User:Filll/AGF Challenge Rules-Stop this editor from promoting his own set of rules


 * Aye, to take this so far as to mislead newcomers is criminally stupid. Quick block. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and if he continues to disregard the WP community, he should be blocked. Erik the Red 2 (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) -- Naerii 02:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Politely. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Encourage him to work within the proper process to try to get any policies changed that he disagrees with, not promote competing versions himself. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Not rudely, but firmly, of course. Zginder(talk) (Contrib) 02:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) I wouldn't mind so much if the attempt was going through some process of trying to convince others of a need for change, but outright misrepresentation practically begs to show that you are on weak standing. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) But how to stop is the question. Learning how to engage on policy pages on Wikipedia is not easy! Carcharoth (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Policy pages should never have significant changes made without concensus. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Per Requests for arbitration/Karmafist, the community has every right to ask him to stop, and if he does not, to revert his welcome templates. -- Relata refero (disp.) 15:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) If he does not stop, delete his templates and block him immediately. Newbies have it hard enough learning what the rules are. They don't need disruptive editors actively confusing them. That's bitey and deliberately disruptive. &rArr;  SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender  00:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) New editors face quite enough challenges getting to grips with what is, or isn't, important in terms of policy without someone wilfully misrepresenting things. I'm happy to see that there's an arbcom ruling on this. Of all the scenarios in this questionnaire, this seems to me to be the most disruptive and least excusable behaviour. The others, however problematic the behaviour, I can understand and sympathise with to some degree. In this case the editor in question is creating a situation where the new editors they have welcomed will sooner or later come into conflict if they take the misleading "welcome" message at face value. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) stop him of course, but the more realistic question is when someone sends out something which is just slightly slanted. DGG (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Firmly tell the editor that the policies as set out are the foundations of Wikipedia, and that if he wants Wikipedia to work differently then he needs to try to achieve consensus for his version of the rules (but warn him that it's unlikely to happen). Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 07:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) some of the others took a bit of thought, but this one seems obvious. ++Lar: t/c 16:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Unacceptable. Karanacs (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Completely unacceptable if he or she presents them as policy. Hardly acceptable if they are presented as essays to all new editors, without pointing out clearly that they go against the established and community accepted policies either. Even if clearly presented as an alternative minority point of view, it is still canvassing and misusing the welcome process (policy talk pages and/or the village pump are the place to present new policies, not the pages of new editors). Fram (talk) 08:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Consensus should be reached before any changes to policy or guidelines. George D. Watson  (Dendodge). Talk Help 12:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Stress that he is welcome to contribute to the debate on policy pages but also express deep concern that he is promoting non-standard policies to newbies. Move quickly through dispute resolution stages. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) The alternative welcome messages makes this one easy. Do whatever needs doing to stop that from happening, ever. - Dan (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) --Dial (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) He's more than welcome to keep them as essays and link to them in discussion, but welcoming new users with them crosses the line. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) This is a clear case of POV meta-forking. The editor is way past the point of deserving an assumption of good faith. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) This is disruptive & confusing. JMiall  ₰  20:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Absolutely not. GlassCobra 16:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) Encourage the editor to take part in discussions on Wikipedia policy through the conventional forums for such discourse, and stop him from promoting unofficial "rules" Applejuicefool (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) We have one set of rules for a reason, let's keep it that way. sho  y  16:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) -- RC-0722 247.5/1  00:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) Unless, of course, he can convince the rest of us to accept some of his rules. ---G.T.N. (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 30) Tt 225 (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 31) There's no specific privilege to post whatever you wish on people's talk pages. Not that it's against the rules, but if what is posted is unwarranted, unhelpful and misleading then it is vandalism and disruption, and if it is done enough times regardless of warnings then there is grounds for blocking.
 * 32) Yilloslime (t) 20:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 33) If all the challenges, the answer to this is the clearest. It is disruption of the worst kind and should be stopped. Rehevkor (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 34) If he wishes to change Wikipedia Policy, he should go through the proper channels. If he does this all out of spite or because he's some sort of troll, then he should be blocked. If he's doing this out of good faith, i.e., he truly wishes to change things, then he needs to do it the right way, not changing the rules himself. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 21:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 35) This editor doesn't seem to understand WP:CONS and the "higher standard of participation and consensus" expected for changes in policy. --Sfmammamia (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 36) Kevin Baastalk 16:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC) explain why.
 * 37) This just makes life complicated for the newbies who are already likely to find our alphabetti spaghetti confusing. If he does not stop then he should be blocked. Pfainuk talk 21:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 38) SKS2K6 (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 39) --BirdKr (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 40) Wikipedia is not a democracy, we abide by the rules of it. I don't care if they make their own welcome, but policies is not right ~ American  Eagle  04:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 41) NPOV, NOR, and RS are non-negotiable. Sceptre (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 42) What else can you do?
 * 43) WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:RS are core policies. WP:FRINGE is not an excuse for writing your own policies.  The policies are there for a reason - it is in Wikipedia's best interest that editors abide by them. -- Shruti14 t c s 23:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 44) All users need to know about fundamental Wikipedia policies. We do not require agreement to them in every particular because editors are allowed to ignore all rules if it helps, but new editors should not be misled. Users should not feel inhibited from proposing policy changes but in fundamental areas, these changes must be discussed before being agreed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 45) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 46) I would also make sure that the screeds he has posted contain links to the actual policies involved.  If the users he directs to them have edits that manifest an interest in the content in which he is also interested, I'd be inclined to cut him some slack.  But if he's linking this stuff to new users randomly, that strikes me as spamming. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 47) He's misrepresenting community consensus by welcoming new users and guiding them to his rules. If he were to disregard my request(s) to stop, I'd block him. D u s t i complain/compliment 18:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 48) No. We don't allow disruption and misinforming newcomers is disruptive. We also allow less leeway historically on policy pages than on othe rpages, since they are a vital reference and need to be in good condition. That said, he may not realize this is inappropriate. So I'd write explaining it rather than just warn -- that although anyone can edit these pages, major changes need clear consensus and agreement, that these are not our communal norms and why they are not, what our norms are and where his proposals are unhelpful. I'd explain also that the policies document our norms, they do not create them. Then state that I have reverted them and ask that he discusses them with other editors on the talk pages. But please do not tell others these are our norms, unless they have communal consensus. If he does it again, maybe warn again, then possibly switch to blocking with a view to deterring the behavior, as he's been warned more than once already. FT2 (Talk 12:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 49) Warn, counsel, etc., block if being seriously disruptive. Apparently this is more common than one would think. I already knew of one editor, but reading through the responses it appears several editors have done this sort of thing. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 08:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 50) Stop this disruptive behavior. Encourage the editor to go to the correct talk pages to discuss reasons for changes. Failing that, try some blocks and then ban. Doczilla  STOMP! 04:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 51) Without doing this you only have Chaos. Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk  02:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 52) First, he absolutely needs to stop misleading new editors -- there are many hurdles to jump when you're new to Wikipedia and being misinformed about basic policies shouldn't be yet another thing new editors need to overcome. Then, start a dialog with him on his concerns about current policy.  Explain how policies come about - they are a reflection of community practice, not a prescription for community practice.  Encourage him to read the village pump and get a feel for how his types of concerns can be discussed with the community. Shell   babelfish 18:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 53) As with all these questions, I really don't see how AGF is relevant. csloat (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 54) Common rules means there are rules.  If all have our own rules then there are no rules.  Wotapalaver (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 55) Holy hell this is the easiest one yet! Joelster (talk) 08:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 56) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 57) Trishm (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 58) Although I think he can write whatever rules he wants on his talk:page, he really shouldn't be evangelizing like this.--T. Anthony (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 59) I'd be quick on the block button. His own version of rules isn't an issue, although editing problems coming from it might be, but misleading newbies is a massive problem, and needs to stop, now.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 60) If everyone made up their own rules, the Wikiproject would be a mess! Leave rule proposils to the admins and Village pump pages! Habeouscorpus (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 61) single warning, then BLOCKZORED. --Iamzork (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 62) LOL WUT? --Justallofthem (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 63) Editors are welcome to express their opinions and make their arguments for change of official policies, but there are appropriate forums for that.  One of which is the talk:pages of the respective policy or policies.  Another is one's own talk:page.  But when the editor attempted to mislead and canvass new Wikipedia editors via the custom-made "welcoming statements," the line was crossed. BrownHornet21 (talk) 05:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 64) Seems like a block is in order if he can't be persuaded to stop. skeptical scientist (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 65) Almost as bad as wikilawering to remove entries embarassing to one's own agenda Felixmeister (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 66) This user's actions are against consensus, and consensus rules. Block in order to stop damage to Wikipedia. Or I guess you could warn him if you catch him early enough, but if he starts doing it again, block him right away.  Also, direct all of the users he has notified to the proper, actual WP policies.  Direct the user to the proper forums for policy discussion. SunDragon34 (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 67) Kla22374 (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 68) Support per number 1. Pie is good  <font face="Segoe Script" color="#78AB46"> (Apple is the best)  23:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 69) Hard ban across all mediawiki projects. Give him one, and exactly one, warning first. --Logical Premise (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 70) They can have altered rules in their name space but promoting them as such is disruptive. Rollback or replace those welcome messages and warn the editor about such actions. They actually may be helpful on the fringe board in their own special way. 71.139.36.216 (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 71) Cannot allow him to mislead the newcomers with false policies. A block across all wiki sites should get the message across. ;)  Ono pearls  (t/c) 06:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 72) Way off the wagon here. By promoting watered down policies they have crossed the line into disruption. Userfy the alt policy pages if they haven't been already. Replace the welcome messages with standard ones that point those folks to the correct policies and warn this editor to desist or escalate if they have continued after several attempts. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   10:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 73) <font face="Georgia"><sup style="color: #3B5323;">The <font color="#8B0000;">GRAND <sub style="color: #660198;">Rans <small style="color: #FF6103;">✫Speak to Me!✫  00:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 74) Promoting his own rules as "welcome" templates is misleading and unfair to new editors, and needs to be stopped. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  12:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 75) — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 19:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 76) Unacceptable behavior. Wikipedia or the rest of Wikimedia does not operate in this fashion. GB 86 06:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 77) --<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #0000FF"><font color="#FFFF00"><B>Allmightyduck &#xF8FF;</B> </SPAN> <FONT SIZE="1">What did I do wrong?</FONT> 16:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 78) Wow ! so many people to go and say sorry to - would have to inform all people he has influenced of the correct policies with a little standardised message and links explaining what has happened. Of course the users edits would also have to be removed after his/her blocking and all policy and guideline documents checked for removal of his disinformation. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 79)  Guoguo12 <font color="blue" size="1">--Talk--  19:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 80) She/he would violate WP:OWN if he does this. <font color="#0645AD">Minima <font color="#0645AD">c <font color="#0645AD"> (<font color="#0645AD">talk ) 22:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 81) Indef. Use a bot or tool to find every user talk page this editor posted on and add a nice new welcome message. Depending on how long he was doing this, you may want to phrase it as a reminder of some WP policies and procedures, explaining that they may have been told different. What a mess this sociopath made. VanIsaacWS<sup style="margin-left:-2.9ex">contribs 08:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 82) Misleading thousands of newbies isn't acceptable, so of course he has to be stopped, and the damage repaired as far as possible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 83) Simple. Just tell the editor to stop making his own rules. There are already rules set out, so why should he add his own? Amandaaa99 (talk) 06:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 84) Dude. Stop. Arbcom, ANI, anything. Not acceptable. Eman <font color="#6643d1">235 / talk  04:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 85) Stop him. Block him if he won't stop. Wikipedia is founded upon consensus. Melody Concertotalk 03:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 86) First, stop him from misleading newbies about WP. Try to convince this editor to alter his policies so that they reflect the ideas from a consensus of Wikipedians, not an authoritarian rulebook. If he/she does not stop, block him for goodness' sake.  Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 10:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)