User:Bdb484/Arbcom draft

User:Badagnani
Initiated by 

Involved parties

 * , filing party


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * [pending Badagnani]
 * [pending Ronz]
 * [pending GraYoshi2x]


 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The community has exhausted nearly every avenue for dispute resolution, and in many cases availed themselves of those options more than once.
 * Talk page discussions such as this, which the user refuses to participate in;
 * This small sample of posts on the user's talk page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8;
 * Fifteen posts to the edit-warring noticeboard: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15;
 * Eighteen visits to WP:ANI: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18;
 * Two submissions to WP:MEDCAB: 1, 2;
 * A request for comment;
 * A request for mediation; and
 * Blocking the user 13 times.

Statement by Bdb484
As a preliminary matter, it must be acknowledged that Badagnani has made many, many constructive contributions to the project. He is listed as No. 28 at WP:MOSTEDITS, No. 150 on the list of users by pages created and created some 1,300 articles altogether. He has foreign-language skills that make him a valuable addition to several WikiProjects that are otherwise underserved. He truly has the potential to be one Wikipedia's most valuable editors.

However, his communication deficiencies are as epic as his contributions. I'll attempt to summarize them, but for a more detailed accounting, you can review the list of attempts at alternative dispute resolution above, which chronicle the community's efforts to help him edit not just prolifically, but also productively.

As I see it, the most serious problem is Badagnani's chronic edit warring, including misleading edit summaries to disguise his reverts. Additionally, he has difficulty abiding by WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. He has refused to engage in discussions that could lead to mutually agreeable outcomes, opting instead to label editors as idiotic, accuse them of blanking because they remove single sentences, and so on. He clearly understands WP protocol, as he regularly admonishes other users to abide by it (be on the lookout for some his buzzwords, e.g. "hyperaggressive," "collegial," etc.), yet he pursues ownership of articles by insisting that other editors go to the talk page before making changes to articles that he has started/edited/watchlisted.

Additionally, there have been concerns raised about his persistent failures to provide appropriate sources for material he adds, especially on BLP articles; the addition of inappropriate external links; and his removal of citation-needed and other tags without addressing the underlying issues with the articles in question. Almost all of these issues are addressed in greater detail in the most recent ANI case.

An indefinite ban has been suggested by multiple parties. Given the upshot of his continued contributions, it's hard for me to say I think we should banish this guy. At the same time, literally nothing seems to have any effect on his behavior or even his understanding of why the community objects to his editing patterns. While I wouldn't necessarily object to this route, I'm hopeful that ArbCom may have a few other arrows in its quiver.

Attached as parties to the case are User:Ronz and User:GraYoshi2x, who I understand have been attempting to clean up after Badagnani for some time, though not always using the best methods. I am not personally familiar with their situations, so I'll let others speak to that situation. There was also a long list of other users suggested as parties. I'm not sure what the criteria is for attaching someone, so I've left them off. If anyone else wishes to add them, I would not object.

Thanks.

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.