User:Filll/AGF Challenge Arrow-Try to convince this editor to stop his disruption, and if he will not, get him blocked


 * 1) There's no rule that says you can't be an idiot and have a different opinion. There is, however, a rule that says you can't be disruptive, uncooperative, and make threats. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) This user would be going against the opinion of the greater community of editors and has threatened legal action. THis definitely warrants a block. Erik the Red 2 (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) -- Naerii 02:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) If somebody goes repeatedly against consensus, and can't be convinced to change their behavior, then a block may regrettably be called for. Also, the silly talk of Wikipedia getting sued is bordering on a legal threat, though it's too loony to take seriously as such. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) This guy does encyclopedically unacceptable things over and over again, refuses to listen to reason and gets unfriendly while doing so, and then issues legal threats. WP:RBI. Dorftrottel (complain) 01:48, April 13, 2008
 * 6) Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Once they start throwing around legal threats, the downward spiral towards blocking has begun... - Mark 14:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Block him immediately for the legal threat (even if ridiculous) and 38 reverts in 2 weeks almost certainly violates WP:3RR. Technically it is possible to do without violating the letter, but to do so absolutely violates the spirit of the rule. &rArr;  SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender  23:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Ask nicely, ask nicely, ask not-so-nicely, block for a short period, ... indefinite block. But the quoted text is does not, as I read it, constitute a legal threat in WP:NLT terms. Like those "Saying [blah] could [something bad] in [some place]" type comments which are read as threats, it's simply an [unhelpful] observation. All sorts of bizarre things could result in Wikipedia being sued. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * , Overall,it is getting disruptive--but it cant be blocked without prior warnings. The legal threat is too vague to block immediately--I dont  like the current practice of calling every vague comment with the word "sue" in it  "legal" and blocking immediately. DGG (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I'd block him immediately if people had already made significant efforts to get him to stop his disruption. This editor has proven to not be a worthwhile contributor.  Mango juice talk 03:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Formally warn before making any effort to get him blocked, but above all try to encourage proper discussion. Maybe look to ways of incorporating the text into a more appropriate linked article, as long as it can be properly sourced - and tell them that sourcing information is, first and foremost, the concern of the person who wants to put it in the article. Mention that "while your statement that Wikipedia could be sued does fall clearly on the safe side of the WP:NLT boundary, it may not foster an environment where editors feel comfortable working together on the article". Recommend they reword their statement with more regard to core policies than possible external legal pressure, or else retract it. If that all fails, then they should be blocked (but not without checking the other side to see whether they had possibly been goaded to it). Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 07:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Evaluate how many chances/warnings have been given... at some point the law of diminishing returns says that a block is the only option. Try a short one first to see if the point is taken and the disruption stops. IUncrease the length if necessary. ++Lar: t/c 16:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Although I generally do not phrase it this way. My goal isn't to get the editor blocked, but to get the problem behavior to stop.  The editor's continual counterproductive behavior is what's going to get them blocked, not my actions (even though I may be the reporting agent).  The more I can get all concerned to focus on behavior, rather than personalities, the better. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) User apparently refuses to understand WP policies. A short-term block should be first step, and offer to find him/her a mentor when he/she returns.  If the behaviour continues, a topic ban or complete block might be necessary. We don't want to drive off the editors who have been trying to cooperatively edit. Karanacs (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Give them a welcome template, a warning, and a personal explanation about WP:LEGAL and WP:V. -- Levine2112 discuss  18:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) It has been explained to him, politely, over and over again? 38 times he reverts in two weeks? If he continues, obviously block him, for disruption and for breaking the spirit (or the letter) of 3RR. Fram (talk) 07:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Operating on the assumption that no sources can be found. Neıl  ☎  16:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Don't have much to add to above, except that depending on how WP:Flagged revisions is implemented, it might give us a little more flexibility in dealing with "wrongheaded" edits, without making more work for editors or resulting in a change in what most readers see on the page. - Dan (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Clearly tendentious.  Not biting and lots of patience should be employed, but ultimately the guy is disrupting the project. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) He's already gotten the message that he's tendentious and violating WP:POINT. Protection of the article would be a good first step to encourage discussion, then blocking. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Ask nicely to start with though. JMiall  ₰  20:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Unsourced junk + legal threats over a long period of time = indef block. GlassCobra 16:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) the contentious statements made by this editor, combined with his insistence upon the inclusion of unsourced material, is grounds for blocking after sufficient warnings have been issued. Applejuicefool (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) If the user cannot provide sources for his quote, and clearly isn't interested in doing so, the it should be removed. --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) No legal threats. Ketsuekigata (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Agree - no legal threats - however - that said - taking a 'no original research' approach to trying to curb his disruptions might help as his only claim has been putting the onus of proof onto other editors. It may be that in saying that, the author is actually trying to ask for help in sourcing the comment (if it's not OR and something "he read somewhere".) Likely it would end up being a block/ban, however, it costs you nothing to be nice to someone you're about to do something to that they won't likeAkitora (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) 38 reverts in 14 days (not to mention disregard of multiple citings of WP policy) easily crosses the threshold for formally dealing with this as disruptive behavior. Treads right on the line of No legal threats. Alsee (talk) 10:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Tt 225 (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Clearly disruptive, and most likely having violated the three revert rule at some point in the process, given that 38/14=2,7. Getting blocked for a short time won't harm him/her and might bring that person to reconsider his/her motivations on wiki for the better--AkselGerner (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Yilloslime (t) 20:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) --Dial (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) I think arguing about this is just stupid to begin with, but I would never try to convince the person they are wrong, they deserve more respect than that (like the stupid debate over evolution vs creationism - I think both sides say some pretty stupid things, but I'm not going to force my opinion). Rather, I'd convince them to stop and point to Wikipedia's policies. If they continue to be disruptive, I would try a block. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 20:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Depends in part on the actions of other editors, which are a little hard to discern from the case. Has anyone tried to educate this new editor on WP core policies? If I saw evidence of WP:BITE, I might "try to convince" by attempting to make sure the editor actually understands Wikipedia's policies, placing a polite message on their talk page urging them to read or re-read the pertinent ones and asking them why the insistence on this particular edit. After that, if there's clear evidence of willful disregard of core policies, there's more of a case for escalating to a block. The case doesn't make clear what warnings, if any, have already appeared on the user's talk page. The stepwise  talk page templates might make this quite simple. --Sfmammamia (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) Kevin Baastalk 16:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) SKS2K6 (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) Mynameisnotpj (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) BirdKr (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 30) We can't say he's not disruptive - 38/14 is 2.71 reverts per day, which is very close to 3RR. Sceptre (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 31) It's likely that the editor may eventually stop, especially a new editor. However, a block will be needed if it gets more serious.  Blocking should be done only after enough reverts, suggestions and requests to stop, and sufficient ignored warnings to determine that the editor is being disruptive.  The editor should know why his/her behaviors are disruptive, and blocking should  be a last resort.  Legal threats are certainly disruptive. -- Shruti14 t c s 23:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 32) The user is already being disruptive. However, note that editors who make legal threats do not by that fact denigrate their own contributions; the contents should still be considered on their merits. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 33) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 34) Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 35) We don't need to show infinite patience. Its probably time for an administrator to explain how consensus works, and the problems arising, and that edit warring is not okay, and try to help him to see how to work with others. If he can't then that's what the warnings are for..... FT2 (Talk 11:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 36) Try to educate the editor. Give him/her at least one chance to make right. Failing that, boot the bum. Doczilla  STOMP! 04:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 37) Try and avoid the block, but you have to work with this user and encourage consensus. Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 02:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 38) After checking other interactions with the editor, try to engage them on their talk page. Some people simply aren't suited for Wikipedia - if they fail to respond, aren't interested in hearing the rules or playing by them, a short block may convince them that we're serious.  Leave a "beware of tigers"ish message for them.  Escalate the blocks if necessary.  If none of this makes a dent in their behavior, gently suggest they find something else to do with their time in the form of an indef block. Shell   babelfish 18:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 39) I don't understand any of the crap the person is inserting here, and the threat of lawsuit makes no sense at all. It seems he's being disruptive, as far as I can tell, and a polite note explaining that might help curb the problem; if not, a block may be in order. csloat (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 40) Legal threats is a blockable offense, so I would explain this to the user and if the user persist, block him.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 41) There's only so much good faith you can assume
 * 42) Ditto - also mindful of WP:FRINGE
 * 43) Trishm (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Others tolerate repeated unsourced rubbish?
 * 44) User:T. Anthony
 * 45) There may be some degree that we can continue to talk to this editor about, but there's no win in keeping him around for much longer if he can't change. A block is in the best interest of Wikipedia, and arguably him.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 46) I agree with Dorftrottel and DGG. BrownHornet21 (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 47) He is already begging for a block with the legal threats and reinsertion of unsourced material. I agree with him though. Time is important! --Justallofthem (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 48) If adding entries that ignore established and properly sourced information and display a lack of understanding while trying to assert authority then very good sources need to be provided. User should be reasoned with warned and if persistent, blocked and watched for sockpuppetingFelixmeister (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 49) Kla22374 (talk) 06:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 50) Make sure this user has understanding of WP:NLT. Try to talk with him, citing wikipedia policy the whole way. If this user refuses to comply, I'll have to get him blocked. Ic  eUnshattered  [ t ] 19:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 51) This editor seems determined to be disruptive and has crossed into No legal threats which has to be addressed. Once the legal issue is cleared take the disputed content to the article talkpage to gain consensus on its inclusion. If an RfC is needed then so be it. 71.139.36.216 (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 52) Legal threats.--Giants27 T C  20:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 53) --  Chzz  ►  12:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 54) No legal threats. The editor is obviously intent on being disruptive, and is threatening legal action. Time to be blocked.  Ono pearls  (t/c) 06:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 55) Soapboxing is quite unhelpful and adding content against consensus remains disruptive. Freeze the page if needed; see if anyone sees anything valid with the content, if so what and can it be sourced and added with due weight, etc. If the editor simply won't play nicely then civilly show them the door. -- Banj e  b oi   09:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 56) I see no reason why, following warnings, this user should not be kept from disrupting and disturbing Wikipedia.  Strombollii (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 57) <sup style="color: #3B5323;">The <font color="#8B0000;">GRAND <sub style="color: #660198;">Rans <small style="color: #FF6103;">✫Speak to Me!✫  00:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 58) Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  12:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 59) — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 19:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 60) Not adhering to a neutral point of view is frowned upon, but the legal threats cross the line. GB 86 06:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 61) Wouldn't he of hit 3RR a while ago? <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #0000FF"><font color="#FFFF00"><B>Allmightyduck &#xF8FF;</B> </SPAN> <FONT SIZE="1">What did I do wrong?</FONT> 15:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 62) Big chat with him pointing him to policies for Refs, Sources and policy. He has already breached reversion policy, though 3RR is not explicitly mentioned, it is a trend. He has threatened legal action and so is already well over the line. Leniency would only be shown as he has not perhaps been made aware of policy by the other editors and neither has he been shown to ANI or 3RR boards so these would be made also. Once the process had started I would also probably research a bit on the topic as it seems odd that YEC would not include the Arrow of Time - after all if they claim that the Earth was created 5000 years ago then time is fairly important ? Chaosdruid (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 63) Legal threats are definitely frowned upon on WP. Even worse is the refusal to attempt to reach a consensus.  Guoguo12 <font color="blue" size="1">--Talk--  19:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 64) It's a legal threat. He's indeffed. VanIsaacWS<sup style="margin-left:-2.9ex">contribs 08:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 65) Yes, if he's threatening he has to be warned off. With luck, he'll quieten down. If not, a block will be in order. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 66) Having a chat with the editor would most likely not end well, but it's good to try right? Blocking him will hopefully prevent future disruptions. Amandaaa99 (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 67) First of all, what about WP:No legal threats? Next, this statement should go, with a citation, somewhere else.  Eman <font color="#6643d1">235 / talk  04:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 68) Nobody should be defying consensus, especially not using threats and that sort of behavior in general. Melody Concertotalk 03:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 69) This is how we generally deal with such cases, isn't it? Tolerating such brazenness is certainly not ethical.  Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 09:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)