Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Alansohn

message: 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?    Ravenswing  13:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean WP:RFAR? Thewinchester (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, sorry.   Ravenswing  14:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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.    Ravenswing  16:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where do we go from here? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Take it to mediation?

message: 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?    Ravenswing  04:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speaking of "recent behavior" ... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  That phrasing is accurate enough.    Ravenswing  05:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: Given that this was posted so long after the bulk of the RfC's discussion, plainly this was a result of Wikipedia:Administrators%27_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?    Ravenswing  07:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: [[User talk:Burntsauce|Burntsauce's]] view 

message: 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.    Ravenswing  07:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of edits by Xcstar 

message: 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." 207.91.86.2 (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * And were, with the recent Arbcom sanctions against him, for which he's already received one temporary block for violating.    Ravenswing  21:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alansohn acknowledges this proceeding 

message: Just as a note I have updated the archive entry of this RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive to quickly summarise all events. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived