Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Alansohn: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:56, 6 July 2007 editOrderinchaos (talk \| contribs)Administrators70,076 edits →View by Semi-Involved []: endorsed← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:51, 6 July 2007 edit undoHusond (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers36,809 edits viewNext edit →
Line 273:		Line 273:
	:#Endorsed. I can see why you feel the way you do, I have had similar thoughts over this. ] 20:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)		:#Endorsed. I can see why you feel the way you do, I have had similar thoughts over this. ] 20:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
	:#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. ] 04:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)		:#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. ] 04:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

			==View by Semi-Involved ]==

			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 ]. Apparently omnipresent in every single school ], 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.

			<strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 23:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

			''Users who endorse this summary:''


	==Outside view==		==Outside view==

Revision as of 23:51, 6 July 2007

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 23:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC).

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.

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

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 Misplaced Pages. 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  18:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages. People should not be thin skinned. The RFC is unnecessary. Edison 00:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages:Cruftcruft to an essay on my watchlist, Misplaced Pages:Schoolcruft. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Users who endorse this summary:

Endorsed. I agree with your points, they are similar to mine. Camaron1 | Chris 17:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
RGTraynor 18:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Endorsed. Icemuon 10:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Endorsed. Thewinchester 06:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Endorsed. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Semi-involved view by Camaron1

I did not encounter Alansohn (talk · contribs) directly until I discovered the essay Misplaced Pages:Schoolcruft and dispute at WP:AN/I. I think Alansohn's edits to Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.

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: . 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: . 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 . 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages has made him feel above other users. He needs to understand that Misplaced Pages 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)

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 (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 . 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, Misplaced Pages is a group project, not the personal project of one editor. Icemuon 11:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Endorsed. But|seriously|folks 17:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
RGTraynor 18:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Endorsed. Thewinchester 06:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Endorsed. WMMartin 17:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Involved view by RGTraynor

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 Misplaced Pages people want? RGTraynor 13:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Endorsed. Very nicely put. But|seriously|folks 17:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Endorsed. Icemuon 17:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Endorsed, especially the last paragraph which is well said. Camaron1 | Chris 17:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Endorsed. Thewinchester 06:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Endorsed. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 06:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

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." RGTraynor 01:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Endorsed, and well put. Thewinchester 06:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Endorsed. Icemuon 11:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages who are smart, intelligent and tough-minded, and put their cases strongly. This is great, and as a community Misplaced Pages should welcome them: the better and more rigorous the debate "behind the scenes", the better Misplaced Pages 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)

Users who endorse this summary:

Endorsed. Well said. I have been feeling the same way as WMMartin and have also curtailed my Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
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)

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.

Húsönd 23:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

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.