HandThatFeeds

Hi, I don't use ANI much, and I was confused by your response to my complaint about EEng, specifically: "this example doesn't even rise to being in the ballpark of WP:NPA". I didn't say that this latest comment was a personal attack. In terms of WP:UNCIVIL, I would classify it under disrespectful and rude, especially since WP:BURDEN to provide sources was on EEng. The text was:

I've often thought that someone should invent some kind of worldwide information search and retrieval system -- maybe one involving computers linked by communication lines -- by which queries could be entered on a keyboard or something, and answers viewed on a display screen. Because if there was such a thing, you could answer that question yourself instead of demanding that other editors do it for you (which is also not a good look).

It's sarcastic, sharp, and mildly impugns the other editor's motives, intelligence, work ethic, and reputation. Was there some special significance you put on WP:NPA specifically within WP:CIVIL in the context of disciplinary decisions, was this just a momentary confusion because EEng has been blocked for personal attacks upteen times, or is there something I'm missing? -- Beland (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

As you now well know [1] (but haven't had the integrity to acknowledge), I have not been blocked for personal attacks umteen times; I've been blocked umteen times by admins who are, to use your phrase (below), out of sync with the community.

And to put to rest one more of your misrepresentations, what you refer to as a BURDEN situation was nothing of the kind. Reliable sources directly supporting the material at issue had long been in the article; but one editor was arbitrarily demanding that the sources be post 1950 [2]. That's his burden, not mine. EEng 00:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I stand by my remarks, though for better or worse it seems AN/I is uninterested in sifting through the block history and exploring which were justified and unjustified. The number of actual personal attacks and uncivil remarks is much larger than the number of blocks. I'm happy to discuss some if you would like to use that as an opportunity for introspection and identify better ways the disputes in question could have been handled.

The specific thread you linked to already provides more than enough material for an overly-long analysis; what I brought to AN/I turns out to have been only the tip of an incivility iceberg.

Looking at the comments made in 2018:

• CFCF was in favor of "described as imposing", because "imposing" in Wikipedia voice is not neutral.
• EEng was in favor of "imposing" in Wikipedia voice
• Seasider53 considers the word "imposing" as WP:PEACOCK and suggested an RFC.
• Mandruss was in favor of no adjective
• Hertz1888 did not consider it puffery, but seemed to be OK with "imposing" in quote marks to indicate it is a quotation (as it apparently previously was)

If I'm summarizing everyone's position correctly, it looks like more editors are in favor of not using "imposing" in Wikipedia's voice, but it seems y'all never agreed on a specific solution.

CFCF brought this up again in 2024, because they felt the NPOV problem they previously identified still hasn't been fixed. EEng responded with:

"Every few years you show up to complain about it, but you have been signally unable to convince other editors of the validity of your position. Why you're obsessed with this particular point, I have no idea, but slow-motion editwarring is still editwarring. Get consensus or leave it alone."

"Obsessed" seems like a personal attack, implying the editors' diligence here in wanting to see NPOV applied is mentally unhealthy. Though it does seem like CFCF could have taken this dispute to the talk page earlier, that's also true of EEng. Wikipedia:Edit warring says to avoid telling opponents in an edit war that they are edit-warring, because it comes across as aggressive, and that's why it was a bad idea to use that term in this thread. It's better (in terms of quicker and more successful and less stressful conflict resolution) to address a content dispute on its merits than address editor behavior, even when it's mildly problematic.

The rest of this message is sort of mocking CFCF for weakness in persuasiveness, and impossible-to-satisfy demands: that CFCF both stop discussing this issue and that they convince other editors of their position. Given that opposition to the current text already had a supermajority, both the mocking and the demanding seem off-base.

Jjazz76 jumped in with "Also worth pointing out the three cites are from before 1900. Maybe it was imposing then, but there's no evidence it is currently imposing, 130 years+ later."

EEng's response was unhelpful: "You got a cite for that?" No citation is necessary to document the assertion that all the sources supporting this adjective were very old. A productive response would have been to either dig up some new sources or alter the text to indicate when this description was applied. Jjazz76 even suggested doing that after they got this unhelpful reply.

On the technical policy point: The claim being documented is that Memorial Hall is considered imposing, not that it was considered imposing a long time ago. The WP:BURDEN is to cite a source documenting the exact claim being made, not a slightly different claim which might have a different truth value. I will admit to having had the very same frustration of "why are you making me Google this when you could have Googled it yourself!" I just try not to take out my frustration on the other editor, who is also a volunteer and has no particular obligation to do work. Even though I'm annoyed while doing the cursory research, usually their obstructiveness does result in a better-sourced or better-phrased article, and that's why it's actually not unhealthy behavior.

EEng argues that "an imposing building can no more cease being imposing than a heroic statue can cease being heroic". Arguably, a building can become less imposing if other equally large buildings are constructed around it, which could easily have happened over the 100+ year gap in this case. Arguably, a statue can be perceived as less heroic if the visual conventions for denoting heroic poses change in the surrounding culture, or the prevailing opinion about the subject character changes e.g. from being considered a hero to being a demagogue or dictator. I say "arguably" because I'm not taking any particular position; I leave that to the art and architecture critics. And it's fine to have strong opinions about these things, but it seems like other editors' differing opinions on a subjective question are being reacted to and mocked as if they had stated something objectively false. Part of working in a collaborative environment, especially on NPOV issues, is appreciating differences of opinion among editors, and using them in a productive fashion rather than trying to bully them away or shout them down.

Unfortunately, this highly contentious revived thread has still failed to reach agreement on how solve the NPOV problem perceived by the majority, so either another editor or perhaps the same editor will likely bring it up again in the future.

A more productive response back in 2018, which will still work in 2024, would have been to either compromise on a phrasing that keeps the adjective but takes it out of Wikipedia's voice (putting the quote marks back in seems like it would call the least attention to the distinction), or if that feels unacceptable, to hold an RFC. Given how small and low-stakes this disagreement is and how many editors have already contributed their thoughts, it is surprising that this could not be solved through compromise and would need to be taken through a more time-consuming formal process. Sometimes editors just fail to circle back to reach and implement a compromise, but in this case I would put some of the blame on the incivility and hostility in this thread for driving it off the rails.

-- Beland (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

After needing several minutes to recover from my genuinely stunned condition:

• it seems AN/I is uninterested in sifting through the block history and exploring which were justified and unjustified – Yes but you see, "AN/I" wasn't making a fool of themselves by showing they don't know how to read a block log, so "they" don't need to read it. Only you do, so that you'll understand the world of hurt you'll be in if you lie about my block history again.
• EEng argues that "an imposing building can no more cease being imposing than a heroic statue can cease being heroic" – For Christ's sake, here's what I said [3]:

Now, if the statement had been that Memorial Hall "imposes on its neighbors", THAT would need reasonably recent sourcing, and when you can show me that you understand the difference between those two situations (and please, look up heroic unless you're certain you know what it means in the context of statuary) then I'll start crediting your ideas about sourcing.

You obviously didn't take the advice to look up heroic, for otherwise you would know that a heroic statue is one larger than life (usually at least 1/3 to 1/2 larger), but not colossal (which denotes a work at least twice life size); your blather about "visual conventions for denoting heroic poses" has nothing to do with it. Imposing is, similarly, a term of art. So once again you have written a gigantic wall of text premised on your confusion about basic stuff like what words mean.

Now you go back to fixing typos, and I'll go back to developing meaningful content using words according to their actual meaning. I'm sure HTF doesn't want any more nonsense like this on their talk page. EEng 06:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's sarcastic and deprecating, but it does not rise to the level of a personal attack. It's just a more loquacious way of saying "You could've just Googled the answer." If the latter does not violate NPA, then EEng's version does not violate NPA. It's annoying, but not a personal attack. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

If this comment had been directed at me, I would certainly have felt that my personality was being attacked, suggesting that I'm overly "demanding" and that I have a "bad look". It has a lot more going on than simply saying "you could have Googled the answer". (And to correct my previous statement, I did use the word "attack"; perhaps that's what you were responding to.) In any case, even if we were to agree this is not an "attack", WP:CIVIL prohibits "merely" rude and disrespectful comments as well. It also says: "While a few minor incidents of incivility that no one complains about are not necessarily a concern, a continuing pattern of incivility is unacceptable." Which is why "it's not a personal attack" doesn't seem like a good reason for dismissing the complaint. -- Beland (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Being condescending to someone does not constitute an WP:NPA violation. It's rude, yes, but it's not a personal attack. If you want to push for that broad WP:CIVIL interpretation, I expect you'd have a long fight on your hands. Regardless, I'm not the person you need to convince. The rest of the community is unwilling to accept such a broad interpretation, given the number of times I've seen it come up at WP:VPP. But you're welcome to try again.

The fact is that if you want to ban "merely" rude and disrespectful comments, you're basically going to cut out anyone who gets a little snarky at civil POV pushers, trolls, or stubborn sealions. So people are not going to go along with that interpretation.

I personally suggest letting it drop until you have a concrete example of EEng violating WP:NPA, because that's what it's going to take to get him sanctioned. It was hard enough the first time, he had to very blatantly cross a line for that to happen. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, that's good to know. Sounds like people's threshold for problematic misbehavior is just a lot higher than mine. -- Beland (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I would take a dozen of EEng's sarcastic (or whatever) posts over a single one of your "Here's a 10 year old list of blockings, let's see what else we, The Cabal, can get this outsider for next." (yet perfectly WP:CIVIL) ANI filings. That attitude is the most toxic behavioural pattern on WP these days. Andy Dingley (talk)

• Heh, I find that a pretty weird accusation, given that I hardly ever participate in AN/I or use admin blocking tools or have anything to do with disciplinary procedures. Which should be pretty obvious from how out of sync I seem to be with the community there. If you don't find EEng's behavior toxic, that's fine; we can agree to disagree. -- Beland (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea what you're talking about here [4]. If you're referring to this [5], that was an absolutely straight post (including sincere thanks to Giant Snowman for acknowledging that he had misstated the facts). What did you interpret as snark? Is there some misunderstanding here? EEng 01:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply