Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 23:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 06:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC).

Badagnani (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute[edit]

Badagnani has been constantly violating Wikipedia policies and choosing to criticize the editor instead of the edits. He refuses to cooperate when editing and only asks to discuss regarding the edits, which he almost never participates in.

Desired outcome[edit]

That he would stop the edit warring, contribute without frustrating other editors by unneeded reversions and discuss edits civilly with others. ~~On a slightly lesser note, I ask that he stop forcing editors to participate in discussion when they make a somewhat bold edit.~~ Actually, I would like him completely stop this revert and "discuss first" cycle as it is becoming very disruptive, to the point where no one is even allowed to copyedit the articles he contributes to regularly.

Description[edit]

For months, Badagnani has been refusing to cooperate with editors, instead editing it to his standards and reverting it whenever another editor adds or removes any information, sometimes with the edit summary "rv per WP:STALK." He generally never assumes good faith, and even accuses others of vandalism. Badagnani almost never responds on his talk page when a user is in a minor dispute with him, and this ends up escalating to violation of policies. Also adds unverified and non-notable people to "List of x Americans" articles, and he even added a person who was clearly British to the list (which has since been reverted).

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

Accusations of vandalism
Nitpicking minor violationsand reporting them to the noticeboard about the user who he is in a dispute with, which could have been easily solved with a simple discussion on the user's talk page
rv per WP:STALK claim, again here, and here
Highly questionable edit regarding an ice-cream headache
An unfortunate edit war concerning both Badagnani and me (although in this case both of us were at fault)
Unsourced additions and adding a British man into the list (history also shows unsubstantiated revisions and edit warring)
Accusing me of trolling and aggressiveness; also called me hyperaggressive
Choosing to repeatedly add and revert the removal of links that are in violation of WP:RS: [1] [2]
Returns incorrect sources (and here) to List of X-American pages. Doesn't leave messages as to why except stuff like "Please don't remove/blank sourced material." Asks for discussion and never participates except for the occasional curt authoritative message.
Using incorrect information/linking without any understanding of the subject or language in question - [3] [4] [5]

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

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

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

[6]
[7]
[8] and [9]
[10] (also seems to have several civility issues and personal attacks)
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-03/Foam takeout container

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

Basically the same as all of the above section.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Eugene2x►^talk 23:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Caspian blue 23:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ronz (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeremy (blah blah) 00:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse this summary of Badagnai's edits and interactions with other editors. He is substantially rude, he uses language as others have noted, that is not polite nor in line with the majority. Any reviewer may contact me personally to is discuss this personally.--Chef Tanner (talk) 05:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

I've only seen Badagnani's edits in the last few weeks, when they were brought to my attention, and my observations since then have confirmed that Badagnani does habitually handle conflict on Wikipedia in an unproductive and often inflammatory manner, much as described here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely endorse. I've interacted with Badagnani at Talk:Wolfberry#Photo links, and central problems are overall bad faith, and inflammatory tone: particularly his highly dramatised descriptions - "vandalism", "hyperaggressive", "stalking", "highly damaging and disruptive", "impoverishing our articles", "very, very wrong" - of perfectly routine edits by others. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For sure. I previously had a run in with this editor in which, on a number of occasions including after being warned about his behaviour, he threatened me for starting AfD discussions. See here for details. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that some time in the past, when an admin closed an AfD opposite to his liking, he suggested they be banned too. I'll try to find that diff. It's on a DRV. Bulldog123 17:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
This perhaps? Bencherlite ^Talk 11:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much more than just that. See MuZemike's outside view. Badagnani has threatened to have an admin block at least 5 editors just because he disagrees with their deletion proposals. Horrible user conduct, I might add. Eugene2x►^talk 17:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I endorse it. I don't have anything personally against Badagnani, but his persistent attempt to sabotage every edit I try to make now (because of an ongoing content dispute we have) is starting to get on my nerves. Bulldog123 17:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
A bit late to the party, I was only 'introduced' to Badagnani's contributions today and having done a little digging I can wholeheartedly say I endorse this -- Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 01:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite sorry I didn't see this earlier, but as far as I can tell I can still add my own voice and experience to the chorus. I went to ridiculous lengths at Talk:Musette to try to reconcile my opinion about the Musette disambiguation page with Badagnani's differing view, but to no avail, because he wasn't actually willing to offer any productive discussion beyond vague accusations about how I was destroying the page by making it conform to guidelines. I spent way too much effort trying to guess what his actual disagreement was, and offering potential solutions based on those guesses, only for him to continue to ignore my suggestions and insist that I let his version of the page remain (and THEN he would discuss it more productively, he claimed. Yeah, I'm sure). Propaniac (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This behaviour is typical of Badagnani when he interacts with anyone who disagrees with him.--Crossmr (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional concerns by involved editors[edit]

View by Jerem43[edit]

This is an ongoing pattern of behaviors by Badagnani. Whenever I make an edit to an article or template that he has been involved in I worry about his reaction, and what it will do in response.

Here are some issues I have had with him the demonstrate his actions:

Korean cuisine In this article Badagani was making unproductive edits and including inserting commentary into the text of the article. As a result he was blocked for 48 hours for edit warring.
History of {{Herbs & spices}} Badagnai tried to prevent the modification of this template and three related ones. I will admit that I did not behave properly on this one as well. This encounter devolved into wikistalking of me by him and result in a block of his Account for several days.
ownership issues This TfD shows how he has used loaded phrasing to tilt consensus towards his position. This exemplifies his history of twisting policy in an attempt to legitimize his behaviors.
Proposed moves on several articles In this instance Badagnani leveled a false accusation against me and spammed several similar discussions in an attempt to discredit my proposal. In the posting he uses several loaded links to policy to prove his point, disregarding commentary from several editors who said I was doing nothing out of the ordinary.

Now I will say that he does make good even great contributions to WP, and is very knowledgeable in the fields he edits; It is his behaviors when he feels slighted that are the problem. I will also say that I am viewing him through the tinted glass of past negative interactions with him, and have not always taken the high road when dealing with him. I have been trying to stay professional and leave any feelings aside when interacting with him.

Users who endorse this summary:

--Jeremy (blah blah) 01:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse for only the summary of how Badagnani has behaved to cuisine articles.--Caspian blue 18:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Chef Tanner (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addition by Eugene2x[edit]

I am even more concerned about his editing now, as he is effectively exploiting a loophole in WP:EDITWAR/3RR by asking others to edit on behalf of him on the talk pages (a.k.a. meatpuppeting). See his repeated comments at Talk:Ice-cream headache and Talk:Chuseok. It's a questionable practice at the very least.

Users who endorse this summary:

Eugene2x►^talk 17:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Caspian blue 19:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view[edit]

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

Outside view by GTBacchus[edit]

I hope that Badagnani is able to stay here, and keep editing. I'm concerned that he won't last much longer on the path he's currently on. I've seen many editors with styles similar to his who had to leave the project, and it's always a shame that they couldn't adapt instead. Badagnani has a lot to contribute by way of knowledge and skills. I don't want to see him unwittingly undermine his ability to contribute to Wikipedia.

The problem we're seeing is with handling conflict. When an editor has some kind of conflict with another editor, the best possible reaction is to ignore any possible personal content, focus very carefully on the edits being made, maintain courtesy and professionalism, and get other people to come and look. Handling conflict by quoting behavior policies at other editors, leaving warnings on their talk pages, deleting their comments on your talk page, labeling their actions as "trolling" or "vandalism", reporting them to message boards... these are all very inappropriate reactions to conflict. Whether or not we've got rules against them, they're bad ideas. They lead to escalation, and they distract us from our mission: to write the best encyclopedia in the world. Eventually, they lead to ArbCom and topic bans, which are not pleasant for anyone.

Badagnani has to find a different way of handling disputes, or he will not be able to remain here much longer. I would be sad to see him go — as I have been sad to see others go — but that will eventually have to happen if he continues on his current trajectory.

Badagnani, I suggest that you think very hard about the patterns that are being observed here. I think you should develop alternate strategies for handling disputes. I, and many other Wikipedians, are happy to look in on editing questions anytime. There are lots of places to ask questions. The combative approach has to go, and be replaced with a more collaborative one.

Users who endorse this summary:

-GTBacchus^(talk) 01:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ohconfucius (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Jeremy (blah blah) 14:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 02:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eugene2x►^talk 02:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Chef Tanner (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2009
VeryGoodBoy (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Caspian blue 16:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dlabtot (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-- Quiddity (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
William M. Connolley (talk) 07:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amore Mio (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view Threeafterthree[edit]

I hate to add noise without differences, but this goes back maybe a year or even two? I do alot of work/editing relating to adding nationality to lead sentences of bios per MOSBIO and remember getting into a tiff with this user that wasn't too pretty. I know I am no saint but if multiple folks call me a jackass on a certain issue, I usally saddle up and ride off and admitt I was wrong, which actuall does happen :) This user needs to realize that sometime the saddle could be appropriate and just move on instead of saying that it is everybody else and no one is working collegially(sp?) with him. Anyways, sorry to pile on and add more drama, but just take this FWIW. As others have pointed out, this editor has done alot of good work and has been productive so this probably/hopefully shouldn't make anybody happy to see this.

Users who endorse this summary:

Anyways, --Tom (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by MuZemike[edit]

Being what is considered an "AFD regular", and having nothing against having decent (or even halfway dubious) reasons to keep (or delete or etc.) articles, calling for censure/blocking and vindicating XFD nominators for disruption, as shown [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], is right out.

Not to say that Badagnani is not, in any way, a good contributor. He has made a lot of good recent contribs to AIV, ANI, COIN, WikiProject food & drink, and his decorum at XFD has somewhat improved since the beginning of 2009.

Users who endorse this summary:

MuZemike 20:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eugene2x►^talk 04:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Caspian blue 16:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Ohconfucius[edit]

My previous contacts with Badagnani all appear similar to the experience of the other editors cited.

I was faced with Badagnani's repeated and most vicious opposition during my attempts to knock one particular article into shape by removing excessive detail. The hostility and accusations by same included some 48kB worth of discussion, including no fewer that eighteen instances where I was warned not to 'blank', whilst my actions were almost universally endorsed as valid clean-ups, and page protection denied for that very same reason. Nevertheless, the unrelenting and unapologetic accusations made me feel that I was under constant harassment.

Badagnani's interactions are usually blunt at best, and frequently turn hostile with little provocation. I would also mention that I have been subjected to vilification and other personal attacks when I happened to nominate articles he has created for XFD. It appears that Badagnani fails to understand that less is often more in an article, and that too much trivial information can cause a crowding out of information of higher value. This user's inclusionist streak, combined with possessiveness, has been the common cause of the grievances we are hearing today. As there seems to be some agreement that his/her contributions are indeed of some value, I would recommend Badagnani to seek out mentorship.

Users who endorse this summary:

Ohconfucius (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dlabtot (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I remember the incident. Badaganani obstructed every single move of "copy-editing" and harassed the editors. He abusively said "blanking". Caspian blue 13:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Quiddity[edit]

As I noted at the ANI, I do believe that Badagnani has made a substantial number of mistakes: some obvious infractions such as poor vetting of sources, whereas some are completely subjective culturally. What is "plain spoken" to some people is rude to others. A plea for polite patience is often misinterpreted as a demand for inaction, depending on the intonation imagined.

He has definitely been Wikihounded, and has probably done the reverse.

He reminds me a lot of User:Fabartus. The vast majority of his edits are good and useful, but he has a few very strange habits, and his manner of writing seems to irk some people, and he is easily irked.

I don't think he is any more likely to stop being offended when people delete his work without attempting a query first, than the people doing the deleting are likely to start checking each instance thoroughly themselves. Some people prefer clean over thorough, some people prefer black and white over grey. Some people just ~~delete everything that offends them~~ delete content without checking it thoroughly and let others sort out what should have remained. Others prefer slow and considered work.

If everyone was friendlier, then the vitriol wouldn't flow so frequently. If we all shared the same wikiphilosophies then the world wouldn't be as diverse as it is. But people are people.

(and RFC/UC's are structured and used as unpleasant witchhunts. I hope to never be invited to one again).

Users who endorse this summary:

-- Quiddity (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-- Occuli (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by[edit]

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion[edit]

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

Summary[edit]

Badagnani urged to find a different way of handling disputes.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.