Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Alexsautographs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Potential sanction

[moved from RfC/U mainpage]

Can we institute some sort of ban on AfD and PROD nominations? The AfD on Scott Campbell (baseball) shows bad judgment at best, disruptive editing at worst. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It would hopefully sort the clogging of the deletion areas, but I don't know if the creation of unsourced or undersourced articles would stop. That said, an RfC cannot recommend or implement sanctions. If the outcome of the RfC/U continues along the same vein as it is currently headed (fairly unanimous consensus on the actions of the party involved and no response on that editor's part), then the next step would be somewhere like WP:ANI where sanctions can be enacted. — KV5 • Talk • 23:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The snarky responses continue. — KV5 • Talk • 00:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that one. Not to toot my own horn, but I am trying to be respectful in withdrawing the AfD's I created as quickly as I realize it should be a keep and/or see a snowball coming my way. That snark was meant for me. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, after a lengthy note on the editor's talk page asking him to respond and to cease such activities, we get this snark. It's becoming more and more clear that without sanctions, nothing will be accomplished. — KV5 • Talk • 11:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

He continues to be defiant on other pages without addressing specific concerns in this RfC. "It really is quite comical watching people get so worked up," he says, and adds "I am doing my best to improve Wikipedia, but I don't know if the same can be said about my fellow editors."—Bagumba (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Would sure be nice if he's stop nominating articles for deletion for a little while, but he keeps tossing more out there everyday... instead of working on improving articles, i spend all my wikipedia time these days on AFD discussions... argh!! Spanneraol (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to endorse an existing view or create your own.—Bagumba (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Long history

There is a second RfA by Alex, closed as "Closed at (1/8/0) under WP:NOTNOW and WP:SNOW. This is the editors second request in as many days and is borderline disruptive."

Regarding his difficulties with determining notability and nominating his own article's for AfD, this problem has been ongoing since at least January 2010, when it was already suggested that he use {{db-self}}. From the same RfA:

Comment I do not mind being referred to as Alex, as that is how I post when responding to others. However, I would prefer not to be called "kid" as that is fairly condescending. Though I guess I do deserve considering how I behaved in the recent past. I would like to note about the majority of the AfDs that I proposed: most of them were articles that I myself had written. I wrote them with one interpretation of the WP:ATH rule, but by the time I was finished I had a new interpretation of the rule that more or less meshed with others' interpretations of it. I determined that, instead of waiting for them to slowly be AfDed away or proposed deleted away, I would do them in clumps as I knew there inevitable fate. It is my opinion that Wikipedia should not be clogged with articles that are "delete-worthy" (per the decisions of the voters).Alex (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

In reference to the "kid" comment, it's a term I use loosely, my apologies. As far as putting an article you wrote up for AFD, you can use {{db-self}}. DustiSPEAK!! 21:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

—Bagumba (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Response to cbl62's outside view

Not sure if this belongs here or on the actual RfC/U page, but I will put it here nonetheless. I just want to comment that I personally don't care if Alex nominates two or two thousand articles for deletion at a time. What inspired me to comment was his attitude about the process. It is obvious to me that (a) he is being extraordinarily pointy in his nominations, (b) he has no respect for those who disagree with him, as evidenced by his edit summaries and responses to others' comments, extending even to his response to this very RfC, and (c) neither of these is a new problem with Alex, as shown by the evidence brought forward by other editors. I can't see how a simple limit of his AFD's addresses any of these. -Dewelar (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If goes on the main page if you want to write your own view in a separate section, or endorse someone elses view. Otherwise, all other discussion goes here.—Bagumba (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, then this is in the right place. Thanks. I prefer to keep my participation in what I call the "administrative side" of Wikipedia to a minimum, and have only participated in a couple of these previously, so am still a bit hazy on the protocols. -Dewelar (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I came into this with an open mind, but pointy behavior this month and lack of respect for the RfC process, topped with similar cavalier attitude with his RfA nominations a year ago is a bad track record. His rationale for keeping his own articles that others PROD or AfD has been contradictory to reasoning he uses for deleting others' articles, especially the keep of one scout for an obscure award but a delete of another for his claim of a non-notable HOF. I can respect different opinions if they are applied consistently, but that is not the case here, and is highly disruptive. I agree that an RfC that started with Alex's editing and deleting habits has now grown to include his arrogant behavior.—Bagumba (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

All of these are fully valid points. — KV5 • Talk • 11:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Check out this whopper

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorenzo Scott, Alex in his nominating statement says "Though he played briefly in 2011, Wikipedia is Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and reasonable judgement would suggest that he will likely never reach the major leagues considering his age and minor league performance last season." He cites WP:CRYSTAL as a reason for deletion, then immediately violates WP:CRYSTAL in the next clause of the sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that he can get the point about the community's concerns. He complains to the administrator in an improper forum such as an AfD about the concerns in this RfC/U, while refusing to engage in an active discussion here.—Bagumba (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

More attacks on AFDs, also another attempt to alter WP:BASE/N. RFC has failed.

Alex has tried to misrepresent AFD voters at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorenzo Scott and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Basso. He is also attempting to change a guideline to WP:BASE/N that would be to his benefit at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#WP:BASE/N Suggestion despite this RFC not being concluded. This RFC is a failure. The next step is administrative intervention, and I think it needs to be taken. WikiProject Baseball is not Alex's Playground. It's a group project he's continually disrupted for months strictly to make a point. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 05:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I left a note at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#RFC.2FU_needing_attention for admin to take a look.—Bagumba (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not sure what this RfC was meant to accomplish, since almost no outside people have commented. It's been a place for us to document our grievances with no manner for doing anything about them. We should absolutely take this to the next level. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

In the best case, there is a consensus with the reported user through open discussion, and Big Brother is not needed. Not being the case here, at least it provides a decent summary of the situation, which any outside person will need to know anyways.—Bagumba (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that the only question is: what is the appropriate next level? — KV5 • Talk • 21:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

A block for constant disruption, waste of time AFDs, and personal attacks would be a start. It's only four months overdue. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 21:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This RfC/U does not have the ability or authority to enact sanctions. When I said "next level", I mean the next level of dispute resolution. — KV5 • Talk • 21:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Alex has now admitted this all is nothing more than a game to him. The next 'step' is outside administrative intervention and action, such as Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#RFC.2FU_needing_attention as started above by Bagumba (talk · contribs). Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 22:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

User involved just mildly threatened me with "outside administrative" action too. Fun. — KV5 • Talk • 22:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

He needs to be blocked via WP:AN or WP:AN/I. He's hinted at leaving to possibly shirk responsibility and ignore any potential sizable block he knows he's long overdue for, so perhaps he needs even further sanctions when he returns so that he doesn't treat this project like a 'game' once again. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 22:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.