an archive page. Please do not edit this page without permission. If you would like to comment, please do so at User talk:BostonMA. Thank-you.

dab

I see you have also had run-ins. His comments are totally incivil. I even agreed with his edit, but I took issue with the racist garbage spouted on the edit summaries and talk pages (including our "discussion").Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Dbachmann's comments on Indians

I saw on your user page a section as noted above, and also read the relevant "discussion". I think virtual communities like wikipedia exposes many persons' real intent and mentality. They may retract later on fearing the backlash of the community, but they are what they are! Please do not worry - Abraham Lincoln had concluded: you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. Either the wiki-community has to get rid of proponents of racialism or the self-respecting wikipedians have to say good bye to wikipedia. The choice is ours, and there is always light after the tunnel. Please do not feel perturbed, and please continue to remain active. Regards. --Bhadani 02:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Really sad. --Bhadani 03:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

bAd

User:bostanMA , nothing good is going to come out of your comments in his talk page. He will just remove your comments and will claim you were trolling.-Bharatveer 11:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Bharatveer 16:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Mahabharata

Yes i know that story. Best Regards.-Bharatveer 14:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

User page

I must say, I find Alex Bakharev hit the nail on the head. The issue of dab's unfortunate comment, made in a time of high stress and subsequently interpreted in ways he did not intend, is really yesterday's snow. I suggest we all just let it rest. I do not think that keeping a constant reminder to the episode on your user page was in any way beneficial to our mutual goal of building an encyclopedia. I suggest that you just remove it and be done with it. As has been shown recently, it proves to be a pitfall for people like Bhadani, who stumble upon it and don't know the full history and then get a harsh response, since having an unfortunate remark pointed out even after so much time is unnerving. It's also—whether you intended that or not—a lure to draw out dab to react to it. In my opinion, it's poor style. The time spent on this matter would be invested better in writing decent encyclopedia articles. All the best, Lupo 13:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lupo, thank you for your comments. I am quite sure that you have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, as do many of us. However, as is often the case, although we may hold similar things dear to us, we may see things in differnt lights. I know that dab may be reading this, which makes explaining how I see things somewhat awkward, as this comment is not meant as a personal attack on dab. However, since you are coming to me, and engaging me, I feel I ought to respond with honesty, but with as much gentleness as I am able.

The unresolved issues that I expressed to dab here remain unresolved. Rather than becoming ameliorated over time, these issues have become, in my opinion, more aggrevated. Dab has been a prolific editor, and is very knowledgable. That is his asset to Wikipedia. However, he also has qualities, which in my opinion are very detrimental to his working cooperatively with other editors, and these qualities have been becoming more pronounced.

From your comments, I gather that you believe that the heart of the current conflict is an old comment, an "unfortunate comment" that was made long ago, and is best forgotten. However, from my point of view, this is not the case. The behavior that led to the older conflict is habitual and ongoing. If the most recent unresolved issue with dab that I have recorded is old, this is due to my lack of interest in pursing the matter. At each step, dab has stated that he is unwilling to discuss further, and my instincts told me that raising new grievances would not help the resolution of the conflict. On the other hand, the essential ingredient to all of my later grievences with dab are found in the earlier conflict. Reduced to its bare essentials, in my opinion, dab has difficulty accepting that he may have done something wrong, and has difficulty trying to make amends with those he has alienated.

I offer to you as an example, the recent episode with Bhadani. Bhadani is one of the most forgiving persons I have met on Wikipedia. If dab were to truly show some understanding of the fact that he failed to assume good faith, that his invective toward Bhadani and toward other editors was inappropriate and unbecoming of an administrator, if dab truly understood how hurtful his comments have been, not once many months ago but repeatedly, and attempted to mend his fences, and to change his behavior, then I have not a doubt in my mind that Bhadani would forgive dab his past. Not a doubt.

So, I ask you to consider that there is another side to this story, and that perhaps you may want to, if you care about dab, gently remind him of things such as that he should not be demanding civility as his "right" against others, when he is unwilling to treat those others with civility and dignity. You may wish to remind him that those who are annoyed with him do not constitute a grand conspiracy of ignorant editors. You may wish to remind him that it is unnecessary to mention the ethnicity of editors when making derogatory comments about their edits.

I am sorry. I had intended to be calm. I should perhaps let this comment sit for a day, for rewriting, but I too grow impatient, and tired of misbehavior, and so, probably with a certain degree of poor judgement, I submit this to you. Thank you again for your interest in doing what is best for Wikipedia. Sincerely, --BostonMA 01:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 01:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I am saddened by your response. All your commentary rests indeed on this one comment of his and the interpretation third parties have attached to it. Dab has clarified repeatedly what the circumstances and his intentions were. If people pop up nearly a year later on his talk page, enraged and unaware of the history and still chide him for that frustrated comment (which is by no means indicative of his usual attitude), it's no wonder they're brushed off courtly. And, I'm sorry to say, you are guilty for this to happen, too: that's what I meant with my statement that your prominent continued mention of this old incident was a pitfall for the unwary.

You also seem to have concluded (despite your stated "lack of interest in pursing the matter") that dab was habitually rude. That, however, may apply only to his reactions in this matter, on his own talk page. (In my opinion, he'd do best not to answer at all.) I perceive your sweeping statement as a gross misrepresentation. In fact, you will find that most of his edits are to articles, and his article talk page comments mostly are about the article subject, and only very rarely about an editor's behaviour. Dab has no patience with the incompetent, and, given his deep knowledge of liguistic topics, it's not always easy to convince him in the rare cases when he makes a factual error. But I have never seen his discourse on article talk pages, brusque as it may be, descend to a personal level. The isolated incident way back is not indicative of his usual discourse. His actions before and since then clearly show that. Your repeated mention that it is "unnecessary to mention the ethnicity of editors" misses the point completely in this case, as he doesn't do so routinely, as you imply.

The "how hurtful his comments have been, not once many months ago but repeatedly" can of course also be turned around. Can you imagine how hurtful it may be to be accused of one error, not once many months ago but repeatedly? Furthermore, can you imagine how this must look to someone who's prime reason for contributing here is to write encyclopedia articles? It's no wonder he reacts (maybe overly) harshly when prompted about this for the umpteenth time on his talk page. And again, that it occurs repeatedly is also your doing.

I don't think anything good will come from continuing to keep to this "issue" alive. Most of the involved parties care about the encyclopedia, and will get along reasonably well on technical terms. That's good enough. Insisting further makes it look like some people were just trying to be disruptive on purpose. I don't like disruption; people should write decent encyclopedia articles instead. Hence I ask you again to bury the issue and to remove that section from your user page. Keeping it is doing more harm than good; it's only aggraving a situation that many other people (so I gather from the assorted recent comments) consider a non-issue or at least an issue long closed, and makes it look like you just wanted to prove something. Not investing the time to truly check your premises ("lack of interest in pursing the matter") is outright negligent, and making sweeping diffuse allegiations ("later grievences") is detrimental to the point you're trying to make.

Sincerely, Lupo 08:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lupo. Thank you for your comments. I appreciate that you wish to protect Wikipedia and significant contributors from spurious attacks. That is a praiseworthy goal. However, I believe that you misunderstand the facts in this case.

You begin by stating that all my commentary rests on a single comment. That is not so. As I stated before, there is an ongoing issue. I have added a few of the more recent events to my user page for your benefit. However, if you are unconvinced, I suggest you a) research the issue further, b) ask dab for his appraisal, and if you are still unsatisfied, you may come back to me, and I will do my best to clarify things for you.

I agree that leaving an old comment on my user page, rather than more recent comments, provided an opportunity for editors who did not look at dates to get the mistaken impression that the comment was recent. However, this was not my intention. Rather, the comment was posted on my userpage 9 months ago. Dab was notified of it, and in the course of discussion repeatedly expressed that he was not interested in discussing with me, and so the issue remained in the Issues to Resolve section of my userpage, and I let the issue lie dormant.

My comment that I did not want to pursue the matter, meant that I was not going to pursue dab and try to engage him in a discussion that he did not want to have. I was not going to post annoying messages on his talk page, I was not going to file an RfC against him, I was not going to poke at him every time he did something I objected to. With one, or possibly two exceptions, over a period of nine months, I left him alone, and made no comments. That does not mean that I didn't notice his behavior.

I have stated that I find dab's reference to national, religious and ethnic attributes of editors objectionable. You argue that "the famous" quote was an isolated incident, and that he doesn't do so "routinely" as "I imply". Again, I ask you to research the matter, or ask dab's appraisal, and if you are unsatisfied, you may come back to me and I will attempt to clarify the matter for you.

You ask if I can imagine how hurtful it may be to be accused of one error, not once, but repeatedly. Of course I can. Although those defending dab's behavior have stated that his comment was an "error", as far as I am aware, he has never stated that his comment was an "error". Further, if dab had wished to avoid having his comment brought up repeatedly, the easiest course of action he could have taken, which would have taken all of maybe two lines, would have been to apologize for any unintended offense that he may have caused. I am sure that would have greatly reduced the occurances where his comments were brought up to him. I warned him long ago that he had harmed his relationship with Indians, and that an apology would be a wise course. However, instead of heading this advice, he attacked the messenger, as you seem to be inclined to do.

Your comment that "not investing the time to truly check your premises ... is outright negligent". I had asked dab recently why he was treating me as a troll. I was therefore thankful that he gave an honest answer, and I have no intention of berating him for explaining why he may have had a bad impression of me. However, for him, it was a conjecture that I had not read the Arbcom case, or the Rajput dispute before coming to him. You however, have turned his conjecture into a fact. If you care to research the matter, you will see that I did do my research prior to bringing the matter up with dab.

Thank you again for your comments. Although I do not agree with them, I think it is important to keep lines of communication open, and to hear what each other has to say. Sincerely, --BostonMA 13:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Dab

Hi. Sorry if you feel I'm intrusive. I've been watching the discussions around the now famous quote of Dab. Let me tell you what I feel. Dab's presumption that Bhadaniji was a troll is completely unacceptable (howmuchever understandable). However, I stand with him on the other issue that his comment merits only an apology for "unintended offense" to Indians. It was intended to be offensive to the person(s) he was referring to not "Indians in general". This I say after initially taking exception to his comment in an RfC and then reading his clarification and his "apology" if people had (understandably) mistakenly associated a "sh*thole" with an "arsehole" (as I did). He has given a link to this instance in his comment on your userpage. After providing that, in my opinion, he's right to refuse to discuss that matter further. What do we expect from a person constantly being asked the same question over and over again based on the same mistaken assumption? I share somewhat similar views as that of Hornplease expressed here and Lupo elsewhere. Please assume good faith on this and let go of this. I'd strongly urge Dab to apologise to Bhadaniji for calling him a troll. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sundar, I assume you have good intentions, so if you are intrusive, I forgive you. However, it does place a burden upon me to explain how our views might differ. You write that you agree with dab that

"that his comment merits only an apology for "unintended offense" to Indians."

I am not aware that dab has apologized for unintended offense, or stated that his comments merit such an apology. Perhaps I have overlooked something, or perhaps we have different views regarding what constitutes an apology. What I have been aware of are comments where he expressed that he has nothing to apologize for, that he owes no-one an apology and a intends to give no apologies. If I am mistaken, please point me to the sentence or sentences where he apologizes.

I also disagree that the "famous" comment is offensive only if misunderstood. I do not believe I suffer from a lack of English comprehension, and so I will try to explain to you at least part of why I think the "famous" comment was inappropriate and offensive.

repeating what I once wrote elsewhere:

It is unnecessary to mention the nationality, culture or religion of editors when discussing edits. To gratuitously mention such attributes of editors in the course of criticizing edits has all the appearances of being an insult to those of the mentioned nationality, culture or religion -- it has the appearance of an insinuation that faults an editor may have are somehow related to that editor's nationality, culture or religion. Whether an insult was intended or not, civility dictates avoiding mentioning such attributes.

Please read this sentence again:

"there are millions of more clueless people where they came from, and especially in India, every sh*thole is getting internet access."

When discussing allegedly "clueless people", is it necessary to mention that there are more "where they came from"? Was it necessary to mention India? "especially in India"?

You write that dab is right to refuse to discuss the matter further. It is dab's choice whether he wishes to discuss with people whom he has offended or not. I am not aware that anyone is demanding that he discuss, or even demanding that he apologize. That is his business, and whatever profit or loss he receives, that is his business. However, his difficulty in discussing matters in a non-accusatory way, his difficulty in listening to others and treating them with respect, these have a negative effect on the community, and make conflict resolution more difficult.

I am glad that you have asked dab to apologize to Bhadani for calling him a troll. Of course I would completely understand if Bhadani felt that this was insufficient. I notice that you did not ask dab to apologize to anyone else. Perhaps that was an oversight on your part, or perhaps you do not believe that the other persons who dab has directly (or indirectly?) insulted are not positive members of the Wikipedia community?

I apologize that my frustration has shown through in this comment. I do not mean to direct it at you, but I must confess that I am frustrated. Sincerely, --BostonMA 15:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't understand why cetain users like sundar and others are troubling themsleves to justify him. Sundar is saying he got "satisfied" with his "clarification". I will just point out one such clarification.

" no, it appears that Bharatveer has confused "shithole" with "arsehole" (understandable, seeing the fecal association). I do not think that this has anything to do with Indian village culture - Bharatveer 13:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Completely ignoring Bharatveer, who seems to have missed the point again, I would like to point out that I dont think dab has to apologise to anyone else. He has explained what his reference was, and nobody who is an established editor on WP should feel in any way personally insulted.

Further, I think your parsing of the famous line is incorrect. "Where they came from" fairly obviously means "out there on the internet", otherwise he would not have had to add especially in India. And it was, obviously, necessary to mention India, given that the context was the Rajput page. Please, let this go. This is precisely the sort of thing that causes non-Indian experts to stop working on India-related pages, and that sort of persecution is something that the encyclopaedia, and its India-related parts in particular, cannot afford.Hornplease 20:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hornplease, it is normally my practice to respond as best I can (time permitting of course) to comments that have been directed toward me. However, in your comment you say "please let it go". So, I will not respond to any of the points you made, unless you request me to. Thank-you. --BostonMA 22:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I wouldnt want it to interfere with our primary purpose here, editing. But please, do keep my fears about the ramifications of this sensitivity at the back of your mind. Thanks! Hornplease 05:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, it's my oversight. I'm sorry. I read his statement on your user page saying "I did apologize for any unintended offense ..." along with his clarification quoted below:

I realize for the first time that people have taken "shitholes" to refer to Indians (people). This is obviously a language problem, but I can now understand the outrage. "Shithole" is a colloquial derogatory term for a place, not a person. [1]. I also stress that I never called India a "shithole": the context was a suspicion that extremely aggressive but uneducated redneck editors on Rajput were from remote desert towns that had just got their first internet cafe: A sarcastic statement, but not an attack on Indians or India as a whole, except for the implication that India has shabby towns and uneducated rednecks with internet access (which is obviously just as true of the USA and other countries).

I somehow juxtaposed these too separate comments and decided that he has apologised. Now, I don't know if he did except that he says he did. However, this has not significantly changed my view on him. And, I agree with Hornplease on "especially in India" part since I know the Rajput context in which he made the comment. I feel that it's just different extents to which we assume good faith due to our different levels of agreement with his POV. Anyway, you need not respond to this. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA you have set the truth free. Bhadani has seen the light.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi. Thank you for your belief that I'd make a good mediator. From your musing, I understand that you don't want to bother Dab at this moment when he's into another issue. I appreciate that, your general amenability, and willingness to listen. Should you require my help for something, feel free to ping me. However, I'm a little hesitant to commit myself into any quasi-formal role as I'm not sure if I'd live upto the expectations because of my yet-to-improve English skills and lack of time. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

A response

You are mentioned on my talk page

Dear Bhadani, yesterday a message [2] was left on my talk page which mentioned your name, and I responded [3] also mentioning your name. Please let me know if I have said anything inaccurate. (although you need not respond if you do not care to.) I also want to say, that I hope my comment is not read as me offering reconciliation with dbachmann on your behalf. I only wished to point out that my observations of your character, and that in my opinion, you are very forgiving, and if dbachmann were to make an honest effort to reform himself, that your attitude would change accordingly. I apologize for bringing this subject to your attention, while you may prefer peace of mind [4], but since I have written about you, I felt it was my responsibility. Sincerely, --BostonMA 11:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

My response copied from my talk page

Thank you for your kind comments. Yes, like most human beings, I too prefer peace of mind but not at the cost of using wikipedia to pour vomits on the national pride of other wikipedians. I do accept that as a wikipedian, I am a member of an international virtual community, but that does not give me right to rough up the national identities of other wikipedians. Moreover, when I touch my heart and apply my mind, I find that that screen name that you are indicating no longer exists for me: for all practical purpose he has gone beyond the realm of my thoughts. Antyesti may not be the correct word to describe such a situation! I am not at all sure!! And, I do not care to think about him any more: there are 2 million other wikipedians with whom I can continue to interact with and work and continue to add value to the Project without bringing into an element of venomous comments oozing out of my nervous debility at any point of time and under any circumstances. Regards. --Bhadani 15:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Added after reading some comments on your page: I do not expect any apology from a screen name which no longer exists in my thoughts! "It" no longer exists for me! By the way I do not believe in Bhūta-Preta-Pishacha. Please remember WP:AGF: I am not implying that any one here conform to being described as Bhūta-Preta-Pishacha. --Bhadani 15:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Request

Dear BostonMA, please remove from your user-page the information that is about discussion between me and dab (Dbachmann‎). It was a personal discussion on his talk page and I already responded to him there in the manner I wished to. It is just a request and decision is only yours. best regards. --- ابراهيم 13:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to come here un-invited. In my opinion all pages are owned by the Wikipedia Foundation and nothing in personal here - we all have responsibility to donors not to waste their money. Please rememebr the caption on this page: this user page belongs to the Wikipedia project and not to me personally. As such, we all should behave in a responsive manner to promote the objectives of the Project. --Bhadani 15:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Your email?

Hi. I haven't got your email yet. It could be the spam filter or in the worst case, I might've deleted it accidentally or forgot after reading it. I'm sorry if I had done so. Can you please resend the email? If you're referring to your message in my talk page requesting mediation, let me start working on it soon. But, I'm particularly low on confidence right now with respect to mediation though. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, got it now. English could be funny, especially when a non-native speaker like me tries to make sense. :) I'll soon start communicating with him either over email or in his talk page. Will update you about any fallouts. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab issue

Hi Boston. Can you tell me what you'd like Dbachmann to do regarding the issue? An assurance that he will avoid mentioning nationality while dealing with edit disputes? An apology? (I'm not too hopeful on the latter part because Dab apologised to Bhadaniji on my insistence but his gesture was not reciprocated because Bhadaniji felt too hurt or something. Or it couldmight have been a communication gap that I couldn't fill myself.) -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your "utilitarianistic" viewpoint here. I'll try my best in this case. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Sorry Boston, no luck with my effort. I can give you details if you send me an email. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)