Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bugapi

The following discussion is an archived record of an user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this 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: 11:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 08:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC).

• Bugapi (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Bugapi (talk · contribs) is a new editor who became enranged when their first article was first proposed for deletion and then brought to a deletion discussion. This editors conduct is unacceptable for Wikipedia, both in terms of content-building and general interaction with other editors. He/she has persistently failed to acknowledge and address issues raised by other editors with this article, choosing instead a defensive and often aggressive ad hominem commenting and editing approach both in the AFD in question and the talk pages of editors involved in the dispute. 4 users have tried without success to resolve this.

1. Bugapi will focus on positive contributions instead of disrupting Wikipedia
2. Bugapi will assume good faith
3. Bugapi will provide ample evidence of any accusations directed at other editors of inappropriate editing or misuse of privileged tools.
4. Bugapi will participate in AFDs and user and article talk page in a more civil way and avoid attacks other editors.
5. Bugapi will abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and will consider other editors and administrators advice.

This editor has been active for only a few days but has caused quite a stir refusing to stand down on his assertions of notability of an article he created in the face of multiple editors who have repeatedly Bugapi has wrongly accused others of vandalism, refuses to assume good faith or give others the benefit of doubt, accused other editors of malice, repeats the same arguments and accusations without convincing others, ignores or refuses to answer and often mocks good faith questions from other editors.

Additionally, The relative ease and familiarity with signing posts and knowledge of hot button wikipedia issues such as vandalism and refactoring comments as well as the administrative tools such as Twinkle makes me wonder if this is the sockpuppet (another editor has initiated a sockpuppet investigation here) of a more experienced editor. Bugapi created G-WAN (Web server) which was proposed for deletion. That prod was challenged without comment by 83.76.178.51 (talk · contribs) which all indications are to be Bugapi logged out of his/her account. Bugapi left a lengthy note calling the proposed deletion "vandalism". Appeared to be a new user who was unfamiliar with Wikipedia's notability and sourcing guidelines and policies but took a very angry very agressive approach to debate. Attempts to guide Bugapi to more constructive editing and a more civil exchange in both the AFD and on other editors talk pages met with more accusations of impropriety by other editors, rants about other articles

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

1. wrongly accused others of vandalism: [1], [2], [3]
2. baseless accusations of misuse of rollback and non-administrator tools: [4], [5] (any use of tools to prod and then AFD his/her article is seen as a misuse of these tools by this editor).
3. accused other editors of malice: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]
4. misquoting other editors: (quote: [12], original: [13])
5. refusal to answer good faith questions from other editors : [14], [15], [16]
6. baseless claims of censorship: [17] and the AFD: [18], [19], [20], [21],
7. External canvassing for AFD votes: [22]

1. WP:Assume good faith
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD
3. WP:OTHERSTUFF
4. WP:Ownership of articles
5. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
6. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
7. Wikipedia:Canvassing

(Provide diffs of the comments. As with anywhere else on this RfC/U, links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)Five editors have attempted to guide this editor towards applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines and into more constructive contributions both in the AFD in question and on the user's talk page.

1. tried to steer the discussion back on course and help this user understand the seriousness of accusing other editors of vandalism, referral to Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, primary sources, the AFD process, and point by point addressing of concerns with existing references: [23], [24]
2. Reminder to assume good faith [25]
3. Reminders to sign comments:[26]
4. 3rd party defense of editing this user took issue with: [27], [28]
5. explanation that notability requires more than existence [29]

1. attempted to calm this user down on Bugapi's talk page and cautioned against personal attacks [30]
2. tried to clarifiy WP:N and provided a description of how the dictionary definition of the word "notable" doesn't apply to AFD. [31]

1. attempted a rewording of WP:V in a more accesible way and steer the discussion back on track. [32]
2. attempted presenting WP:SELFPUBLISHED in clearer terms [33]
3. 3rd party defense of editing bugapi took issue with: [34]

1. tried to drive Bugapi toward's Wikipedia's Notability guidelines explaining why dictionary definitions are the word "notability" are not applicable in an AFD. [35], [36]
2. explained WP:OTHERSTUFF [37]

1. explanation of why a red link to the article in question was removed (and corrected) from a related list. [38]

1. again explained why WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't appropriate for the discussion. [39]
2. cautioned against using multiple IP addresses when contributing to an AFD. [40]
3. Reminders to sign comments: [41]
4. Addressing vandalism claims: [42]

(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute. As with anywhere else on this RfC/U, links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. ignoring wikipedia policy and guidelines insisting their views takes precedence: [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]
2. mocking editors attempts to resolve the dispoute: [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]
3. repeats the same arguments and accusations: [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63]
4. refuses to assume good faith, even mocks the suggestion: [64], [65]
5. makes bad faith accusations in regard to the actions of another editor in the discussion, including accusing the editor of off-Wiki activity[66]
6. still refuses to assume good faith, continues to refuse to answer other editors questions, continues to attempt turn around accusations of vandalism onto other editors.[67]
7. Has moved to hopping between anonymous IP's in an attempt to either duck detection. While 2 are from the same subnet which would normally indicate an innocent mistake by a new editor, the rest are from outside that domain to ISPs in multiple countries, casting multiple !votes from these various users (ongoing sockpuppet investigation is here):

• Bugapi (talk · contribs) (!voted in AFD)
• 83.77.106.207 (talk · contribs)
• 81.63.122.9 (talk · contribs) (!voted in AFD)
• 83.77.108.148 (talk · contribs)
• 83.77.158.222 (talk · contribs)
• 83.76.183.121 (talk · contribs)
• 213.16.35.130 (talk · contribs)
• 85.91.134.245 (talk · contribs) sockpuppets conversing with each other here: [68]
• 81.62.158.63 (talk · contribs) (!voted in AFD)
• 62.203.188.42 (talk · contribs)
• 62.202.125.242 (talk · contribs)
• 62.203.173.195 (talk · contribs)
• 81.63.69.80 (talk · contribs)
• 81.62.199.178 (talk · contribs)
• 81.63.74.18 (talk · contribs)
• 85.2.10.158 (talk · contribs)

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. --RadioFan (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Strikerforce (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. --Syrthiss (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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.

User:Bugapi's issues strike me as a somewhat more extreme or vehement version of a familiar complaint. I've been concerned with non-notable businesses and IT-cruft for some time, to the point where it seems to occupy most of my time here any more. (And "notability" really isn't my axe to grind; spam versus readable neutral prose is closer to my core concern.) I've dealt with angry businesspeople before, some of whom took their grievances with me as editor to the trade press.

My understanding is that he, a new editor, created an article about a bit player web server he has some sort of interest in. The article was swept up by a new page patrol and the wheels of deletion process set in motion. He cries "censorship" and points to a number of similar articles on minor web servers that have existed in an equally unreferenced state.

For myself, I'm always glad to have those leads. He, of course, gets pointed to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I went and proposed deletions on some of the other minor web server packages myself, largely to show that he was not being singled out for unfair treatment. The situation degenerates and emotions get out of control.

My longstanding opinion is that clarity in policy, and setting a higher and clearer bar for the inclusion of businesses and products, would help allay these disputes. A business or product should not get a stand alone article unless the bulk of the article can be written from information in independent reliable sources. (It shouldn't be enough to point to two newspaper stories and then write the rest of the article from the official site or press releases.) It's not a question of counting sources; it's a question of what the sources say.

Most importantly, "notability" means long term historical notability; again, it's not a matter of counting mentions in sources, but whether the sources establish that kind of significance in history, culture, or at least the development of the field. Pretty much anything that has to do with newfangled stuff like the Internet probably fails that test. (wink) Where the possibility of commercial conflict of interest exists we need to insist on long term historical significance.

An excitable newbie got bitten badly. He probably deserved it. I don't think the GWAN web server ought to have a stand alone article; last time I looked the article was not neutral and established no enduring significance. But I understand also that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, at least the tag, is a rather unsatisfying response, especially if the editor is late in following the link to read what the essay actually says. It's not unreasonable for users to judge the suitability of topics for inclusion by what's already here.

I understand that Bugapi's conduct has annoyed other editors. I'd prefer to defuse the situation if possible, and give him whatever assurance I am able to give that he has not been singled out for "censorship" or unfair treatment. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Kuru (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC), this is almost exactly what I came here to write. Confused user who is now in an agitated state and unlikely to see anything here other than a cabal from this point on. Our business guidelines create a few situations like this every day.[reply]
2. --RadioFan (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Good summary of an unfortunate situation. Though its hard to tell if this account was created with the intention of picking a fight (the knowledge by an hours old account of hot button issues like vandalism and misuse of admin tools looks a bit suspicious), or simply a new editor who feels like they've been trapped in a corner. I hope it's the latter and hope that this process will help this editor understand that others a looking to help and in general bring some peace to the situation.[reply]
3. --Strikerforce (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Well said. I would like the editor to realize that this is not a situation where anyone is trying to "censor", but rather one where others have grown frustrated with their refusal (or, perhaps, inability) to understand valid reasons for challenging the content that they are wishing to add and the way in which they have chosen to act, as a result. I have no issues with the editor, outside of their poor behavior.[reply]

{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:

{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:

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.

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.