Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Alansohn

Where do we go from here?

This RfC has been going on for two weeks now, and a pattern of misconduct's been established to a degree that would be the envy of many a RfA regular. It's unfortunately apparent that Alan feels no need to respond, and my faith that he'll take the warnings of over a dozen editors and admins to heart is threadbare ... quite aside from that his Wikipedia history lacks any evidence that he's willing to admit that he's wrong.

So. What's next? RfA, perhaps?  RGTraynor  13:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean WP:RFAR? Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, sorry.  RGTraynor  14:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be amusing if he meant RFA. Anyway, granted I'm biased but I don't see any particularly strong consensus here... there is one generally Pro-Alansohn opinion with five signatures, and several critical of him but they are largely all signed by the same people. If the goal is just to get Alansohn blocked, then go to RFAr but I will argue against that course of action. If the goal is to help him contribute in a way that causes less friction, we should look at rather his very recent behavior has changed before we rush to ArbCom. --W.marsh 15:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Err ... there are TEN signatures on the lead opinion, and a couple other editors with critical summaries who haven't signed it. I don't feel blocking is necessary myself, but with several dozen incidents going back nearly a year that have been documented alone, some way of getting this guy to play ball needs to be found, and he seems disinterested in the process to date.  RGTraynor  16:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Take it to mediation?

This page has been removed from the main list of active RfCs for some reason. The issues have been laid out and Alan has refused to acknowledge it. This cannot be allowed to go stale because of the breadth of the alleged misconduct.

The next step is a request for mediation. Anyone in favor of taking it there, even if Alan isn't responding? If this is to go to arbitration (and it seems that's the only thing that will resolve it), this step must be taken first. Daniel Case 17:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This page is still listed with the other user RfC's here. Is there a more main page than that that I'm missing? -- But|seriously|folks  18:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

On August 2, it was removed along with a bunch of other old ones by someone who may not have been reading closely. I see it's back now. Daniel Case 05:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's the issue. Granted, he hasn't responded. Granted, the charges are serious, and Alan doing up an enemy's list makes it twice as serious as heretofore. However ... has he mended his ways? I wouldn't expect so myself, but I haven't seen a peep out of him on AfD in weeks, and perhaps he's ratcheted down the rhetoric, which is what most of us would have wanted in the first place. Does anyone know one way or the other?  RGTraynor  18:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what to think; I am willing to believe the development of this RFC (gaining ten endorsement signatures) has made Alan realise there was clearly an issue with his conduct in the community. However, his refusal to recognise this RFC makes it very difficult to say this RFC has reached a resolved conclusion - meaning further conduct issues which caused this RFC in the first place could well appear in the future. If this case is to continue it should go to the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal and/or WP:RFM - if Alan agrees to get involved then going down that route could potentially resolve this dispute completely. If he once again does not get involved any case raised there will probably fail to go anywhere. Camaron1 | Chris 20:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My view is that he has obviously taken our concerns on board as there have been few complaints of the sort of behavior that landed him here. Whether or not he has actively participated, I think it's too soon to label this a failure. I support keeping this open and not proceeding to the next level unless and until we see more problems. -- But|seriously|folks  21:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with BsF. Alan mostly mucks about with NJ topics and the editors in that on school topics, which suggests that he has taken something away from this RfC: that suggests to me it has achieved its aim. As far as his deletion tracking page goes, I will take that to MfD and have it removed. But overall, Alan has tacitly participated in this RfC by substantially modifying his behaviour. Needless to say, if he reverts to his old ways, this can be brought up again anew and mediation can be sought. Eusebeus 23:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• • I agree too. This recent edit is quite a contrast to the ones to the same article I highlighted in my outside view. The summary's calmly worded, and he used {{fact}} tags instead of just removing stuff. And I will put sources in soon.

    If this is getting to be the consensus, then we can probably archive this one for now, to bring it up again if he reverts to previous behavior patterns. Daniel Case 05:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have never thought this RFC has been a failure, his behaviour clearly has changed as a result even if it is only by indirect action. I agree that it is not necessary to take this to RFM for now; however this dispute seems to be escalating again at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Alansohn/Deletion_tracking. Camaron1 | Chris 08:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of "recent behavior" ...

Would those of you who think that Alan's behavior is not so much of a big deal check out this page that he made: User:Alansohn/Deletion_tracking. Would you folks follow enough of the links on that page, and see if you can discern any pattern that might jump out at you?

And would you kindly explain to me -- because I can't wrap my head around it at all -- how you feel the mindset that felt it necessary to create such a page is consonant with Wikipedia civility rules and WP:AGF?  RGTraynor  04:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Decision time

Alright. It seems to me that a consensus is being reached here, and there have been fewer and fwer new edits. I, too, am hoping to get to meet Alan at the New York picnic tomorrow, and I'd like to say that I think this RfC is closing out. I am bit concerned by the fact that he characterized this RfC as "baseless" during the deletion tracking MfD, yet had never deigned to do so at this RfC itself and suggested it was all Eusebeus's doing; which suggests to me that he hadn't really read it. OTOH, his definitely observable change in behavior (despite editing just as regularly as before, which wasn't in itself a bad thing) indicates otherwise.

I propose we word the result in the archiving as:

While Alansohn never responded to the RfC directly, other users did note a change in behavior. Issues may remain with Eusebeus, however.

Is that OK with everybody? Daniel Case 03:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• I am opposed to closing this RfC at this time, due to the subject's recent statements noted above. Either way, I do not believe the proposed language reflects consensus. Some (including me) have noted a change in behavior, but others apparently believe it has not changed significantly. Also, the second sentence is far too vague and could even be interpreted as critical of Eusebeus. -- But|seriously|folks  03:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• I think this RfC has gone as far as it can. That being said, I agree with bsf that the wording needs changing to reflect better on Eusebeus. Also, after my recent dealings with him on WP:AN (which would have likely seen less experienced editors banned for trolling) and seeing the MfD over the Deletion tracking, I remain far from convinced that his behaviour has changed, although it's certainly moved away from previous foci. Orderinchaos 06:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, Alan apparently didn't attend the meetup, but I take heed of the criticism of the wording (it was an attempt at summary style). New version:

Alansohn never responded directly to the RfC; although some users noticed changes in some of his behavior that seemed to them to reflect criticisms made in it. Other users did not feel he showed any sign of modifying his behavior. No consensus was reached as to whether the RfC had its intended effect or not.

Daniel Case 03:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That phrasing is accurate enough.  RGTraynor  05:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Orderinchaos 12:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me. Camaron1 | Chris 12:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been archived. Daniel Case 18:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Burntsauce's view

Given that this was posted so long after the bulk of the RfC's discussion, plainly this was a result of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Alansohn. While suppressing my amusement at an editor with a startling history of incivility (quickly edited out of his talk page, often with mocking edit summaries) in his own right prominently urging readers to "please bear in mind that we have a zero-tolerance approach to harassment," am I correct in gauging his POV as supporting Alansohn's ongoing incivilities and combative demeanor?  RGTraynor  07:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of edits by Xcstar

I've just reverted Xcstar's comments. It is true that Xcstar has been banned, but WP:BAN clearly states: "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves." Banning a user does not give an editor the scope for blanket reversion of edits made before the block, as Xcstar's comments to this RfC plainly were. While it is entirely reasonable for Alan to rebut - and he should do so - that the dispute was founded in his (seemingly justified) belief that Xcstar was a sockpuppet, Alan's repeated incendiary and uncivil remarks are accurately reported. They should remain as an indicator of the degree to which Alan has failed mended his ways and follow WP:CIVIL; one can challenge a user as a sockpuppet without hurling obscenities.  RGTraynor  07:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Blocked as a sock, not banned. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• In retrospect, Xcstar's comments are entirely indicative of this entire abusive process, and should have been left here, untouched. A sockpuppet created for the purpose of slandering Dane Rauschenberg with a series of misleading, false and defamatory edits in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, User:Racepacket through his sockpuppet devoted over 200 edits to making these malicious changes, ultimately abusing WP:3RR and now WP:RFC as part of his effort to disrupt Wikipedia in the most WP:POINTy possible. Xcstar is now held up by User:RGTraynor as an editor whose opinion must be addressed. In light of the previous horde of editors who have abused Wikipedia and actively participated here -- an admin who got caught with his pants down running sockpuppets to vote in AfDs, another admin who ran here in retaliation for a contrary vote, and RGTraynor himself, an editor with chronic civility problems, among many other genuine Wikipedia problem editors -- Xcstar is in excellent company. Despite the abundant clarity of the fact that this entire RfC will never go anywhere, RGTraynor persists in maintaining the integrity of this abusive process. Thanks RGTraynor, keep up the great work! Alansohn (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I am offended that as a chief architect of the ruination of Wikipedia through mindless delete votes and a record of near zero positive contributions to the project,l I did not even merit a mention in Alan's rant. Eusebeus (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I was waiting for the fly-in-chief to return to his turd, and assumed that your exclusion would only hasten your arrival. It worked. Alansohn (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Alansohn, don't you think it's getting tiresome? Let me see if I can phrase this in short, simple words. You cannot, and you know you cannot, point to a single line, phrase or comment linking me to any citation of Xcstar's opinion, nor (under the circumstances) would I have taken his word for your inflammatory, uncivil and sometimes obscene comments. I simply verified for myself that you said them. Do you not, at any stage, have any shame or qualms about your mouth? Do you genuinely believe that no one could possibly cite your repeated and willful violations of WP:CIVIL unless they had an axe to grind? Man, Eusebeus and a few others were right, and I was wrong; this should have been taken right away to ArbCom, months ago, and some serious and lasting sanctions slapped on you, because it's plain nothing short will make an impression on you.  RGTraynor  11:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • This truly is way past tiresome. You are now defending the honor of Eusebeus, a chronic abuser of Wikipedia policy who was part of the failed meatpuppet attack on school articles, now even more deeply involved in edit warring on television episode articles, the subject of constant complaints and the near-daily recipient of civility warnings, as the briefest pass through his edit history will show. The founder of one of the larger Judeo-Christian religions spoke about not casting stones if one is without sin. The problem is not that the folks involved here are not saints, the problem is that Eusebeus and Xcstar are just the tip of the iceberg of individuals who regularly abuse Wikipedia policy and are defended to the death here, without any effort to address their manifest problems. This arrogant effort is not intended to help Wikipedia; its longstanding goal has been to use any means possible to get rid of an editor who has had the nerve to take stances contrary to those pushed by others. This RfC had no validity in June. The shameless hypocrisy of pushing this now to protect the dignity of Xcstar and Eusebeus is staggering. Alansohn (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
      • No, its patently obvious goal was to get you to act in a civil manner, to express your positions and opinions without insult, jeers or obscenities and to get through to you that your demeanor and deportment are explicitly in violation of Wikipedia policies. I concede that it did not then, nor at any apparent time subsequently, elicit from you any sense that you thought WP:CIVIL applied to you, and indeed this flurry is your first known public reaction to the RfC. Some people, myself included, felt that you were working on changing your ways. Obviously we were wrong.  RGTraynor  22:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
        • In case people are still following this, Alansohn continues to violate WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL by reverting any and all changes to the Dane Rauschenberg article since at least January 10, 2008. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
          • He has also responded to requests for third party intervention in his edit warring with more personal attacks: [1] and [2]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.91.86.2 (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Alansohn acknowledges this proceeding

Although Alansohn did not formally respond on the main page, he has posted, "Anyone and everyone reading this article is invited to read Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Alansohn and add their comments."[3] 207.91.86.2 (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• I acknowledge that this proceeding exists; I do not recognize it as having any validity whatsoever as an administrative process. Every kook, nut and hate-filled obsessive/compulsive on Wikipedia with a grudge is not only invited to come here and participate, but is encouraged to spew their diatribes here on the talk page and on the RfC itself. User:Racepacket, together with User:207.91.86.2 and other members of his sockpuppet family, have all taken their shots at exacting revenge. Best of luck with this shot. I am more than happy to stack every single one of my 63,000 edits against that of an individual like User:Racepacket who has maintained a track record of abusive and defamatory edits and rampant disrespect of Wikipedia policy, including being caught on no fewer than two occasions running sockpuppets to votestack and push a personal hatred of Dane Rauschenberg. Further comments here from User:Racepacket and family only further demonstrate the complete and utter worthlessness of this process. Alansohn (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)