Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Badagnani

User:Badagnani


Hi, all. I'm really not sure where to start here. I've been running into trouble with Badagnani pretty much every time I run into him. Edit warring, incivility, AGF problems -- pretty much everything except outright vandalism. A lot of my edits are geared toward removing spam and listcruft, and to that end, I've been working a lot on pages of professional sports teams, and musicians and their instruments.

Currently, I'm finding myself trying to figure out how to avoid an edit war with a user who seems bent on provoking one. At goblet drum, I deleted an a set of spam links, a list of allegedly notable players (some so notable they were redlinked), and a list of translations of "goblet drum" into other languages. On the last point, I was removing the material because it was unsourced and because it violated WP:WWIN, specificallyWP:NOTDIC, which specifies that lists of translations are appropriate for Wiktionary and not Wikipedia.

I was quickly reverted by Badagnani, who claimed the information was "absolutely essential." He said he wanted to discuss the change at the talk page, but he never posted. In turn, another userreverted him. All was fine for a month, until Badagnani again decided that the edit was "ridiculous" and reverted it, again without discussion.

Although his edit summaries frequently implore other editors to discuss their changes, Badagnani consistently declines to participate himself. Just the same, I attempted to get a conversation going at the talk page, but was met with dismissive comments, mild insults and no effort to address my concerns. I reiterated my concerns, but after nearly a week, they were still left unaddressed. I therefore left a message at Badagnani's talk page, which he answered only to accuse me of attacking him and being ignorant of Persian translations. I made a final effort to get my questions answered, but to no avail.

Because he made it clear he was not interested in providing sources or explaining why WP:NOTDIC should be disregarded, I went ahead and removed the material again. Inside of 10 minutes, I was reverted again, this time with a less-than-civil edit summary.

Badagnani then went on an editing tear, adding references (some germane, so less so) and the like. In hopes of finding a middle ground, I tried to begin tagging different types of goblet drums with the "Goblet-shaped drum" category in hopes that it could serve as a sufficient collection of the different subtypes that Badagnani was trying to assemble. In doing so, I happened upon Badagnani engaging in an edit war with User:Ronz at Glong yao, where he was fighting   to pass off a coatracked advertisement as a reliable source. At that talk page, I discovered a discussion nearly identical to the one atTalk:goblet drum: another editor raises concerns, Badagnani (1) dismisses them; (2) makes accusations of bad faith editing; and (3) reverts.

Additionally, a review of his edits shows that he is removing "unreferenced BLP" tags from articles he's written but failed to source. Of course, restoring them only invites him to revert without discussion.

The most annoying thing about this is that Badagnani really could be a very useful editor. The bulk of his work consists of good-faith, high-quality edits, especially in areas that are typically neglected by most editors or where most editors lack the expertise to work confidently. But like Terrell Owens, he is creating a distraction that prevents other editors from moving forward and that is sure to be a turn-off to newbies.

I'm hoping someone here has the charm or heft to effect a change. — Bdb484 (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * On the issue of the unsourced BLP, he may be counting the ELs as sources; did you try explaining that inline cites are better for verification and that we need significant coverage in reliable sources? He should know better than to be obstinate in his editing, so have you thought of filing aWP:RFC/U? I can't see any behaviour that requires admin intervention. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, there does seem to be a pattern of low-level incivility and edit-warring, if this block log is anything to go by: Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This behavior is identical to that which lead up to some of his previous blocks. See his RFCU for more details. --Ronz (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We almost indef blocked him the last time I remember this coming up. We didn't, so it comes up again. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The last ANI on him appears to be Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive554.
 * 1RR was discussed as well as an indef block.--Ronz (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to respectfully disagree that there isn't any behavior that warrants intervention. It appears to me that Badagnani has become adept at gaming the system, pushing his edit wars to the edge of WP:3RR and then coming back when the time is right. If you'll take a look at his record (and it took a while for me to compile this, so I don't blame you for not getting around to it), you'll see that Badagnani's behavior has been marked by the same tendentious patterns, incivility and disregard for consensus-building for several years now.
 * Allow me to demonstrate. I am not the first to find that Badagnani is quick to revert constructive edits that he happens to oppose, ask for discussion then refuse to particpate. Nor am I the first to suggest that he is a habitual edit warrior. In fact, his disruptive edits have been brought to the attention of adminstrators numerous times.


 * At WP:AN3
 * 3 Feb 2006
 * 21 Feb 2006
 * 22 Jun 2007
 * 2 Oct 2007
 * 13 May 2008
 * 11 Jun 2008
 * 20 Jul 2008
 * 11 Dec 2008
 * 12 Dec 2008
 * 7 Jan 2009
 * 18 Mar 2009
 * 4 May 2009
 * 17 May 2009
 * 15 Jul 2009
 * 21 Nov 2009


 * At WP:ANI
 * 31 Jul 2008
 * 21 Mar 2009
 * 2 Oct 2007
 * 26 Nov 2007
 * 27 Nov 2007
 * 14 Jun 2008
 * 28 Jul 2008
 * Sep 2008
 * Aug 2008
 * 28 Aug 2008
 * 7 Dec 2008
 * 17 Dec 2008
 * 23 Dec 2008
 * 21 Apr 2009
 * 4 Jul 2009
 * 18 Jul 2009
 * 28 Apr 2009


 * At WP:MEDCAB
 * 16 Jun 2007
 * 18 Mar 2009


 * At WP:RFC/A
 * 23 Mar 2009


 * At WP:RFM
 * 29 Nov 2007
 * 23 Dec 2008


 * '''Resulting in blocks
 * 13 times'''


 * I'll hasten to add that he wasn't found to have been in the wrong every single time someone had a complaint with him, but it's clear from his record that he is either unable or unwilling to contribute to Wikipedia in a manner that will keep the project moving forward. Like I said above: A lot of the work he's done has been fantastic, but at this point, Badagnani has proven himself to be more trouble than he's worth. — Bdb484 (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If I may, I'll end with a salientquote:

Please, one can't talk oneself out of 4 reverts. It's just not permitted and the editor has been editing long enough that he should be well aware of our policies on this matter. Badagnani 3:58 am, 11 May 2007, Friday (2 years, 7 months, 27 days ago) (UTC−4)


 * — Bdb484 (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, what about that 1RR again? I got turned down last time. And yes, his approval rating among the folks at WP:VIET seems to have steadily gone into the floor  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  07:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support imposition of WP:1RR. Badagnani's contributions are valuable enough that we should try anything we can to avoid an indefinite block. At the same time, he needs to understand that the community's patience with his disruptive editing patterns is stretched very, very thin. —Bdb484 (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support 1RR for Badagnani. He hasn't indicated yet that he has any idea what the problem is, but maybe this'll work. It would be great if he doesn't have to go, although I'm not optimistic. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support 1RR for Badagnani. -- Klein zach  23:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The content at the center of this issue is - the local names of an instrument (Goblet drum#Names specifically). -Adding alternative names is in-line with advice atLead section, but in conflict with information at WP:NOTDICT. -Per examples like Vodka and Sushi, we clearly have to have at least some local names. Per examples like Harry Potter in translation and List of Asterix characters it is sometimes very informative to have long lists of translations/local names. But we also clearly don't want 250 translations of the word "spoon" atspoon. -This whole issue needs a wider discussion, somewhere appropriate. Badagnani is not at all clearly in the wrong here.
 * That said, Badagnani is very uncommunicative, and prone to exaggeration and opaque communication. Having 2 editors hounding him for years isn't helping though. I'd support 1RR for Badagnani, if Ronz and Grayoshi2x could refrain from reverting/harassing/poking Badagnani (eg this kind of provocative behavior is pointy and unhelpful). -- Quiddity (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When you say "the content at the center of this issue", I'm not sure I agree that it's the name of a musical instrument. I think whatever edit you're talking about is absolutely not why we're talking about Badagnani here at AN/I. The "center of this issue" is precisely that: "Badagnani is very uncommunicative and prone to exaggeration and opaque communication," as you say. That's the only problem. It's not the nature of the one straw that matters; it's the back of the camel. If Ronz and Grayoshi2x agree to give him a mile's berth, his communication style will simply create more Ronzes and Grayoshi2xes. Do we have to issue restraining orders, one by one, to everyone that Badagnani unintentionally treats like shit? I don't agree with the way Ronz in handling the situation, and I've let him know that, but if Ronz were to go on extended vacation to Mars tomorrow, Badagnani would still be causing problems here. That will remain true until he somehow grasps that the way he's dealing with other people is crap, and needs to change if he's going to work on this project. We're doing a terrible job of sending him that message so far, because it's been this long with virtually no progress. Can anyone even get him to recognize what he's doing that upsets so many people? I tried to tell him for weeks, and then I gave up, and I'm not welcome on his talk page anymore. Can anyone tell me how they see this resolving, realistically in this universe?-GTBacchus(talk) 03:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I find your approach and attitude very disturbing GTB. Badagnani edits in good faith and he does an ENORMOUS amount of content work. Like other editors who are prolific, he sometimes comes into conflict. That Ronz and Grayoshi have been allowed to pursue conflicts with this editor for this long is outrageous and your involvement has encouraged these highly destructive behaviors. There are lots of areas of the encyclopedia and they don't need to seek out his work. As Quiddity points out, there are good reasons and policies for his editing. He's not easy to work with, but many many many many many editors do okay with it. So the obvious solution is for those who can't work with him to avoid him. Putting him on a 1RR while allowing stalkers to continue harassing him is outrageous. You have a long history of conflict with him, and it's unfortunate that you've returned to trying to box him in instead of working with him and helping him in a collegial manner. Why don't you follow dispute resolution on the drum naming issue and whatever other CONTENT ISSUES there are, and cease trying to block anyone who doesn't toe the line you think they should. Alternatively, enforce an interaction ban with those causing problems. Thanks.ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestions, ChildofMidnight; I'll think about what you said. At present, I disagree with almost all of it, but I'll inevitably think about it, and possibly modify my behavior accordingly. I'm glad that you recognize my extreme frustration that stemmed from attempting to help this editor in the past. I don't trust your judgment six inches, though, and I'm extremely glad that you're not in any position of power here. I find your "approach and attitude" at least as disturbing as you find mine. Jolly. You really burned your bridge with me; good work. Also, I like how you assume wrong shit about what I believe, and what I support. Bye now; I hope not to hear from you again. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would support a 1RR restriction and/or another RFC/U. I have also seen Badagnani revert very constructive cleanup efforts and subsequently refuse to engage in discussion over the reverts. I feel this behaviour is very disruptive to the quality of the project.  Them From  Space  05:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose GTBacchus has been well aware that I'm no fan of Badagnani at all. Granted, I actually gave up long ago that he would listen to my repeated pleas not to insert annoying hidden questions or original research and urge me to find materials or expand articles for satisfying his curiosity. Just like some editor said last May, if we want to peacefully cooperate with him, we should use special conversation skills for him(yeah, that may sound too lenient). Though I bite the bullet since his general contribution is very helpful to improve Wikipedia especially articles with a small viewership. I also highly doubt that "informal" WP:Mentorship would work for him since as he's promoted himself, he has a high pride as a "long-term productive editor". In his view, mentors should revert for him or block his opponents from engaging in disruptive blanking campaign no matter what they complain. Due to the outright misunderstanding on purposes of mentorship, GTBacchus's efforts got no gain.
 * However, I think the aforementioned one-sided IRR would be not effective but rather increase high chances for his "current" opponents such asUser:Ronz and User:GraYoshi2x to take advantage of it to block him. For example, Grayoshi2x's had been poking on Badagnani for quite a while by intentionally removing Wiktionary links from Chinese characters within articles" against the formed consensus on WT:CHINA in May. After both were recently reported to WP:AN3 and admonished by admins, User:Rjanag and User:EdJohnston, the consensus that Grayoshi2x solely objected was reconfirmed at WT:CHINA. Neither did bother to open a discussion on the issue. After the incident, Grayoshi2x has now introduced a new way of "provoking Badagnani" by removing "names of subjects" from many articles including Napa cabbage, Longan,Hoa Kỳ, List of pasta, Ron Kovic, Kai-lan, Daikon, Lychee, Lettuce and others. Unlike Grayoshi2x's edit summaries, he also has not bothered himself to open a discussion at the pertinent talk page. I was just close to report the both to here due to their another set of endless WP:LAME edit-wars. I'm sure if I had informed of their warring to the mentioned admins, they both would've had at least one-week vacation together. So if Grayoshi2x, Ronz, and Badagnani or others who may conflict with him over content disputes are not equally judged by the same ground, I won't support the 1RR patrol only applying to Badagnani. Either enforce 1RR to the three or WP:ARBCOM.--Caspianblue 05:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be comfortable with a group 1RR. I think it's stupid how long we've let this situation fester. If it makes people less unhappy to do it via ArbCom, then do it via ArbCom. I wouldn't use the word "judge" for any of it, but whatever. We don't need to talk philosophy.-GTBacchus(talk) 07:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm interested though... if Ronz and Grayoshi2x dropped off the planet, how many other editors have been driven to frustration and anger by Badagnani's... style? Conversely, if Badagnani magically weren't here, how many other editors have Ronz and Grayoshi2x been having issues with? Do they "stalk" a lot of people, thus justifying the label used above by ChildofMidnight, or are they just reacting badly to a particularly difficult editor who refuses to listen to anyone? This knowledge would inform any decision about which preventative measures would be most effective. I don't know the answers to those questions, but if we're trying to solve whatever problem we're talking about, these questions seem to matter, perhaps. Again, I don't oppose 1RR all around. Hell, I think it oughtta be site policy for everyone. Second reverts are silly; how many times do you try a locked door to decide if it's locked? Once is enough. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Ronz seems to have been reported to WQA quite many times for his incivility and harassment of editors (5 WQA files) beside Badagnani's matter. As for User:GraYoshi2x, he has not been that much active, but his contribution for the past 9 months are largely edit-warring with Badagnani. One of which even chased down Badagnani to Commons by using WP:SOCK ips. That definitely an "immediately blockable offense" (perhaps, up to an indefinite block). However, Badagnani was also poor at defending himself against such unacceptable behaviors. Therefore, it is unfair to say that Badagnani is the only guilty party. Given this circumstance, if Badagnani is the one getting the IRR sanction, sadly, he would've been likely baited and blocked. Then, he will leave Wikipedia for good which is not beneficial to Wikipedia in a long-term perspective. If any sanction must take place, I can support the idea of the group 1RR, mutual interaction ban. Or strong mentorship program in which his mentors can guide or block him if he refuses to abide by policies could be an option. However, my idea would sound unpleasant to the mentioned people, so that's why I suggestWP:ARBCOM to equally judge the involved party's conducts.--Caspian blue 17:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely and totally irrelevant. When's the last time I've been reported to WQA? (Hint: Long ago)  What was the outcomes of all the WQAs I've been involved?  (Hint: I was being harassed by others).--Ronz (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you admit that my assessment on your conduct is "true" unlike your "baseless accusation" left on my talk page to harass me. I'm only mentioning the fact just because Badagnani should not be solely blamed for the whole issue. In fact, Badagnani's problem became on the big highlight in a row ever since you and GraYoshi2x began conflicting with him. I don't know why you're so upset about the neutral statement on who did what since you've quoted Badagnani's RFC/U so many times in reference with his behavior. I had tried to meditate (rather defended you) and advised you, while you were not willing to compromise different points of view such as violating WP:3RR and even bullying me so you were warned by admin.Considering that Badagnani has been one of "top content builders", I can put up with Badagnani's obnoxious behavior than yours. I am very skeptical of the 1RR sanction only imposed to Badagnani.--Caspian blue 18:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Then you admit that my assessment on your conduct" Quite the contrary.  Your assessment of others' conduct appears biased and disruptive, being based upon your personal grudges and an inability to assume good faith.
 * I stand by my comments on Nihonjoe's talk page. I stand by my claims that your accusations are irrelevant and baseless. --Ronz(talk) 19:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then, you did not learn any lesson yet from the warning. My assessment on your conducts including harassment and personal attacks are very much relevant indeed to the issue. Your "grudge-driven motive" makes you hound Badagnani even though the article in recently named had originally nothing to do with you.--Caspian blue 20:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ronz, I can't agree that questions about your conduct are completely irrelevant. If you're acting in a way that provokes Badagnani more than necessary, then you're a direct cause of any resulting disruption. I'm not saying this is true; there's an "if" there. However, if this were to go to ArbCom, they would definitely examine your behavior and Grayoshi2x's as well as Badagnani's. @Caspian: people don't tend to "learn lessons" from warnings, especially if those warnings come from someone they don't accept as an authority. Thus, your warnings to Ronz are no more effective than Ronz's warnings to Badagnani. Unless you think there's a realistic chance that Ronz will read your words and say, "gee, I guess you're right; I'll change", then there's no good reason to post those words. Warnings among established users are worth extremely little, and their use tends to generate entirely more heat than light. I fail to see a good case for heat-generation, which I why I leave Badagnani the heck alone now.-GTBacchus(talk) 20:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The evidence which Bdb484 provides is troubling. Caspian blue makes some good but not as convincing points too though. I agree with Caspain blue, please escalate this to arbcom. I am extremely leary of ANI imposed sanctions. Therefore I strongly oppose sanctioning the editor here.Ikip  06:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose any sanctions. I see things like this  where Bdb484 seems determined to delete things without reason, not understanding the subject, and Badagnani makes a good case for keeping that information in there.  I see he has on many occasions reverted what he considers to be mindless deletion of information by people who know nothing of the subject.  And in some cases, like the example I mentioned, he is right to do this.  Other times, more discussion on the talk page, and seeking additional input from people, to form a consensus on what should be in the article and what should not, would be preferred.   D r e a m Focus  22:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get too bogged down in the details, but in this instance, I made the change, and after Badagnani, I took the issue to thetalk page. By my understanding, that's how WP:BRD is supposed to work.


 * But before you click on that link, feel free to guess whether Badagnani has bothered to participate in that discussion. — Bdb484(talk) 01:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban?
Why not just initiate an interaction ban? I don't understand why this feuding has been allowed to spread to new articles. If there is a general issue, like these concerns over including names or translations, they can be discussed on the project page until consensus is reached. But the individual editors who don't get along should just work on separate projects. There's no reason for anyone to pursue Badagnani to incite conflict and those doing so should be blocked post haste. The conflict is damaging and the attacks on an extraordinary content contributor are disturbing. Let's resolve whatever the underlying content conflicts are and seperate the disputants once and for all. Badagnani has been editing the Goblet drum article since 2005 with no apparent problem. So Ronz shouldn't be coming in and looking for trouble. Changes should be done with consensus and using ANI to win conflict disputes and to go after people with different opinions is wholly unconstructive and an odious practice. If anyone is out of patience then go work on something else. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is also a fine suggestion, although I think it postpones the inevitable. I wouldn't oppose it; it's another road. Let's go there, and then see. Sure. Good idea. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since CoM seems not to be responding to the RfC on his conduct on Project pages, now might be the right time to point out that here yet again he is making intemperate comments on disputes in which he is not involved. He has been criticized for this in the RfC and most recently by members of the new ArbCom.
 * Ikip and Caspian blue should remember that community sanctions are normally enacted here and are usually considered a step in WP:DR that precedes escalation to RfAr. Mathsci (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "intemperate" i.e. unrestrained comments? COM made a suggestion which GTBacchus agrees to, which I think is a good idea. I appreciate his assitance in this matter.
 * COM's non-response to his RFC is irrelevant to the issue here.
 * Community sanctions are sometimes inacted without escalation to arbcom. That is what I would like to avoid.
 * Although I support WP:Equality the reality is there is preferential treatment given to veteran editors. Few editors are more veteran than Badagnani. Badagnani has been here 4 years. With 138,234 edits and 1,344 articles created. #28 athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits/latest Ikip  16:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Both CoM and Badagnani are members of WP:FOOD and have worked together for some articles. In fact, Mathsci, your business here seems to be only related to your relationship with CoM. I don't support community sanction since people calling out "burn the witch" are either largely filled with "angry people" or "angry people's friends", or ANI regulars who do not know well about the past history. The latter tend to pile on a majority's view by adding "per whose comment" without checking the whole issue. Though, I can support "group 1RR" or "mutual interaction ban" that would be fair for everyone.--Caspian blue 17:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My post above was a low key friendly reminder to CoM. A response from CoM would have been good: your own comments don't seem either helpful or accurate. Many other users, including admins, have participated in his RfC; some new arbitrators have commented on ArbCom pages. It has been pointed out recently that if CoM ignores other users' comments in the RfC, he could find himself the subject of an ArbCom case. It would be best to avoid that possibility, but that depends on CoM, not on other editors.  Mathsci (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your "low key friendly reminder" for CoM would've been much accomplished at CoM's talk page (not sarcasm), but here is not a good place to persuade him. Since the issue is about Badagnani, if CoM wants to defend his "friend", that is CoM's right. CoM's proposal is good, but I don't know how effectively it would work in the circumstance. --Caspian blue 16:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Badagnani has been behaving exactly as this ANI report describes (baseless accusations, insistence on doing things his way while refusing to discuss his objections or provide any kind of supporting information, ignoring all attempts to try to find a compromise) for years, and been brought to ANI over and over for it, as Bdb484's list of links indicates. And he almost always escapes punishment here, despite refusing to even acknowledge the situation or speak to his own defense at all, because he has some friends who always stick up for him and other people who will agree that when he's not in a dispute, he makes a lot of good contributions. Which doesn't excuse his absolutely horrendous behavior when he does get into a dispute.
 * He's going to keep doing the same stuff, over and over, because he very rarely suffers consequences (and apparently even the 30-day block didn't help). Yes, there are some specific people he has run-ins with over and over again, because those are people who work on the same topic areas and will try to improve his articles and who have the knowledge and motivation to bring the issue to another venue when he refuses to allow changes he doesn't like. The situation is not that those are the only people he has conflicts with and if he doesn't talk to them, he'll get along just peachy. (Has Bdb484 been accused of chasing Badagnani down and provoking him into a dispute?) The other unproductive "solution" that I've seen bandied about is that ever y single person who ever disagrees with Badagnani should have learn some special set of rules for communicating with him in a way that might possibly potentially convince him to discuss an issue productively, and it's that person's fault if they just try to speak to him like a rational human being and he won't respond like one. That's obviously ridiculous. As always, my opinion on Badagnani is he should be sitebanned until he shows a real willingness to acknowledge his poor behavior and improve it. (Of course, he hasn't acknowledged this ANI. If he avoids ANI discussions because he thinks they're unfair, as some of his friends have suggested, I don't see how that's an excuse; if I get an unfair parking ticket, I don't get it thrown out by simply failing to acknowledge it.) Propaniac (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * About a year ago I completly gave up watch listing my 100 plus articles I have written, and the hundreds of articles I have contributed too. Why? Because I found that I was spending more time policing my contributions than writing new contributions.
 * Badagnani has 138,234 edits and 1,344 articles created. I would guess that he has those 1,344 articles watchlisted, despite WP:OWN editors tend to police their articles they spent hours and hours and hours on, and get frustrated when editors come along and delete large portions of well refenced text.
 * Not being involved until yesterday, I can't vouch for this statment: "Badagnani has been editing the Goblet drum article since 2005 with no apparent problem. So Ronz shouldn't be coming in and looking for trouble."
 * But I can say that in my interaction with Ronz in the past, Ronz tends to WP:Bully. I can probably guess how the Goblet drum interaction between Ronz and Badagnani went, but don't want to make any assumptions.
 * Many of the editors who are calling for Badagnani's block above have the same characteristics. Instead of writing articles and contributing content, most of their time on wikipedia is spent deleting other editors good faith contributions.
 * Ikip 20:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Goblet drum:
 * Ronz first edit to the Goblet drum is to re-delete what User:Bdb484 had deleted. 17:20, 30 Nov 2009.
 * Ronz has never added a single source to the article. Ronz only edits were deleting other editors contributions and tagging the article.
 * The first time that Ronz discusses his deletions/tagging on the talk page is 00:13, 5 Jan 2010.
 * 56 edits to User talk:Badagnani.
 * I guessed it right, same modus operandi as I have seen repeatedly before:
 * # delete
 * # edit war
 * # spilling over to talk page arguments.
 * Requests for comment/Ronz 2? Ikip 20:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you do that, don't go directly to 2. The first "RfC" on Ronz was never certified, and was abandoned in draft form early last year. I've therefore deleted it. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Lord knows I would never start it. But thanks for deleting the first one.
 * I think a mutual ban from each other would be good. Never having worked with Badagnani before, but based on the list above, Badagnani's editing habits are probably like Ronz.
 * Badagnani appears like he gets in enough (stupid) edit wars. I am at a complete loss at how an editor can have been here so long, with so many edits, and not know all the ins and outs of 3RR. Ikip 21:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems that I've held myself to 1rr there. Quite the edit war! --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ronz. Honestly, if we are talking about Goblet drum would Badagnani, Bdb484 agree to 1RR, of course there are ways around this (off-wiki meatpuppetry) but it is a start.
 * Unfortunatly after my comments about Ronz, I think it is better if GTBacchus make comprimising suggestions, as I will probably be seen as too (justifiably) biased at this point against Ronz.
 * If an interaction ban were to be seriously proposedthis is a good template to work off of, (the only one I am aware of) which offers very little wiggle room. Ikip 21:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ronz just messaged me on my talk page that he would be happy with a 1rr.
 * I must say, Ronz, I am very impressed by your mannerism. It is like talking to a completly different editor than early last year, late 2008. Nice job (sincerely). Maybe I was completly wrong, and I will strike many of my assumptions, and will refactor them out with only a link remaining if anyone asks. My apologies. Ikip 21:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If Ronz (and possibly Grayoshi2x?) hold themselves to 1RR in interactions with Badagnani, it could help us determine the source of the problems. If it's true that Ronz's and Grayoshi2x's treatment of Badagnani is what sets him off, then their disengaging should lead to peace. If they back off, and Badagnani gets into the same problems with other editors, then I think we can say that Ronz and Grayoshi2x weren't the problem. Make sense? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ikip!
 * Yes, I'm happy to stick to 1RR with him if editors feel that would help the situation. I had also agreed with GTBacchus that I'd be more cautious with using his talk page, not repeating myself there. --Ronz (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ronz, on wikipedia, in a sea of forced civility it is hard to make sure if an editor is sincere or simply going through the required motions forced upon all of us. I appreciate you taking my comments at face value, because they were sincere. I am sure you have become a much more effective editor now. Some of us learn faster than others (it took me much much longer). Maybe Badagnani can learn something from you about how to conduct himself on wikipedia more effectively [although he would probably never admit it :)]
 * GTBacchus, I am so uninvolved in this dispute, I don't know who Grayoshi2x is. I do know that the Ronz's reversion of Badagnani was to User:Bdb484 edit, who seemed to be also edit warring with User:Bdb484. User:Bdb484 also initiated this ANI.
 * If there was a 1RR requirement excluding User:Bdb484, and User:Bdb484 and Badagnani got in a protracted edit war, what would this show?
 * A Bdb484/Badagnani edit war would show that Badagnani was edit warring, of course. But what else?
 * Has Caspian been involved in these edit wars too? Ikip 22:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't understand why anyone edit-wars, ever. It's clearly the wrong way to do things, and there are so many smarter strategies. The thing is, it takes two to edit war. If Badagnani is on 1RR, then Bdb484 can't really edit-war with him, because you can't tango with a tree. I'd support putting everyone in this thread, myself included, on permanent 1RR. -GTBacchus(talk)23:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be fine with me (and I'd rather just stop interaction with him altogether for a while). It's not like our edit warring is solving anything, so a 1RR/wikibreak will help relieve tensions.  GraYoshi2x► talk 22:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

New proposal
It sounds like the main objections to imposing WP:1RR are that (a) the whole thing should be bumped up to ArbCom for a more definitve solution; and (b) Badagnani will simply be baited into a block by Ronz or Grayoshi.

To be honest, I'm just don't know, procedurally speaking, whether this is appropriate for ArbCom, but perhaps I could propose a compromise that would allow us to solve this without further escalation. If Badagnani has chronic communication problems, regardless of which editors he's interacting with; and concerns have been raised about Ronz and Grayoshi interactions with Badagnani alone, perhaps we could impose 1RR on Badagnani, project-wide and impose 1RR on Ronz and Grayoshi, as well, but only with respect to edits made by Badagnani.

Given the pattern of these editors' interactions, such a rule might give R & G a leg up, but given Badagnani's history, that may be acceptable. If Badagnani reverts, then Ronz reverts, they're both at a dead-end. The pre-revert version of the article will be maintained until consensus can be reached at the talk page.

This seems to me like it might address all the problem areas. Anyone else? — Bdb484 (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to find ways to work with him, and interject when he's in conflict with others. Mostly, he doesn't respond, which is an improvement for him.  For example, in All in This Tea, when I removed some linkspam  he reverted  with the edit summary "+".  I reverted, and left him a comment on his talk page about it .  He didn't continue the dispute, nor did he remove my comment on his talk page.  While the edit summary is strange, this demonstrates that editors can work with Badagnani in a way where his behavior is acceptable.
 * As far as I can tell, Bdb484 first interacted with Badagnani in an almost identical situation at Oud. Sadly, it resulted in an edit-war, and likely led us to this ANI. 1RR would definitely had helped in Oud, and might have prevented this ANI discussion entirely. --Ronz (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I should mention that in the case of Oud, I noticed the edit-warring but kept out of it, other than to comment at the end of the talk page discussion. --Ronz (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * RECAP:
 * The chances of a 1RR for Badagnani being imposed here at ANI are slim. But everyone wants to avoid arbcom.
 * GTBacchus and Childofmidnight come up with a possible solution.
 * The agreed upon proposal thus far was GraYoshi2x, Ronz had 1RR. Badagnani has yet to agree or disagree.
 * I brought up a concern  that there seems to be a pattern of edit warring with Bdb484 and Badagnani too. I also ask Caspian blue if he has edit warred two. I have not yet received a response.
 * Bdb484 then proposes further restrictions on Badagnani.
 * Ronz then follows up with more edit diffs about Badagnani possible bad behavior.
 * {| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"
 * {| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"

!align="left" width="700"|Bdb484 offer, Badagnani's stark choices. Ronz comments.
 * Bdb484, I cannot speak for Badagnani, but if it was me personally, I would reject Bdb484's new proposal.
 * Bdb484, I cannot speak for Badagnani, but if it was me personally, I would reject Bdb484's new proposal.

This is because Badagnani was given a better offer before. GraYoshi2x, Ronz, Badagnani equally have 1RR. That better offer is still open.

Bdb484 is now offering something more restrictive now. Compromise usually doesn't involve a good offer, followed by a worse one.


 * "Badagnani will simply be baited into a block by Ronz or Grayoshi."

Let me give an example to illustrate my concern. Lets take the article Goblet drum lets say that Ronz and/or Grayoshi get in an edit war with Badagnani. Each editor does there 1RR for the day. Ronz and/or Grayoshi then e-mail you Bdb484 and ask you to revert Badagnani. With your 3RR available Bdb484, this puts Badagnani at a definite disadvantage.

The first comprimise is already bad for Badagnai. He already has three editors who have edit warred with him, and who may work together to edit war together with him again.

Badagnai has three stark choices:


 * 1) A 1rr in some form. The editors have a combined 2rr or 3rr, which means his edits will be deleted. This does not even take into account meatpupptry or sockpuppets. This means many of his edits will be deleted, and he has no recourse (except for his own meatpuppery or sockpuppets)
 * 2) Arbcom, in which his edit history is pretty bad. If what you say is true, his communication skills are bad, so he will not be able to compile an adequate defense without help.
 * 3) Ignore this and hope it goes away and editors will loose interest.

Ronz's most recent comments:

I agree with Ronz and Bdb484 that there has been bad behavior by Badagnai, based on Bdb484's above edit differences. The majority of the editors here agree. So Ronz, bringing up more examples of bad behavior does not help at this point, it only hurts the chance of comprimise. Per rewrite of Ronz. Sorry again Ronz.
 * }

[removed per Caspian blues request]


 * Compromise is giving up something to get something in return. If the answers to the questions are yes, what are Caspian blue and Bdb484 willing to giving up to stop the disruption and to see Ronz, Grayoshi,  Badagnani have 1RR? Ikip  01:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, would you remove this weird table format singling me out of the bunch? Your assessment and questions are also troubling me as well because the assessment is incorrect. Caspian blue and Bdb484 willing to giving up to stop the disruption What disruption? I'm neither one who edit wars with Badagnani nor has an issue with him. You forgot the fact that I'm the one suggesting the group 1RR to everyone who deal with Badagnani. I of course haven't edit with Badagnani for more then 9 months unlike Ronz and GraYoshi2x because I've always provided "reliable sources" and used discussions with him to persuade him (and it worked well). Don't forget that I opened the two discussions to form a consensus about the Wiktionary matter. So I've already practiced 1RR when it comes to Badagnani (haven't feel to revert so). If the ArbCom is open, well, there should have more people other than here. Badagnani, Ronz, GraYoshi are the main party for the ongoing 9 months dispute and the other include me, CoM, Viriditas, GTBacchus, Jerem43, Tanner-Christoper, Melonbarmonter2, Sennen goroshi, and many others in dispute with him on XfDs. If you remove the (interrogating) table, I will tell the reason. --Caspian blue 02:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of that analysis above bothers me because we seem to be assuming that reversion is helpful. If I'm in a dispute, and the other guy reverts and I can't revert back, that puts me at no disadvantage at all. I always hold myself to 1RR, and that's never been a disadvantage. It's only a disadvantage if you don't know about the multitude of strategies that are so much smarter and more effective than reverting.-GTBacchus(talk) 02:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL GTBacchus, so true. I keep seeing so many of the problems here on ANI, and I keep thinking, that guy just doesn't get it yet. Ronz seems to "get it". Badagnani does not yet.
 * There are the rules and then their is the way wikipedia works, and they are often not the same thing. I had a really hard road learning this. Many editors who are smarter and better with people learned much faster. I am still learning, usually the hard way :/. Ikip 02:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ronz wrote the following on my talk page:
 * Ronz, I will strike anything you like. I apologize, I felt a little flustered because it seemed like we were so close to an agreement, and it got side tracked, and we moved backwards. My apologies if I offended you. It was my (flawed) perception of the status of the compromise.
 * I sense that what Ronz said is true (slightly edited):
 * "If you look at Badagnani's past behavior, you'll see that he's unlikely to participate in the ANI, nor an ArbCom for that matter. If by some extremely slim chance he does participate, it's safe to assume that he'll respond as he always does, with grandiose language that doesn't address the issues at hand...This is not a judgment of Badagnani, but simply a statement made from the perspective of someone that's worked very hard to understand his behavior and find ways to successfully interact with him."
 * Have you all been to mediation? Should I ask Badagnani if he will agree? Ikip 02:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I note that Badagnani has never responded here. I think Ronz is right in that he is "he's unlikely to participate in the ANI" frankly, all options from here on out feel too tedious to pursue and I have grown bored of this. Best wishes all. Ikip  02:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

From the edit history, it looks like there have been some comments put up and then taken down requesting some information from me regarding any past history with Badagnani, etc. If those are still outstanding, I'll be happy to address them. I'm honestly not sure where everything stands now. To be clear, though, my preferred outcome does not involve formal sanctions against anyone but Badagnani. I'm not familiar with Grayoshi beyond what's been said here. In the case of Ronz, I've seen a rash of persistent, unconstructive posts on Badagnani's talk page trying to get him to talk. I don't think that requires 1RR; I only suggest that imposition because he's offered to accept it and it seemed like it might keep the ball rolling.

With respect to the new proposal, though, I just wanted to say that I was throwing it out there because it seemed like a possible compromise among the parties involved in the discussion. It may have been worse for Badagnani, but I hadn't really considered whether he would reject it, as he has gone radio silent since the ANI case was opened. It's my hope that he'll join in at some point, but his edit history reflects that the likelihood of his participation in any discussion is inversely proportional to the number of level-headed people involved. — Bdb484 (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe 1RR all around, and interaction discouragement between the 3 parties, is the way to go.
 * There are enough people currently watching Badagnani's userpage (150!) that I would suggest Ronz unwatchlist it, to prevent the urge to 'jump in' during random future discussions.
 * Badagnani is unlikely to join the thread here - he's a classic exopedian. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you know that number? (I think that's an excellent suggestion, by the way. Un-watching people's user pages is like getting paid to win the lottery - so good.) -GTBacchus(talk) 04:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (eg) At the top of every 'history' page, are (currently) 4 links to various "External tools". The third one, "Number of watchers", will show how many people have that page&talkpage watchlisted. If the number is under 30, only admins can view the exact number (a "–" gets displayed to everyone else).see here for details I think it was added in Oct/Nov, but hasn't never widely advertised.
 * Bear in mind that "watchlisted" != "actively watching" in any way, a thread about which is currently at Village pump (proposals) (might be about to be archived). -- Quiddity (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that Quiddity's proposal is the only one which will prevent this from going to Arbcom. btw, I don't thinkthis edit by Badagnani has been mentioned edit; he uses a very misleading edit summary "rm commentary" for what is essentially a revert of this edit by Bdb484.   John Vandenberg (chat) 12:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice spot; that one got past me. Tricksy little hobbitses..... — Bdb484 (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

My two cents on this is block and forget about it. Badagnani is not above flat out lying about other users and basically making up strange claims in the middle of a discussion to disrupt it. An interaction ban is pointless because it doesn't matter who he interacts with. Anyone who disagrees with him gets treated the same. So I suppose I do support an interaction ban, a ban on his interaction with this community. You can see in link 12 (under AN/i) above the flat-out lies he spurts and bold face bad faith accusations he makes over and over and over. The guy has been brought up 15 times at An3...15 times.. I don't really care how "good" his contributions are. This is a community and if he can't work with it, he can't be part of it. An interaction ban with 3 users is pointless when numerous people have brought him here to complain about him. It shows the problem extends far beyond three users and anyone ignoring that needs to go back and re-read those links and see all the various users that have complained about him or certified there are issues. He completely refused to participate in the RfC about himself which shows further unwillingness to work with the community. If someone is trying this hard to avoid working with the community we don't need to try that hard to force him.--Crossmr (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Crossmr, I'm not sure why you're holding your feeling on the one-time conflict with Badagnani for that long, which happened more than a year ago. You could've let it go long ago. You appeared to be able to "let the past go" and amicably work with your opponents (you know what I mean). As you see the latest ANI or AN3 files are all related to Ronz, GraYoshi2x or a couple of AfD things. I'm gonna leave a message to your talk page later.--Caspian blue 16:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have let it go. That doesn't mean I can't talk about it in relevant conversation. It might be those 3 users now, but it will always be "some user" over the years it has always been different users. Badagnani has always been the same and not changed. So interaction bans are pointless. If we just wait it won't be those 3 users anymore and it will be different users. That is the problem. The only interaction ban that is any good is a ban on his interaction with the community.--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom
I've read through this whole discussion, but it seems to me that ArbCom needs to get involved here. Is there any reason why we can't get them involved? This seems to me to be the most suitable course of action. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu)talk 05:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this essay, User:GTBacchus/A recurring problem, is the best insight into this problem.
 * Specifically, from my own tinted perspective (and oversimplified for brevity of communication), we have 2 extremes of editor-archetype butting heads. Badagnani is an exopedian eventualist, who enjoys creating stub/start quality articles. I would guess that he is an older gentleman. The people he tends to clash with, are our janitors, often those of an immediatist and exclusionist persuasion. (one of whom has lots of experience policing the Spam and EL noticeboards.) I would guess that they are a fair bit younger than Badagnani (20s-30s?).
 * Badagnani just wants to add information to the encyclopedia, but sometimes doesn't pay close enough attention to the details of our WP:RS guidelines, or, because he deals in esoteric subjects, he often finds the fine-line of "do we include this?" that consensus gets tricky at (eg List of gamelan ensembles in the United States, or the example that started this thread at goblet drum). His opposition just wants to clear up what they see as listcruft, or delete imperfect content.
 * Both archetypes, somehow, need to be made welcome here, and not step on each others toes (especially not on purpose!).


 * If we can get Badagnani to agree to 1RR (I can try later), I think that would be preferable. I don't think he would do well with the legalese of arbcom. I'm running out the door, but I'll try to add more in a couple of hours. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can get him to agree not to do any more reverting, that would definitely be better than taking to ArbCom and having something enforced, I agree. But if the behaviour continues, then I do think that ArbCom need to get involved. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm with you on this. The discussion above shows that we don't have a great idea for fixing this issue. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the arbcom would pummel him more than the petitions at this ANI  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  05:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well then, so be it! ArbCom are usually quite fair in their decision making processes. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 05:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd support this going to arbcom. We don't give infinite chances, and we don't bend over backwards for someone. We're here to form a community, not massage badagnani so he graces us with his contributions. No community can function doing that.--Crossmr (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd support indefinitely blocking him until he grows up. He's been told to knock it off, he was unblocked under a promise to stop it, and he continues to do so.  This isn't brain surgery, he knows what he's supposed to do.  Enabling him just lets him avoid it (and I've had my own dealings with him).  Punting it to ARBCOM doesn't solve anything and he's just going to continue because people seem to find certain editors irreplaceable (which time and time again proves to be wrong).  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? ArbCom are perfectly placed to make a reasonable decision on this one. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, is anyone volunteering to put the case together? -GTBacchus(talk) 14:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to put it together as the workday permits, provided there isn't a huge rush. Given the that this spans such a long time, how far back should I go in naming "involved" parties? — Bdb484 (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, if anyone has any comments on anything I need to remember, the draft is here. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Although I'm the one who've first suggested taking the matter to WP:ARBCOM or group WP:1RR in the report. That was because one-side 1RR sanction would be extremely unfair in the circumstance. We've reached a consensus beside Badagnani that the involved party keep following the group 1RR. Therefore at least we have to have a little more patience until Badagnani appears here whether he also agree or not. I will urge him to do so. If he agrees to abide "1RR" and "be civil", I don't think ArbCom is necessary "at this moment". Moreover, if my memory is correct, Ricky81682 you had a couple of sour interaction with Badagnani. I highly doubt indefinitely blocking him would work for him to "get it". Bdb484, I appreciate your effort to resolve the issue, but your compiled files includes complaints from "sockpuppeters" and "indefinitely blocked user" as well as mere content disputes. The latest AN/I and AN/3 were all related to Ronz, GraYoshi2x, and Badagnani's clashing with some admin for XfD. You appear to be not knowledgeable of the history, so if the issue must be filed to ArbCom, there would be better people out there.
 * Here is a list of roughly "involved party" for the possible ArbCom though.
 * Badagnani, Ronz, GraYoshi2x = main party for the 9 month long edit warring
 * Me, Melonbarmonster2, Jerem43, Tanner-Chistopher, Sennen goroshi mainly for Korean cuisine
 * GTBacchus, ChildofMidnight, Viritidas, Quiddity - criticized on Ronz, GraYoshi2x's hounding of Badagnani.
 * YellowMonkey, Amore Mio - Vietnamese topics
 * Gordonofcartoon, William Allen Simpson, Bulldog123, Hmains, Crossmir, for list articles or incivility
 * Ohconfucius, Cordless Larry, Jza84, Propaniac, and many others.

However, I want to first see how effectively the proposed group 1RR would work. If this turns out to be a waste of time, then we can go to ArbCom.--Caspian blue 16:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ArbCom or 1RR -- either route is fine with me; my only concern is that there doesn't seem to be any indication that Badagnani will ever appear to defend himself here. For a while now, (roughly coinciding with the last RFC/U, maybe) he has simply refused to participate in any discussions about his communication problems. He's written on his talk page since being notified of this discussion, but he hasn't participated, despite several subsequent entreaties.
 * But it sounds to me like we have rough consensus to move on to ArbCom, especially given his refusal to engage and his apparent inability to recognize why anyone would ever have a problem with his editing patterns. If someone else wants to take up the ArbCom case, they can use the link above as a starting point. I'm definitely not looking to WP:OWN this dispute. If not, I'll handle it, because I definitely don't have any more patience for Badagnani's antics. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think we have a rough consensus for ArbCom; instead, we have the group 1RR. The two set of the opinion both do not include Badagnani. If you closely looked into the listed past cases, he appeared in some of cases to explain/defend his conducts. To me, he has frustrated over the fact that nothing has been done to ban the ongoing harassment and hounding of him. Of course, that is also his responsibility, but he is not the solely responsible for the "9 months long edit warring" and incivility. I left a message to him "this will be the last chance for him before WP:ArbCom. So I think we can wait at least one or two days.--Caspian blue 17:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no need to have a consensus for arbcom. Anyone can file an arbcom case at any time for any reason. Arbcom decides if they take the case. Even if we had a consensus for arbcom they could still reject it. It looks like several people would support sending it to Arbcom. Badagnani is completely responsible for his behaviour and he won't even come here to explain it, which seems to be a habit of his. He's responsible for the behaviour that has been going on for years and yet continues it. 1RR won't solve that at all. I'm gone for a couple days, so just in case I wasn't clear, I'd support an indef block until he demonstrates he can work with the community or an arbcom case.--Crossmr (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1RR would be a reasonable option, the only problem being that Badagnani would have to agree to it, and preferably shortly. If that doesn't happen within this thread I'd support going to ArbCom. Enough dispute resolution has occurred, including an RFC/U and this thread, to warrant it. ArbCom can intervene without his participation so it would be a good solution to the matter if he chooses to ignore this thread.  Them From  Space  01:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

He's back
Badagnani has returned to editing. Because of the accusations against me, and the assertions that he only behaves inappropriately when interacting with certain individuals, I'm asking for someone else to look over his edits and at the first two edits since returning ( & ), where I've chosen to respond (at Kora, and at Talk:Glong yao  --Ronz (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I took a look at his edits, which of course include several reversions of other editors' work. From a cursory review:
 * The Kora (instrument) link is obviously not appropriate as an "official" link, and probably not as an EL at all;
 * Edits to Zhengzhou are legit, though the edit summaries could be toned down;
 * At dog meat, it seems like the reversion is legit -- if a little sloppy -- as most of the material appears to be sourced;
 * At Yaqui, it looks more like the classic pattern, where he simply objects to the way another user has chosen to edit the material;
 * At Agave nectar, it definitely fits the abusive-revert pattern. There is a content dispute, based on assertions that are flimsily cited, hereverts, demands a talk page discussion and never shows up for it.
 * To be honest, some of these edits smell like bait to me. I'm not going to be the one to step in (and you probably shouldn't, either), but I'm hopeful that someone whom he listens to will take a look. — Bdb484 (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would just file the ArbCom case. This editor is obviously disruptive, this is really where ArbCom comes in. - Tbsdy lives(formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Last call
Several editors seemed to prefer delaying an ArbCom case in the event Badagnani was willing to show up and work toward a less severe sanction. This ANI case is now almost a week old, and although he's acknowledged it, he has not bothered to offer any input. I can't imagine that anyone still thinks this is going to be productive.

Since we can't seem to reach consensus on any course of action here, I'm hopeful that I'll have the support of all the editors here when I file at ArbCom tomorrow. Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like we're going ahead, instead of simply blocking him again for his continued disruptions and edit-warring that have gone on for years. --Ronz (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Why ArbCom?
I wouldn't be surprised if ArbCom punts it right back here, if they see what I see. Maybe I'm missing a whole lot of context, but from my read of this, it seems to me the community should be able to come to a consensus here. This involves one person, and it seems there are two possible outcomes: 1RR or community determined indef, IOW ban. It shouldn't be difficult for everyone to make a choice. Auntie E. (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Until he chooses to address his problems, further blocks with extended lengths are warranted at a minimum.  If he's open to any other option, he needs to communicate it. --Ronz (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * At this point he's given no evidence that he's going to be change his behaviour, so I can't see any good reason not to go to an indef. He's been blocked before, he's refused to engage in discussions about his behaviour, this AN/I thread and the RFC as evidence of that, and a block is supposed to prevent disruption. So if he's not going to acknowledge or discuss his problem and isn't going to change after all this time, the only solution is an indef block with the onus on him to demonstrate he can work with the community. We are not here to coddle him.--Crossmr (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All editors are expected to discuss what they do. I believe that a long block of Badagnani is justified, that would be lifted if he would join in discussions. His last block was for one month, and it was issued due to non-communication. Since he chose not to address that problem, and since there still are major issues with his editing, I think we should proceed with a block for two months. Sad to say, this would be normal block escalation for an editor who refuses to cooperate with others. At that point, the future is up to him. If non-cooperation is truly that important to him, he can remain silent.  EdJohnston (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Those both sound reasonable to me. However, there have been a lot of these suggestions over the past week, but there have not been quite as many administrators who are willing to take the initiative to actually follow through. If someone wants to do that in this case, we're good to go. If not, the ArbCom case is drafted and ready to go tonight.


 * Here's hoping we can avoid that. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * At this moment, I'm not opposed to the idea of indefinitely blocking him since he has ignored the "last minute" urges for him to reply to the compliant. Two days have past, and he has been quite. I'm also very skeptical that he would appear to his case if the ArbCom is filed by Bdb484 tonight. ArbCom case usually takes for two months, and well, if he would not come, that could be just a waste of time for all people involved or concerned. I thought he at least would've come here to defend or oppose the proposed remedies since this case is not the same as the other complaints on him in the past. If any uninvolved admin takes the job to block him infinitely, then, that's it. If he wants to edit Wikipedia, then he has to communicate with people. Opportunities are enough offered.--Caspian blue 16:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, fine with me, provided that someone is actually going to do something. Also, his persistent failures to add sources to articles and his inability to recognize reliable sources or differentiate between primary and secondary sources suggests that we should also consider revoking his autoreview privileges. — Bdb484 (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We're probably at the last moment where an Arbcom filing can be avoided, unless Badagnani participates. I have notified Badagnani that someone in this thread has proposed that he be blocked. The block would only last until he joins in discussions about his editing. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Now at ArbCom
The case has been filed. If you need to add additional parties or statements, you may do so here. — Bdb484 (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Indef block
Does anybody object to an indef block? The prior block over same issues was one month. If this matter goes to ArbCom, the result is likely to be a one year ban. Why expend all that effort if we could just go to the same end point right now? With a block, there is a chance the user might engage in discussions about their behavior and reach an agreement to do better and thus get unblocked. The ArbCom ban is likely to be much harder to get lifted. Jehochman Brrr 14:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support -- per nom. Either now, or a year from now. Let's go with "now." Auntie E. (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support -- per everything said over the last week. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Supporting as a last ditch effort to avoid the lengthy arbitration process.  Them  From  Space  21:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - ArbCom cases take quite a while, and if the community is able to resolve this issue, I see no point in taking up the arbitrators' time if the end result is the same, if not harsher, than a community-enforced sanction.  GraYoshi2x► talk 21:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible support, in the genuine hope that Badagnani would choose to work on his issues and eventually return to contributing. I would sincerely be disappointed if he left for good, but anything's better than the status quo. Propaniac (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Where the suggestions above have been on the order of 1RR, an indefinite block is swatting flies with a sledgehammer.  Such remedies are what Raleigh referred to, but they do not, in fact, cure anything at all. Collect (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The indefinite block is because the editor refuses to acknowledge concerns.  Once they are blocked, they will need to address concerns before they can edit again.  If or when that happens, we can entertain lesser sanctions as possible unblock conditions. Jehochman Brrr 22:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would also disagree. 1RR doesn't solve all the problems with badagnani. One problem is edit warring, but that isn't his only problem. 1RR won't solve the personal attacks, bizarre assumptions of bad faiths he often makes, and complete and utter failure and communicating in a manner that allows him to work with the community.--Crossmr (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's this kind of exaggeration/hyperbole that people object to Badagnani making. He has not completely failed to communicate with the community - Look at the 17 pages of his archived talkpage to see hundreds of examples of perfectly pleasant interaction. However, he has failed to respond appropriately to many legitimate problems over the years, hence he can be said to have some communication problems. I hope he can acknowledge this, and adapt some of his problematic habits (regarding communication and sourcing), so that he can return as an editor. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually what I object to are outright lies, fabrications and his insistence at continuing that behaviour even when counseled by several users to knock it off. Anyone can say "have a nice day" to each other that is trivial and frankly pretty immaterial and not required knowledge to work with a community. Working with a community requires dispute resolution skills and I haven't seen any evidence that he possess any that would allow him to work with this community.--Crossmr (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. I've seen Badagnani get second chance after second chance after second chance. Nothing ever seems to change, so at this stage this may be the route with the most promise, if it can be said that there is promise in the circumstances. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no need for a pile on. I am placing an indef block. This is a block, not a community ban. If the editor addresses concerns properly and make a convincing unblock statement, that can be decided. I will request a community discussion prior to any unblock as many people have spent a lot of time investigating and working on this matter. Any administrator who considers an unblock request needs to fully familiarize themselves with the facts of the matter. This may take some time and discussion, especially with regard to possible unblocking conditions such as editing restrictions. An indef block was already approved at Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive554, but a final chance one month block was placed instead with the blocking admin noting that the next block should be indefinite. Jehochman Brrr 23:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The 1RR should have just been placed involuntarily, in the same way that this indef was. Some people say that you should get indef for not recanting etc. Well, there's no need for more communism on Wikipedia where "reactionaries" have to engage in "self-criticism" sessions or else get walloped on the head. The fact that he didn't sock when he got blocked means that he is likely to comply with sanctions in the future, what's the point of trying to force a confession or self-criticism speech  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  00:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are criticizing a position that is different from what I said. He needs to respond to these serious concerns.  He can accept, deny, explain or do whatever he wants, but his response needs to be serious and convincing.  When he responds, we can consider what to do, such as 1RR or something else.  At this stage I do not know what would be appropriate because the editor has refused to respond. Jehochman Brrr 03:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Is it really best to have this discussion on a subpage of ANI? I don't think any outside opinions will be attracted here unless perhaps we make a note of a block discussion at ANI.  Them From  Space  03:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible oppose This is incredibly damaging to the encyclopedia building effort. Badagnani has endured stalking and disruptive hounding for months now. Blocking him is outrageous and flies in the face of the discussion when it was where people could actually find it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problems for which Badagnani is being blocked are the same problems for which he was blocked multiple times in 2009, 2008, 2007, and 2006. Nothing in the past few months caused his problems years ago, nor are they excuses for his problems then nor now. --Ronz (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I won't regret getting into this, but: ChildofMidnight, how would you handle Badagnani's policy violations if the matter were left to you? — Bdb484 (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Which policy violations? He edits articles with an approach that he think is best for our readers. Many editors agree with him. When there's a conflict he's difficult, but if you get consensus on your side he will respect it. There's no need for editors in to chase him to new articles. They should just leave him alone or be blocked. As I've suggested previously, my solution would be to sort out the conflicts be getting consensus and then mandating that the disputants go there separate ways. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You nailed one of the problems right there: "When there's a conflict he's difficult". Yes, he's very difficult. In fact, he often refuses to discuss the conflict at all, but he still continues to edit in ways that cause conflict. I have not "stalked" him, but I have seen him do this a number of times—I think it demonstrates a disregard for WP:CON, which is a fairly central policy. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * On the one hand, Badagnani makes fairly indefensible edits like this. That's just plain wrong (unless they have a worldwide monopoly on producing the instruments).
 * On the other hand, I think some of the editors whom Badagnani gets into conflicts with, can at times, be almost or as stubborn as him (and are a lot better at communicating their perspectives to other people, than he is). I think he is trying, in a way that is obviously not succeeding (and is often [equally] undiplomatic), to get edits like this (and next 2 diffs) to be more carefully or selectively done. (I was poking at examples given above and elsewhere, and noticed that one. We have articles about some of those removed links! I made these 2 subsequent edits ,, which I hope is an improvement.) Cleanup is good. Over-zealous cleanup is bad.
 * But if he doesn't reply with his perspective, nobody can help him. I'm trying to be silent/brief, so he has less to read and reply to if/when he does return and communicate. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked over every single one of those links that I removed from Music of Australia and checked them individually against our external links guidelines. That article had a massive linkfarm that I properly cleaned up per WP:EL and standing consensus. If you have trouble with that, or any of my other edits, please take it up with me on my talk page and not here.  Until then I stand behind my cleanup efforts 100 percent.  Them  From  Space  06:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support an indef block pending discussion, on the grounds that were stated by Jehochman: "He can accept, deny, explain or do whatever he wants, but his response needs to be serious and convincing. When he responds, we can consider what to do, such as 1RR".  EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)