User talk:BostonMA/DBachmann

my comment to Zora
I fail to see how my comment to Zora is of any interest to you. It was not directed to you, nor to the public at large, it has been reviewed by the arbcom, and I have commented upon it on the arbitration case talkpage. I am not prepared to discuss it any further just because you feel like it. I am here for the "encyclopedia" part, not for the wikilawyering or the discussion club. dab (&#5839;) 16:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment here. Although your comment to Zora was not directed to me personally, it nevertheless might be deemed insulting by a large number of people.  Arbcom chose not to de-sysop you for the comment.  That, however, does not mean that you have not damaged your relationship with a large number of people.  I am also here to write an encyclopedia.  However, that does not mean that I must accept language such as yours without comment.  If you do not wish to discuss this further, that is your choice.  The consequences of your choice are your own responsibility.  Sincerely, BostonMA 17:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I will only say that you appear to be reading something into my comment that was never intended. Possibly because you are looking at it out of context. At no point was I making a comment about a people in general. I was making comments about editors after severe provocation, editors who were subsequently banned by the arbcom. At the time of the comment I was comically picturing these people sitting in an internet cafe in a dusty desert village grinding their teeth as they stare across the border to hated Pakistan. If you cannot see the humour in this comment, I guess I can just repeat that I never made it to you and that I'm under no obligation to reconstruct the exact context for your benefit. And yes, I can take responsibility for my own utterings, and it is not unheard of that I apologized for comments that in retrospect I considered unsuitable. The behaviour of the editors I have been commenting on here was so extremely bad (as the arbcom has since agreed), that I do not feel that I have anything to apologize about in this case. I might addd that I find it irritating that you appear to consider yourself on some peacekeeping or policing mission on Wikipedia, taking it for granted that people will be prepared to regurgitate months old discussions to satisfy you. dab (&#5839;) 18:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I see you have returned. Good!  You say that I appear to be reading something into your comment that was not intended.  Please imagine that I have run down the hallways of my university waving my arms about, and in the course of this, I strike several people in the face.  I would hope that even though I was so thoughtless as to strike someone, that I would be thoughtful enough to
 * acknowledge the thoughtlessness of my behavior,
 * inquire whether I had hurt anyone,
 * inquire if there were something I could do to compensate for my offensive behavior,
 * apologize.
 * I hope that I would not take on an air of indignation towards those who might be angry with me or who might have found my behavior offensive. That is how I would like to behave.  That road has been open to you as well, but so far you have avoided it.  I am not the only one to find your remarks offensive. Sincerely BostonMA 01:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * well, if I ever slap you in the face accidentially, I will be sure to apologize. Also, if you were to read something unintended into a comment I made to you, I would apologize and attempt to rephrase. As it is, as a gesture of good faith, I tried to describe the context of my comment to you even though it bears no relation to you. As it is, I did not so much run up to you and slap you in the face, but you came up to me, rummaged in my old correspondence, and pulled out a fragment of a drawn-out discussion, delighted to have found something to be offended at, and then came to my talkpage talking down to me as if I was a difficult child. So far, no-one has condescended to explain to me explicitly what part of my comment they find offensive, so I am reduced to guessing what may be read into it. If you want to continue this discussion (feel free to drop it, too), you will come to my talkpage again and detail explicltly what part of my comment you are offended at for what reason. If you feel called to pass judgement on my behaviour, read the entire case. Read the archives on Talk:Rajput. Read the "RfC" the trolls came up with, including the community reaction. Read my entire summary at the arbitration case. Observe the chronology. I was called "racist bigot whiteboy" before I even got annoyed. My reaction was extremely moderate in comparison. In my comments, I was being unfriendly to a group of editors who had shown extreme contempt for Wikipedia rules and other editors, including me. I was unfriendly to no-one else. My take on these editors was confirmed by the arbcom. I see no reason to apologize to them, and I see no reason to apologize to people I have never even referred to or addressed. If you read up on the case and get specific, I am prepared to reply to you again, but I would be grateful if you could also reconsider your condescending attitude. If you simply continue to be offended for some unspecified reason, implying that I'm a bully or a moron, we will have to live with that as I'm not desperate enough to be liked by absolutely everybody. dab (&#5839;) 10:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, you have slapped all Indians in the face, and indeed more than that. You complain that no one has explained to you explicitly what is offensive in your comments. Perhaps you have not made inquiries to those you have offended? However, you cannot complain that no-one stated that they were offended, , or that they thought your comments were an expression of contempt for Indian users , , , . For the benefit of all, however, I will attempt to explain why your comments are offensive. Substitute another place for India in your comments. Say for example Harlem in New York. Now reread your comments with this substitution.
 * "it is pointless to waste time with them, because even if you get them to listen to sense, there are millions of more clueless people where they came from, and especially in (fill in the blank), every sh*thole is getting internet access."

Do you begin to see how offensive that is? Perhaps not. Perhaps you should try substituting "Warsaw" into your phrase. You state that your remarks were only meant to disparage a small group of people. However, if that is so, what need is there to mention the fact that they are from India?

Your response to me seems to be arguing that I should not take offense because you believe that there are circumstances where such remarks should not be treated as offensive. The first attempt at this is to intimate that if your remarks had remained private, they would have been OK. It is true that if your remarks had remained private, there might have been no-one to take offense. That does not make your remarks unoffensive however, just unknown. You say your comments were not addressed to me and accuse me of rummaging through your old correspondence. First of all, I did not rummage through your correspondence, and did not even know who you were. I ran accross your comments while reading Jimbo's talk page. There is some irony in the fact that you posted your comments on the internet where they may be read by all, and then act indignant that that someone "rummaged through your old correspondence". But whether or not your privacy was invaded by someone reading your publicly available correspondence misses the point that your comments would be offensive whether or not they were brought to the light of day. Your response also seems to argue that the indefensible behavior of some editors with whom you were in conflict somehow justifies your own indefensible behavior. The answer to that I hope is obvious. I outlined a road you could take in my last response to you. The choice is yours. --BostonMA 03:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: You wrote "read the entire case" and "My take on these editors was confirmed by the arbcom." Yes, arbcom confirmed your take with regard to the other editors. However arbcom also voted 4/3/1 on the following statement:
 * Dbachmann has expressed his contempt for Indian users of Wikipedia, saying "there are millions of more clueless people where they came from, and especially in India, every sh*thole is getting internet access. I feel for these people, because they are in an actual ethnic conflict, and must feel actual hate, but I don't feel responsible for babysitting them, Wikipedia is not for them.
 * Requests for arbitration/Rajput/Proposed decision

So please be careful not to insinuate that ArbCom approves of your comments. --BostonMA 03:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * well, if it appeases you, I can state here and now that I have no contempt for anyone on ethnic grounds, and that I do not believe that there is a larger fraction of stupid or hateful people in India than in my own or in any other country.  "they" in my comments, I hope it is obvious, refers to fanatical Rajputani Hindu nationalists, not to "Indians" in general, so I really don't see what you want. My contempt is for fascists and religious or nationalist fanatics, regardless of ethnos, and I will not apologize for that. I said the arbcom reviewed my comment, I never imagined they endorse it in any way, nor do I need the arbcom to endorse every comment I make. Again, I do not see why I should be answerable to you in particular, or who made you the WP PC-patrol. I think I have made my point, and so have you, so as far as I am concerned, you are free to be offended all you like, but I think this discussion is over. dab (&#5839;) 15:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Dbachmann
(this is in regards to a note in the Items to Negotiate, Issues to Resolve section of my userpage, and was moved from that location. --BostonMA 14:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC))


 * have I not, now? I argue that I have shown patience and good faith to the point of ridicule, several times over, and that I am not to blame if I refuse to go through the motions another time each time that any editor feels that I should be made to. Your statement is wrong. I assume that you are not aware it is, but then I do not understand why you should feel called to comment on my behaviour without first researching my behaviour. My comments are not offensive, and I do not have to apologize for their content. I did apologize for any unintended offence they may have caused, more than sufficiently, and I won't do it again. It is very obvious that any editors dragging this up again are not acting in good faith, and I am flattered that they are apparently unable to produce anything less stale as evidence of alleged misbehaviour on my part.

You may read the last iteration of this here. I refuse to address this once every month, anyone interested in this "controversy" can go through the archives and read everything I have to say about it. dab (&#5839;) 07:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

reply
thanks for your good faith reply. Had you addressed the topic in such a tone from the beginning, my initial reaction would have been much more conciliatory. Since we seem to have established that I do not want to spend more time explaining, and you don't want to spend more time explaining (which is fair enough, but I do not remember ever asking you to do any explaining, or write columns about your opinion of me, in the first place) -- why don't we just drop it? Bhadani has to take responsibility for his own attitude, I am certainly not asking you to talk to him on my behalf. I would just be grateful if you could try and refrain from stirring up unnecessary strife and conflict and just focus on writing articles. If you must keep me "blacklisted" on your userpage, I would prefer that you in all fairness explain the full history of the case (and you will note that many senior editors have recommended you to drop it, to leave me alone, since this is just beating a dead horse and stirring up bad blood for no good reason, as you have indeed succeeded with in Bhadani's case) If we were to clash over a content dispute on some article, I will be very much prepared to listen to your concerns and treat you as a respected contributor. On the other hand, if you or any other editor asked me to enter a debate over disputes and arbitration cases that are long closed and stale, I would again react in precisely the same way: Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, and I opt to not enter debates that are not directly pertinent to the editing process. regards, dab (&#5839;) 08:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi dab, I have changed my user page in a way that I hope will not present a biased picture of you or of the issue that I have with you. It is in a rough state, but I did not want to "finish" it if there is a possibility that the dispute may be resolved in the near future.  I understand that you have another concern occupying your mind right now.  I have no intention of harassing you or chasing you down to address my concerns, as I have avoided doing till now.  I believe that there have been only two occasions where we crossed paths in the last nine months.  I am willing to drop things in that sense.  If you want to do your own thing and leave the issues unresolved, I am not going to worry about that (other than to keep my user page up to date, which I had not done previously).  However, I am not willing to "drop it" in the sense that I still find your past and present comments highly objectionable, and I still have an issue with them.  (If I update my page, I will keep you notified if you like -- let me know one way or the other.)  Sincerely, --BostonMA 20:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)