Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alexsautographs

The goal of user RFCs is to come to a mutual, voluntary agreement with he subject. That has clearly failed to happen here. This RFC is therefore closed with a result of no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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: 19:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 07:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC).

---

• Alexsautographs (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.

Alexsautographs has a habit of creating unreferenced biographies (some of them BLP's) and letting them languish without providing sources. He/she then contests deletions through CSD, PROD, and AfD while failing to provide necessary sources. Further, the user the nominates the same articles for deletion, wasting our resources that could be used to improve notable articles. Attempts to intervene have failed, as the user is not open to changing behavior.

Desired outcome

Despite the problems with this user, he/she also makes many constructive edits. I would like for he/she to simply continue those while ceasing this disruptive behavior.

Description

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. Editors writing this section should not normally add additional views below.}

• User:Alexsautographs has made countless quality edits over the years, but his behavior lately has been antagonistic and counterproductive. He seems to be angry about something and perhaps is trying to make a point, but he refuses to engage in anything resembling a civil, rational discussion. As stated above, this user has created dozens and dozens of pages that fail GNG (and often don't have any sources at all), and then, sometimes only days later, he nominates them for deletion (AfD). If, however, someone else beats him to the punch in nominating an AfD, he often immediately changes his tune and makes haphazard and often ludicrous or inconsistent attempts to defeat the AfD. (The same pattern has repeated over and over: If Alex created a page and nominated it for deletion, he'll fight for deletion; if he creates a page and someone else AfD's it, Alex will fight it tooth and nail.) This user seems to think normal Wiki policies, GNG, etc., don't apply to him — i.e., he seems to think it's fine to create dozens of pages of non-notable people and then force the community to waste time debating an AfD and/or finding the sources Alex should have found/included in the first place. Alex has also unilaterally added certain classes of people to WP:BASE/N, such as scouts; if such a page is PROD'd, Alex will immediately un-PROD it with the odd explanation that he "de-PRODs all scouts by default." Further, his behavior has gone from annoying to potentially destructive; see last weekend's absurdly bad-faith AfD of Matt Harrington. I have nothing against this guy personally, but he's wasting too much of everyone's time. Enough is enough. — NY-13021 (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of disputed behavior

1. A suggestion that was not undertaken
2. Disruptive AfD demonstrating a questionable application of GNG
3. Using WP:GOOGLEHITS to object to PROD without adding any sources
4. Same as above, disruptive tone in edit summary
5. Bad faith de-PROD
6. Indication of a lack of understanding of notability
7. Bad faith de-PROD, edit warring, providing no new information
8. Bad faith de-PROD, edit warring, providing no new information

Applicable policies and guidelines

{List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:DISRUPT

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(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.)

Attempts by certifier Muboshgu

1. Suggestion made to Alexsautographs, to which user never responded

Attempts by certifier NY-13021

1. (See the extensive dialogue under the "Relisted" notice)
2. Seemed like a retaliatory AfD
3. Ridiculously bad-faith AfD
4. Bizarre logic in contesting an AfD

Other attempts

1. User rejecting attempts at remediation

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

1. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. NY-13021 (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

1. — KV5 • Talk • 00:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Endorse that disruptive editing has occurred, but not the characterization about intent. Hopefully this RFC/U can open up dialogue where previous attempts have failed to offer assistance if the actions were unintentional but misunderstood.—Bagumba (talk) 02:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 17:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it.}

I have done nothing that is against the rules of Wikipedia.

All right, whatever. This game has gotten boring. I'll just stop doing AfDs...as long as Muboshgu (and all other editors) stops PRODDing and AfDing my articles en masse. I should also add that I would appreciate my fellow editors to apply the same critical lens they apply to me to themselves, as they have - often without any sort of counter from the "civility enforcers" that have been riding me - been terribly uncivil, hypocritical and spiteful in their comments and handling of this "situation." I rarely ever bite. I just bite back when bitten. `Alex (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary: Alex (talk) 09:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. 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. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.

Outside view by Killervogel5

From what I've seen and read about this issue, the summary by the certifiers is an eminently fair and accurate description of the current situation. Alex' propensity for creating biographies without sources or with minimal sources with questionable reliability, and especially the same actions as related to BLPs which require proper sourcing, is distressing. It is not helpful for any editor to discourage the creation of articles; however, it is perhaps even less helpful to the encyclopedia for an editor to provide only minimal sources (if any) for articles that may or may not meet the threshold of notability.

I understand and accept that the retaliatory AfDs may just be an expression of frustration spilling over; however, that does not make it right, constructive, or productive. It is, in fact, tendentious, and needs a change. It would be a vast improvement if Alex were to continue to provide productive content edits while providing (preferably unimpeachable) reliable sources at the same time. In this way, the user will not have a need to create articles and later nominate them for deletion because they will be sourced and obviously notable.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. — KV5 • Talk • 01:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. —Bagumba (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. -DJSasso (talk) 11:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 17:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-involved view by Bagumba

In example #1 under "Evidence of disputed behavior" above, I was the editor who suggested in March to Alex that he save admin and reviewer resources by Db-g7 speedy-deleting articles where he was the sole editor in lieu of an AfD. There was no response, no speedy delete, and the AfD was relisted twice due to lack of participation before being deleted. In October, there was another AfD where he self-nominated, and the issue was again discussed about speedy deleting. I'm troubled by Alex's response:

How do I know if they're non-notable if I don't pass them through the AfD filter? Just because I think they're non-notable doesn't mean consensus thinks they're non-notable.

I was surprise that a creator of almost 1,000 articles like Alex does not have the confidence to self-delete his own mistakes based on his own interpretation of WP:GNG. In all fairness to Alex, he does not self-nominate AfDs for a majority of articles he creates, and his editing is generally solid. However, the sheer number of articles he creates makes his percentage of self-noms more noticeable when monitoring AfDs, causing some in WikiProject Baseball to notice the pattern. Suggestions were made in AfDs to help improve Alex's article creation criteria and reduce the need to self-nominate AfDs, but they received responses from Alex like:

You aren't spending hours arguing over anything, at most you're spending five minutes creating a response. It doesn't involve a lot of time and a lot of energy, yet you're clearly letting this raise your blood pressure to unhealthy levels. I mean, just ignore them AfDs.

I propose that all parties cease incivilities—actual or perceived—exchanged due to passion over Wikipedia. I ask that Alex, as a sign of good faith, include multiple, reliable sources in articles he creates, and he discusses those sources with editors when they have questions. This will help verifiability, and remove doubts of notability. I also ask that Alex presents sources for articles when he de-PRODs them, even if a policy says it is "encouraged, but not required". There is nothing gained by involving multiple editors and admins in an AfD if the issue can be resolved directly with the editor who PRODed it.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. —Bagumba (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. You said it better than I could. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oh, absolutely. — KV5 • Talk • 11:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. -DJSasso (talk) 11:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 17:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-involved view by Bagumba (view #2)

Alex has now nominated almost 30 AfDs in October alone, and I am suspect he is now trying to make a WP:POINT. AfDs that he has been involved in this month that have been closed show that his views are going against consensus. He has also not responded to this RfC in a week. While checking what links here to see that he was notified (he was), I stumbled across this "attempt" of Alex's to request for adminship, which many participants commented as a "joke" and I view as a blatant waste of time. While my earlier view assumed good faith, this later information is convincing me otherwise. I think a topic ban on baseball articles is in order.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. —Bagumba (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC) I was going to point to one of those AfD's, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nate Gold, which many of you might've missed as it closed quickly. Hit Bull Win Steak is one of our trusted editors. HBWS deprod'ed an article with a valid explanation of the subject's notability, but Alex took it to AfD. When I mentioned this, Alex's response was "Maybe he was lying". I'm speechless. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   [comment moved to talk page as per guidelines to discuss the RfC/U on talkpage — KV5 • Talk • ]

3. Perhaps it is time for more punitive measures. — KV5 • Talk • 01:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 17:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. TM: A few minutes ago, he nominated an Olympic baseball player and All-American college baseball player for deletion. Obviously, he does not have a handle on what the guidelines for inclusion are for baseball players and I would favor perhaps a short term ban on creating AfD's to give him time to read the guidelines and stop wasting our time.--TM 21:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. I was trying to keep out of this, but it is has now become obvious to me that this is a pattern of behavior which Alex has no intention of halting until his point is made, one way or the other. Given that, I don't believe there's any choice but to take punitive measures, as the alternative is to allow continued disruption. -Dewelar (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. I concur with the views above. The AFDs for baseball players are over 40 right now, and many of them have been fairly unanimous keep votes. Spanneraol (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. -DJSasso (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by cbl62

I agree with most of what is said above. But an outright topic ban seems to be overbroad. Alex has created a large volume of solid content. The current problem appears mostly to be with his overloading the AfD process. A less draconian, but still effective, approach would be to limit the number of AfDs he can nominate (maybe 1 per day? or 3 per week?).

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Cbl62 (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. I'd support three AFDs per calendar month in lieu of a ban from using AFD. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 17:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.