User:Filll/AGF Challenge Saint-Try to get Oacan to stop


 * 1) As long as there is no "your aunt is a nutcase and should go to the nuthouse" or the likes involved. Reliable sources need to come first. Erik the Red 2 (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Naerii 02:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Politely. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) As a prerequisite for sensible discussion. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 02:15, April 13, 2008
 * 5) Needs to stop if contributers are being driven off. Carcharoth (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Why would this be relevant in the article anyway. He is already being disruptive, & if he does not stop should be blocked. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Why does it matter that he is a decedent? Zginder(talk) (Contrib) 18:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Auntie's research was never published, no use. Even if it had been, so what? The article is about Saint Thingy, not Saint Thingy's brother's umpteenth generation descendants. Explain how we do things, stern talking-to if he doesn't stop, block. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Even if findable, which is very unlikely, it wouldn't be appropriate content unless Oacan himself or his family were notable which doesnt seem likely.   DGG (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Oacan seems incorigible, so this probably includes blocking. Mango juice talk 03:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) The only source is unpublished, incomplete, and biased to the point of being probably fictitious, the epitome of an unreliable source. Disallow the material in the article, and tell the editor why - not as bluntly, but in no uncertain terms as to what will happen if they don't play nice. Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 07:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) I would have said "reconcile with the sources" but per the scenario, as others here say, that's not likely to be successful. Encourage it, just in case, but failing that, has to stop. ++Lar: t/c 16:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Explain that it will never be allowed per policies on notability and verifiability. Dispute resolution if Oacan continues. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 18:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Explain WP:V, WP:RS and WP:COI. If he doesn't listen, topic ban. Karanacs (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) No WP:V via WP:RS = WP:OR violation. Explain this politely, but thoroughly and personally. If the editor continues, give block warnings, and eventually report to block. -- Levine2112 discuss  19:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Gentle if possible, by blocking him or her if necessary. Unverifiable with a COI to boot, such info should not be included. Fram (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Per Karanacs. Try to welcome the fact that he wants to expend his energy on improving articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Per just about everyone above. George D. Watson  (Dendodge). Talk Help 12:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) It's an encyclopedia. Neıl ☎  16:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) This is my least favorite question in the survey, because of clauses like "Oacan drove off several other contributors..."; regardless of what people say, you never really know why people come or go. I guess I'll choose this answer. - Dan (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Not much room for compromise on this one. I'd actually eliminate "try to" from this answer, since ve haff vays of making you stop. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Point the rules out to him. Try to get him to be reasonable if possible. If not get more serious. JMiall  ₰  20:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Per Neil. We stick to the sources. Further, he's obviously being tendentious; if he does not stop, a block or topic ban may be in order. GlassCobra 16:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) The behaviour needs to stop until the user understands that this editing practice is contrary to Wikipedia policy. The user can then be invited to present reliable sources for the claims made.  If no such sources can be provided, the article should not be edited according to the user's preference.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) The user needs to be informed about WP's policies. Even *IF* adequate sources were eventually found (ie - his family history was checked by a professional geneaologist, no gaps in record, etc.) we're still left with WP:N. DigitalC (talk) 04:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) Rds865 (talk) 01:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) But tell him to come back if he can find reliable proof. ---G.T.N. (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) per ConMan Tt 225 (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 30) Warnings first, then measures.--AkselGerner (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 31) Yilloslime (t) 20:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 32) Since reconciliation was already tried, I doubt more will help. If he can provide good sources, then by all means add it, but it doesn't look good for Oacan. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 20:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 33) Seems like a textbook case of  disruptive editing. I'd look to that guideline for steps that haven't been followed yet.  --Sfmammamia (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 34) Kevin Baastalk 16:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 35) By this point (after a year's arguments), any reliable sources likely to come out will have done. He has demonstrated that he is disruptive (by driving editors away - some people do actually cite reasons when they leave a page and I'll assume this applies here).  So, temporary blocks getting longer until he stops. Pfainuk talk 21:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 36) BirdKr (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 37) COI and lack of RS. Sceptre (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 38) Wikipedia is not a memorial site, even if he did have the "sources." I'm descended from Charlemagne btw (and so is everyone else here). -- Fullstop (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 39) You need reliable sources. An unpublished genealogy is not reliable. Oacan should put these theories on a personal website, not Wikipedia. CO GDEN  05:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 40) w00t!  Micro c h i p   08 19:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 41) Unless Oacan can produce the sources his Aunt used, this behaviour is not acceptable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 42) The saint's noteworthiness comes from the fact that he's a saint, not because he's allegedly related to the editor. To do otherwise would turn the saint's article into a coatrack article about the editor's family. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 43) It would violate NPOV and OR. I would do my best to get him to stop, and ultimatley block him if I have to. D u s t <font color="#6600cc">i complain/compliment 18:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 44) After a year of doing this? Ban him. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 08:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 45) Try to get him to stop. Block him, ban him. By this time, boot him out the door. Doczilla  STOMP! 04:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 46) This isn't an AGF issue -- it's a simple sourcing issue.  If the sources don't back him up, revert the edits.  If he's disruptive about it, a polite warning and eventually a block if the behavior continues may be appropriate. csloat (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 47) If he can match the biography to other sources, then it can be included. If not, not.  Wotapalaver (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 48) We need reliable sources. After this much disruption, we've got ways of making him stop.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 49) His aunt is not notable. Bwrs (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 50) Warn and block. --Justallofthem (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 51) Blatant violation of WP:OR, lack of reliable source, and ownership of the article.  Since he's been at it for over a year, I'd say that the time to reason with him has come and gone. BrownHornet21 (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 52) Who cares about the genealogy of some saint - why does it merit inclusion anyways? It doesn't matter whose version of the genealogy is correct, because none of it is notable. skeptical scientist (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 53) Notability? Sources? If none then stopFelixmeister (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 54) If it is as one sided as the case study implies, then check he's had all his warnings and topic ban and revert his edits. Might not hurt to drop a note to the driven away editors that the edit war is over and their content has been restored. Jonathan Cardy (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 55) Your aunt is not a reliable source unless shes a genealogist. <font face="Segoe Print" color="#6B4226">Pie is good  <font face="Segoe Script" color="#78AB46"> (Apple is the best)  23:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 56) He cannot be allowed to continue. As much as he would like to believe it, his aunt is not a expert on the matter.  Ono pearls  (t/c) 06:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 57) <font face="Georgia"><sup style="color: #3B5323;">The <font color="#8B0000;">GRAND <sub style="color: #660198;">Rans <small style="color: #FF6103;">✫Speak to Me!✫  00:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 58) Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  12:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 59) — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 19:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 60) At this point, he mas as well be arguing "Your MOM is a descendant of a saint." I'd give a level 4 unsourced warning, and if he continues, block. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #0000FF"><font color="#FFFF00"><B>Allmightyduck &#xF8FF;</B> </SPAN> <FONT SIZE="1">What did I do wrong?</FONT> 16:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 61) Aid him to see that his additions do not meet poilcy or guidelines due to lack of sources and refs. Advise him that the tags I have placed for refs and sources will be acted upon within a timeframe and if he cannot find sources after that time the additions he has made will be removed. If he persisits then he would be blocked for a short time and, if he continues after the block had passed then a longer block or topic ban would be considered as the next step. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 62) If the genealogy was never published, then it should be considered OR, especially if it contradicts various other sources.  Guoguo12 <font color="blue" size="1">--Talk--  19:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 63) His edits are OR, unsourced, unverifiable, as well as possibly FRINGE. The user needs to stop, possibly with a medium term ban, and the article needs to be protected from him. Depending on the frequency of edits prior to his involvement, this either needs to happen with full protection, or a topic ban, or both. VanIsaacWS<sup style="margin-left:-2.9ex">contribs 08:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 64) Not only try to get him to stop, but prevent him damaging other articles. If he can't be persuaded then blocking or topic banning will be necessary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 65) STOP unless he can actually prove EVERYONE wrong. Fat chance...  Eman <font color="#6643d1">235 / talk  04:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 66) Honestly unless he can actually prove that the genealogy he is pushing is correct, a history of editing like this is really a blockable offense and we should seek to STOP him and BLOCK him if he refuses to stop. Melody Concertotalk 03:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)