Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 15:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 04:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC).

---

• Dbachmann (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

User:Dbachmann, who is also an admin, does not have a good understanding of a basic Wikipedia Attribute WP:ATT policy. He is publishing original research on Wikipedia. When another user tries to put WP:OR tag on the article or put tag on the controversial comments, DBachmann removes the tags without providing citation. He starts edit warring to remove properly cited, relevant material and then misuses his admin power to block in content dispute.

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus. User:Dbachmann to show understanding of WP:ATT, WP:NOR and WP:CIV policy, and stop misusing his admin power --> Enforcement of WP:ATT policy on the article Indigenous Aryan Theory

Description

Article Indigenous Aryan Theory is creating a new term without any citation to published material. All controversial statements in the article should have citation to material acceptable to WP:RS. The summary in the article should reflect statements of authors without changing the author's position. Any arguments or claims being presented in article should be attributed to published material.

I believe that there is very good reason that WP:ATT is an official policy. WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE can not be implemented, if article is original research. It is responsibility of all editors to enforce WP:ATT. An admin should have more appreciation for this policy. In my mind there can be no justification for publishing original research on Wikipedia.

Only way to improve quality of controversial article is to enforce WP:ATT evenly on all editors.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. Article was created based on 2 words around Dec 15 [[1]]. This is original research as per WP:OR, other editors objected at that time please see [[2]] and [[3]].
2. During the discussion Dab argued that the words "Indigenous Aryanism" were coined by Bryant (2001), I provide citation from Bryant (2001) page 6 to show that Bryant also said the unavoidable corollary is Out of India here [[4]], so there is no need to create a seperate article.
3. I put OR tag since there was no citation in the article [[5]], tag were removed without any citation in article [[6]]. Please see Dab' edit summary, joining 2 independent words to create a theory. This is OR, someone has to present this argument in published work before it can be quoted in WP
4. Dab asked me to use localized tag as per his edit summary [[7]], which I did [[8]]. Again, the tags removed without citation. One citation that was provided turned out to be wrong citation.
5. After requesting citation for about 14 days, I added properly cited verifiable content to the article and removed OR [[9]], next 2 edits to clean up the article by me.
6. Again Dab adds back OR without providing citation [[10]], his edit summary implies opposite of what he is doing. I removed the comment asking for citation [[11]], again the text added back without citation [[12]], finally citation provided by Dab [[13]]. He misrepresented authors position that I fixed based on his citation see here [[14]] and [[15]]. This he reverted [[16]]
7. This exact quote from Bryant in his own words properly cited, which is very relevant to the position, was deleted number of times [[17]]
8. At this point Dab misused his admin power to block me [[18]], other independent admins did not think this was a good idea or that my edits were inappropriate WP:AN/I#Sbhushan. I requested a review by an independent admin [[19]] and asked an independent admin to review Dab's behavior. Dab unblocked me to avoid review by an independent admin [[20]]. I specifically did not make any commitment to Dab, but am still honoring it.
9. He is still continuing to do his OR in the article, by creating arguments that are not attributed to published material. [[21]] and [[22]]
10. This evidence of publishing OR, removing tags without providing citation, and providing incorrect citaiton is from Out of India talk page. [[23]] and [[24]]
11. Evidence about his malicious intent when creating Hindutva related articles.[[25]] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sisodia (talk • contribs) 20:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
12. This user is no stranger to controversies when it comes to India related articles. In fact, a look at a previous RFC [26] should give a feeling of Déjà Vu to most observers. What is striking about the previous RFC is that the accusations against the user are virtually identical.
13. Some more historical context to reiterate the fact that this user has faced exactly similar charges in the past too. [27]

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:ATT
2. WP:NOR
3. WP:ENC
4. WP:CIV
5. WP:OWN

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. see discussion at Out of India talk page[[28]]
2. see discussion at Indigenous_Aryan_Theory talk page[[29]]
3. see discussion at Indo-Aryan_migration talk page [[30]]
4. see another discussion at Indo-Aryan_migration talk page[[31]]
5. see another discussion at Indo-Aryan_migration talk page when an independent mediator was involved. [[32]]
6. see discussion at User talk pages [[33]]
7. Evidence that user was considered for being stripped of his admin powers, but was let off the hook in the end. This is what that may have emboldened the user.

[34]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. User:Sbhushan Sbhushan 14:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Geo. Talk to me 17:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
3. WIN 04:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
4. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 05:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Sisodia 20:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Anarya 03:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

1. Bakaman 23:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Addhoc 20:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
3. --D-Boy 23:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Liftarn 14:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Response

Sbhushan (talk · contribs) requesting that Dbachmann (talk · contribs) "show understanding of" WP:ENC and WP:ATT is frankly one of the more hilarious things I've seen on Wikipedia, and I think no further comment is needed, review of the surrealism going down on Talk:Indigenous_Aryan_Theory#Citation_of_sources should be of sufficient eloquence.

There is, however, a real problem with users like Sbhushan (WIN (talk · contribs), and others who change their account or IP numbers more frequently) who show a staggering innocence of not just knowledge of the topic (which is involved enough), but of some fundamental notions like 'consistency', 'coherence' we usually take for granted when we are saying we have a "dispute" or an "argument". At some point, meaningful debate just ceases to be feasible (Rudrasharman (talk · contribs) aptly invokes Hanlon's razor). I would welcome more admin attention to these topics in order to keep the editing process sane. dab (𒁳) 18:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ·Maunus· This is a very clear case of a group pushing a certain fringe POV over a wide range of articles. Many more wikipedians should have taken an active effort in countering this but dab has had to do this mostly alone. While dab has a crass argumentative style in my eyes he is excused simply because of the extreme pressure put on him by these POV-pushers, some of whom have no understanding of basic argumentation and who repeatedly select and twist facts and sources to align with their worldview. Dab has been alone arguing that the moon is not made of cheese, wikipedia should commend his efforts and not chastize him for them if we want a true encyclopedia and not a collection of rampant fringe theories posing as truth. ·ƛ·:19:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
2. (revised endorsement:) I have posted my take on the Talk page rudra 07:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
3. As per my comments the other day on WP:ANI ([35]) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Domitius 20:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Haphar 08:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Per Future's comment. Aldux 15:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Per Maunus. --cjllw | TALK 06:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
8. Dbachmann doesn't seem to have done anything wrong - unless, of course, acting for the best of the encyclopedia against POV-pushers is wrong all of a sudden. My commendations to him. Picaroon 18:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
9. per Maunus. ITAQALLAH 15:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Oppose.While I may have my set of differences with user Dab,I think he is a very good contributer and user.He,like many others (including me) has become a frequent target of a certain group of users who seek to take control over a set of articles or related topics.Dab is overall good and a valuable contributer.--Nadirali نادرالی}

Users who endorse this summary:

1. I have been following the conversation between Dab and SBhushan for a while on Out of India Theory and Indigenous Aryan Theory (? - Never heard of it). Dab has been very rude with him in many occasions. SBhushan asked for references again and again for some of the controversial edits but he was unable to provide. Dab created the IAT page and when he is in disagreement with another user like Sbhushan, he misused his admin powers and blocked SBhushan. This is not the first time Dab misused his admin powers. I wonder why he still continues to be admin with his uncivil and rude behavior.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.76.84.130 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I know very little about the area this page is concerned with, but this case has many parallels with Dab's recent establishment of a completely new and OR article and category of Illustrated manuscript. Except there there is no Bryant - he has done it all himself. I have cited at length references from very reputable sources to demonstrate that this attempt to carve out a distinct category for items that he wrongly claims are not covered by Illuminated manuscript has no academic recognition, but he has ceased to respond. The only thing the manuscripts have in common is that they are all Swiss or South German. Maybe this is the Indigenous Alpine Theory? I must say in fairness he has not used Administrator powers in this dispute. Johnbod 20:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I have not followed the Indigenous Aryan Theory page or the associated discussion, but in other areas I have found that Dab's editorial actions remain as a shining example of scholarly sanity in an area (Indian prehistory) in which nationalistic POV is rampant. Dab deserves the highest commendation for his work; this criticism is a classic example of how the mechanisms of Wikipedia can be abused against scholarly experts.

As to Johnbod's comments concerning the Illustrated manuscript page, as a medieval historian, I find Dab's brief presentation of uncontroversial material, with appropriate citations in the Literature and External Links sections, to be a fine encyclopedic article and anything but Original Research. This is a new article -- a work in progress if you wish -- and since Dab has expressed his willingness to integrate this article[36]into the existing article, Illuminated manuscript, he provides a fine example of cooperative editing. SteveMcCluskey 16:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This is nonsense, but clearly here is not the place to pursue it. I will just say that the article is just a cover for his attempts to form breakaway categories for his Swiss material. He is still resisting merging these, which is the whole point at issue. Johnbod 16:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

what "Swiss material"? I am "resisting merging" how? I must say this comment is a good example of the non-sequiturs Johnbod has been putting in the way of constructive debate. I don't know why this is brought up here at all. I would never deny Johnbod is a good faith editor with maybe slight difficulties in the communication department. Nothing like the tag team of nationalist trolls that are pushing this RfC. I'll be very happy to accept any outside evaluation of the "manuscript" case, no RfC is necessary, just use Talk:Illustrated manuscript. The real problem are the bunch of Hindu ideologist editors who insist their cargo cult science is as good as any other science, and go ad hominem when their attempts are exposed. Let us not let Wikipedia become a platform for ethnic nationalism. If we had a half-dozen of German editors RfCing me because I tried to expose Nordic theory as pseudoscientific nonsense and suppressing fringe authors arguing there may be something to it in spite of everything, they would be blocked as trolls in five minutes. Can we please apply the same measure to all flavours of racist nonsense and ethnic supremacism? dab (𒁳) 08:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have no particular expertise on the specific content of the articles involved in the Indigenous Aryan Theory and Out of India pages, and have not followed them closely, but my overall impression is that the conflict found on those pages is symptomatic of a larger cultural conflict that takes place on many Hinduism pages involving many users. The conflict specifically noted by this request for comment is therefore a canary in the mine. I am unfamiliar with the details of the conflict resolution processes on Wikipedia, but I hope that those who are external to the pages will begin by looking at the broad patterns of editing by all users involved. Buddhipriya 16:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have some issues with this user User:Dbachmann's edits too, which, as per the instructions I received on Adminstrator's notice board, I am posting here. Sisodia 22:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This user also violates a fundamental Wikipedia policy, WP:NPOV, which is considered absolute and non-negotiable.

This user has recently created 3 redirect pages namely

Hindutva revisionism [37]

Hindutva pseudoscience [38]

Hindutva propaganda [39]

Terms like revisionism, pseudoscience and propaganda are inherently disapproving and dismissive in nature. Moreover, since they directly refer to Hindu religion, they can also me considered defamatory and discriminatory. I believe this not only jeopardizes Wikipedia’s neutrality, it even pushes Wikipedia onto shaky legal grounds.

Sisodia 22:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe they create legal difficulties, however, I suspect they were created more to annoy editors who sometimes disagree with him, instead of as useful redirects. Addhoc 19:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in this dispute, but user Dbachmann (aka dab) (plus rudra) have/are showing a non-neutral view. His talk page has been archived 3 times in 3 months. Many people have expressed similar problems with dab on article talk pages, concerning ganging-up, and shouting down people. I have asked him in a current dispute [Aryan Invasion Theory Article] to provide sources/citations for his claim/argument because it sounds contrived (original research/thought), but he just puts the same 2 or 3 sentences, as his arguments, where I have sourced the information. He is very disruptive, and seems to take away from Wikipedia, rather than adding positive changes. He lacks any transparency. Cosmos416 00:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.