Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This discussion was among some of the participants on the WP talk:Civility page in early April 2008. It has been extracted from the talk page as it is unrelated to discussion about the policy. It is preserved as a demonstration of various aspects of civility and its opposite.

Martinphi, I hope you realize the irony in the fact that you used this edit summary on the WP:Civility talk page. Nobody, yourself included, is under any impression that my suggestion that you follow talkpage formatting guidelines implied that I was going to become confused if you didn't. Stop with the goading. Antelan^talk 02:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And no one told you to assume that the new heading had anything to do with what you put on my talk page. You could, correctly, have assumed it was a response to your last post, viz:

"Is that meant to be an argument against discussing policy changes on the relevant talkpage first?"

Seems by putting my post on community under your heading "A reminder to get consensus before editing:" I caused confusion, for which you have my apology. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I said edit summary not section heading. Antelan^talk 02:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're confused, Antelan. I know what you said, and my edit summary was a response to your confusion, which I attempted to fix by putting in a new heading. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the goading that I'm asking you to stop. This is three times now that you're calling me confused. For the second time, I'm telling you that I'm not confused. Nowhere did I suggest that I was confused, and instead I offered you a more helpful way of threading comments. Please stop now. Follow? Antelan^talk 03:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. The confusion was that you a) thought that my discussion of community was really about not discussing edits, and b) that my edit summary about confusion was a response to your edit to my talk page, instead of a response to your last post on this page. If I am wrong about you being confused, then you, again, have my apology. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, incredibly, you are wrong for the fourth and fifth times about my thoughts. It is a basic tenet of civility that you state what you think, not what I think, because you clearly do not know what I think. Stop. Now. Antelan^talk 03:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This: "It is a basic tenet of civility that you state what you think, not what I think, because you clearly do not know what I think." ...is awesome. What do you call an essay that just says that? Thank you, Antelan. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe WP:MINDREADER? WP:LOCUSOFCONTROL? :) Antelan^talk 03:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Antelan, it was my thought that your inaccurate factual assumptions and assumption of bad faith were the result of confusion. My mistake.

GTB, if someone says they think X, it is not uncivil to say that they think X. If they don't, then they can correct you. Contortions such as "I think you think based on what you say" are very seldome necessary.

GTBacchus thinks civility is important. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Martin, you're right of course, that there's no problem stating another's thoughts when everyone is clearly on the same page about who holds what position. As soon as that comes into question though, it becomes unwise to tell others what they think. If I say, "no, I don't think that civility is important, why are you mischaracterizing my position?", then you... might be rather surprised, but it would not be helpful for you to insist that you know what I believe better than I do. It would be better at that point to request clarification.

Does it make more sense that way? I feel that's how I see it so often in context. People often restate another editor's position in ways that the other editor would never agree to state it; that seldom helps advance the discussion. I think we do much better when we ask other people what they think rather than telling them, unless it's been made quite clear, but different people will think that different things are "clear". If it's clear that it's clear, then it's clear... clear?

I'm already outlining in my head a couple of paragraphs to go at Wikipedia:Restating the thoughts of others or something. These things are no good without snappy shortcuts, though; nobody remembers them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If I accept this apology, I accept that I made "inaccurate factual assumptions and assumption of bad faith." Clearly this apology is unacceptable, and instead constitutes goading, which I have already asked you to stop. Antelan^talk 03:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Um.... really? I don't think he's goading you here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see it now. That is a pretty crummy apology, actually. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't an apology in general, only for stating your thoughts. The only thing I feel perhaps I did wrong was mention confusion in an edit summary, but it wasn't really a jibe against you. See, even if my edit summary was such a bad thing, (and "confusion" was pretty obviously factual even if perhaps it seemed insulting to you), when I explained you seemed to decide to take it as goading. Then, you said you weren't confused, when you seemed to have clearly stated something which was not factual- that I was responding to your post on my talk page, which I was not (and I explained that). Well, I'll not respond any more here, because it seems trying to explain things only makes you write back as if you are angry. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, duh, Martinphi. Look at what you wrote: "I'm sorry, Antelan, it was my thought that your inaccurate factual assumptions and assumption of bad faith were the result of confusion." If you're apologizing sincerely, don't surround it with other crap, like implicit accusations that he was assuming bad faith (as well as "inaccurate factual assumptions"). You can't read his mind, you don't know what he was assuming, and stating what you think he was assuming, as if you know, is a very unhelpful thing to do. Your shortcut below says it all. Don't put assumptions in his mind.

Seriously, if you're going to apologize like that, don't apologize. His reaction really isn't surprising, is it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I said it wasn't really an apology. But what can I say and maintain my civility here? To me, the confusion was obvious. And did you know that Antelan has done his very best to get me banned from WP in one -maybe two I forget- ArbComs? He supports the SPOV group wherever I edit. He's never edited this article before either. He asked if my post on community was really all about not wanting to discuss edits here -assuming bad faith. Then he started complaining about how I indent, and put a great big post about it on my talk page. He "corrected" my indentation on my post above. Maybe I indent wrong, but he's the only one who ever complained, and also he tried to get the ArbCom to sanction me for "misuse of edit summaries" (another minor flaw, if true). Then, it looked as if he assumed that my summary about "confusion" was about his post on my talk page because he knew that he was being provocative. Yeah, OK, I should have ignored him. I didn't take the highest road. To take the lesson here, though, civility really is about a poisoned atmosphere. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, I didn't call anything he said "crap," lol. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, it really boils down to this: is that how you would talk to someone whom you truly respect and esteem? Would you talk to your father, your grandfather, your grandmother, your boss, your mentor, your hero, your God.... would you talk to them that way? Then why talk to anyone that way? I fall short of this standard regularlyconstantly, but we all know it's the only standard that means anything, right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)amended, who am I kidding? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. Very well put, as usual. What do we do about those who have shown us nothing but meanness in the past, making assumption of good faith logically impossible, and vitiating true civility by making respect impossible? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

GTB, yes, I agree, it's much better not to say what others think. I did think the misunderstanding, and that one existed, were obvious here. Here is a good shortcut: WP:DPWIMM Don't Put Words In My Mouth. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a good shortcut. Thank you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to recommend (if you're really going to create the essay) "Don't put words in others' mouths". "Don't put words in my mouth" is a retort, and if people link to it in the middle of a conversation, I suspect it'd just inflame things further.

However, I've encountered this problem in the past, and it's more than just putting words in people's mouths; it's making assumptions about what their thoughts or motives are. I think it's a subcase of Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks, and advice about it would probably fit well on that page.--Father Goose (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably, yet having essays like that is really handy. Sometimes one says exactly what you want to say in exactly the way you want to say it. Having another one with something like the Antelan quote above sure can't hurt (: Or, I don't think it would hurt in all cases. A certain level of bluntness doesn't poison the atmosphere, but is just normal. It varies for people, but WP can't expect a totally gentle environment. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Polite provocation

Let's deal with that directly. Polite provocation- you have an example above with me an Antelan. I suspect that this is something which an admin would not be able to see clearly. They could come out on either side, Antelan provoking me, or me provoking Antelan. This would be based on various things, but never the whole or true picture. I'd think we might as well give up on this standard, because we are too far down the sliding scale of civility nebulousness there. Any admin who trusts their judgment enough to block in a lot of such cases is probably the very admin who you don't want doing the block, as bias is almost assured. So, let's either give up on this, or see how it could be applied fairly. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In the specific case above, I should have known better than to use "confusion" as an edit summary, and I should have stopped responding. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You have revealed an excellent way to describe the problem! Polite provocation. Just so, that's the problem that concerns me. How can we clarify that the problem is the provocation, the intention of upsetting somebody to gain control over them. That is what we must discourage. Jehochman ^Talk 00:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Especially when part of civility is not assuming -too much- what the other guy thinks. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You can have a user who specifically tries to provoke others into incivility, while being polite. That is improper behavior, but not incivility. It is no different than being obstinate or non-collaborative in content issues. The way to handle that is by pursuing DR against him, not sinking to his level or using incivility against him, and not by losing one's calm. Being nice and firm will always work. Crum375 (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I agree, but we're not talking about obvious cases here.... are we? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"Being nice and firm will always work" smacks of the Golden Rule of do unto others ... or teach by example. I can name at least one editor who is immune to civil treatment. I am more of a "Speak softly but carry a big stick" sort of guy ... only the stick needs to be in the hand of a checks and balance system of decision making. I like your urge for civility, though. But there really needs to be a real perception of risk for all of us. Tom Butler (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that responding to provocation with civility is best. That is the essence of don't feed the trolls. Perhaps this policy should note that editors should resist the urge to lash out in response to provocation because incivility feeds the trolls and breeds more incivility. However, if an editor makes this mistake, as many do, our response should be to support and inform them of better responses to de-escalate the conflict. Attention should be directed toward the source of provocation, because that is the root of the problem. Polite provocation may not be incivil, but may be disruptive. Jehochman ^Talk 01:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Crum375, you said "You can have a user who specifically tries to provoke others into incivility, while being polite." I don't agree with your understanding of politeness, which I see as running against the spirit of the language here. You can use polite language, but this alone doesn't ensure that you are being polite. Goading others into impoliteness is, on its face, impolite. Antelan^talk 02:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of levels. You're both right. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is no "right" and "wrong" here. There is "policy" and "not policy." Since we're trying to write a policy, it's important to work with a concerted understanding. In other words, I think that the notion that goading may be civil is not useful for the community. Antelan^talk 02:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think writing policy on areas like polite provocation, goading, and baiting could be a mistake. This kind of policy is not concrete in terms of what the policy actually means, and highly subjective in terms of judgment. The potential for abuse is great, because these terms are so subjective in their interpretation. I've seen people consider completely innocent remarks as bait, and consistent, tenacious, editing as provocative just because the so called provoker had the stamina to keep working on something when others quit. If you put a hook and bait in the water and the fish doesn't bite, you go somewhere else to find a fish that will take your bait. If baiting is going on, don't bite, and the baiter will have to go somewhere else for their fun. Yes, it takes control but probably most editors are adult. We can't regulate everything. The more we regulate the less responsibility editors have for their behaviour.(olive (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC))

It's just as important, and probably moreso, than "polite language", which some people misconstrue as the end-all of civility. Antelan^talk 20:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, incivility has come from content disputes. The rules indicate what is intended by Wikipedia founders, but they are sufficiently ambiguous that groups can bias results and make that bias stick by overpowering minority groups. The abuse of policy is seldom blatant, but the result is cumulative. The interaction between groups of differing viewpoints becomes strained over time and the results of that are also cumulative--as MartinPhi has pointed out.

My recent encounters with a group with a different viewpoint concerning civility began with what appeared to be an expression of frustration by a "mainstream proponent" by resorting to an attack of the mentality of "believers." This seemed to follow the motto of, "If all else fails, attack the person." What was amazing to me was that so many editors agreed with the sentiment, and I have seen a growing trend to quickly remove blocks on this person accompanied by accusations against the complainant, making it less likely that editors will report the offending editor for incivility again. This is the desensitization of what violates the civil rule that I talked about earlier. At least for that interest group, it is now okay to call people who believe in something they do not, morons, wackos and such.

I agree that there needs to be a line drawn. I also think that it is time to experiment, rather than simply surrender to how impossible it is to manage. For instance, any clear attack on a person or group of people should be easily reported and easily responded to with prescribed penalties that cannot be commuted. As has been said here a number of times, there is no excuse for incivility. Provoked should be punished in the same way as unprovoked insults.

Taking a longer view, there needs to be a way to solicit help in a protracted content dispute before it becomes a heated situation. In the example of a person insisting that a person is to be described as a research physicist, a person with a reputation of being a parliamentarian and/or judge could probably have mediated the situation by giving a opinion of the rules. There are rules for all of these things--when a person can figure out how to find them. It might be worth a try to see if we can have a referee to decide whether or not the rules are being applied as intended. Tom Butler (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Such things are again, a symptom of frustration. We are trying to build an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, there are people that want to insert superstition and nonsense into it. Many of us think that this should be a trivial issue: once an editor is shown to treat subjects like Homeopathy or Electronic voice phenomena as factual, and that that he inserts treatment into Wikipedia articles, the appropriate response is a block, quickly upgraded to a lifetime ban for repeated offenses. Instead, we are forced to treat these people as having a legitimate point of view, and deal with the knowledge that they will unceasingly attempt to degrade and destroy Wikipedia. Dealing with it every day becomes tiresome, and does lead to short tempers. Again, incivility is, in general, a symptom of an underlying problem. Attempting to make sure that editors are civil is important, and blocks are appropriate. But don't you think the incivility would have been avoided if the editor could have fixed the underlying problem?

The particular case you are talking about had another aspect of our civility policy that is troubling. If a charlatan or an idiot writes a book or runs a website, it's perfectly legitimate to object to using that book or website as a source. It's even legitimate to state that the reason you object to the book is because the author is a charlatan. If that charlatan creates an Wikipedia account, does he suddenly become immune to criticism?Kww (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Kww, you are wrong on several levels. First, civility should be always maintained by everyone, and there is no excuse ever for violating it. Second, if you are frustrated over a content dispute, the proper way to handle it is to stay nice and firm, not to lose your cool. If you do the latter, you'll get nowhere; if you maintain your cool, you'll either be able to compromise on the content, or need to pursue DR. There are no magic shortcuts. Calling people "idiots" makes one suspect your own objectivity and professionalism. Wikipedia is not about absolute facts, or truths — it is about finding and presenting the best possible sources relating to the subject, and presenting them neutrally. That someone believes in ghosts, or angels, or paranormal phenomena, or miracles, or supernatural powers, or religion, does not make them unwelcome here. All of us together need to collaborate to find the best sources and present them properly. Period. Crum375 (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

First, Crum375, I did not lose my cool over this issue, while I do find it frustrating. Second, you should note that I did not call for banning users that believe in homeopathy/EVP ...I called for eventually banning users who repeatedly treat homeopathy or EVP as factual inside of Wikipedia articles. A significant difference. And third, you should note that the NPOV on things considered absurd by mainstream science (such as homeopathy), is that they are false. If someone cannot deal with that, and persists on editing the articles to present them in a favorable light, that's a problem.

And fourth, how many times are you going to skip over sentences like attempting to make sure that editors are civil is important, and blocks are appropriate without appearing to notice them? I'm simply saying that when you see two people in a fight, it's important to address both the fighting and the underlying source of the fight. In the cases that I see most often (which, despite what people think, is not SA every time), it's a tired and frustrated editor dealing with a problem that he cannot solve, because the only solution is banning his opponent. That's a procedure that takes from years to forever, when it should be a matter of weeks. I remember how hard it was to get rid of Sadi Carnot, and that was a clear cut case of fraud. When it comes to people that simply persist on misinterpreting sources and ignoring reality, it's much, much, much harder.Kww (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Kww, I agree with much of what you say, though not all. Yes, per NPOV we can't include extreme minority or fringe views. Once that's established, and someone persists in pushing such views, it becomes disruptive and is blockable, in principle. I agree with you also that extreme views are often pushed by extremist editors, who tend to be more tendentious and obnoxious, and harder to rein in. The process of dealing with such editors and views is far from streamlined, and can unfortunately be long and painful to all. However, when there is a dispute, civility rules apply equally to all sides, regardless of their POV. The side that remains cool and collected, is more likely to prevail, and incivility will generally only prolong the effort to get articles into NPOV status. Crum375 (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly so. There are clear tactical advantages to remaining civil, which I have tried to point out to fellow reality-based editors. A common problem is that people slide over the line from saying that something is a crazy idea, to saying that the editor proposing it is crazy. Yet I have friends and family members who believe in various forms of New Age twaddle and are otherwise intelligent people. I find it helps to remember that when editing fringe articles. In our supposedly scientific era most people -- even people that we like and respect -- simply don't look at the world in a rational, scientific way. It was Richard Feynman who wrote "But even today I meet lots of people who sooner or later get me into a conversation about UFO's, or astrology, or some form of mysticism, expanded consciousness, new types of awareness, ESP, and so forth. And I've concluded that it's not a scientific world."[1] Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Kww, you overstate the problem. Yes, there are a few editors who want to treat their pet subject as fact. But, for example, Tom has never wanted that. He's wanted it to be treated with dignity, but he has not wanted to violate our sourcing, notability, or NPOV rules. I think that you would find that merely treating these things with dignity, as you did on Bleep, would take care of most of the problem. Instead, we have editors wanting to call things balderdash, as you originally wanted to do on Bleep. That's the major problem- civility is a huge and broad category, and reaches even into NPOV. Because, how civil is it to treat a subject with derision? Kww is very capable of keeping cool, and of being NPOV. And when he did, the problem was resolved.

If you look at the sourcing policy, you'll find it very contextual, also. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As to Tom's call to experiment, I've thought that (outside) juries might be a good idea .... ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested in Tom's idea as well on outside juries.(olive (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC))

We already have a mediation process - but it doesn't work if one of the parties to the dispute refuses to abide by the mediation - which is exactly what happened in the article Tom was using as an example. The bottom line is, imho, admins need to be more willing to pull the trigger on disruptive and tendentious editing, even if it is in favor of a POV with which they agree.

I don't believe there is really such a thing as 'polite provocation' that should result in sanctions, and if such a thing does exist, I would like to see an example of it before we change our policy in response to this supposed problem. Dlabtot (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean a POV with which they don't agree? Kww's statement above is strange, in that it acts as if we present subjects in a favorable or disfavorable light, and as if one could neutrally take a stand on whether something is right or not. That's SPOV, not NPOV, and the community seems sure there is a big difference. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I mean exactly what I said. I'm not sure what is unclear about it. Dlabtot (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Martin, you know that the Pseudoscience resulted in a decision which essentially aligns SPOV and NPOV in the case of pseudoscience. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. There is no way to implement that principle without making a distinction between legitimate scientific disagreement and, by extension, illegitimate disagreement.

We take stands on whether something is right all the time. The Sun is a star, oxygen is an element, vials that don't contain a single molecule of a substance don't contain any of that substance, etc.Kww (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah. the locus was mainstream science articles, not articles like Homeopathy and EVP. What you are citing is about inclusion of alternative theories in scientific articles. What it actually says is "We don't talk much about Creationism in the Evolution article, or Homeopathy in mainstream medicine articles." It doesn't say "we present fringe ideas from a mainstream POV because they make claims about the world and that means they are science." Note that they were fully aware of the possibility of an overly broad interpretation:

" Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Enough

Might I point out that this is way, way off topic? It's pretty clear that the paranormal dispute bleeding onto this talk page is not going to result in a change to the policy (and if it does, it should be reverted because there will never be a consensus to edit the policy to take sides on the paranormal issue). Take this to Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon or wherever it needs to be discussed. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I will be happy to step out of this conversation, as I expect Kww/SA had hoped. "Zealot" is a not a kind tag, but it is the one that offered itself up when I went looking for the right word to describe a person who is willing to go so far to defend a viewpoint.

I doubt that you can change this article without considering content disputes. The above is off-subject only if you do not see it as an example of how the article needs to change. I assume you will understand if I take my concerns off-wiki. Tom Butler (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There actually is an on-topic point here, and I will use myself as an example so that no one can accuse me of being incivil towards anyone but myself. One thing that Tom and I have in common is that we are real people with real names... not Windwhisperer7347 or FootballLovingDwarf. If you want to call either of us on the phone, it doesn't take more than a few minutes of research to do that (I know that from experience, in my case). Assume that someone took objection to my practices as a Caribbean real-estate developer and decided that things I had written were unsuitable because my business prevented me from being objective about the topic (maybe "global warming" because I have a vested interested in development, or "coral reef preservation" because I have a vested interest in increasing the population of tropical islands). How far can that person go in lobbying against Kevin Wayne Williams before User:Kww can raise a civility complaint? If he calls Kevin a "reef-smashing land baron", can User:Kww take offense at all?Kww (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone made such a comment, we would probably ask them not to do it again. --Newbyguesses (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

First, paranormal civility disputes are totally on topic here, because they are one of the places where civility breaks down worst. What do you want, to discuss civility issues which arise over pokemon? Kww, would you take offense if you edited an article -whichever-, and a person who knew who you were and what you did continually talked about those evil nutcase realestate developers in the Caribbean? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I might be offended, but not have any particular right to do anything about it. If the article was unrelated to any objections he might have about me, I tend towards thinking that the edits would be clearly intended to inflame my anger, so I would aim towards calling it incivility. In the case where people were quoting my purely hypothetical thesis on the advantages of smashing coral reefs to make paving stones, I'm not sure my taking offense would either be the point or particularly relevant.Kww (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether you took offense or not, really wouldn't matter, the point is, an incessant repetition of such attacks would not be conducive to a collaborative working environment - as much for third parties as for the intended target of the attacks. Dlabtot (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)