Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/More edit-warring by Badagnani

Same old story as documented in his RfC/U, the many 3RR reports on him, and most recently, Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive532.

This time he reverts 17 edits made by three editors (myself, Quiddity, and Gwalla), then reverts Quiddity's attempt to restore the material:.

His contribution to the talk page between these two edits, and only recent comment even vaguely relevant to his reverts, is one about working together: --Ronz (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been involved in several disputes with Badagnani. I'm currently involved in one now with him, on Talk:Buddha's delight.  But the way I approach the issue with him, is much different than how others do it.  I use the discussion page and wait a bit.  My experience tells me that Badagnani has only the best intentions for Wikipedia, but his method is somewhat eccentric.  It seems that he expects other editors to understand and agree with his POV without much fuss, as if we were all inside his head along with him.  This perspective often leads to edit wars because frustration levels rise on both sides.  I think if we all calmly use the talk page with Badagnani, things will work themselves out and everyone will be happy.  I would like Badagnani to make an effort to put himself in the minds of others for once, and in this example, I would like to see him try to understand where Ronz is coming from.  Far too often, Badagnani puts us in his head, and that isn't reasonable. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * From what I've seen he just repeats his point of view, and reverts any changes against as "massive blanking", or has his MO changed? Verbal   chat  10:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is certainly one way of looking at it, but there are multiple perspectives on it. I'm coming from a different POV.  Basically, what I'm trying to say is that Wikipedia has many different personalities, and it takes a certain kind of person to use this site for any period of time.  Some people have strengths in one area, and serious weakness in another.  Badagnani does a great deal of good work here, but when it comes to dealing with anyone who disagrees with him, he has problems.  As others have mentioned in previous/ongoing discussions, Badagnani needs a mentor.  I've found that he is open to reason, but it takes some effort to get there, and some editors find it easier to edit war.  Simply saying that "he repeats his POV and reverts any changes" could apply to many editors here.  Looking at my discussion with him on Talk:Buddha's delight, I think  Badagnani makes some really good points, but the chasm between the way he goes about doing things and general policy and guidelines is very wide.  All I'm saying is let's at least try to bridge that gap with more discussion.  After some discussion, Badagnani does get around to compromising, but we all need to work towards that goal together.  Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been at Talk:Buddha's delight too, and see nothing different: the usual false accusations of stalking, and Badagnani revert-warring to keep completely unsourced material on grounds of appeal to personal status - "An enormous amount of research went into the writing of this article (by a WP veteran)". Why should the rest of us have to compromise to humour an editor who is at odds with a long list of content/conduct policies, guidelines and conventions, and is producing a trail of substandard material and bad interactions alongside whatever good? It's not merely about style of handling disagreements; he appears not to understand stuff such as the importance of WP:V, and how we don't write articles by personal compilation of primary sources. 86.148.152.232 (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please put aside your anger and try to see this with clear and calm eyes. I wasn't asking anyone to compromise against their will.  I'm asking for those involved to take a different approach, one that works harmoniously towards a satisfactory resolution rather than the edit warring and reverting that seems to follow the same group of editors who complain about Badagnani again and again. Viriditas (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Harassment and threats from Viriditas

 * Whoever the ip user is, be wary of Viriditas' sockpuppetry accusation.--Caspian blue 14:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been discussing a related subject on the talk page of Badagnani and myself. I am glad you are following both discussions on our respective talk pages, but I am concerned you are falling back into your previous pattern of harassment and stalking, a behavioral pattern that has got you blocked in the past.  I would like to strongly suggest that if Badagnani needs a mentor, you should be required to have one as well. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're just threatening again with the bogus accusation: I've never wikistalked him but he has. I've been trying to cooperate with Badaganani in a very good air today, but the person like you rather ruined his reputation. I'm so sad to reconfirm that that kind of disruptive behaviors is your typical character since I've seen more than third time. You must brush up the definition of stalking and meatpuppeting that you did for Badagnani. I don't remove anything on my watchlist after I edit so would many others. So my warning to the anon about your vengeance is no wonder. However, I see your block records in the past are also very impressive, so I don't find any good from your blatant threats. Please do not threaten constructive editors any more. That is only harmful to the community.--Caspian blue 02:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, you are free to follow the discussion on our talk pages, but your obsession with our talk pages is a bit troubling considering your past pattern of bad behavior. To recap what I said below, if it continues and is brought up here again, I will support your immediate ban.  Thanks for listening. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is no wonder that you're deliberately distorting my comment again and harassing more. I'm not watching you at all because I have never visited you or do not need to waste my time. You're wikistalking and digging my talk page to harass me. If you continues this kind of disruptions and which is brought here again, I'm surely convinced that the community i better off with you. Thank you for providing such valuable evidences on your disruption for your impending future. You know what? Anyone who say a curse is going back to the initiator. Good luck! --Caspian blue 03:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the kind of bad behavior I'm talking about. You made a series of false statements and then accused me of "deliberately distorting" your comments.  You seem to only be here to cause problems, not to help resolve them.  You really aren't fooling anyone.  We were discussing edit warring by Badagnani, but it's clear that his detractors are just as guilty, if not more so, of the same bad behavior.  I would encourage you to put aside your anger and frustration and turn over a new leaf. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're the one who has produced a series of false statements and then accused me of wikistalking him. I have a religion, so I don't want to see such highly inappropriate comments more coming from you. Enough is enough. -Caspian blue 04:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The lady doth protest too much, methinks. To recap, you wrote above,"Whoever the ip user is, be wary of Viriditas' sockpuppetry accusation."  No such accusation has been made.  I expressed concern with the dynamic IP SPA's following Badagnani around, with Buddha's delight (and Talk:Buddha's delight as one example).  I asked Badagnani if he knew what was going on, and he responded with the following on my talk page:
 * "The dynamic IPs (I think in the same range) began showing up about a week ago at a handful of articles, usually using longish edit summaries that show familiarity with WP, take a legalistic and fairly aggressive tone, and accompany removals of text or references. Often the IPs would begin operating once a day had come to a conclusion and various editors at the pages in question had already 'used up' their two reversions for the day. I wouldn't guess who is doing this, but what I do know is that it's wrong."
 * I then followed up with a comment about how the IPs always showed up right around the time of another editor. And earlier, I mentioned that I found this to be a form of harassment.  Using dynamic IP's to revert a single editor and harass them isn't tolerated on Wikipedia.  No outright sockpuppet accusation was ever made, contrary to your claim.  Isn't it interesting, however, that you appear to be defending this type of bad behavior? Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for calling me as "The lady". Funnily, I've thought of you as a female. Do not try to excuse your ill behavior. Didn't I ask you for "No more disruptive behaviors and harassment". You feign to be surprised that your plan on the open place while you're indeed wikistalking to my talk page and mocking me enough. Your history tells me that you're indeed having a big problem with incivility such as frequent WQA reports. Whether you further trying for the sockpuppetry case based on your view is not my concern. I concern about somebody who might get trapped in your behaviors, very unfortunately. Why don't you stop such harassment campaign? Writing the last is not winning, my milady.--Caspian blue 12:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, you have trouble with common English phrases (The lady doth protest too much, methinks) and generally misunderstand what is being said. This is why you often ignore the issues under discussion and engage in repeated aggressive displays as compensation.  It's ok, I understand why you act this way.  But in the future, if you don't understand something, just ask questions.  Don't engage in wild speculation and aggressive displays fit for animals.  If you can't address the topic under discussion, such as why you defend the use of SPA IP accounts who follow Badagnani around, then just remain silent or plead ignorance.  Otherwise, your repeated digressions into wild fantasy and personal attacks make you look silly. Viriditas (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel very lucky that we have no common interest in editing areas. Again, you're making up another story. I have not defended the IP at all, but just alarmed him/her to be aware of the accusation thrown by you. Then, h/she might not use Ips. As I'm seeing your vicious personal attack campaign and threats, I think I really can have more patience in dealing with Badagnani's problematic editing. Thank you for the valuable opportunity.--Caspian blue 12:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You know very well that I edit cuisine-related articles, and you showed up to demote Cuisine of Hawaii during one of your last disputes with Badagnani. I logged a protest over your last dispute with Badagnani, and you went to the top of my contribution list and suddenly "showed up" for the first time ever approximately three minutes after I edited it.  You have a habit of "showing up" to articles like this whenever you disagree with someone.  It's called hounding, and you need to stop doing it.  Please don't reply with the excuse that "it was on my watchlist" because it wasn't.  You edited the page for the very first time three minutes after I did because it was the last edit I made on my contribution list, and you've done this to many editors.  The problem with dishonesty, is that you can't keep track of what is true and what is false. Viriditas (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is certain that you see, what you want to see. That's why your imagination has no value to me. You're obviously incapable of assuming good faith. At that time, I was editing "many cuisine articles" other than Korean cuisine. Almost every cuisine articles are on my watchlist because I'm interested in improving such articles unlike you. Your sudden show-ups to Eugene, Ronz and their edits do not add up at all. That's called indeed "hounding" and reverts for Badagnani are called "meatpuppeting". You have harassed and threaten them and the admin who knows the whole situation regarded your behaviors and view are way off the mark. Now you're expanding your specialty to me. No thanks for more excuses on your disruption.--Caspian blue 13:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me bring you up to date. I have more than one diff.  You hounded me over at Cuisine of Hawaii because you were upset about your dispute with Badagnani, a dispute that I had commented on in a discussion with you during the same time.  You visited my contribution list and followed me to that article during the discussion.  While you were hounding me, you were also hounding Badagnani in separate articles, and you were following his contribution list as well.  And the admin who "knows the whole situation" apologized on my talk page.  Hopefully, you will find this update educational in some way. Viriditas (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Enjoy your imagination.--Caspian blue 13:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at the page history of the article in question, List of gamelan ensembles in the United States, I see 153 peaceful edits (many by Badagnani) from inception on 29/01/2006 to 25/03/2009, that is roughly 50 per year. There have been over 150 edits to the page since Ronz's first edit on 24/02/2009 (50 in the last 2 days), not to mention 2 afds and much heat on the talk page and several user talk pages. It seems to me that Ronz, having manifestly and deliberately stirred up an edit-war on and about this page, is now complaining about it. A simple solution would be for Ronz to remove the page from his watchlist and police the other million or so list pages, many of which are far worse than this one. There is List of symphony orchestras in the United States, for instance. Or is just Eastern lists that need attention (cf List of Chinese music ensembles in the United States, afd'd and deleted by Ronz et al)? Occuli (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's comments like these are the best support that Badagnani gets for his tendentiousness, then he most definitely needs a block. Arguments that assume bad faith and intentional disruption are of no help. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Bad faith has been amply demonstrated on this particular list; AGF was exhausted long ago. Ronz has now (yesterday) followed the 2 unsuccessful afds with an immediate rfc on the talk page. I would consider a block on Ronz for perfecting a new variety of Wikihounding, WikiPitBulling or similar. The jaws are locked and there is no respite in sight. I take it that it is just Badagnani-related lists that are to be subjected to RonZealotry. (I am watching List of symphony orchestras in the United States, a Badagnani-unrelated list.) Occuli (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You made me check to see if you were an admin, because you're saying like above. Don't make such the wrong impression to others. I see your bad faith instead.--Caspian blue 11:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but if the user is blatantly ignoring and disregarding the RFC against him and continuing to engage in the activity that has led to the RFC in the first place, then, as has been done in the past with other users, a block may be necessary and probably an indef one until the user decides to address the RFC. MuZemike 16:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Badagnani again. I warned him at Talk:Nokdumuk last Sunday not to further edit war with editors, but that does not work obviously. At that time, he may have breached or been close to 3RR violation to several articles as wiki-stalking his another opponent. My suggestion is just to report Badagnani to WP:AN3. No need for further him indulging in endless edit warring. Even before Ronz and Badagnani battle, Badagnani has been always edit warring with multiple editors for his nonsensical insistence and made bogus accusations like "blanking". If I would've reported his 3RR violations, his blocks (more than 4 blocks perhaps?) would have been piled on. Enough is enough. Mentorship? Who's gonna take the hard job? One admin failed it already. I guess Viriditas will do the honor.--Caspian blue 13:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I am pleased to announce that my discussion with Badagnani on Talk:Buddha's delight has led to fruitful results. Perhaps this demonstrates that a calm and direct discussion with Badagnani can work.  In the future, I hope more editors will engage Badagnani in this manner.  It is the least we can do for our fellow editors. Viriditas (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you think I have not reported him once to ANI/AN3 regardless of his numerous 3RR violations and wrongdoing to me and editors for a long time? Badagnani wikistalked not only me but also other editors (Jeremy, Tanner-Christopher, Melonbarmonster) to harass them. I was once in your position - I created many articles or edited per his requests and persistent nagging - and did discussion with him in calm manner with patience, but that did not make him changed a bit. He is still doing the same behaviors and I gave up my hope that he will be changed. Please do not boast your one time effort. I still recall "your dreadful threats" to Eugene. What a first impression.--Caspian blue 10:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I may have been here longer than you, and I have been involved in other disputes with Badagnani. These things have always worked themselves out to completion.  We cannot "change" others, only ourselves. Viriditas (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Some quick research shows that you have met him much less than I have. You have a even willingness to revert for his sake even though you know those are wrong. However, I can agree with your last sentence, and my impression on you seems valid.--Caspian blue 14:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. I will ignore your false accusations as I find them childish and impolite.  We simply have a different approach to Wikipedia.  For example, I believe that this kind of behavior is not acceptable from any editor, and anyone who does it should be banned. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're obviously "wikistalking" and "harassing me" again. I've been already ignoring your absurd accusations and threats because I don't see any slight possibility for our cooperation given your repeated such behaviors. You're quoting the 20 min. research which are mostly filed by abusive sockpuppeters or SPA, and including Badagnani' absurd accusations. I already told the admin about it. However, I have a lot to say about Badagnani's long-term wikistalking and harassing of me which can be confirmed by adminstrators in Korean cuisine. While you can enjoy your hypocrisy. Anyone who frequently threaten and curse editors like these should be banned from the community indeed. Don't forget that one admin thinks your behaviors and blind defending for him is very troubling. Why aren't your behaviors consistent with your lecture? :)--Caspian blue 02:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you need help with your English skills, feel free to ask. There are no "threats" or "curses" in any of those diffs.  I would also be happy to provide you with any links to online dictionaries if you need them.  I think the record is pretty clear concerning your disruptive pattern of behavior, and the next time it happpens and is brought up here for debate, I will support your ban without any hesitation.  That is neither a threat nor a curse, just a statement of fact.  So please, continue your behavior. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What a cheap attack you're relying on. I've been attacked for my English in only a few occasions by "notorious harassing editors" such as abusive sockpuppeters. Those have been repeatedly indef.blocked by my RFCU, so that's why I've falsely accused by them. Thank you for another reconfirmation on my first impression and valid criticism on you. You're truly repeating such disruptive pattern of yours. So go on. Your another "curses" and "threats" are all being recorded in the history.-Caspian blue 03:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think part of the problem is your poor comprehension skills. The other part is your need to generate conflict through attention-seeking behavior.  Your attempt to derail this discussion has only provided further evidence of the people behind the harassment campaign against Badagnani.  I want to personally thank you for shedding light on that topic and demonstrating the real problem at work. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of your problems is your complete denial to look back on yourself and not to know when you have to cease your behaviors. As I said, some admin thinks of your talking highly troubling and threatening. Your attempt to discredit my valid concerns on him is only proving that you're letting him continue his problems, rather trying to fix them. You do not assume good faith at all on editors who disagree with you. My relationship with him is up and down, but you're just getting down and down. No thanks for "more opportunities" to know about you. --Caspian blue 04:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said previously, I am pleased with my past interaction with Badagnani on Talk:Buddha's delight and many other articles I have been in a dispute with him, such as Muntazer al-Zaidi, (see also User_talk:Viriditas/Archive_26). Perhaps if you would stop edit warring and reverting Badagnani, you could spend more time on the discussion page and less time on AN/I. Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Another false accusation and lies. Edit warring? Why don't you do better research instead of making up such imagination. You mean your recent edit warring and reverting for Badagnani? I don't recall any edit war with him in my several months. My time has been wasted by your disruption. As I said "enough is enough".--Caspian blue 12:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * More recently, on April 24, you threatened to continue harassing Badagnani "forever" by keeping the RFC open. I don't think RFC's are used in this way, and WP:BATTLE comes to mind.  You have an obvious grudge against Badagnani (and evidently anyone who questions you).  Perhaps it would help if you just ignore him from now on since you seem more than a bit obsessed with him.  Making veiled references to my talk page discussion with Badagnani is creepy enough. Viriditas (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Another false and vicious accusation based on your creepy imagination. I said, unless he does not comment about it, the RFC would not be wrapped up. That is an advice for his sake. Other RFCs that were filed even later were wrapped already. Your endless WP:HARASSMENT and threats here are really intolerable. Your obsession with such ill imagination for Badagnani is no wonder. Now, say about "my alleged edit warring with him". Your habit of lying and making bogus accusations indeed are proven as one of your typical characters. Desisting your such behaviors is your burden of your life.--Caspian blue 12:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The RFC will be closed at the appropriate time, whether you like it or not. Wikipedia is not your personal, private battlefield for you to harass someone "forever".  Frankly, I encourage you to take this to arbcom.  There is so much evidence against you at this point, I think the case will backfire on you. Viriditas (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A great deal of my time has been wasted by your harassment.--Caspian blue 13:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reminder: This is a discussion about "more edit-warring by Badagnani". Nobody is forcing you to participate.  If you feel compelled to do so, perhaps you can get back to your original statement where you recommended that I should be Badagnani's mentor..  In other words, you began this discussion by discussing me.  And now you call the discussion you started, harassment?  I'm talking about my direct experience with Badagnani and I'm proposing solutions.  What are you putting on the table besides nominating me as a mentor? Viriditas (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the discussion is about Badagnani, not me. Thanks to the acknowledgment.--Caspian blue 13:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, IMO, the RFC was started as a vendetta against Badagnani, and some of the editors participating there (both in the creation of the RFC and as commentators) were hounding Badagnani to the point of following his contribution list and reverting all of his edits in retaliation. To me at least, the RFC was made in bad faith, although some of the concerns there are of course, legitimate.  It's akin to catching flies with honey, and this RFC is dripping with vinegar. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Section break, section break

 * As an aside, see Talk:Music of southern China. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Completely indifferent observer checking in. The topic of discussion is framed in the title, the "bickering Bickersons" need to stop the carping and go back to the original question, how to deal with an editor's contributions that have not been helpful. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC).
 * I think I've addressed that topic in full. If there is something I've missed, let me know.  Basically, this dispute with Badagnani involves a small group of people who have prior disputes with him.  I think Badagnani means well, and most of his contributions are helpful.  But there has been edit warring on all sides here, and each party needs to take responsibility for contributing to the conflict. Viriditas (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If all agree, let's call this a day and move on. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC).
 * I agree with that summation, and his ideas in the 4 diffs linked, and his conclusion. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't agree that the only people who dislike Badagnani and can't work things out with him are in this small group that he's accused of stalking him and reverting all those edits. There are many other people, myself included, who have spoken against him in the RFC and in the last ANI thread and in previous ANI threads. I had no prior history with him when I ran into a dispute with him at Talk:Musette last September, but he behaved exactly the same way (that is, terribly) that he has in all the other disputes I've seen. And if he's so blameless, why can't he offer any defense of his actions himself? It's pretty ridiculous in my eyes for him to be excused based on one or two other users inventing a defense for him.
 * He should have been blocked based on the last ANI discussion; clearly, there was no kind of consensus otherwise, but no admin wanted to go ahead and actually take action so the thread just got archived without any resolution, as seems to happen a lot with Badagnani. Propaniac (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Propaniac, I spent some time looking at the example you gave above, namely Musette and Talk:Musette and I'm afraid I disagree with your overall assessment. According to the page history,  Badagnani has been editing this page for years, beginning on 19:30, 13 August 2005.  He also edited it as an article and after it was turned into a dab page.  User:Tassedethe tagged it for cleanup on June 3, 2008 and you responded to the request on June 26 by removing the majority of the content as extraneous per dab guidelines. No message was left on talk about the deletions, nor was any material moved to the talk page.  Badagnani first noticed the deletion on September 7, 2008 and restored the missing material.  At this point, Propaniac should have used the talk page, but he didn't, and that's when the edit war began, with a third user User:Philip.t.day, showing up to revert Propaniac's deletions/cleanup. Badagnani was the first to use the talk page and his usage was polite and courteous, adhering to all manners of civility and respect.  Propaniac showed up to the talk page almost 13 hours later after reverting again, and the discussion became sarcastic, and full of incivility.  Now, that is in the page history, and everyone can see it.  Regardless of who is right or wrong here, it is how we communicate with our fellow editors that matters the most. Propaniac did not treat Badagnani in a civil fashion, and expected Badagnani to just agree with him because Propaniac was doing the Holy Work of Jimbo and Larry.  Propaniac could have slowed down a bit, asked for input from the dab project, pursued a third opinion, and tried to work out a compromise with  Badagnani.  Instead, we get this diff from Propaniac taking a stubborn stance, saying "I'm not going to back down on this and allow you to change it back to the old version, no matter how long you drag this "discussion" out by saying the same things over and over..."  But, User:Philip.t.day and User:Badagnani were against the change.  I think this could have been handled better, and some kind of accommodation made, either by educating editors about the dab guidelines or by moving the deleted content somewhere else.  In summary, Propaniac felt that by his writ and Holy WikiPower, the dab page would be cleaned, by hell or by high water.  This is not the best attitude to have in a collaborative environment. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I can't imagine that anybody is still reading this, but I'll respond anyway for your sake. The first thing you fail to note in your version of what happened are the edit summaries that Badagnani left when he originally disagreed with my cleanup. If he had said, "I don't agree with removing all this text, let's talk about it," that would have been fine. (I highly doubt that the ensuing discussion would have been more productive, but it would have gotten off to a better start. Instead he said "restore considerable text blanked" as if I had simply done it randomly with no cause at all. On his next revert, his entire summary was "rv blanking; no good" which is an INCREDIBLY rude thing to say and certainly could not possibly be considered productive discourse in any possible manner. (You also don't mention that Philip.t.day promptly reverted himself and apologized for undoing my edits; your presenting him as a supporter of Badagnani's POV is totally deceptive and makes me sincerely question your motives.)
 * So yes, I was very annoyed already when I began the Talk page discussion, because Badagnani had already been very rude and dismissive towards me in his edit summaries. You go on to say, "Propaniac did not treat Badagnani in a civil fashion, and expected Badagnani to just agree with him because Propaniac was doing the Holy Work of Jimbo and Larry." That is absolutely ridiculous. I expected Badagnani to agree with me because Wikipedia guidelines on disambiguation pages are very clear, and I could see no reasonable way that Badagnani's version of the page could be considered to remotely adhere to those guidelines. However, I invited Badagnani over and over to provide some specific reason why my edits should not be made, and he did not. His arguments were that the new version was inaccurate and incomplete (but he would not point to any actual inaccurate or incomplete portion), and that I was misreading the guidelines (but he would not point to any specific part that supported him or did not support me; there's no indication he's ever actually looked at the guidelines).
 * So yes, after several days of Badagnani repeating the same accusations in literally the same language, but refusing to offer any specific point that we could actually discuss (what the hell would you expect me to do when he says fifty times that my wording is inaccurate, but won't name any specific inaccuracy? What is there to discuss? How could compromise possibly be reached?), I told him that repeating the same thing over and over would not cause me to give up and let him restore his version; it's clear that that was the only possible outcome he was looking for. And, again, you're simply lying if you're suggesting that I did not seek to educate Badagnani about the dab guidelines, or advise him to move the deleted content elsewhere; I quoted the relevant guidelines and offered extensive explanation about how they help a dab page meet its purpose, and I suggested that he could start a new article that could be linked from the dab page, but he would never confirm that that was even his complaint.
 * I had thought you were simply overlooking some of Badagnani's transgressions, but your view is so objectively wrong on so many facts, always in his favor, that I really do wonder if you're for real or if you're only pretending to be the only person on Earth who thinks that Badagnani comports himself perfectly well in a conflict. Even if I were as rude and stubborn as in your version, you fail to explain why Badagnani couldn't point to any specific thing wrong with my version of the page. Maybe my discussion with him would have gone completely differently if I had coddled him, complimented him, wheedled him, but if that's what Badagnani requires in order to discourse like a rational person, that's his problem, not the problem of every other user. Propaniac (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right about Philip.t.day reverting himself; I missed that, and I've struck it out above. If you had assumed good faith you would have chalked this up to a mistake.  Instead, you began to engage in wild fantasies, speculating that I'm "simply lying" a "supporter of Badagnani's POV" making you think I'm being "deceptive" and "questioning my motives".  This is exactly the kind of bad behavior from you I'm talking about, and I want to thank you for demonstrating it for everyone to see.  Just because I see things differently than you doesn't make me a liar, and just because I made a mistake, doesn't mean I'm deceptive or supporting Badagnani.  I'm here because I've been in nothing but disputes with Badagnani, but I have handled each one differently than many of the folks here, and they have all been resolved.  Throwing out guidelines and quoting policy at Badagnani isn't considered a "discussion".  You already admitted that you were angered by his edit summaries (which I find nothing wrong with by the way) and that led you to engage in your incivility and edit warring.  I don't see anything actionable here, but I think your attitude needs an adjustment. Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My questioning your motivation was not purely because of the error with Philip.t.day (although it can't have been an easy error to make, missing his apologetic edit summary directly on top of the one you referenced). It's also because your version of events completely skips over the actual discussion that took place. You ignored my many, many appeals to Badagnani to present a clear problem with the page that we could work together to rectify. You ignored my attempts to explain why his version of the page doesn't meet with guidelines, and you ignored my efforts to suggest that he start a new article with the deleted information (and you were "simply lying" if you were suggesting that I did not do either; if you weren't suggesting that, you weren't lying). And now, in your subsequent reply, you've ignored my appeals to you to explain what should be done when Badagnani says that a page is inaccurate or incomplete, but he can't name any actual inaccuracies or incompleteness; when he says that I'm misreading the guidelines but he won't point to any part of it that supports him. The reason I never brought the issue to other editors is because I literally, sincerely, had no idea how to phrase his argument in our dispute, because he wasn't making an argument; he was making statements with no supporting information to indicate their validity, which led me to believe that they are not valid. He was certainly welcome to seek other editors' input himself if he thought that anyone would agree with him; I am 100% certain that if I had brought the issue to other editors familiar with disambiguation page guidelines, they would have agreed with me, because there is no possible reading of the guidelines that supports his version of the page (and he gave no reason why the guidelines should be ignored in this specific case). Propaniac (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. Take a step back for a moment.  Has it occurred to you that Badagnani does not understand disambiguation guidelines? Viriditas (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I absolutely assumed that to be the case initially, which is why I quoted the guidelines that indicated a disambiguation page should be a bulleted list, with one bluelink per entry, at the beginning of each entry, all of which are qualifications obviously not met by his version. He completely and totally ignored this, as if I hadn't said anything about the guidelines at all. Later he said that I was misreading them, but that was all he would say, not any kind of explanation about how his page met the guidelines. But according to him, he has "read and knows the guidelines well" (and appears to be offended at the suggestion he might not know them). Do you believe that I should have just kept trying to explain the problem, when a) it does seem pretty clear to me already; b) he himself insists that he doesn't need explanation, he understands them better than I do; and c) he's indicated a perfect willingness to just ignore what I write if he doesn't understand or agree with it? Propaniac (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When someone doesn't understand something, quoting policy and guidelines at them doesn't work. You need to talk to them on their level, in plain language, and get them to ask questions, so there is a back and forth going on; As I said above, if you had brought in the dab project after your first pass, they would have taken over from there.  There are some very helpful members on that project who I have called on to help me in the exact same situation you experienced with Badagnani.  These people are really good at using simple language to explain disambiguation to people who don't get it.  In the past, I have been in your situation, so I understand where you are coming from.  You are assuming a level of technical expertise that Badagnani may not have.  In order to deal with this situation, you have to change your usual strategy. Viriditas (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would never assert that I'm always 100% successful at choosing the best words to make something clear. However, I'm still skeptical that the problem in my interaction with Badagnani was that he did/does not understand what a guideline is, or that the part that I quoted at the top of the talk page required any level of technical expertise (beyond familiarity with bullets and wikilinks) to understand, or that he couldn't say, "I don't understand what this is or why it means we have to change the page" instead of ignoring it completely, telling me I'm the one who doesn't understand, and proclaiming his own expertise. If someone ignores what I have to say, I take that to mean they don't care, not that they don't understand. If anyone had told me, "There was a similar issue with Badagnani before, but User X was able to reconcile it with him, so I suggest asking User X for help," I would have been happy to do so (oh, and I'd be very interested in a link to the previous similar dispute you referenced), but I had no way of knowing that this was not an isolated issue and I don't believe any of my actions were unreasonable.
 * You now seem to be taking the attitude (and I'm not being sarcastic here) that despite being a very experienced user, and despite his repeated assertions that he understands the situation, anyone dealing with Badagnani should assume that his problem is a lack of understanding even of quite basic Wikipedia concepts, and continually try to make the issue clearer and clearer, and eventually he'll understand and then he'll be able to work productively. Even if it's true that he really doesn't understand, I strongly disagree that the burden is on every other user to make that assumption and keep trying to explain things to someone who says he needs no explanation. If he chooses to respond antagonistically instead of by saying, "I don't understand this," he's not making the effort towards productive discussion. Propaniac (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The burden is on the user making the contested change. And that burden involves using the talk page in a collaborative fashion.  You tried to force your changes into the article, whether right or wrong.  And when you encountered resistance from Badagnani, you didn't follow WP:DR. That is my position.Viriditas (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's really easy for me to understand now how you can defend Badagnani so fervently: your entire defense never actually acknowledges anything that he does, or didn't do. You just blame the other person for not being able to find this magical, elusive formula that will turn him into a reasonable editor. But for all your talk about WP:AGF, even you couldn't look at what he actually wrote on that talk page and pretend that he ever treated me like someone with a legitimate issue that deserved his attention or respect. (And yes, when he refuses to provide a single reason why I am wrong, no matter how many times I ask him to, I will continue to think my view is the right one. And when you refuse to tell me what exactly I should have done that I did not do, I will continue to think that you know I tried my very best to work with him and you're just too entrenched in this charade to admit that he's impossible.) Propaniac (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to repeat myself in case you didn't read what I wrote in this report. I have been in nothing but disputes with Badagnani, for years.  I am not here (or anywhere else) defending Badagnani.  Because Badagnani will not defend himself here, I am playing devil's advocate.  I have also played this role in other pages, and I have tried to mediate in several articles.  In some cases, I have reverted to a previous version of a page that Badagnani edited because the discussion had not yet concluded.  In other incidents, I have pursued my investigation by trying to ask questions of his detractors.  I do not know Badagnani.  I do not communicate with him offwiki.  More recently, I have engaged in a discussion with him on my talk page, where I expressed my concerns with his editing style.  I also left him a warning on his talk page.  Some editors think that my actions mean that I am "defending" him, but I really don't see anything to defend.  Rather, I am trying my best to understand why these disputes keep arising.  I have several theories, none of which I have discussed onwiki just yet, but in my experience, Badagnani is reasonable if he is treated with the same respect all of our editors deserve.  Without going through my contribution history, I can't tell you how many disputes I've had with Badagnani, but if I had to guess, I would say there must have been around 5 or so.  Each one resolved themselves after a day or two, with no hard feelings.  The resolution always involved some form of compromise, either on his end or my own.  You say that I'm "entrenched in this charade", but I don't see that.  I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this.  I didn't participate in the RFC because it was inherently biased against him and I found it to be motivated by anger and spite. Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (Backing up indents a bit for the sake of sanity.) Perhaps you see some kind of difference between advocating for someone, and defending them, that I'm not aware of. I never intended to suggest that you know him outside of Wikipedia; I did intend to suggest that you have decided that all the blame for Badagnani's many disputes are the fault of the wide range of other editors who have been involved, and you'll continue arguing from that position beyond all reason. Calling yourself a devil's advocate does not dissuade me, since by definition a devil's advocate will argue for a position whether or not he is actually convinced of it himself.
 * Returning to the subject of respecting other editors and assuming good faith, in my mind (and perhaps you disagree) part of assuming good faith is that when another editor does something that you think is wrong, you assume they had a reason for doing it and they are entitled to know why they were wrong (and in the process perhaps you realize that you were the incorrect one after all). When Badagnani undoes any edit that removes text (which seems to be the action that most consistently leads him to disputes), simply on the basis that text was removed, and totally failing to address any edit summary that explains why the text was removed (or dismissing such reasoning with "no good"), Badagnani is not being respectful and is not assuming good faith. He is similarly not being respectful when he ignores other editors' reasoning on the Talk page, even if he doesn't understand it, or ignores their questions when they're trying to understand his point-of-view. I believe that is why he has so many conflicts. Maybe you still think he's entitled to ignore everyone who doesn't state their reasons or ask their questions in the right way (or who gets annoyed at the first couple times Badagnani dismisses/ignores them and becomes less courteous in later attempts), but if you could convince Badagnani to stop ignoring people, even if it means he has to cede to their arguments some of the time, I believe that would put quite a dent in the number and the ire level of his disputes. Propaniac (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with propaniac as I share a similar experience on my first interaction with Badagnani. To claim this is the fault of some small group of editors is false. Anyone who disagress with Badagnani gets treated the same way. Whether he knwos them or not. Wikipedia doesn't need that kind of editor.--Crossmr (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Crossmr, can you provide a recent example like Propaniac? Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You know very well that I can as you read the email I sent you. That only happened 4 months ago and shows his behaviour was the same then as it is now as was prior to that by all accounts. His behaviour hasn't changed. For an editor that has been here 4 years, 4 months is plenty recent . I don't stalk him, but following some of the links that have been provided at the RfC and in the AN/I threads on him his language has been exactly the same since his interaction with me 4 months ago, which shows he has hasn't changed his behaviour at all. Badagnani also refused to get involved with his own defense at that time, and is doing it yet again.--Crossmr (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Crossmr, I acknowledged that I received your e-mail on your talk page at 09:15, 1 May 2009. However, I do not discuss the contents of private e-mail onwiki. (In the spirit of Harassment)  You are, of course, welcome to discuss it here, so that was why I was prompting you to do so.  The diff you give above is not very specific, so perhaps you can pick the most egregious incident and briefly link to it?  Or, feel free to discuss this in any way you like.  You could even repost the links you sent me here.  Unfortunately, I no longer have your e-mail due to several issues with my inbox.  Please send it again if you can.  I took a look at the diffs in the section linked to the diff above named, "User:Badagnani personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith and stirring the pot" and didn't find anything out of the ordinary or problematic.  Maybe you could find one that you think is the best example. Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing problematic about repeatedly lying about what a user has said and insulting them multiple times over a period of 2 days? Wow. You and I have a very difference definition of problematic. Those diffs are well laid out and explained. He repeatedly lied about what I said for 2 days and when called on it, just moved on to other insults and other attempts to misrepresnt different things I said. #8 is the most telling about his behaviour. After literally begging me through numerous insults and misrepresntations to engage on discussion on an article page (which was fairly pointless in the context of the discussion since we were having a policy discussion that had far reaching implications beyond a single article), his first response was to insult me after I did what he wanted . You can clearly see there was nothing uncivil about my tone in the comment prior to that and yet badagnani's response is immediate personal attacks and insults. Anytime he's asked to explain what is wrong with my tone, he refuses to explain it. The reason I put quotes around good was because the policy was specifically addressing there be a good reason for the galleries inclusion. Not to mention that message wasn't even in reply to him but a different user, in addition to his insults and personal attacks he edited my comment to thread it after his..--Crossmr (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see lies and insults in those diffs. I'm not saying they aren't there, I'm just saying that I don't see them.  If you can focus on one specific article or incident, it will be easier to take a look.  Keep in mind, that you are talking about things that you have interpreted, rather than what is actually there.  For example, if I hold up one hand and ask you to count my fingers, it is likely that 10 out of 10 people will say I have five fingers.  There isn't really an interpretation here.  It's a "truth" we can agree upon.  Likewise, try to pick a specific incident where there is little room for interpretation and where many users can see the same thing. Viriditas (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to interpret there. He makes claims, he's asked to provide evidence to those claims, instead he ignores those requests and moves on to other false claims. I Already focused on a specific diff for you and spelled out exactly what was wrong with it. After a long campaign of insults he repeatedly asked me to post on an article talk page and after doing so he continued further insults. If you don't think that someone labeling your contribution to a discussion as tendentious and disruptive is an insult or personal attack, then let me be the first to tell you that you contributions to this discussion clearly are. As for insults and lies: here he outright lies about my actions in this dispute: . I did nothing to indicate I was going to continue to remove galleries without further discussion (as soon as that discussion started and not once since have I removed a gallery from an article), and a month before this all began I attempted to engage him in conversation by posting several pieces of talk to one of the article talk pages that he was heavily involved in. Not once in the month I waited did he respond to it. Here he is lying again try to claim I never tried to discuss things and again, here her claims I want only 1 image for all the articles  which is a lie. He can't produce a single diff where I've ever said that, and yet again more lies . He tries to paint me as someone who was going to ignore consensus and yet after my application of bold and a discussion which result in no consensus I didn't continue at all. How many lies and misrepresentations would you like? Those are all the blatant ones. You wanted a recent event. I gave you that. You wanted a specific event. I gave you that. I also gave you a play by play of all the blatant lies. Anyone who has a look at the discussions that took place over those 2 days can clearly see that I didn't say any of those things he claims I said. In addition the style of language he used and his behaviour then is identical to now. Telling users to moderate their tone who clearly aren't being uncivil, or instead of continuing the debate simply making an insult and calling for everyone to get back to work on the encyclopedia. Then when finally called on his behaviour refusing to defend his actions and letting some other user fight the battle for him.--Crossmr (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you either didn't read my comment above or ignored it. You are giving me examples of "he said, she said" and that isn't helpful. Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're burying your head in the sand and trying to set some unreasonable parameters to try and make it look like he's done nothing wrong and that isn't helpful. I gave you multiple examples of his outright lies, all surrounding a single article as you just request. Patbingsu. He repeatedly, in several areas over 2 days stated that I wouldn't engage in discussion over and over and used that to misrepresent me and disparage me, and yet there is very clear evidence from my diffs that I had attempted to have discussion on that page. There is no "he said, she said". He said, its an outright lie, end of story. Even after corrected, he just repeated it over and over. You wanted evidence of his disagreeable behaviour and problems with the way he edits, you have it. Anyone who disagrees with him gets insulted and disparaged. Regardless of whether or not they're part of this small group as you claim, or someone who has never interacted with him before. The same language and tactics he users with this group of users are the same language and tactics he uses with users he's never interacted with before. Trying to ignore that doesn't make it go away and is the crux of the problem. Several questions were put to him about the content of the articles in an attempt to move forward with him, but most of his responses contained no furtherance of the discussion and instead resorted to personal attacks, insults and outright lies. Even when he would say something related to the actual content discussion, it would still often include some snarky comment. The simple truth is this: Your claim that his behaviour has anything to do with people hounding him is false. Given his behaviour now mirrors the behaviour then and I had no history with him, you cannot make that claim as some kind of defense of his behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, your diffs weren't clear and only represented your interpretation. For a live, current, and clear-cut example of what is going on in direct relation to the topic of this thread, without interpretation see: Talk:Chaozhou xianshi and Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring.  The problem here has been commented on by an uninvolved third-party, and does not require any interpretation by the involved parties.  In other words, this is unambiguous evidence.  Do you understand?  Before I comment on this new situation, I've invited Redheylin to give us his take on the issue. I've also left a strongly worded message on Badagnani's talk page. Viriditas (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Redheylin responds, but cannot indent any more! Certainly Badagnani has been most uncivil and appears to wish to block work on pages in which he has any interest. While I attribute good faith to his actions as far as possible, I have asked for collaboration, civility, citations for contested material etc to no avail. The trouble is; the user damages wiki with his edits and does not clean up. For example, he has been advised recently that a "rogue" page Chinese National Music has been spawned by another user as a result of an edit war with him, but the page remains. Similarly Music of southern China has been stalled and wrecked and a mass of fixed redlinks, removed duplicate and contradicted material, corrected English, citations etc have been replaced by him by means of unnegotiated reverts. Whatever flavour of "faith" is involved here, (I understand Viriditas view) the results of Badagnani's editing in this sphere are indistinguishable from vandalism. Practically, it will take days to make any improvements to pages in which B decides has has a stake, and that's not acceptable since he makes no improvements himself. Redheylin (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Anthony Appleyard's link above posted at 06:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC), and summary over at Talk:Music_of_southern_China, you performed multiple cut and paste moves, including redirecting an entire article that Badagnani had been editing, Chaozhou xianshi, to Music of southern China without any discussion. To date, there is no consensus for your edits. and you have acted unilaterally without consensus. This seems to be a pattern with all of the editors complaining about Badagnani.  You then spent the last 24 hours edit warring with Badagnani on the article and ended up reporting him for edit warring, knowing full well that if he had been blocked, you would have been blocked as well.  This appears to be some kind of provocation.  In any case, this does not excuse Badagnani edit warring in turn, but it does show a pattern.  An editor shows up to a page that Badagnani has been editing and begins making a series of extreme changes without any discussion and eventually starts an edit war with Badagnani, and then, after starting the edit war, complains about Badagnani on his talk page and then files a report against him.  There seems to be a pattern here of baiting Badagnani into edit warring, but I cannot be certain that is entirely true for all incidents, nor does it excuse Badagnani's behavior.  But all parties appear to be responsible for this continuing conflict, not just the reaction from Badagnani that seems easy to elicit.  It looks like people are repeatedly pushing Badagnani's buttons and baiting him into making reverts. Viriditas (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Viriditas, you already know that I am editing music articles methodically and in good faith and do not engage in edit-warring. Your view amounts to this - "if anyone edits a page that Badagnani owns without seeking his permission, they deserve all they get" Redheylin (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You say that you do not engage in edit warring. What is this, then:,   Are you going to sit there and say that this is not edit warring?  Those are two reverts of Badagnani, by you. Viriditas (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am going to sit here and say this is not edit warring, and I am going to sit here and say that you have asked my opinion, you have got it, you have assumed bad faith in it but there is no complaint against me that I am required to answer. I shall then sit here a little longer and repeat that your contention amounts to this: "If Badagnani is involved in a page, editors must expect he will destroy constructive work". Well they do, and that is what this is about. Redheylin (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then, I will sit here and say that you are misinformed. Please read WP:EDITWAR.  Your two reverts of Badagnani,  are defined as edit warring.  If you still dispute this definition after reading the link I gave you, then I suggest you find an uninvolved administrator to support you on this. Viriditas (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You have asked for my statement and you have got it. You have alleged bad faith hereabove in order to defend destructive editing and page-ownership. Edit-warring includes wasting editors' time given in good faith. I do not wish to have my time wasted by you or Badagnani so our conversation is finished. Redheylin (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm defending "destructive editing and page-ownership"? Where?  Provide diffs, please. Viriditas (talk) 06:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Viridtas, you indeed think that commenting last and attacking every editors who do not agree with your tilted view are "winning for your position". If my view on your relentless and unwarranted threats and curses are perceived only by me, GTBacchus would not call you "Mr. Dreadful". Moreover, I don't know why you, so self-righteous have been so many times to be reported for your incivility to WQA and for sockpuppetry. I think your constant attacking and unnecessarily extending the report led Badagnani's recent block. You don't care about Badagnani at all, but you just enjoy making a point and arguments to win over anybody. If you want to Badaganani to cooperate with others peacefully, behave yourself. --Caspian blue 03:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Observation
Viriditas, hi. I hope I'm not interrupting this thread at a bad spot. I'm noticing something about this conversation. Various people can cite instances where some conflict with Badagnani didn't go well, and you are generally able to point out that, in each instance, the editor conflicting with Badagnani failed to follow best DR practices. I think you're right. You're right that revert #2 is already edit warring. Most editors, however, sometimes make a second revert before using the talk page. It's a bad habit. However. If it is the case that any failure of other editors to precisely follow all of our dispute resolution suggestions leads to an acrimonious conflict... that's not so cool. Anyone who can't handle the fact that most editors are fallible humans, subject to frustration, anger, pride, etc. isn't going to do very well here. Where is this perfect editor, with whom Badagnani can work constructively peacefully, given the current situation? Here we are, needing a real solution. We can say that "someone should" find the formula to unlock this guy's collaborative potential. However, until/unless someone steps up and actually does it, that's not a solution. I know that you're not limiting your criticism to Badagnani's "fan club", because I saw that you also are advising him to change his style, and I hope he hears you. I also know that there is no point criticizing Badagnani here to his critics; just as there is no point in criticizing them over on B's talk page. However, I do think that you're... making the same mistake for which you criticized the RfC. Namely, the above doesn't taste like honey. How are you catching these flies? How will you catch the next batch that arise after this group, because Badagnani's habits haven't changed? Tricky, ain't it? -GTBacchus(talk) 15:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * GT Bacchus - I'd point you to the page Music of southern China where Badagnani was advised that the Chaozhou xianshi article that is still in place there was being prepared for that page and was invited to contribute. The text was then thoroughly checked by me so that no salient material was removed unless contra-indicated by the available academic sources. This was done because B had carried out an identical revert on another related article, nanguan, also claiming in the history that valid text had been removed (but refusing to identify or paste in the text in question). I am leaving out another dozen unexplained reverts by B. Therefore, after another careful check, I reverted with a note "please identify the text you want included". Another revert followed without information, so I tried again, this time with a note on the talk page, to be reverted again without information. At that point, realising that this was clearly edit-warring that was not aimed at improving the article, I reported the incident. All the time, Badagnani continued an abortive "conversation" in which he made various allegations about me and claimed he could provide citations for contested material but would not do so - however, he made no attempt to inform me of his actions on other pages or his reasons for them. Similarly, while procedural explanations may be found for such actions after the event, you will look in vain for any information to other editors as to what these procedural lapses may be - and, of course, you will find that such lapses have also been committed by B himself - the reverts you mention being an obvious example. Procedures are designed to facilitate improvements to wiki articles, not to justify prevention of improvement. Your point is right, if I understand you correctly - it is not possible to require, I think, that all wiki editors should be trained to deal with this kind of behaviour or induced to accept that it is in any way reasonable, beneficial or acceptable. It is like the boy soldier's proud mother: "Look, they are all out of step except my Billy!" Redheylin (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redheylin, hi. There's a lot of history to this situation... Did you catch this thread a couple of weeks back? I think we understand each other, and basically agree. Unless someone can come up with a plan to prevent the continuing disruption that surrounds Badagnani, we're going to be forced to ban him. I don't want that, but I'm not seeing another alternative that is remotely likely to take place. One solution would be that everyone who interacts with Badagnani, both now and in the future, somehow learns precisely just how to pitch each utterance in each interaction to avoid all the egg-shells, trip-wires and hair-trigger car-alarms that seem to surround our friend B. I think the probability of that solution happening is 0%. One solution would be that we convince everyone currently in any dispute with B. that they're in the wrong, and that they should disengage and make room for other, more collegial editors. This would work if everyone except for the (dozens? scores?) of us who have locked horns with the guy somehow are all able to avoid essentially identical conflicts. I think the probability of this solution coming to pass is 0%. One solution would be that someone, somehow, communicates to Badagnani that his own style will have to change, because "if you're sure it's always everyone else, it's a good bet it's probably yourself." After trying and failing to get this point across, and seeing others before and after myself try and fail, I don't believe that the probability of this solution occurring is much above 0%. Unless one of these numbers can be brought up to at least 1%, I think we have to block the guy. Can anyone say why not? Is there any other path out of this jungle that will actually work, in this world? The time for gazing at beautiful ideals is past. We need effective action, unless we want to be back here, rehashing this same thread next week. And next next week. And the week after that, and the week after... you get it. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The best solution for dealing with Badagnani is for editors to follow WP:DR. It works, and we won't have to deal with content disputes masquerading as behavioral problems in the future.  The question is not why we don't have to block Badagnani: The question is why we do.  The edit warring under discussion involves multiple editors, not just Badagnani.  So, if you are proposing blocking Badagnani for this incident, you will have to block the other editors as well.  This original incident report is based on a content dispute over at List of gamelan ensembles in the United States, a content dispute that seems to be working itself out on the talk page with calm discussion.  In closing, it should be observed that the original editor who filed this incident report began WP:DR procedures on the article in question 24 hours after the incident was posted to AN/I.  I therefore recommend closing this report as resolved.  Due to the complexity of this case and the involved editors (and administrators) I also recommend that any further discussion on this matter should involve the opening of a new arbitration case where the behavior of all parties will be examined. Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "The best solution for dealing with Badagnani is for editors to follow WP:DR". Yes, clearly. How are we going to make that happen? If we can't make that happen, what's plan B? I'm not "proposing blocking Badagnani for this incident". I'm proposing that, unless Badagnani is blocked, or some miracle occurs, this won't be the last "incident". I'm not talking about an incident; I'm talking about a pattern, and whether or not we are able to break it. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He is currently blocked for edit warring and for not using the talk page on Chaozhou xianshi. Anyone who still has a problem should take it to arbcom.  Since there are a number of admins watching him now, I'm sure escalating blocks will follow if there are any more incidents.  To answer your question, we can't make anything happen.  It's up to Badagnani.  How he responds to the problem is his responsibility, whether he is right or wrong. Viriditas (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I hear you say "It's up to Badagnani," and I also hear you say, "the best solution is for [other] editors to follow WP:DR". Both of these are good suggestions. Maybe the current block will encourage him to change; maybe another longer one will do it. Maybe ArbCom will have to do it. Meanwhile, I get the impression you're calling for some kind of changes from other editors, those with whom Badagnani has clashed. As far as encouraging that, what can we do? -GTBacchus(talk) 13:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing can be done other than practicing what we preach. I can't control anyone but myself.  In a society, when we can't control ourselves, others have to step in.  That's why we have arbcom.   Freedom is easy to talk about, but it entails a great deal of personal responsibility.  If you think about it, everyone who ends up at arbcom has given up their freedom to resolve a dispute on their own, and they have done so willingly.  Sadly, most people prefer it this way. Viriditas (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well yes, this is all very easy to agree with, but it seems to go against what you were saying above, like, yesterday. I'm still trying to figure out what solution you're suggesting we implement. Is it simply "lead by example"? That hasn't worked so far; shall we give it another year? Is your suggestion that we use some combination of persuasion and force to make his detractors all change their behavior? Who is going to make this happen? Is your suggestion that the next dispute go to ArbCom? Sounds fine. You talk about freedom... I don't really think in those terms, so I don't know what to say... Everyone's "free" to do whatever they want, but who cares? The question isn't "what are we free to do?" The question is "what shall we do?" Earlier, you were strongly recommending that "other editors follow DR". Show me the money; tell me a real plan. I'm not patient with platitudes here. There is an ongoing problem that needs solving. If the current block doesn't solve it, then we either do something, or we sit around complaining about how someone should do something. I recommend the former of those two choices, probably in the form of escalating blocks. Maybe that would help him realize that one person can't act outside the standards of the community and then realistically expect everyone to adapt to themselves, and to their special needs. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please try to see the forest for the trees. We are here because Ronz feels his freedom was impacted by Badagnani, who in turn, feels his freedom was taken away when editors began harassing him.  And we can see the rest of the comments from other parties, who also feel that their freedom to edit Wikipedia was lessened, and they blame Badagnani for ruining their Wikipedia experience.  And they all share the same thing in common: Each one wants to give their freedom to  the community because they don't think they are free in the first place.  This is not a platitude, it is the direct, underlying problem.  If you want to solve it, you first have to actually look at it, from all sides.  Otherwise, you are only addressing one aspect of it, and your solution will be no better than that offered by the blind men and an elephant. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll try to see what you're saying. People are upset because they feel their freedom to edit Wikipedia is being limited by the behavior of others. If this is the "direct underlying problem," can you help me see how that points towards a solution? If we understand that people feel their freedoms impinged on.... then what? How does that indicate where we go from here? If thinking in terms of freedoms is important, please show me how. If you're going to compare me to a blind man for possibly not agreeing with you about the true essence of the problem, then I hope you will at least take my hand and lead me around the elephant. Can you show me what we're supposed to see, when we think in terms of "freedom"? I'm all ears. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place for a philosophical discussion of freedom. Reasonable people can agree on the meaning of the term in the context that it is used.  I wasn't comparing you to a blind man, but you have admitted to only seeing one side of this issue.  For example, I don't think you have ever acknowledged Badagnani's claims of harassment.  From what I can recall, you have always poopooed the idea, mostly because you believe that Badagnani won't listen to you, and I get the sense that you are angry at him because he doesn't take your advice.  I think you have to get beyond your personal likes and dislikes and try to see this from another POV besides your own.  Everyone is not free to do what they want.  In a community, freedom has limits.  There are consequences to our actions, and harassment, edit warring, and incivility are met with restraints upon our freedom.  The editors in question have been allowed to act with few consequences.  Perhaps you will do something about that in your sanction proposal.  There is another form of freedom that is more important.  It is the freedom, the choice, to not react in a given situation.  Nobody is forcing anyone to harass others, to revert, to edit war, to make impolite comments, to attack other editors.  Every time an editor blames Badagnani for the "problem" they find themselves in, they are relinquishing their freedom to choose another method of resolving the conflict.  I agree with Occuli, Quiddity, and SamuelWantman on this matter.  No matter what faults Badagnani brings to the table, it is the stalking and harassment, the incivility and personal attacks by the editors who complain about him, that is the more serious problem. Viriditas (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * External comment: I hadn't realised this was still going on. Viriditas, I don't think this is a fair portrayal of the situation. As I said when I endorsed the RFC, Badagnani dramatises others' edits in relation to himself. At Talk:Wolfberry, where I interacted with him, he was (falsely, in my view) describing straightforward edits as, variously, "vandalism", "hyperaggressive", "stalking", "highly damaging and disruptive", "impoverishing our articles", "very, very wrong" long before any of the more recent discussions. As far as I can see, he's not being stalked or harassed, merely getting the attention that any editor gets who shows repeated problematic conduct or editing patterns. I can't see any reason to give special dispensation to one editor who has a thin skin and WP:OWN problems. As GTBacchus says, special rules - apart from sanctions on Badagnani - are unworkable. There'll always be new editors running into him who won't know those rules. And besides, it's expecting application of double standards: seems it's OK for Badagnani to remove unsourced material without discussion , but not OK whenever anyone removes his, many, unsourced additions. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You did not address a single point I made in the above comment, but replied to tell me that I was "unfair" and then went on to talk about your experience on Talk:Wolfberry. You make it seem like I am defending Badagnani's bad behavior, while ignoring my concerns about the harassment.  I'm not sure what the point of your comment was, but I disagree with it.  The talk page you linked to shows the same characters engaging in the same bad behavior and very little productive discussion.  My point stands. Viriditas (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see what was unclear. I'm saying I think he is mistaken in his claims of harassment - that Talk:Wolfberry exemplifies the way he dramatises justified edits as being persecution - and that you are mistaken in treating such claims as fact. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He isn't "mistaken", and you're saying that without even looking at the evidence. That's why your comments aren't helpful.  I've provided evidence of this harassment in many places, including here.  You are welcome to your beliefs, but I prefer an informed opinion, and you seem unable to even offer that. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: See Talk:Âu Việt. In my opinion, Mr Badagnani is a good editor but you should have a special methods if you want to work with him. Blocking him isn't not a good choice because it will hurt a lot of editor and remove an dedicated watcher of non-popular article such as Asian foods, Chinese music or history of Vietnam.
 * If we couldn't have a outcome here, why shouldn't we re-open this sanction proposal or make a new one.--Amore Mio (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, I agree that he's a good editor when not involved in these conflicts. I also agree that one needs "special methods" to work with him. How are we going to let people know about these "special methods", and how can we expect that other editors will agree to follow special rules when interacting with this one editor? Do you see how this is a problem? I don't know how we can maintain "special needs" editors in any way that will actually work, not in some ideal world, but in this one. The solution that is suggesting itself now seems to be escalating blocks, whenever he edit wars, until he is either gone, or realizes that he may not edit war anymore. Perhaps 1RR probation would be a good idea? I wouldn't object to that probation covering incivility as well, because Badagnani clearly expects a high level of respect from others that he seems absolutely unwilling to provide in return. The rest of us reap what we sow - I don't see why Mr. B. should be any different. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, it looks like the ball was dropped on this because you took some time off to pay your respects at a funeral and take care of business. Per Amore Mio, why don't you reboot the sanction proposal? Viriditas (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah. He hasn't come back from his block yet, so let's see what happens when he does. If everything goes well, and there's no more edit-warring, then maybe everything will be peachy. If not, I'm going to suggest a probation, in which behavior guidelines are made extremely clear, in particular regarding reversions. I would prefer to use a new thread for that, so this one can go away if we're done with it. (Do we have to tag it "resolved," or something?) I think I'll go see if I can compose an email that might be worth sending. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * GTB - Yes I see the history. I was coming to it fresh and wished to draw B's attention to improvements I would like to make to the Chinese music field, to articles that are to be amplified carefully in adherence to academic sources. I am not concerned about "my freedom" to do this; I am concerned about music students being able to find reliable material through wiki. There are holes in the treatment so far, and there are problems like a template pointing to a disused category, poor linking to central musical articles..... But there is a whole world of wiki music and life is only so long. If I have to "dispute resolve" a simple matter like the requirement for citations every single time, it aint never going to appen. No, I knew nothing about bloody rice noodles, liqueurs and dogfood. To find out as fast as I did I had to let civility wait on boldness a slight amount. I am sorry to be the cause of an editor being blocked yet - those China music articles can and ought to be improved and I have done nothing but ths backroom stuff for days. Practically speaking, anything that produces a few weeks of healthy editing I shall be glad of - whatever it takes. Redheylin (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * @Mr GTBacchus: I could understand the differences of 'ideal world' and 'real world'. In my opinion, B's problem is his habit of keeping the status quo, considering all editors ,who remove contents without adding anythings in return, "vandals" or "censors", and his pride of 100,000+ edits; so we could deal with them on a simple way: ask B for sources, wait, and edit or delete. This is my special method which could give B some face and let him have no reason to stop my editing.
 * Because of B's long and dedicated contributions for Wikipedia, I would feel something regrets if B got blocked. I think we should have some "isolation solution" that prevent B and other editors from warring each other like the fourth choice. A solution like that one could give B as well as other time before edit and saving page so that we could stop this long-time and destructive conflict on a less painful way. If I could propose, I would like to suggest the following community restrictions:
 * If B edits (an) article(s), other editors (who usually conflict with him) must wait three days before revert/change that/those article(s). Other editors could comment on the talk page of that/those article(s).
 * If other edits (an) article(s), B must wait three days before that/those article(s). B could comment on the talk page of that/those article(s).
 * --Amore Mio (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are going to place restrictions on editors, you'll have to specifically name those editors, and show evidence that those restrictions are based on their own violations of Wikipedia policy. You can't put an edit restriction on anyone who ever disagrees with B.  I also strongly disagree with the premise that a large number of edits is any way indication of a positive contribution to Wikipedia.  Quantity != quality. Dlabtot (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Dlabtot. My discussions above is just suggestions for consideration. I'm new here and I can't remember or check all B's conflicts so that I can not list all parties here. Besides, I totally agree "Quantity != quality" but many of B's contributions are really helpful and constructive (that why I said "long and dedicated contributions" instead of "huge contributions".). In sum up, I wish everyone could remember my opinions while dealing with B's problems (in future).--Amore Mio (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Temporary end
Mr B has been offline for a time and we still couldn't have an outcome. Shouldn't we temporarily end this discussion?--Amore Mio (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support close. The initial incident report filed by Ronz has been dealt with, and Ronz has filed an article RFC per DR.  In a separate but related incident discussed above, Badagnani has been recently blocked for 24 hours due to edit warring and inappropriate use of the talk page.  Since that time, he has not returned.  If and when he does return, and concerns are voiced again, I suggest that GTBacchus reopen the sanction proposal and his detractors consider taking this to arbcom. Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is very interesting when the thread is about to be closed, somebody (one by one) comes to comment about Badagnani, and then it has been extended to about two weeks. If none comment here for one day, it would've been archived already. --Caspian blue 03:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that a comment? Then mark it as such.  As usual, I have no idea what you are trying to say, but we are discussing closing this thread.  If you are trying to argue that this thread should be kept open "forever" like you did on the RFC, then come right out and say so. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I said my observation to Amore Mio, not toward Viritidas. As usual, the editor is "always" very good at "distorting" my comment for making a "bogus" story. I believe she is the one responsible for unnecessarily extending the thread by attacking every editors who do not agree with her "view". Naturally, her such "view" has failed to get any agreement nor respect from editors here. I requested GTB to archive the thread, so she be more patient.--Caspian blue 03:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What part of "temporary end" is troubling you? If you have a comment, mark it as a comment.  We are talking about closing the thread, not making strange observations about how the thread will close on its own if nobody comments.  You also don't seem to understand the concept of a "personal attack" versus a "discussion" and your entire contribution history demonstrates that "observation".  Considering your history of harassment here, you are in no position to judge Badagnani or anyone else for that matter.  I also suggest that you take some time to actually read Consensus, as it does not imply "agreement".  You also fail to understand that continually disrespecting editors is a form of incivility, a behavior you have been engaging in from day one.  How does a comment like "it is very interesting when the thread is about to be closed" help address this subtopic?  The only relationship I can see, is that you are once again arguing that the thread be maintained "forever" just like you did on Badagnani's RFC.  I understand that you are busy spending most of your time on Wikipedia harassing other users, but some of us want to actually get back to working on the encyclopedia.  I hope you understand. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I said Amore Mio the good faith editor, not to the editor named Viritidas who has harassed me and threaten me not only here but also since the first encounter. I do not wish to talk such editor. Moreover, the user enjoy lying for blindly defending Badagnani. Badagnani has harassed me, I have not done such thing to him. It is no wonder why Viritidas has cooked up such stories and has a weird grudge against me. One of her WQA report for her extreme incivility tells that Viritidas has a history of attacking editors who certified or initiated a RFC against an editor who is her friend. Viritidas has a history of harassing editors for making points. I've observed Badagnani has been blocked for harassing admin, Chris-Tanner, and Jeremy, and Melonbarmonster. Even though he has wikistalked me for over one year (that can be confirmed by "admins" working on Korean cuisine) and harassed me, I have no reported him. However, the editor, Viritidas even frequently reported to WQA has been allowed to edit Wiki. --Caspian blue 04:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to have a survey on whether to end this thread. The horse died late last week; we can just put down the sticks and back away. What's involved in killing this section and letting ANI move along with its sordid existence? Do I just put archivetop and archivebottom around it? Going to do that now. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)