Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alansohn

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Closed: 7:46:00, 27 May 2008

With the Arbcom decision to place a civility restriction on Alansohn for one year (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed_decision#Alansohn_restricted), much of the supporting evidence being taken from this RfC, it has finally fulfilled its purpose. Thank you, everyone, for your contributions and input, and good editing. Ravenswing 18:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

First, a deserved encomium. Alansohn is a prolific and important editor. He has amassed over 37,000 edits since joining Wikipedia and he has done exceptional work in a number of areas, principally on topics related to New Jersey. Many of his contributions as an editor, including, as an example, his commitment to fight vandalism, are exemplary.

This extraordinary record has in practical terms given Alansohn considerable leeway in his dealings with other editors, perhaps more than has proven beneficial. Buried inside his immense contribution history is a repeated pattern of engaging with other editors in a way that is against the spirit of the project. His inclusionist views are well-known, as is his willingness to defend to the last the policies and principles upon which he bases those views. However, Alansohn frequently oversteps the boundary between the vigorous defense of a position into more troubling territory of bullying, shouting, wikilawyering and attacks. When faced with continued disagreement on issues about which he is passionate, this tends to lapse into wanton accusations that those who are in disagreement are making personal attacks or vandalising. Alansohn consistently accuses others of bad faith when they disagree with him.

Also troubling, Alan seems to think that some contributors' opinions are worth more than others. After 37,000 edits, he may feel he has earned the right to think that way. But in the end, the weight of an editor's viewpoint is defined by those around her. Casting aspersions on the contribution record of other editors is not only unacceptable, it further betrays a way of thinking that runs completely counter to the spirit of Wikipedia.

Desired outcome

This distrubing pattern of disruptive, hectoring, accusatory and belligerent behaviour needs to end. Alansohn needs to learn how to disagree with other editors without resorting to the tactics that produce the behaviour evidenced below and cause extreme vexation for editors who end up in disagreement with him.

Description

In a contribution record that is as long as Alan's there are doubtless other instances besides those listed below that remain buried. But the examples provided alone demonstrate that Alansohn has proven himself too frequently intractable when faced with what amounts to honest disagreement.

Various characteristics can be pointed out:

A tendency to repeat his viewpoint with legalistic reference to policy, regardless of the response of those who disagree with him. This drives many editors to extreme frustration.
A tendency to accuse those who disagree with him of making personal attacks.
A tendency to insist upon the merits of his viewpoint without regard to a consensus or body of opinion that he disagrees with.
A tendency to reinforce his positions with nasty characterisations of those with whom he disagree, resorting to terms like "extreme deletionists".
A tendency to false accusation, such as sockpuppetry.
A tendency to extreme wikilawyering in discussion, often to the point of disrupting the larger debate.
A tendency to avoid all compromise, or even the invitation to compromise, in instances where he is convinced of the rectitude & probity of his position, sometimes modulated by an ingenuous (or perhaps heartfelt) belief that he alone is acting to build consensus.

Evidence of disputed behavior

Personal Attacks

Failure to AGF

Uncivil

Edit Summaries

Failure to Acknowledge Own Violation of Rules

3RRs

WP:OWN

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=193777751

WP:CANVASS

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(Other editors may have similar interaction which should be posted above.)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by Arkyan

I stumbled across this RfC when I was checking the user's talk page. I have to admit to being a little shocked - I've run into Alansohn multiple times, primarily on AfD discussions. I'm something of a deletionist, so this tends to put me at odds with him on these discussions, but at least in the times that I have had interactions with him I have not left with any negative impressions or otherwise bad thoughts. As far as the diffs provided above are concerned, all they really communicate to me is that Alansohn may be somewhat burusque and opinionated but I don't know that I'd classify it as being uncivil, and there is certainly no rule that contributors be warm and friendly all the time. It has been pointed out that the user in question has made numerous contributions to the Wikipedia. It is also obvious that the user is human. It is only to be expected that of some 37,000 edits, there will be some mistakes in the mix. Could Alansohn be a kinder, gentler Wikipedian? Maybe. Is that a reason to drag him into an RfC? I don't think so. Arkyan • ^(talk) 18:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Looked at the above diffs and Alansohn appears to be a forceful critic and debater. This isn't automatically a breach of civility and personal attack standards. --W.marsh 13:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find the user easy to get along with, and always amenable to compromise. I have never found him disruptive, even when we have disagreed on issues concerning New Jersey and Rutgers where we both had very strong opinions on the topics. Disclosure: I was also involved in the Joyce Kilmer dispute with user CDT, and I found it was CDT who was the disruptive one, and unable to compromise. When your in the top 250 editors, you will eventually run into disputes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that in some of the diffs there was language bordering on incivility, such as referring to others' comments as "rants." But this is a productive and effective editor, and there can be a degree of give and take when people believe strongly that their way leads to improvement of Wikipedia. People should not be thin skinned. The RFC is unnecessary. Edison 00:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edison's comments just above come closest to my own opinion, but overall I endorse Arkyan's judgment. Alansohn has had to deal with some editors who could be difficult to deal with. And some who can be thin skinned. I've asked both Alansohn and the editors he's sometimes tangled with in school-deletion discussions to tone it down. But I think this RFC is premature. Noroton 04:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-involved view by Orderinchaos

I had not encountered Alansohn in any way prior to a couple of weeks ago, when on 14 June 2007 he linked the essay Wikipedia:Cruftcruft to an essay on my watchlist, Wikipedia:Schoolcruft. [4] This was fair enough, in terms of linking an opposing view. Four days later, he came back and in an 11 hour period, without discussion of any kind, came within one revert of 3RR with the same essay, referring to others' contributions as a "blatantly uncivil and POV rant" (1st 2nd 3rd). Minutes before his 3rd revert, he decided to do what should have been done in the first place, and raise his concerns on the talk page. (First post to talk page) Over the next three days, his contributions to said talk page became increasingly incivil, as it became clear that only his way was acceptable and there was no room for compromise, and that any editor who disagreed with him was in breach of numerous policies and guidelines. (Version of page as at Alan's last edit to it) The discussion then seems to have moved onto the Wikipedia talk:Cruftcruft page - a rather nasty little essay created to make a point (see this admission here, and the WP:AN discussion in which it fits here).

While I can't comment on any other matters that have taken place outside this rather narrow scope, looking at his talk page, his contributions in article space (and in particular edit summaries) etc, I feel that it is necessary for Alansohn to receive a clear call from the community that such extreme behaviour will no longer be tolerated, even in light of his outstanding contributions to other parts of the encyclopaedia in earlier times. Orderinchaos 06:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Endorsed. I agree with your points, they are similar to mine. Camaron1 | Chris 17:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ravenswing 18:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. Icemuon 10:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. Thewinchester ^(talk) 06:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. Hús ö nd 23:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. Eusebeus 23:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-involved view by Camaron1

I did not encounter Alansohn (talk · contribs) directly until I discovered the essay Wikipedia:Schoolcruft and dispute at WP:AN/I. I think Alansohn's edits to Wikipedia have been excellent in many ways, but I am concerned about how he interacts with other editors. This is despite me generally agreeing more with inclusionists on Wikipedia.

When I first noticed the dispute relating to the Schoolcruft essay occurring I thought an outside view would be helpful. I gave one as follows: [5]. I awaited a reply expecting Alansohn to civilly continue my point, perhaps disagreeing and stating why no new essay is needed - instead I got the following: [6]. I found that reply surprising, quite aggressive, and uncalled for. Before I even look at anything else, I feel that reply shows: A tendency to repeat his viewpoint with legalistic reference to policy, regardless of the response of those who disagree with him. This drives many editors to extreme frustration. A tendency to false accusation, such as sockpuppetry [or WP:OWN violations]. A tendency to avoid all compromise, or even the invitation to compromise, in instances where he is convinced of the rectitude & probity of his position, sometimes modulated by an ingenuous (or perhaps heartfelt) belief that he alone is acting to build consensus.

I am not overall impressed by Alansohn's actions on the Schoolcruft essay and I did not find his further comments at WP:AN/I on it very impressive either. I feel instead of edit warring as shown at [7] he should have discussed big changes on the talk page before hand and been more willing to listen to the view of others when discussing the issue. After further investigation, I must also comment that some of his comments at AfD such as [8] did not help build consensus and jumped to conclusions.

I think Alansohn deserves respect for his contributions, but I am concerned that his position on Wikipedia has made him feel above other users. He needs to understand that Wikipedia builds upon consensus and that remaining civil to-wards fellow editors is extremely important in building this encyclopedia. Similarly, he needs to understand that the idea of guidelines and policies is to follow the spirit, not the letter, of them. I feel that it is necessary for Alansohn to receive a clear message from the community that his current style of interaction with editors is not acceptable - before he compromises his contributions for good. Camaron1 | Chris 18:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

In my brief interaction with Alansohn I quickly realized that this is the sort of person with whom one cannot reason. He assumed bad faith immediately [9] (already listed above in Uncivil). He tended to think his views are 100% correct and those of others are 100% incorrect, even when those views, in fact, overlapped [10]. Having to deal with editors who treat all others as enemies instead of coworkers is detrimental to the project. Whether we must develop thick skins or not, Wikipedia is a group project, not the personal project of one editor. Icemuon 11:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. But|seriously|folks 17:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ravenswing 18:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. Thewinchester ^(talk) 06:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. WMMartin 17:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. Hús ö nd 23:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. Orderinchaos 03:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. Eusebeus 23:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved view by Ravenswing

I've had a couple clashes with Alansohn in recent months out of school-related AfD debates. That we're on opposite sides of the fence isn't pertinent; indeed, I've changed my AfD vote on at least two occasions because of sourcing he's provided. But quite aside from his repeated incivilities, WP:OWN propensities and occasional edit warring (which taken as a whole is quite enough for caution), three syndromes push matters over the edge.

First and foremost is his habit, pushed with dismaying persistence, of hammering on a perceived technical violation while ignoring a major violation of his own; for instance, as listed in the links above, complaining about canvassing over an AfDed article based around a word-for-word copyvio he put in himself, or complaining about an AfD filed three minutes after the article's creation, while persistently ignoring that it was his own recreation of a deleted article. It appears that to him, the validity of rules and guidelines is heavily dependent on whether or not they support his own position.

Beyond that, his disrespect for other editors is manifest; for instance, I should not have had to, as linked above, bring admins in to tell him to honor my request (repeatedly flouted) to cease posting to my talk page. Since Monicasdude, I haven't seen another AfD regular claim bad faith so often in debates. That behavior almost never results in people rethinking the validity of a position; instead, it results in knee-jerk "Oh YEAH?" responses, thus polarizing public opinion even further, and is deeply counterproductive. Alansohn has shown less willingness to work towards changing consensus to his POV than to outshout those opposing it. IMHO, proponents of the "There are two ways to look at this, my way and the wrong way" POV very seldom change their outlook.

The concept of consensus includes that sometimes you are going to be on the losing side of debate, and that when you are, you need to accept the fact graciously and move on. If these pervasive antics were attributed to a three-month editor, he'd be swiftly disciplined. Now if getting to 10,000+ edits means you no longer are subject to civility, consensus or guidelines, I could get there myself in about a week if I'm not already ... whee! Is that the Wikipedia people want? Ravenswing 13:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Endorsed. Very nicely put. But|seriously|folks 17:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. Icemuon 17:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed, especially the last paragraph which is well said. Camaron1 | Chris 17:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. Thewinchester ^(talk) 06:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. Hús ö nd 00:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed.Eusebeus 23:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

View by used-to-be-involved ObiterDicta

Alan can be an incredibly valuable editor, so it is disappointing that it was necessary to bring this RfC and even more disappointing that he hasn't seen fit to reply to it. My only real involvement with Alan came when we were both editing the B. H. Carroll Theological Institute article. Many of the problems can be seen on that article's talk page, as well as on Wikipedia talk: Schoolcruft and the associated removal of comment from AfD Disucssion by Alansohn|discussions on the noticeboards. His essential problem, as shown by his exchange with Arbusto on the Carroll talk page, is that he seems incapable of making a logical argument in support of his position and gets frustrated when other editors do not see the obvious logic thereof. Conversations with Alan frequently follow a progression: (1) he states his position; (2) if someone disagrees, he repeats his position, using an adjective like "obvious" or "blatant;" and (3) finally, he resorts to some version of "you just don't get it" or "your bias on this topic is showing," repeated as many times as necessary until other editors simply give up and go away. His comments tend to simply add heat rather than light to the issue being discussed. Mentoring could possibly teach Alan how to better get his point across and interact positively with the community.

Note: Corrected broken link to AN archive in the above comments. Thewinchester ^(talk) 06:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Endorsed. Very well said. A longstanding catchphrase of mine I wish Alansohn grasped is "It isn't that we don't understand. We just don't agree." Ravenswing 01:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed, and well put. Thewinchester ^(talk) 06:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. Icemuon 11:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. I also hope that Alansohn will take part in resolving this dispute - I don't want people to end up resorting to other measures. Camaron1 | Chris 12:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed, especially the conversation progression. Hús ö nd 00:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that Alansohn will heed this advice. I believe the attitude "Either you agree with me or you don't understand the situation" is the core of the problem. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. Eusebeus 23:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

View by Semi-Involved WMMartin

I should start off by saying that I only found out about this discussion by chance, as I have not been editing Wikipedia much for the past few months. I hope that this doesn't entirely disqualify me from contributing, as my case may be somewhat relevant.

Until early March of this year I was an active contributor to Wikipedia, making most of my contributions by participating in AfD debates. My reasons for contributing primarily in this area are outlined on my user page. I encountered Alansohn in several AfD debates, and did not always find him an ideal debate partner. I tried, as far as possible, to get on with him, and we had several interesting communications, but my view of his overall modus operandi within Wikipedia was permanently coloured by his accusing me of being a sock-puppet. I would like to state just now, as I have done elsewhere, that I am not a sock-puppet, and was simply trying to make the best contribution I could to the shared endeavour. I found his comments on my behaviour to be quite upsetting, particularly as he had made no attempt to contact me prior to making them.

An inspection of my contribution list shows that I have sharply reduced my contributions to Wikipedia over recent months. I also made a deliberate decision not to participate in AfD debates. My reasons for doing this are largely due to the realisation that certain contributors to Wikipedia are more concerned about advancing their private views than about participating in a more co-operative manner. There are limits to the personal hassle I am prepared to take. Though by no means the only cause, my interactions with Alansohn were a substantial factor in my decision to reduce my Wiki-activity.

I should say that I have encountered many contributors to Wikipedia who are smart, intelligent and tough-minded, and put their cases strongly. This is great, and as a community Wikipedia should welcome them: the better and more rigorous the debate "behind the scenes", the better Wikipedia will be. Sadly, it is sometimes easy to cross the line from "putting the case strongly" to "being hectoring, aggressive and unpleasant"; my personal interactions with Alansohn suggest that he crosses this line rather too often.

WMMartin 18:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Endorsed. Well said. I have been feeling the same way as WMMartin and have also curtailed my Wikipedia activity. Although my personal interaction with Alansohn was brief, his rudeness at my (genuinely open-minded) attempt of understanding the motivation of the notability of schools discussion made me feel like I should spend my valuable time elsewhere. (That is not to say that he is the sole reason for my reduction in activity. But it is definitely partly because I also feel that "certain contributors are more concerned about advancing their private views"). Icemuon 19:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. I can see why you feel the way you do, I have had similar thoughts over this. Camaron1 | Chris 20:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. And from my experience with him and seeing him around the traps, I am saddened that WMMartin has chosen to contribute less because of these sorts of experiences - he has done a lot of valuable work. Orderinchaos 04:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. I used to participate in WP:AFD a lot more before and Alansohn probably contributed for me to go participate somewhere else.--Hús ö nd 00:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. Eusebeus 23:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed.--cj | talk 03:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

View by Semi-Involved Husond

Among the hundreds of users whom I've interacted with, Alansohn is among the less than half a dozen users whom I no longer can assume good faith. Apparently omnipresent in every single school WP:AFD, it is utterly clear that Alansohn has an obsessively inclusionist agenda aiming at preventing articles about schools (no matter how blatantly unencyclopedic) from being deleted. Impervious to arguments but his own, Alan's obnoxiously petulant posture may cause any users unused to his exhaustingly repetitive rhetoric to question their own sanity. His spiteful ability to call other people stupid through disguised sarcasm and by manipulating counterarguments astray is nonetheless prodigious. I no longer bother to refute his arguments, as I have a strict personal policy against feeding the trolls. But he does waste a lot of time for many users who could be productively contributing to the project instead.

Hús ö nd 23:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Eusebeus 00:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed One only has to look at his more recent efforts in the AfD for Delone Catholic High School to see exactly what Husond is getting at. Thewinchester ^(talk) 01:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orderinchaos 02:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. Ravenswing 00:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed, except as to the tone of the view. -- But|seriously|folks 00:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed, although I would have put it a bit more mildly. Icemuon 11:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Daniel Case

When I first saw this RFC while looking over the list for another one I wanted to add a comment to, I leaned forward and put my head in my hands. It's happened, I thought. It's finally happened.

I was distressed because Alan is a talented, hardworking editor. A dogged copyeditor and tireless vandal fighter. Founder of WP:NJ and a valuable member of the Judaism and (of course) schools projects, from whence much of this RfC has sprung. Regular and knowledgeable AfD contributor (again, see above).

I was also distressed because I had warned him a long time ago he would come to this.

I have gotten to know Alan from his frequent polishes to my own edits to NJ and NYC-related articles. Almost always they are improvements. I do not directly know of much of the Sturm und Drang described above. But I regret that I have some further incivil edit summaries to add, from Clinton Road (New Jersey).:

School-deletionist antagonists of Alan may draw some comfort from the first one, in which it seems Alan would prefer the article be deleted ... but doesn't say so. Instead, he mocks the language he was removing. For the second, he casts aspersions on the source of the material, the popular magazine Weird NJ. If Alan felt that way about its reliability or lack thereof as a source, he could have commented here. Yet he didn't. Finally, in the third, he indulges in mockery again.

I let those pass, aside from some admittedly bitchy responses in my own subsequent edit summaries, since I have never butted heads with him directly and he does a lot of good work. But it also bothered me that he just went ahead and removed material that was unsourced, bypassing the usual, gentler, AGF practice of adding a {{fact}} tag or even, pray tell, raising it on the article or user talk page. This has worked well for me many times.

Granted, we are certainly within policy to make such removals, but as we all know policy and courtesy are not identical, and it is of paramount importance to maintain good, harmonious relations with our fellow editors to amiably resolve disagreements of this sort. To unilaterally up and remove unsourced content is not always a good-faith move, particularly when your other edits suggest you think that a) this could never possibly be sourced and b) you have expressed contempt for the source and implied you don't think any article based primarily on that source should be on Wikipedia.

With this in mind, when he made a similar edit to another Weird NJ-related article, albeit without the incivility although certainly impersonable:

[14]

I let him have it about this in my followup edit summary, not one of my prouder moments:

[15]

Cooling down, I decided to lay it out on his talk page and ask him to do things differently in the future:

[16]

And I sort of predicted this there. Alan never responded, which I again find a little disturbing. Especially since it's evident from his talk page that he does make apologies to other people.

I would have ended this here, originally, but I was looking through the evidence above and saw one of the diffs where Alan says he has 6,000 articles on his watchlist.

Six thousand? We learned this past weekend that Swatjester, one of our most active admins, doesn't even have that large a watchlist. And Alan is not an admin.

I wonder if therein lies part of the problem. Alan is such a prolific editor that he must, even given his evidently quick mind, spend an awful lot of time online. The more time you spend editing, sometimes the harder it is to remember that Wikipedia isn't real life. WP:HOLIC may be marked as humor, but there are some people for whom it really isn't. I wonder if those diffs above weren't made coming off some of the more heated deletion debates or other edit wars linked above.

Perhaps some sort of appropriate remedy here would not be the usual sanctions. I was looking through some of the other RFCs, particularly Angie Y. as well as NE2 (the one I originally came to add to), and noticed some similarities. Maybe what's needed with problematic editors like these isn't so much that they should be limited or barred permanently or temporarily from editing particular content, but as to how much time or how many edits they can spend or make in a given time period, if possible. This would certainly not restrict them from making the useful edits they know how to, but might cut down on some of the angry mastodon problems protracted periods online sometimes give rise to.

Just a thought. Hopefully this can be resolved at this level. Daniel Case 08:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Endorsed Thewinchester ^(talk) 09:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. Hús ö nd 13:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. Six thousand pages on a watchlist? OMFG. The day last month I saw my watchlist creeping to six hundred I said to myself "Robert, old son, you are spreading yourself way too thin" and hacked over two hundred away. Wikipedia will survive without my personal presence defending each and every article I've ever edited, and it can without anyone else's as well. Ravenswing 17:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eusebeus 17:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC) I bet practically ALL of them are related to either schools or NJ. DC's point above is well-put. Eusebeus 17:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the diff in question. To be fair, it was last November so he may have trimmed it down. Daniel Case 00:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. Camaron1 | Chris 14:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. Icemuon 11:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-involved view by MSJapan

I commented on the issue brought up on ANI that led to this RFC because I was involved with Alan in an AfD on Kristi Yamaoka. The discussion shows what I believe to be precisely the statements made in the statement of dispute. Alan would ask a question, I'd respond with a policy-based rationale, and all Alan did was effectively scream at me about WP:CONSENSUS and "continuous nomination to AfD until reaching a desired outcome, despite my evidence to the contrary, which was based on other comments made by other users in other AfDs. He didn't seem to care what I said in answer to his questions as long as it gave him an opportunity to restate the same argument. MSJapan 23:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Endorsed.--Hús ö nd 00:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. (sighs) I just looked over the debate in question, and it's classic Alan: a little caustic at first, but within bounds ... then ever-more strident and uncivil, hammering at the same narrow point over and over, blowing through WP:AGF. Depressing to see. Ravenswing 12:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. I would like to point out that, for example, in the Father Michael Goetz Secondary School deletion review [17], there is much discussion about consensus and vote counting. But it is exactly the kind of behaviour described by MSJapan and others in this RfC that has driven away editors who would have opted to delete, thus they are not contributing to these discussions any longer. This is just plain bullying. Icemuon 13:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. Camaron1 | Chris 21:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by formerly involved GRBerry

What in the world is the B. H. Carroll stuff doing here? That dispute had resolved by the time of my RFA in December of last year - in fact it had resolved by November of 2006, shortly after Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi in which the other party to the dispute was cautioned by the ArbComm. It takes two to edit war, and as Guy said at the time they both lost their sense of perspective. But that is old enough and the other side was a significant enough cause of the problems that the BHC dispute ought to be forgotten by now. (More discussion of the dispute is archived at User talk:GRBerry/Archive 3#B. H. Carroll Theological Institute.) (JChap2007 is now ObiterDicta.) GRBerry 19:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

You've outed me! Yeah, I'm not really sure why I still even remember this; I didn't have any problems with Alan on that article, except for one minor misunderstanding that was quickly cleared up. I guess I saw a pattern and... Oh, forget it. As you said, better off forgotten. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by uninvolved Burntsauce

Alansohn is a valuable member of this project who has unfortunately upset the "wrong" people. Everyone needs to take two steps back and breathe a little. Burntsauce 22:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

View by Semi-involved Xcstar

Alansohn and I differ on the noteworthiness of Dane Rauschenberg who contributed his own article and launched an a group of sockpupets to enhance it. Alansohn mistakenly listed me as a sockpupet of the article's subject, and continued to attack me on that basis even after the checkuser showed I was unrelated. He then listed me as a sockpupet of myself. Once the real sockpupets were blocked, I was hoping that the article would settle down and the WP:COI materials could be deleted. Alansohn has picked up and spent hours trying to selectively add facts and shade the language. The only connection between the subject and Alansohn appear to be that Alansohn came across the Deletion proposal for that article and was not satisfied when the result was "no consensus."

He has repeatedly used personal attacks and sarcasim on the Talk:Dane Rauschenberg page: "obsessive-compulsive behavior", "$#!+ or get off the pot. Move on, already. Find a new hobby.", "some deep and fundamental obsession that must lead to questions of your rationality", "the most ridiculous claims you've made so far in a rather pathetic spiral of ludicrous claims" This has made editing Wikipedia a frustrating experience. Xcstar (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 150 edits to Dane Rauschenberg over the past month, 46 have been from Alansohn. Xcstar (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion

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.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.