Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alansohn 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Final (39/56/11); ended 17:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC) - ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn (talk · contribs) – I've decided to nominate Alansohn for adminiship because he's done a lot for Wikipedia. His first edit came on 23 May 2005 at 17:56 UTC. He used Huggle for most of last year and some of this year. Last year, he also made his 100,000 edit. He is one of the top 40 most active Wikipedians in edits placing him seventh with 315,955 edits. He's received a lot of did you know templates on his talk page. I think Alansohn will make a great administrator. He also helped make articles better when he wasn't using Huggle. Wayne Olajuwon chat 15:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is all happening a bit fast, but I thank WO, for taking the interest on his own to make the nomination, and I hereby accept the nomination, hoping that this is in the best interest of this project. Alansohn (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I hope to be able to pick up some of the burden at DYK, which I've long been involved with, as well as dealing with vandals. I would like to eventually branch out into CfD and AfD

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: In addition to writing more than 800 article for DYK at a pace of an article each day (see User:Alansohn/DYKs for most of the list), I have also created, expanded and monitored several hundred articles related to municipalities, school districts, schools and politicians, as one of the founders of WP:NJ. I had been spending substantial time using Huggle over the past year, with very few complaints and over 5,000 reports to WP:AIV.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: This is the toughest question that I have to face, and I do so with great trepidation. In my earlier years I allowed myself to get too attached to articles and arguments, and my block record shows that I crossed the line several times. Since then, with a great deal of reflection, I have been able to make a few hundred thousand edits and created several hundred articles, doing so without conflict and with every effort to work with every editor I come in contact with. I ask anyone considering to participate to check my block log and to see all of my positive contributions in the past year or two. I have realized that I cannot allow any discussion about an article, category or policy issue to become a personal matter and I think that with a great deal of reflection (and a little bit of outside help) I have been able to overcome these issue and I think my track record since then proves my commitment to working on behalf of building a truly great encyclopedia.

4. Additional question from Mkativerata. Working DYK, you come across an article created and nominated by an administrator. The article is on a new locality in the West Bank. The article and the hook meet all the DYK criteria.

However, looking through the article's history, there have been some reverts going on. The administrator has described the locality as an "Israeli settlement" in the lead, and cites a source to support that description. However, two IP editors have, through two edits each within the last 24 hours, replaced "Israeli settlement" with "town". The IPs locate to the same city but in different ranges. The IP editors also cite a source for this description. Each time, the adminstrator has reverted the edit, the first time with an edit summary saying "source not reliable", and the 2nd-4th times with no edit summaries at all. None of the parties have issued reports to WP:AN3 or WP:RS/N. It appears in the last three hours that the IPs have gone away. Neither the IPs nor the administrator are mentioned here.

What would you do (a) in respect of the DYK nomination; and (b) in respect of the three parties concerned? Would it make any difference had there been an AN3 report?

A: First off, the fact that a DYK comes from an admin has no bearing on the reviews that I have done. I hope that in reviewing DYKs I have done so without showing any sort of favoritism and I've tried to bend over backwards as much as possible to work with an editor to make an article pass DYK eligibility - no matter who it is -- and to provide a measure of guidance and stability to new DYK nominators. DYK articles will be appearing on the front page to represent Wikipedia and I don't think that we serve ourselves well by approving an article that is in the middle of an edit war. I have worked hard to write neutrally in all the articles I've worked on, and I'd hope that I can help apply that to all DYK articles, including those from such contentious areas as IP.

Follow-up Thanks - I like your answer in respect of (a). But in respect of (b), would you take any further action other than refusing the DYK nom? --Mkativerata (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring is an issue that far transcends DYK and should be addressed at WP:ANI (or at arbcom if specific users are violating IP-related restrictions). Alansohn (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from Access Denied

5. What is your view on ignoring all the rules?

A: If I've learned anything it's that there may be a time to ignore all rules, but the rules we have provide several layers of options before tossing out the rule book. I've learned that it's best to try and follow through Wikipedia process first before considering the possibility of ignoring rules.

Additional optional question from Jclemens

6. With your long (though not particularly recent) block log, why should the community trust you with the tools?

A: As the Wikipedia equivalent of a reformed ex-convict, I think that the couple of hundred thousand edits I've made in rather harmonious fashion demonstrates that I'm not the same person who received all those blocks. A tremendous amount of time was spent in reflection and I think that my history over well more than a year shows that I can work well with other editors while taking on greater degrees of responsibility, such as reviewing and approving DYKs.

Question from /ƒETCHCOMMS/

7. A lot of people have raised issues with your conduct at XfD. Please describe the issues/disputes you have had at XfD and how you will avoid/resolve those issues now.

A: After a few too many battles royale at XfD, I've stepped back and had time to reflect on what I acknowledge was the clear error in my previous ways. I took a break from participating at both AfD and CfD, where I had allowed issues to get out of hand and become personal. I have resumed participating at XfDs more regularly over the past several months and I've been able to express my opinions without any confrontation. It was inappropriate when it happened and I recognize that I needed to bring it down a few notches, which I have been able to do with a tremendous amount of success. The editor you see before you is far more cooperative and contemplative than I was years ago and I hope that I haven't just swept that under the rug, but made the genuine commitments to be a more productive editor on Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from Mkativerata

8. You have recently commented that headcounting to close an AfD is "democracy in action": see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 July 4#Criticism of The New York Times. Are there circumstances in which you would you not close by headcounting? In cases where you would headcount, in an AfD with 20 !votes, how many delete !votes would ordinarily be required to warrant a delete close?

A: I also addressed this issue in question 10 below, but I wouldn't have a hard and fast number of votes either way. Alansohn (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from Sven Manguard

9. Regarding your essay "Dumping poop" on your user page, please elaborate on how (if it were entirely up to you,) you would go about and solve this perceived problem. Please address (a) do you believe that IP addresses (i.e. people that do not have accounts) should be able to edit Wikipedia, and to what degree, and (b) what you mean by Wikipedia "performing some basic identity checking."

A: I am boggled by the amount of vandalism that comes from IP addresses and the amount of time that is spent undoing petty vandalism. I think that a process under which an editor had to establish an account and confirm their email address would be a start in allowing more time to be spent expanding the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia rather than undoing damage. Alansohn (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from Collect

10. What is your general philosophy about AfD closings? Are they too often ruled "keep" when the arguments for keeping are too weak? Too often closed as "delete" when the arguments for deletion are not compelling? Too often closed as "no consensus" when the admin doing the closing should actually make a decision? Are your criteria significantly different for MFD closings?

A: While WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS specifies circumstances under which votes can be discounted, the process of closing an XfD relies on the number and strength of argument presented at XfD. I will never base a close solely on the number of participants and the distribution of their views, nor am I willing to ignore it. In cases where there is no rough consensus in either direction I will be far more willing to close an XfD as "no consensus". In a situation where a closing admin would have had equal arguments to close an XfD as either Keep or Delete based on editor participation, a no consensus close is most likely appropriate rather than picking one side or the other. Alansohn (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from Snottywong

11. Given your block history, would you consider being open to recall?

A: I support recall in general and would open to recall myself. Alansohn (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Links for Alansohn: Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Alansohn can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

• Edit stats posted to talk. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Strong support: Nonminator. Wayne Olajuwon chat 15:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support - Very poor nom, but Alansohn is an excellent candidate (over 800 DYKs?!) Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support -download ׀ sign! 19:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. —Soap— 19:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Since I supported early and without words, it may seem I was just wowed by the edit count and impressive resume of DYKs. This isn't true; I had looked over this candidate some months before the RfA and decided that I trusted him, though I acknowledge the opposes are good reasons. —Soap— 22:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5. Support wiooiw (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. I remember having a concern relating to his temperament, but I think I'll register an overall support on the basis that he doesn't appear to have had any real issues in quite a while. Alansohn is possibly the most prolific RfA candidate ever. Master&Expert (Talk) 19:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Weak support. Although this user doesn't have a clean block log, their contributions look good, and they haven't been blocked in the past year. The Utahraptor^{Talk to me}/_{Contributions} 20:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. An excellent candidate, in my opinion. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 20:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Strong support - 800+ DYKs is impressive. ~NerdyScienceDude 20:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. This is long overdue. Excellent anti-vandal work and over 800 DYK's? Are you kidding me? Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 21:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support - Per Access Denied. Gfoley4 / Wanna chat? 21:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Holy shit. an Vandalism destroyer with 800 DYK. Hell Yes.--TalkToMe_c^intelati 21:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Strong Support A long-time Wikipedian with over 200,000 edits to article space alone, the candidate is familiar from New Jersey-related pages. He also has distinguished credentials as a vandal fighter. The issues raised in the oppose section are somewhat of a red herring because his block log has been clean for 18 months.--Hokeman (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support - Amazing DYK and Huggle work. Derild4921☼ 22:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support Thought he was one already. Opposes utterly unconvincing. Believe Alansohn's learned any lessons that needed learning.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. Because no one is perfect and the candidate has obviously and tremendously improved. Tommy! 22:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support A number of the blocks are justified, but since it was that long ago I'll let it pass. Amazing editor, I'd doubt he'd screw up now. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. Per answer to question 7, I didn't see anything concerning for the past six months or so, I feel that this user has reformed. Secret ^account 23:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Secret, if I may ask, below you state that you "don't trust him closing XFD debates." Isn't that one of the things he'd be able to do as an admin? How do you correlate, if that's the right word, supporting but not trusting him with a most basic function of adminning? Just wondering. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

19. Support - Alansohn is clearly and unequivocally dedicated to the project. This is blindingly obvious. it is also 18 months since last block. New users have become admins in less time. May I remind everyone that we have checks and balances for admins, so any tool misuse can be reviewed and dealt with accordingly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    May I remind you that there are no effective checks and balances for admins; if there were we would probably only have about half of the current number. Malleus Fatuorum 02:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Are so too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Our definitions of "effective" clearly don't mesh, but that's a discussion for another place. Malleus Fatuorum 03:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "May I remind everyone that we have checks and balances for admins" Oh man, that was the funniest thing I've read today. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG2#Evidence of disputed behavior is a fun read for any newer user that might believe that. There's so much red tape to getting an admin kicked out, especially when they're popular and have a lot of friends. Arbitration has gotten rid of a few bad eggs, but only when abuse of the tools has been horribly blatant. Even then it's only a 50/50 shot. Vodello (talk) 04:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

20. Support. Impressed by his work (both submissions and verification) at DYK. Behaviour that led to blocks appears to have been rectified.--PinkBull 01:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support – Impressive DYK and mainspace work. I'm letting the blocks pass with reformed behavior. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support – It really all boils down to whether one trusts this editor or not. Given the passion he has shown in the past, his dedication an perseverance despite bad experiences, his reflectiveness and recent reformation, I think he could make for an excellent administrator. Unlike many of the admin candidates frequently seen this candidate actually has experience seeing the dispute resolution processes from the other side. On a further note I would make the observation that some of the strongest content contributors to the project I've seen are some of the most controversial. Are there circumstances that create a direct correlation here? If so the current conventional standards of RfA that look for super clean candidates may need to be examined. Lambanog (talk) 04:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Brilliant content writer, arguably the best ever in WP history. May have been a bit prickly at times, but this is evidently in the past. Besides, any even potential issues do not give rise to any questions regarding his integrity and consequently do not give rise to any questions regarding potential abuse of the tools he well deserves. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Support It's another one of those candidates that is really good with the additions and yet still has so many blocks for incivility. He hasn't had a chance with the tools, so let's give him a chance and support. Minimac (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Moving to oppose. Minimac (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

24. Support - The phenomenon that when people first come to WP they take things personally and are overly argumentative is probably more common than many people realize. I fell into the same trap early on and I've also made an effort to shut down the conflict and drama. While the previous blocks are troubling, I think Alansohn should be commended for recognizing the problem and taking steps to change the offending behavior. SnottyWong ^squeal 16:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Couldn't agree more. People here judge too much based on past incidents. Sure, he has an extensive block log. Has he learned? Yes. Is adminship that big of deal? No. Tommy! 16:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. Given the level and duration of problems I think folks asking for a bit more of a gap isn't unreasonable, but I think you are 100% correct. Hobit (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

25. Support Appears sound enough on XfD issues (also checking actual pages) Collect (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support He appears to be a prolific and versatile editor. As for the block logs, blocks aren't scarlet letters, and I am sure that he's mature enough to learn from previous minor errors. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Alansohn is one of the people who has helped build this encyclopedia in a meaningful way. He would be a good administrator. As for XfD's, I think he would help bring some balance to the process, which is currently out of balance. Neutron (talk) 03:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support OF COURSE! Any vandal fighter should be given adminship. What about me then...:D Special Cases ^{LOOK, A BIRD!!!!} 08:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support WHAT! 800 DYKS! ARE YOU MAD!?!?! --Diego Grez (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
30. Moral support This obviously isn't going too well, but Alansohn has clearly given a lot to this project over the years, and I'm personally grateful for many of his contributions. I bet this vote would be closer if he belonged to one of the right cliques. Zagalejo^^^ 23:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Which cliques would those be? Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I was mainly thinking in terms of inclusionism/deletionism. In truth, I wasn't even looking that closely at who the oppose voters were. My point is that inclusionists don't tend to have many powerful allies. But I don't want to start a tangent. Zagalejo^^^ 02:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

31. Support - I think very highly of this candidate's stature as a Wikipedian. 800 DYK's? Outstanding! But what makes me look past the block log is the essay 'Dumping Poop' on the candidate's user page. Identifying problems is a big skill, and Alansohn has gone to the heart of the vandalism matter with a simple solution - require regristration. I have to agree. I speak as a fellow Huggler who has "only" 50,000 edits: give this editor the buttons. My very best wishes to Alanshon - a mighty Wikipedian! Jusdafax 03:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support - I've been seeing Alansohn's work for a very long time, and have interacted with him occasionally. He does an enormous amount of good, careful, work and clearly has Wikipedia's best interest at heart. The only complaint I've ever had about him personally is that he is too darned quick at creating artices from rich new sources like the day's New York Times obituaries -- he hardly gives other folks a chance (wink). Having watched his editing issues and blocks unfold, I believe that they resulted from an excess of positive qualities on his part (basically, caring too much about his personal beliefs and loyalties, Wikipedia, and his own work here). From the subsequent record, I believe that he got over that phase and will not repeat it (although he'll probably never fully regain his idealism). I expect that he would use the tools wisely and responsibly. --Orlady (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support - Vandal destroyer, 800 DYKs, reformed/improved editor, bulwark of the Project.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
34. Moral support Given the problems of the past, I'd rather see another 6-12 months go by. But I'm not seeing recent issues and you are clearly a great contributor and care quite deeply about the place. I disagree with some of your answers, but they aren't so unreasonable as to be wrong, merely different than mine (the IP answer especially). Hobit (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Also want to note I don't see a significant problem at the DrV that is being mentioned. It wasn't the most CIVIL discussion, but it was acceptable. If that's the worst in the last 12-18 months then he'll do fine. Hobit (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

35. Strong support per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support We need admins who are experienced editors especially in the areas of dispute resolution and vandal fighting and Alansohn has that experience, which is what I think adminship should be primarily based on. Plus he is also an excellent content contributor. He is passionate about his work for sure but that to me is not a negative. --Polaron | Talk 19:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
37. Weak support - I share some concerns of the opposition, but the last block was in early 2009. Plus, you guys want article writers as admins, can't get much more of one. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support. Strong content contributor, dedicated to the project, last block was in early 2009. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support. Excellent content contributions. Bags of experience. Blocks from eighteen months ago don't concern me. The "confrontational" criticism doesn't make sense to me. Alansohn has strong opinions and expresses them forcefully, which is fine by me; administrators aren't supposed to be shrinking violets. I haven't seen him being uncivil.—S Marshall T/C 13:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose, per my struck neutral and other commentary in Neutral. One year after an arb sanction for disruptive behavior, he had five more blocks. Limited participation on article talk, and DYK writing doesn't impress me as the kind of content building which leads to difficult interaction or shows he would not continue behavioral pattern in arbcase. Further, "happening a bit fast"? An RFA should be contemplated with the seriousness it deserves; you are asking us to trust you to determine the fate of other editors and articles, not an unimportant matter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Adding: Wikipedia is not a webhost; what is User:Alansohn/TeaneckShuls? Also, to illustrate a frequent problem with DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   My userspace has a few articles that probably ought to be blanked out and deleted mostly as failed attempts to create articles. The article cited was the subject of several sources and I thought it might have a chance to garner additional sources, but that never panned out. Alansohn (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose. Per long block log and proportionally lower levels of recent activity. You do good work, but I don't feel you're suited for adminship at this time. Sorry, FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Lower levels of activity? he has over 500 edits this month. Secret ^account 20:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   You missed the "proportionally", Secret; compare his edits over time, where it looks like he had a period of vandal reverts, and is now relatively more inactive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Also note that the last block was over a year ago. ~NerdyScienceDude 20:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I typically don't support users with blocks within the past two years. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't believe he did this stuff on purpose to get him blocked. Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   He usually did, I dealt with this editor while I was a heavy participant in xfd, but I feel he has reformed now, as for the lack of communication skills, I seen that improve within the last six months or so. Secret ^account 23:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose While his article contributions may be good, the problem is Alansohn’s long history of making bad faith assumptions and uncivil personal attacks on editors and admins who disagree with him. A user-conduct RFC was opened on Alansohn in 2007; followed by ArbCom Restrictions in 2008; he was blocked four times during the restriction; and when it expired in 2009, Alansohn immediately began personally attacking others once again.[1][2][3][4][5][6] He was blocked three times in 2009 for "persistent assumptions of bad faith; incivility; personal attacks in violation of editing restrictions". Alanson does a large number of automated edits, with a large number of DYK noms, but he has not yet proven that he can play well with others; and as an admin, he will absolutely have to interact with others. With his long history of bad behavior in mind, the glossing over of this history in question #3 above, and the relatively short time with so few interactions since his last series of attacks, I do not believe this editor is suited for adminship yet. Dreadstar ☥ 21:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose. An outstanding content creator. However, I became familiar with the candidate through his work at XfD and regretfully I must say I believe him to be temperamentally unsuited for adminship. I say this with no small amount of trepidation, as I have seen the level of hostility he can direct at editors with whom he has disputes and I am loathe to offer myself up as a target. But his drawn-out flame war -- I think that term is justified -- with User:Otto4711 was disruptive, unnecessary and unseemly, imo. Yes, Otto has since been indef blocked for using multiple accounts but I don't think this justifies the candidate's personal attacks. I stated as much on at least two occasions, including here. I was told that I was not "not scoring any points" with him for trying to play peacemaker and the effect was pretty chilling. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Change to neutral. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. Many people seem to be wowed by the large number of edits and the massive number of DYKs. I don't see much collaboration activity: very few article talk page and project talk page edits compared to the rest. The long block history is worrying as well; yes, the last was over a year ago, but that many blocks at all spanning more than two years deserves a good explanation. The temperament concerns raised by others also deserve an explanation. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Dreadstar and fetchcomms. I have great respect for the candidate as an editor and content writer but I have serious issues with the candidate's lack of talk page use to discuss and communicate with others. StrPby (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose Extensive history of arbcom sanctions and blocks is beyond unacceptable for any potential administrator. Can not trust. Vodello (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose Many to many blocks, agree with Fastily. I can't trust someone with ten or so blocks...even if there has not been one in more than a year. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose, moving from neutral. The unfairness towards the closing admin at the DrV I mentioned in my earlier 'neutral' was both more recent and more unfair than I remembered. Reyk _YO! 23:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. As per SandyG I'm rather surprised that the candidate appears to be surprised by this nomination, and if unprepared opted to accept it. Malleus Fatuorum 00:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose Some people who are really, really good writers/editors for the encyclopedia (and Alansohn is) are unable to resolve even simple differences without drama. The ArbCom sanctions and the block log are pretty obvious cues that he's just not someone who could wield the tools without controversy aplenty. Steven Walling 01:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose per Fastily, numerous blocks over two years is too long for me to trust the candidate as an admin, at this time, sorry. --Elekhh (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose Too many blocks.--iGeMiNix 03:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I consider a decent-sized block log to be a good thing in the current wikipedia environment. Malleus Fatuorum 03:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I actually agree with that, given what I've seen around here. Tommy! 04:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

13. Oppose, after some thought. Alansohn is a good editor who has been exceptionally confrontational in deletion debates. Most of this is well in the past, but it was pretty bad, including a disturbing willingness to make up rules to support his cause: this was typical of his behavior in the period when I interacted with him most often (I am less active in deletion debates now; I'd also stress that Alansohn has always been civil to me personally). I've looked at his more recent participation in debates, and he no longer does this sort of thing, but he's replaced it with a stock statement he barely varies in each debate, regardless of the differences among articles, which contributes in a totally different way to the politicization of the deletion processes. Chick Bowen 04:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The AfD raised as an issue is more than two years old, and I think that I have demonstrated a great deal of constructive change in the 200,000 edits since that time. I apologize if my participation at XfD comes across as using a "stock statement", one that I intend to summarize my opinion that an item up for discussion at XfD meets (or fails to meet) the criteria for retention, but I careful review every article and category up for discussion and will not pass judgment without determining that the article (or category) merits retention or deletion under Wikipedia policy. Alansohn (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

14. Due to his history of disruptive conduct.  Sandstein  06:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    which only proves that the editor is human. I'd rather have an administrator with a block log than the ones, who never were blocked themselves. At least those with block logs know the feeling behind the blocks, and especially unfair blocks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I find that a remarkable comment, for several reasons. Are people who have always cooperated not human? Are you assuming that everyone who has ever been blocked has been unfairly blocked? (If not, then they don't "know the feeling behind the blocks".) Or could it just be resentment because Mbz1 has had eleven blocks? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

15. Oppose per Fetchcomms and Sandstein. Sorry.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose. Concerns about the history of sanctions. -- Cirt (talk) 12:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. Strongly oppose. Alan believes that XFDs and DRVs should be closed by counting heads, and that any admin who discounts votes based upon strength of argument is the equivalent of a "supervote". Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_July_4 In addition, there is the matter of his attitude. His many blocks while under an editing restriction by the arbcom for incivility Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes#Alansohn_restricted worry me as well. I appreciate that he says he has toned it down at XFD during the last few months, but July isn't that long ago, and besides, it's going to take far longer than a few months for me to trust him as an admin. --Kbdank71 14:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose per several above, notably SandyGeorgia, Dreadstar and Reyk; there are enough issues with Alansohn's conduct and interaction with others to make me reluctant to grant him the tools. I am willing to forgive a user who has 'reformed' after earlier problematic behaviour, but 18 months since the last block is a little too recent for me. (Additionally, though less serious, there have been more recent incidents of poor conduct like the DRV above.) If there are no further issues, I'd consider supporting a future RFA in about six to nine months, but not right now I'm afraid. Robofish (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose with regret. The blocks were a while ago, the combative approach to AfD was dealt with admirably in Q7, but the DRV mentioned above was this year, and in this context, I have concerns about closing deletion discussions. PhilKnight (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose I have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to RfA's with more that one block. I worry about civility issues. Ronk01 talk 15:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21. Reluctant Oppose. I believe Alansohn believes in and is committed to the project, and I've always been thoroughly impressed with his prolific contributions. My interactions with him over the past several months have been completely positive and supportive. But prior to that, it was a completely different story. I don't want to stir up bad feelings over past conduct, but it's been far too recent that Alansohn showed a disturbing and persistent tendency in XFD discussions to personalize content disputes, to the extent of mischaracterizing others' comments and assuming bad faith, and targeting particular editors for feuding. Not that everyone else is blameless, but in these ways I think Alansohn contributed to making CFD a much more hostile environment for awhile than it would have otherwise been, and his responses to attempts to address these issues with him would typically escalate the hostility. As recently as January and Feburary of this year, after more than a year of trying to deal with it at CFD, he brushed off complaints by me and others regarding his CFD conduct here and here, which escalated into this Feburary 2010 Wikiquette alert, which escalated into this ANI report filed by someone not originally involved...which escalated into this attempt to amend his prior Arb com ruling. As I said, my interactions with him since then have been positive, and I do have great admiration for his contributions and faith in his ability to reform. So I'm not saying that I would never support him for adminship; I just think this is too soon given how longstanding and recent the conduct issues were. postdlf (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose per many above; I cannot support someone with as many blocks as you have and, furthermore, Postdlf's threads and diff are rather unreassuring. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose Too many concerns as well as concerns per 13, 14 and Postdlf above.(olive (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
24. Strong oppose block log, longstanding behaviour problems and a shocking lack of understanding of deletion issues, which is absolutely essential in an admin. See Kbdank71's oppose above for a recent example. Probably a "never", I'm afraid. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
25. Strong oppose, per extensive block log. Nakon 17:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose. Moved from Neutral - see below. The DRV mentioned above, which was recent, shows that the candidate either does not know the difference between consensus and democracy, or eschews the former in favour of the latter. In my opinion, Wikipedia would collapse if we enabled vote-stacking as a way of making decisions, and I have to oppose an admin who argues so strongly in favour of a simple vote rather than consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose have seen civility issues with this user in the past. --Rschen7754 18:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose per Postdlf, SandyGeorgia and others. An excellent contributor, but doesn't seem like a good admin material. --Avenue (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
29. Strongest Possible Oppose I gave you the benefit of the doubt when I read your userpage, and asked question nine hoping that my interpretation of your comments was off. In reality, it seems I gave you just enough rope to hang yourself. The more I look at you, the more I see a person that has trouble with good faith. Working in AfC I have seen plenty of IPs that want to contribute constructively, and indeed often do, but for one reason or another, do not create an account. Just as there are hundreds of bad IP edits a day, there are as many good edits. From passers by that see a spelling error and fix it, to ambitious individuals that create entire WikiProjects. We have bots that do what you do, and filters, and plenty of other vandal fighters, all of which seem to take IP vandalism a little less personally. Your attitude hurts the project, and I shudder to think about what you would do with the tools. I'm not !voting oppose just because I disagree with you, I'm !voting oppose because I oppose what you stand for, how you think, how you act, and because I find the possibility of you as an admin to be deeply, deeply troubling. Sven Manguard _Talk 18:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't support his RfA either, but surely one can understand how someone who spends so much time reverting IP vandalism might feel that way. I think it's a bit like working in an ER ward or as a cop: you're seeing the worst cases, over and over, with depressing regularity. Perhaps it's hard for some of us who haven't spent as much time dealing with the deluge as Alansohn -- and few have -- to understand how he might see it? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) I do plenty of vandalism fighting, and my userspace was vandalized often enough that I asked for semiprotection on my main page. Do vandals disgust me, yes, of course they do. Would I use that as a justification to say that IPs shouldn't be allowed to edit, or that Wikipedia needed to tighten up their security to the levels he suggested, no, never. It's not just his opinion that worries me, but the attitude as a whole. He sees bad faith where there is none. IPs as a group are not bad, only a few of them are, and we deal with them as needed. Indeed Wikipedia owes a lot to people that never made accounts. The fact that he cannot differentiate the bad part from an overall group gives me great pause. His comments show bad judgment. Sven Manguard _Talk 20:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That was him over a year ago, I think this user is transformed, we given the tools to former wheel warriors, ED vandals, people who were banned for a while from arbcom, self-promoters, revert warriors, etc and we knew of their past. The example from July was an heated arguement, not an assumption of bad faith other then that most of the bad faith was over a year and a half ago. What I like about RFA is that we given people who fucked up a second chance, by showing that we regained their trust. I dealt with this user in the past, I would have opposed him if the previous RFA would have came to life. I see a reformed user. (I don't trust him closing XFD debates but that's another issue) Secret ^account 20:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The comment I linked to on his user-page was still there yesterday. Since it's there now, I think we can infer it is his current view. Sven Manguard _Talk 20:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate your generous offer of a noose with which to hang myself, and I stand behind the brief essay on my user page and my response to your question nine above. As an admin or not, I will be unable to set any bar to edits from unregistered users and any determination on where a bar might set will be determined by community consensus of all editors. The essay on my user page was intended to provoke thought on the issue and the fact that we bar unregistered users from participating at RfA or from editing certain hot target articles shows that we are willing as a community to set a bar; The question is how high. Having reverted more than 100,000 vandalistic edits over the past year or two -- most far worse than this example of vandalism -- and watching as a significant percentage of the edits to my watchlist are vandalism or vandalism reverts, I remain convinced that setting some minor hoop for users in order to be able to edit, such as requiring registration, would be an effective way to free up thousands of editing hours that are wasted using Huggle and other such tools by editors who could well be creating new content and adding sources to existing articles rather than undoing millions of edits made by infantile IP users just to restore articles back to their status quo ante. Alansohn (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, because this RfA is clearly about me and not about you, feel free to bring up that revision. Never mind the fact that the revert you mentioned was, oh wait, actually a revert of a bad edit. Shouldn't potential admins be able to recognize what edit wars look like? Moving on. What I find interesting is the way that the language changes over the course of the RFA. What you are asking for in the above comment, the "minor hoop" is registration. On your userpage, you want registration, a conformation of identity, and an introduction course on policy. There is a huge difference there. I can understand wanting people to register, I can understand the reasons behind it, but demanding people fork over personal information, even as little as a functional email address, I find disturbing. Forcing new users to take a course on policy might help the project, although that is doubtful, at the cost of reducing the number of people the come in and edit. We will lose the people that want to correct some small error that they see, because we will end up increasing the amount of effort that is required. My first edit, years ago as an IP, was correcting a misspelling I saw in an article. Most of my edits the first two years at Wikipedia were those types of minor edits. I doubt that I was using the same IP more than once. If I had to click through some e-lecture on policy or fork over my email to make those edits, I would have simply ignored the problem, as the effort/pain would have heavily outweighed the gain. I might have created a username, but even that is doubtful. The point I am trying to make here is that I fundamentally disagree with you when you say in your essay "The time you spend cleaning up after those vandals is pure wasted effort that is not counteracted by the positives of those people who make your home cleaner and better." There are several filters and bots that fight vandalism. If you use Huggle, you can beat the bot often enough, if you use Twinkle, the bot will likely beat you to most of the reverts. The system we have is better than we give it credit for at stopping vandalism. If the vandal fighters all stopped editing for a day, and left it to the bots, 75% of the vandalism, or more, would get caught. Realistically most of the vandalism the bots miss would also be missed by humans (the really clever stuff, like changing a date or a score, or adding bad information that wasn't obscene and followed proper grammatical rules, can slip through every layer we have, including the humans. I've seen it.) That same day, we would have dozens minor small edits by IPs that were good edits in every way. Even a few big things, like a large copy edit, or proper content inserting are done each day by IPs. I don't want to lose that. Your antivandalim countermeasures blow the problem out of proportion and would put an undue burden on constructive editors. More importantly to the RfA though, your attitude, which I see as restrictionist and heavily negitive towards IPs, to the point where you no longer acknowledge that they make positive contributions, is not what I want to see in an admin. I can't support you. Sven Manguard _Talk 05:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

30. Oppose: Your block log. Need I say more. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
31. OpposeBecause of your block log. Inka888^ContribsTalk 21:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
32. Oppose Essentially per SandyG and DreadS - and the circumstances of the nomination not inspiring much confidence either. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
33. Oppose Severe civility problems which made the block log dirty because of it. Sorry, Alansohn, but I think you're better with improving the encyclopaedia a bit rather than judgement of the tools. Minimac (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
34. Oppose per previous blocks. -DJSasso (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
35. Oppose Failure in what would be multiple admin areas per block log. DQ.alt (t) (e) 17:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
36. Oppose I'm sorry, but I can not support as the user does not pass my standards. MJ94 (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You can't pass a standard; you can meet one, fail to meet it, or exceed it, but you can't pass it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Holy pedantics? Isn't it clear from the context that "pass" = "meet"? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

37. Oppose: Per SandyGeorgia below, less than 2% of edits to Talk space indicates an editor who is clearly gung-ho about creating content, but doesn't provide evidence to show collaborative ability. Perhaps this is because the user realized, following the years ago blocks and Arcbom decisions, that xe works best alone. That's great for the type of work xe does, in creating new articles, but doesn't bode well for his/her ability to interact with others in an administrative capacity. Just as I believe that excessive content creation should not be required to gain adminship, I also don't believe that excessive content creation overrides other concerns. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
38. Oppose Far too much inclined to be combative in the face of disagreements, and yes, there have been recent examples of this, including in the past two days, so this is not something which he has put behind him years ago, even though he now manages to keep it at a level which does not lead to blocks. There are also cases of not really being in tune with the way Wikipedia processes work, such as seeing AfD closure as largely based on head counting. His answer to question 4(b) was unsatisfactory. The situation described does not warrant immediate reporting to ANI, and as for Arbcom, it is nowhere near that. If and when the problem escalates ANI may be worth considering, but at the point described in the question an admin should be able to act without bringing ANI into play. In addition, a minor point is that most of his work is in areas (such as article writing) in which admin tools are irrelevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
39. Oppose Approach to deletion is too far from community consensus. I rarely find his arguments at DRV compelling. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
40. Oppose. With apologies, and no malice, it's the block log. Won't always disqualify you in my book, but ideally there would be some more space between the last block and the RFA. Saebvn (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
41. Oppose - Well, your block log worries me alot. Sorry :( - Dwayne was here! ♫ 21:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
42. The answer to 4(b) is very much inadequate and I don't have confidence in your ability (or willingness?) to close AfDs with the appropriate balance between arguments and numbers. AfD is not "democracy in action".--Mkativerata (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
43. Oppose. Unconvincing reasons (question 1). I also have concerns about your intention to adjudicate XfD. Although the edit warring was a long time ago, it was so disruptive that I still have misgivings about future events if you receive the tools. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
44. Oppose Promises to be open to recall are made Ad captandum vulgaris - making such promises is disqualifying. Hipocrite (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Got AGF? Not as fancy as Latin. But more relevant here.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I always assume good faith. I have opposed every candidate I have been aware of that makes a no-exemptions, no caveats promise to be open to recall. There's a right way to answer the obnoxious "will you be open to recall," that will garner no opposes. This candidate is either pandering (ABF) or ill-informed about recall (AGF). I assume they are ill-informed. I do not support admin candidates who opine about things they do not understand. Hipocrite (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Umm, wow. This is why when I asked the question recently, I asked for specifics. That being said, and keeping in mind that I also oppose this candidate, I must say that your oppose vote is absurd. You are discounting the possibility that he might fully understand what recall is, and be willing to give up the tools if the community thinks he screwed up badly or consistently enough. Also, I would love to hear what you think is the correct answer to that question. Sven Manguard _Talk 05:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sven the Flabbergasted understated it when he said he opposed the candidate, of course, yet still questioned your !vote. I'm with him. If you assume good faith, you must assume that the candidate answered that question honestly. And that he will be open to recall (even if not bound by his statement). In precisely the no-caveats manner he indicated. Your assumption that he might be pandering -- well, my friend, that is inconsistent with you assuming good faith. Somewhat squarely. And that leaves us with your assumption that he is otherwise ill-informed, which is baseless. If you AGF, he meant what he said. Period.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

45. Strongest possible oppose: user has not done any new page patrol] whatsoever. DS (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think that's right. Did you mean this? --BelovedFreak 20:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, whoops. Yes. However, he has not done any non-automatic patrolling since June 09. "Strongest possible oppose" is reduced to just "Oppose". DS (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

46. Oppose - RFC + long block log = no thanks. Tiptoety ^talk 19:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
47. Oppose on basis of block record. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
48. Numerous blocks, which are very old, but there's no easy way to remove the tools if candidate reverts to old ways. Townlake (talk) 05:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
49. Oppose. Sorry, that block log sank you. -- œ^™ 11:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
50. Oppose Too many blocks and civility issues. - KeptSouth (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
51. Oppose - I sincerely believe that this is a reformed editor, but closing AfDs on the basis of a headcount? No way Jose. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
52. Oppose - per concerns in regards to the candidate's civility and previous blocks. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 11:43am • 00:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
53. Oppose - because of incivility and block record, per my admin criteria. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
54. Oppose wow your block log was the torpedo that sunk this one for me... -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
55. Oppose. I see a red flag at the lack of talk page edits. Communication is key in this venue, and from what I can see, Alansohn's is less than fruitful. Sure, the blocks are troubling. Even more so, is the behavior and actions that led to the various blocks, shades of which continue, as evidenced in recent AfD and DRV conversations. I also see poor choices in overt, as well as passive aggressive behavior in responses to this RfA, expressing appreciation to another editor for a noose with which to hang himself, relating to IP users believed to be vandals as "infantile", and attempting to deflect attention from his own shortcomings by pointing out the edits of others, which he deems substandard. Sure, there's a lot of back and forth in this RfA, which equates to "I know you are, but what am I?" attacks, but the snide remarks of one editor does not justify the snide remarks of another. As evidenced in this discussion, it is apparent that Alansohn continues to lack the ability to maintain decorum through disputes. I shudder to think what would happen if this RfA were to continue another week. When all is said and done, I present a vote of no confidence in Alansohn to interpret and properly apply Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Regards, Cindamuse (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
56. Oppose per above. Perseus!-Talk to me 17:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Over 100,000 300,000 edits, but 1% in article talk space? That is miniscule. What have you been doing, and where can we see evidence that you understand how to use the tools, and won't abuse of them? You say you want to branch into CFD and AFD, but have you engaged them? Expanding school articles and working at DYK are not areas where you are likely to encounter the difficult situations you may face with the tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He actually has over 300,000 edits, but the nominator did not state this in the nomination. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And still little participation in article talk? Where is his first RFA; I can't seem to locate it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alansohn, but he never transcluded it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to oppose after seeing the past problems with his involvement at CFD and AFD, and blocks for continued incivility and bad faith after editing restrictions as well as strong POV expressed in some CFD discussions, unimpressed by DYKs, as that is an area where plagiarism frequently occurs-- not impressive in terms of content contribution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had plenty of interactions with Alansohn over the years, and he assumed bad faith in AFD debates, etc, but that was years ago, a quick glance of his Wikipedia namespace doesn't show that problem, but I still think it's too early since Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes. I may change vote later depends on the RFA goes, because with all his faults, he's still a good article writer. Secret ^account 19:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple blocks after Arb sanctions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent content contributor, obviously. But my one interaction with Alansohn was negative; it was at a DRV he started by assuming bad faith of the closing admin and then lashed out at anyone who suggested that AfD is not a mere head count. This is not somebody I want closing AfDs. Reyk _YO! 21:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Moving to oppose. Reyk _YO! 23:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was very surprised -- in a good way -- by Alansohn's response to Q7. He does not sound remotely like the editor I came to know -- and to some extent, dread -- at Xfd. However, before I consider changing my position, I'd like to know how recent Reyk's example was. I'm assuming it was before the candidate's self-imposed break from Xfd, and change of heart. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, it's the example cited in Q8 and Reyk's oppose. Nevermind. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment recuse from closing, including a crat chat. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral., changed from Oppose. The candidate's response to Q7 is completely unlike what I had seen from him previously, and even the DRV exchange from July seems more like a heated debate than the sort of personal attack I'd seen from Alansohn previously. (I seem to have utterly screwed up the numbering sequence in Oppose, sorry. I've tried three times to repair it. Sorry) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Numbering sequence looks fine - the stuff above has been indented and so doesn't count. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral. I'm really torn about this one and can't decide. The only reason for opposition is the rather serious history of blocks, disruption, ABF, etc. However, the examples shown are all quite some time ago - no blocks in the last 18 months, and no examples of snarky comments in the last 12 months. But even if it is so long ago, that block log and the ArbCom thing really are pretty ugly. I'd feel more positive if I could see a 2-year clean block log, and no bad examples for 18 months (though I know that seems somewhat arbitrary). I'll try to revisit this when I have time, but for now I'll have to stay in the Neutral zone. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry, but I have to move to oppose, as I hadn't realised the DRV mentioned above was so recent. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral. Great content creator, and he really has tried to pull things round. But the mini rant on the DRV quoted above only comes from July, so I have a concern that he's not over his XfD issues yet. Also, waiting for his answer to Q8. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. I think Alansohn is a great editor and, other things being equal, would like to be on the support column. But the DRV quoted above gives me pause. I guess that means I'll hang out in the wishy-washy world of neutrality. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not going to pile on and move to the oppose section but the non-response to question 8 and the response to question 9 are less than ideal. I understand the frustration with vandalism from IP editors, but it is important to recognize that without the grammar fix here and the fact fix there by the casual editor, this encyclopedia would be much less than what it is. Nor should one forget that many regular editors with 'accounts' would probably not be here if they had to sign in for their first casual edit. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. Neutral Impressive number of DYKs, "impressive" number of blocks. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Leaning towards "support" awaiting an answer to question 11. The last block was quite a while back and I believe Alansohn would be a net positive. Airplaneman ✈ 03:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Neutral His/her contributions are out standing and I dont mind the block log too much as his/her last block was in April 2009. Lack of communication with with other editors is a serious problem as this is a collaborative Project. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose (but COI) Neutral because of COI, but essentially opposed in my opinion for the reasons given by postdlf. I don't want to dredge up the details of past conflicts I have had with Alansohn which essentially amount to a COI in my formally opposing here, especially since he seems to have largely rectified any problematic behaviour over the past few months. But I too just think it may be too soon to consider adminship, and I haven't seen sufficient evidence that he can truly play well with others as opposed to just keeping his head down. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I wanted to stop by and commend you for voting neutral due to your COI, especially since you are the only sysop to block the candidate since January 2009. As to him possibly "just keeping his head down", well -- we voted you in, didn't we? (I know you will take this in good humor, as it is intended).--Epeefleche (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Having blocked the candidate does not create the COI. What does is the fact that I was the target of excessive attacks from the user following the blocks, presumably in retaliation. I don't bear Alansohn any ill will, but I could understand if he felt that my opposition was an unprincipled tit-for-tat. For that possible perception of bias I am neutral, not because I blocked the user for violating his editing restrictions. (I'm not clear on the joke re: my adminship vote and keeping one's head down unless it's just a generic "we voted you in so you should vote others in" jibe. I was pretty active in discussion prior to and leading up to my adminship vote; I wasn't exactly keeping my head down, nor did I have a history of blocks and editing restrictions.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8. Neutral From looking through your contributions, I understand you are an excellent vandal fighter and content creator. It is evident that you are interested in expanding your own and other people's knowledge through your work here—and that is why I am not going to oppose. I know that your history with ArbCom and your block log are the things that are behind the majority of the oppose !votes here—and I believe you have put them behind you now—but the very fact they are there makes me cautious in adding a support vote. Don't let the oppose votes put you off—I started editing Wikipedia in April and I have a great deal of respect for your content contribution and your amazing set of DYKs. I hope there are more to come, whether you are promoted to admin or not. Good luck. Wackywace ^{converse | contribs} 13:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Neutral, because I too might be perceived as having a COI here ... but I share all the concerns expressed by Good Ol’factory, as well as by those who explicitly oppose the nom. I have long admired Alansohn's astonishingly prolific rate of DYK creation and his dedicated vandalism-patrolling work, but I have also encountered his sustained and bitter ABF personalisations of disagreements at XfD. Those lead me to conclude that Alansohn's undoubted strengths wrt content have not so far been mirrored by any remotely similar strengths in interaction with other editors, and skill at interaction is an essential part of adminship. I am impressed by the efforts which Alansohn has latterly made to avoid conflict, and he should be commended for that. However, this appears to have been done primarily by disengaging from discussion, rather than by developing a sustained pattern of more collaborative engagement, and episodes such as the NYT DRV in July suggest that the combative persona may be dormant rather than reformed.
   I hope that in time my concerns will prove to be unfounded, but the proof I would seek is of a sustained ability to routinely engage in civil discussions with editors over contentious matters, rather than simply avoiding points of contention.
   In the meantime, I hope that Alansohn will not see a lack of support for adminship at this time as any sort of lack of respect for the real strengths which his commitment brings to Wikipedia in other ways. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Neutral because there is little to be gained by adding to the pile-on 'opposes' , and BrownHairedGirl's comment above summarises the situation well. Nevertheless, the comments of those who have cited lack of collaboration/communication, and blocks, appear to be well founded. Even if the civility issues are borderline, they are frequent enough to suggest that the pattern of communication may only tone down after a period of concentrated effort. The high edit count is not a qualification - a gnome who has made 15,000 'contributory' edits to article space that take 20 minutes each, or who even prepares longer edits /articles in their user space or offline, has done as much or even more for the encyclopedia as a vandal fighter using a software solution to make 150,000 edits at the rate of 20 a minute. As long as it's not just a 'beat the bot' exercise, the candidate is already providing a vital contribution without the tools, and when he has had the patience to diversify, and make edits and decisions that take more time, and that will demonstrate a clearer understanding of some of the core policies, that will be the time when the next RfA will succeed.--Kudpung (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ... boy.
    • Positives: An impressive 813 DYKs—more than any other account—and well over 300,000 edits to date; good work with Huggle. (I'd be a mad scientist to achieve this!)
    • Negatives: RFC over incivility, several rendezvous with ANI and ArbCom, and (for an admin candidate no less!) a long history of blocks. (Not to mention a January 2009 SPI concerning a possible evasion with an IP address.)
    • Conundrum: Only 1.5% in the main talk namespace overall. (3 in 500 recent edits?? Goodness gracious.)

    At any rate, one big lean towards the Oppose side. Nonetheless, I'm going ahead and sticking with Neutral. The amount of time left in this RFA has compelled me to get this summation in. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.