User:Moonriddengirl/AGF Challenge Exercise Answers

My wife is not a coauthor

Suppose someone has coauthored 10 books with their wife. And suppose that this person also wrote 10 books on their own, and on this second group of 10 books, their wife is not listed as a coauthor. All 20 of these books are listed on a website belonging to the couple for sale, and on various other websites, with the authorship list for each book listing either the person, or the person and his wife. All of these websites and descriptions of these 20 books agree with each other. Suppose that in interviews, this person is quoted as saying that his wife had coauthored some of his books, and that this person listed this coauthorship in his autobiography.

Therefore, in the biography of this person on Wikipedia, we state that this person has coauthored some of his books with his wife. And then this person contacts WP, using the OTRS system, and threatens to sue Wikipedia for describing his wife as a coauthor of some of his books. He wants Wikipedia to assert that he wrote all the books himself and his wife was not involved.

What should Wikipedia do? Do we just state something that is contrary to more than a dozen reliable sources, which all agree with each other? Do we state something for which we have not a single source except a private email purportedly from the subject of the biography (but of course we do not know for sure)? What is the ethical thing to do? What is the encyclopedic thing to do? What precedent would your actions set, if any?

Note: see Directions to answer these exercises

First of all, I'd probably only be involved in this as an opinion at ANI or something, since I'm not working at OTRS level. :) My opinion would be that this individual should be invited to provide his reliable sourcing to demonstrate his claims. If reliable sourcing is provided, we can note the dispute in the article, although even then it would be inappropriate to privilege one view over another, so references to earlier published claims could not be removed. I would explain to him, with polite regret, that as a compendium of previously published information, Wikipedia reports on what sources that meet our reliable sourcing requirements say and that we are not publishers of new information. I would respond to the issues without responding to the legal threat at first level. (As off-Wiki, WP:NLT is not a concern here.) A gently phrased answer can go a long way in alleviating such tensions, and addressing the actual issue empathetically may encourage the individual to discuss the matter further without feeling the need to haul out "weapons". Besides, it's not appropriate for us to enter into legal debate with him and point out to him that he hasn't a legal leg to stand on and Napster suggests that hubris in that department is ill-advised anyway. Thinks change. Sometimes retroactively.

In short, I'd proceed in full-force WP:CIVIL mode, gently refusing to capitulate, with explanations of relevant points at WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR & WP:NPOV. This doesn't necessarily strike me as a GF matter, since what's going on here is the much larger question of whether or not an individual has the privilege of using Wikipedia to whitewash the published record. No, not as long as our reporting on the published record is well within WP:BLP. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My town's library

You run across an article, created a few days ago, that reads:

A quaint little library established in 1939. Set in the delightful village of Smithille, Iowa, this library has seen many changes in it's time, not least the new wheelchair ramp laid in place in 1995 due to new government legislation. A controversial move indeed. To rub salt into the wound, two disabled parking spaces were placed outside in spring 1998 (Iowa council). Lois Cooper, Beverley Sixsmith and Jill Chesser were the original founders, Lois being the only sirviving members. Lucy Keene a former employee commeneted on the late Ms Sixsmith: "An admirable woman. A sufragette to the end." Realsiing the need to move with the times in 1993, the library implemented a late night closing on Tuesday evenings, remainin open until 18:00 instead of the usual hour of 17:30. Although this incited industrial action from the current staff, Lois failed to backdown from this radical new policy.

Other smithville attractions (past and present)

terry's Cockney Chuckles Chelone Deux Clothesline Curtainline Wow (later West Iowa video) Belle veux Wool o' the west Whitewoods Shoestring The Cabin Deli Select and Save (David's) Brenda C's Johnnie loves Lucy Scissor's Duo Hurst's Tudor Lounge Bakewell Cafe (Toby Jug) The Ginger Jar Bread basket Tony's and Doreen's bargain shop (moved to newberry, now bust) Briscoe's books Plumbley's Bread and Cakes Tony's Eve's Electrical Live Wire Traidcraft Geoffrey's Rainbow fish bar Double dragon Turning heads

You do some web searching, and find nothing about this library on the internet. What should Wikipedia do with such an article? How would you handle this situation?

After removing the attack elements (about the "controversial move"), I'd check the contributor's history. Evidence that this is an active editor? Evidence of a lot of time and/or effort spent in working on this article? If so, I would take my notability concerns directly to him or her. I have found some editors willing to request deletion once they've discovered that their article's don't meet notability guidelines, and I feel like we're less likely to drive away a contributor by bringing them into the process (even if it's a painful one) than slapping them with it. If I don't see evidence that the editor is active (even if only active on one subject), I would instead PROD it. There was a time when I would have tagged this as a WP:CSD#A7 as a non-notable non-profit organization, but having had the deletion of a small museum successfully challenged as inappropriate for A7, I would presume a library would similarly escape speedy. I usually leave detailed PROD summaries so that creators and others can easily understand the issues with the article. If the PROD is removed without these being addressed, I would first attempt to address the creator (presuming he or she removed the tag) and then, if necessary, AfD. This is pretty much the procedure I followed here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I am the best

"Theobold Johnson III" is notable for having been involved in a football cheating scandal and also writes books about orchids, illustrated with beautiful pictures. Johnson has written several self-published books about orchids, and in their autobiographies and interviews he describes himself as "the greatest living orchid man" and "widely recognized by the academic world as the greatest orchid scholar in the world". Johnson refers to himself as "Dr. Johnson" or "Professor Johnson" frequently in print. Johnson also asserts in print that he is a professor in the Botany Department at the famous "Winthrop College" and has given his mailing address as "c/o Winthrop College" for many years. Johnson often writes that all other people studying orchids are morons and even all other botanists are stupid and vile disgusting fools who should be publicly flogged or worse.

In the course of writing a Wikipedia biography about Johnson, you start to uncover disturbing information. First, you are able to find a mention of a "Theobold Johnson III" on archived versions of the Winthrop College website from 1994-1997, but there is no mention of Johnson on earlier versions of the website, or later versions. A "T. Johnson, III" is listed as a visitor in the Computer Science Department of Winthrop College in the 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997 versions of the website, and a phone number is given. You contact the President's office at Winthrop College and the Dean of Science office at Winthrop College and ask if Johnson is or was a faculty member there. Receiving no reply, you ask a friend who knows the Dean personally to ask the Dean privately. The word comes back from your friend that he has talked to the Dean privately, and that Johnson is an embarassment and never had a faculty appointment at Winthrop College and just has his mail forwarded from Winthrop College due to some arrangement he made with someone in the Winthrop College mailroom 25 years previously. Johnson never was on the payroll of Winthrop College and never had an official position at Winthrop College and has not been on campus for 10 years or more. Johnson was listed for a few years on the telephone list and was a short term visitor, but this was just a courtesy and he was one of 3500 visitors a year who get this courtesy. The Dean's office then, thanks to the probing of your friend, issues a very carefully worded "official statement" about Johnson, stating he was never a faculty member at Winthrop College and inviting further inquiries to their Press Office, and sends you a copy.

You do some more checking, and find no evidence that Johnson has a PhD or any degree in botany or science whatsoever, at least from Liberty Washington University, as he claims. You do find a record at Liberty Washington Community College that Johnson obtained a bachelor's degree in history 30 years previously. You also find a report in the local newspaper that Johnson was expelled from Liberty Washington Community College for theft while he was an undergraduate, and then was readmitted and eventually graduated. You look at various lists and directories of prominent orchid scholars and find no mention of a Theobold Johnson in any edition of these directories. You also dig up 5 reviews of Johnson's books on orchids in various scholarly journals from different botanists and orchid scholars from Harvard and University of Pennsylvania and Yale. These reviews are uniformly poor, and state that Johnson is a charlatan and a fraud and his books are replete with errors and the worst possible nonsense. You then find another interview of Johnson published in Sports Illustrated where it is stated that Johnson has no PhD or other Doctorate, but it is a title that people use for him out of respect for his tremendous knowledge and learning.

How would you write a biography of this person on Wikipedia? What would be reasonable and accurate and ethical? What would be fair? What should Wikipedia do if this person contacts Wikipedia and demands that it write his biography the way he dictates? What if this person threatens legal action if Wikipedia does not do what he asks?

How would I write a biography? Carefully, neutrally, and with impeccable references. I'm not sure from the above if all of Johnson's orchid books are self-published. Regardless, I suspect there will be some reference to the beautiful pictures in some review somewhere. This will allow me to balance criticisms. ("While source, source and source praised the photography in title, source and source noted in their reviews that "critical quote" and "critical quote".<ref>Full and accessible references.</ref>") Johnson's courtesy titles are easily dealt with, thanks to the SI interview--information presented, of course, in neutral tones. This is not investigative journalism; this is a simple statement of fact, "Johnson, often called 'Dr. Johnson' in respect to his knowledge and learning although he has no PhD,<ref>SI</ref> someotherneutrallypresentedfact.<nowiki><ref>someotherref</ref>

If reporting on Winthrop College, I would only note the "official statement" if it were visibly and verifiably published somewhere. I would not touch the theft report at this stage. It is not directly relevant to his notability and is not widely enough sourced for me to regard it as proper for usage on Wiki. This person's demands that Wikipedia write his biography as he wishes are a non-issue; it all comes down to careful compliance with WP:BLP. As long as we stay well within those guidelines, we need not capitulate to the threats of bullies. I would, however, take the matter to WP:BLPN for review by other volunteers to ensure that there is consensus that I am working within that guideline. As far as the legal threats, if these are made on-wiki, the individual will need to be blocked. Given the sensitive nature of BLPs, I would definitely seek other opinions before taking that step, however, at BLPN and probably ANI. Blocking is not a major arena of mine (although BLPN is).

Now, this is what I would do on Wiki. What I would do off-Wiki is contact an investigative journalist with the carefully worded statement from Winthrop College. We don't do OR, but they do. Let them work out the degree to which Johnson was or was not connected with the college. If it turns out to be a real issue, it'll turn up on Wikipedia eventually. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Arrow of Time

In the Young Earth Creationism article, an editor with a total of 47 edits to their credit repeatedly inserts the phrase

Fundamaental to both YEC and cosmological / biological evolution is the concept of Time. Time itself, and its perceived or actual forward progress (Arrow_of_time) is a discussion topic that includes the Second Law of Thermodynamics and questions as to whether time existed before the Big Bang.

This appears to have little if anything to do with Young Earth Creationism. After all, the Big Bang produced time itself, according to the Big Bang theory, first advanced by Belgian Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaître. Discussions of whether time existed before the Big Bang have already discarded one of the main features of the Big Bang, and so are not about the Big Bang, and definitely not relevant to Young Earth Creationism, which does not have a Big Bang associated with most versions of it. It is a confused and somewhat nonsensical statement.

No sources or references are provided, although this editor is asked for sources dozens of times by several other editors. Other editors remove this phrase, and the new editor responds angrily that he is being censored. The new editor reinserts this phrase 38 times over the next 2 weeks, and never provides references or sources of any kind. When asked for sources, he states it is the responsibility of the other editors to provide them, not him.

On the talk page of the article, this editor posts vaguely obnoxious statements like

It appears that our problem in editing is more fundamental than I first thought: 2 Timothy 3 (Godlessness in the Last Days) 1But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.

He states that since the other editors do not want to include his statement about the Arrow of Time without a reference, they will be sued:

But, you are going to get WP and yourself sued if you continue to believe WP's rules supercede laws regarding defamation. They raise money, so there are real damages

Everyone is polite to this editor. No one threatens him. No one curses him. He is tolerated.

What should Wikipedia do in this case? What is fair? What is the journalistic thing to do? What is the encyclopedic thing to do? Could someone like this demand that Encyclopedia Britannica include this kind of statement in one of its articles? The New York Times? What sort of chance of success would they have?

Pretty broad questions there. :) Wikipedia should point out to him WP:NLT. He hasn't quite crossed that line, but he's flirting with it. There is clear consensus that the inclusion of the statement is inappropriate. The editor needs to be advised where to pursue dispute resolution, in case he thinks that the involved editors are not properly judging the material. He needs to be told about edit warring and disruption. If he persists, he needs to be blocked. If he returns and persists, he needs to be blocked longer. If this is his only contribution, this may well lead to an indef block. If it isn't, and he contributes usefully in other areas, a topic ban may be appropriately initiated. I regard this as fair to him, because he's being given plenty of civil guidance about how to handle his issue. I'm not quite sure how to answer the sub-questions, but I suspect Britannica and NYT get these kinds of demands all the time and respond with an appropriately bland form letter or the circular filebox. So, I guess, yes, I think it is probably both the journalistic and encyclopedic thing to do...except that I doubt they would feel compelled to be as patient and nice about it, since they're preemptively choosy about contributors and we give everyone an equal opportunity to contribute so long as they work within community guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ghost in the machine

Some people have decided that sometimes ghosts call humans using cellular telephones (i.e., mobile phones). Strange anonymous cell phone calls are said to be caused by phantoms and spirits trying to communicate with the living. Ringing cellular phones during inopportune moments are believed to be caused by mischievous spirits playing tricks on humans. Static during cellular telephone calls is said to be the voices of those from beyond the grave, that can be heard if you listen closely enough. Crosstalk between calls and other phenomena are said to be the results of spectral beings and supernatural influences. Cats that get strange looks on their faces when cell phones ring, or run and hide, are said to able to hear the ghosts. It is claimed that sometimes cats look into the corners of empty rooms watching these phantoms that are present, and invisible to humans.

Several articles on this "Cellular Phantom Phenomenon" (CPP) are written for Wikipedia. Since there are no mainstream scientific studies of CPP, the editors demand that no negative material or mainstream material be presented in the Wikipedia articles on CPP, since there are no mainstream reliable sources. Conventional explanations for CPP and information about how cellular telephones work and the causes of crosstalk and static are dismissed by the proponents of CPP as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The proponents of CPP maintain that the conventional mainstream scientific explanation must be kept out of the articles on CPP, and refer to those trying to include them as "pseudoskeptics" and "not real scientists" and "close-minded". Efforts to try to balance the article lead to huge disputes about trying to distort WP:NPOV and make it WP:SPOV instead, which some claim is an abuse of the policies of Wikipedia.

What should these articles on CPP in Wikipedia look like? Does mainstream science have any place in these Wikipedia CPP articles? What should Wikipedia do in this case? Can the rules of WP:FRINGE be applied or is that inappropriate and unfair?

I don't work in fringe article and so may be glimpsing for the first time a huge and serious problem on Wikipedia, but I'm having a little trouble with this scenario. If there are no WP:RS, there is no article. Not that I can conceive. :) WP:V is a core content policy, and if there are no RS, there's no verifiability. Further, if there's no RS talking about the belief of these people, then there's probably no WP:N either. I'm not sure why this wouldn't be a matter for WP:AFD.

For the sake of the exercise, I'm going to assume that AfD is not an option for some reason and that these articles must be retained. These articles should be presented neutrally and without any effort to take sides. Attribute, attribute, attribute. "Ima Believer, spokesperson for Ghost in the Machine, stated that "Cat expressions are a reliable indicator of such supernatural phenomenon." Such articles should be straightforward representations of fact (it is a fact that Ima Believer said this) without our attempting to draw conclusions about the validity of Ima Believer's beliefs. Mainstream science has a place in these articles to the extent that mainstream science is mentioned in whatever kind of sources there are about these articles. If we attempt to explain the phenomenon, then we run the risk of WP:OR. WP:NPOV requires us to report on all verifiable views of a subject, not to add our own. (I found WP:SPOV interesting. I had not seen it before.)

The rules of WP:FRINGE can, as far as I can see, be applied to every article on Wikipedia, since it essentially boils down to core policies & guidelines of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:N and WP:OR. HOWEVER, I would be careful about applying the label "fringe" to these articles and these editors, as it can certainly seem dismissive. It's possible to assemble your arguments by relying on the original policies & guidelines brought to bear at WP:FRINGE and that should be attempted first and probably for quite some time before shorthand reference to WP:FRINGE is applied. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Take me to your Leader Extraterrestrial Shape-shifting Reptile

David Icke is one of a suprisingly large group of people that believe that most of the world's leaders, from Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton and George W. Bush to members of the British Royal Family, are blood drinking shapeshifting reptilian humanoids from the Alpha Draconis star system. A little investigation reveals that there are literally dozens of books and videos on this subject, including a number that purport to present "proof" of the truth of these claims. There are also thousands of websites on this subject matter and many many people who believe this to be completely true, and supported by immense bodies of incontrovertable and irrefutable evidence.

An editor appears on Wikipedia and wants to include a paragraph or two in the biographies of many politicians around the world alluding to the fact that these politicians are in fact secretly shape-shifting extraterrestrial lizards of some kind. This editor links to one or more of the sources that are claimed to provide "proof" for these allegations. This editor wants to include this material in several hundred Wikipedia biographies. This editor protests vehemently about any efforts to remove this material from Wikipedia articles. This editor angrily denounces Wikipedia as unfair and biased, and the removal of this material as evidence that Jimbo and Arbcomm and many of the admins on Wikipedia are also shapeshifting extraterrestrial reptiles, conspiring to keep this information secret and from the public.

What should Wikipedia do in this case? What would be fair and reasonable? Should Wikipedia allow these claims only in the biographies of politicians and leaders that are already deceased, to avoid problems with WP:BLP? What is the best course of action, and most journalistic and encyclopedic and ethical? How does one avoid offending this editor? What if this editor is joined by 50 others with the same agenda so they can overwhelm any minor response by Wikipedia editors? What sort of precedent would this set? Are the rules of Wikipedia important in this situation or not? Should they be ignored? Whose rules should be applied and when, to which cases?

I'd first like to question what seems to be a basic assumption here: it seems to me that our job is to behave within behavioral guidelines, which includes civility, and to treat all contributors even-handedly...in other words, to ensure that we give editors no valid basis for offense. Human nature being what it is, some of them are going to be offended anyway. The only way to avoid offending others is to capitulate, and if we capitulate to person A we are offending person B. One can't avoid offending everybody. Our goal should not be to avoid offense, but to respond respectfully to all contributors and their views and to insist on the even-handed application of policy. Some might see this as semantics, but I don't. We should strive not to be offensive; we should not strive to avoid offending. We should treat this editor (with or without his 50 buds) respectfully and politely insist on the application of relevant policies and guidelines. If he's offended, we may be sorry. We don't back down.

In the scenario you posit, this is a notable theory. (And maybe it is; I'm not off to read Icke's article here.) It seems as though the editor is attempting to incorporate it as fact, however, and we're going to run into verifiability problems there. I sincerely doubt that the sources he's going to be linking to can overcome WP:REDFLAG. This is equally true in the biographies of the living and the dead. Whether or not the theory warrants mention in the article is down to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and the question of undue weight. Again, this applies to all articles. I find it very unlikely that there will be enough proponents of the view, even if it is notable, to merit a paragraph or two in any biography documenting that the theory exists. Whether or not it deserves even a brief reference is a less clear-cut question. How many thousands are we talking? Enough that, say, the NYT has covered it? If there is significant RS coverage of the theory (and by significant I mean widespread reporting by multiple journalists over a relatively broad expanse of time), then a short reference might merit mention. If I were reading a bio, I would most definitely find it relevant that tons of people think the subject is a reptile. Fascinating, even. Convincing? Not likely. But our purpose in that case is not to argue that it's true. It's merely to let it be known that a significant enough group of people evidently do. Reporting that reliable sources have covered these theorists is not a BLP concern, because we are not suggesting that it's true or elevating its significance (again, we're presuming widespread coverage here). We're reporting a documented fact.

The question of the editor's bluster is immaterial. People bluster about Wikipedia's unfairness all the time. How to handle it when 50 others show up is a bigger problem; it will likely land in a bigger venue. I don't know that it would set a precedent, unless somewhere along the line a surprising change to core policies ias made. I rather suspect it would play out like any other extremely sloppy dispute. And, yes, of course the rules of Wikipedia are important in this situation. (I have to note that as WP:IAR is "the first rule to consider" even those who purportedly "ignore all rules" are obeying them. Hence, the whole thing collapses into the black hole of paradox, and the universe disappears. :)) As to "whose rules" when & where, I could supply a string of wikilinks, but I think it would be more valuable to sum it up as follows:

This situation should be handled with sensitivity to the pillars of Wikipedia (note especially points about consensus and edit warring). Most clearly governing here is WP:V and WP:NPOV. Where disagreement exists in building content, dispute resolution should be sought up to mediation, which may lead to arbitration.

Our ethical requirement here is three-fold. We start with our ethical requirement to our readers, who deserve as reliable a reference work as we can give them. We meet that obligation by doing our best to keep information neutral and verifiable. If we satisfy our first mandate, we satisfy our second, which is that we must treat article subjects fairly as set out at BLP. (There are occasions when our second mandate is our first; as a single example, we may owe greater respect to the privacy of a crime victim than to a readership who want more information about that victim of crime. As posited, this is not one of these instances.) Our final ethical mandate is to our contributors, who deserve respectful and equitable treatment even if we disagree. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Related to a saint

Oacan was an editor whose aunt compiled Oacan's family genealogical history in the 1950s. Oacan's aunt claimed that Oacan's family was descended from the brother of a well known 15th century saint. Oacan then altered the Wikipedia article about the 15th century saint drastically and aggressively, for over a year, to support the claim his aunt had made in the family genealogy. Oacan removed any discussion that was contrary to this claim of his aunt, and any sources that contradicted this claim. Oacan drove off several other contributors because he insisted on creating a biography that supported his aunt's claims and "altering" the Wikipedia articles to do so.

However, Oacan's aunt's genealogy was never published, or checked by a professional genealogist. It also appears to contradict several published reliable sources. In addition, Oacan's aunt's genealogy has gaps in it as long as 95 years.

In this case, what should Wikipedia do? What is fair to Oacan? What is fair to everyone else? Should Wikipedia go with the published material from reliable sources, even if it hurts this editor's feelings? What about the ethical issues? What would a good journalist do?

Here we have WP:OR, WP:COI and WP:OWN, all of which is adding up to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. We appropriately warn and then we block or ban as necessary and appropriate. I'm very surprised that Oacan got away with this for over a year. As I said above, our purpose is not to avoid hurting people's feelings. Civility does not require this; assuming good faith does not require this. For a personal example, as an instructor, I owe my students respect. I do not owe them stellar grades. I do not even owe them passing grades. If they fail, they may feel offended. It does not follow that I have behaved offensively. We deal politely with this editor and are even-handed in our application of policy. We may even go above and beyond and deal empathetically and kindly with this editor, but we still are even-handed in our application of policy. This contributor has the same chance of working on Wikipedia as everyone else; if he chooses not to conform to community guidelines, then we are being fair to everyone in preventing him from continuing. There is no ethical dilemma here; it is equally fair to Oacan and to all other contributors if the standard is universal. (A good journalist would investigate the genealogy and publish it if it is accurate. Wikipedia is not journalism, though. Our response is appropriately different. An empathetic and kind handling of this editor might involve suggesting that this editor seek an appropriate publisher for this information.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I make my own rules

One editor who was fond of WP:FRINGE theories such as conspiracy theories and alien abduction theories, and edited articles on these topics on Wikipedia, decided that he disagreed with the standard interpretations of Wikipedia principles like WP:NOR and WP:RS and WP:NPOV. So he wrote his own versions of these policies. He altered all these standard policies to make them more friendly to WP:FRINGE topics, contrary to community consensus and rulings of Arbcomm, etc.

Then this editor proceeded to send out his own "welcoming statements" to new Wikipedia editors, with links to his nonstandard altered versions of Wikipedia policies, similar to the procedure normally followed for new Wikipedia editors.

What is appropriate in this case? Can someone decide unilaterally to design their own policy statements, contrary to those of the community? What is the ethical thing to do? What is the reasonable thing to do in this case?

It's hard to respond without seeing an example, since I don't know how egregious this is. Are these masquerading as actual policy, for instance? Moving on, it is ethical and reasonable to notify this user if his behavior is disruptive and to block him if he does not stop. He has the same chance as anyone else to contribute to and shape Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. There may also be issues of canvassing or gaming the system here ("Misrepresenting policy in a way which the user knows will harm Wikipedia or its editorial environment in practice"), depending on the content of the notes. I imagine unless egregious this would be evaluated at ANI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Purpose of the AGF Challenge