Incivility is difficult to deal with. One of the reasons is because there is a school of thought that a certain level of frankness and brusqueness is necessary in a place like Wikipedia. The trouble with that is that people draw the line in different places, partly due to cultural differences, partly due to personal levels of what they will accept. Some people also treat this as a matter of principle, rather than as one of being nice. The way I would describe it (though you really need to find an exponent of this view to describe it properly, as I don't support this view myself) is that it is more honest to say what you really think in simple language, than to dissemble and use careful and diplomatic language to essentially say the same thing. I favour the latter approach until a certain tipping point is reached, and will then be more frank myself. I can see the point people are making when they say that being more forthright earlier on and consistently on a matter of principle is better, but the end result tends to be the same. Hurt feelings all round for those who don't get that viewpoint, and those who have a tendency towards the more brusque approach sometimes (not always) being baited by those who like winding people up. The other effect, most damagingly of all, is that the 'community' (which is a localised, nebulous entity that is in flux at the best of times and varies depending on location and timing) ends up polarised over the issue. So you get periodic flare-ups, exacerbated by the nature of online communications (the lack of body language to and verbal tone) and the lack of empathy for others that some who are drawn to Wikipedia exhibit. Carcharoth On 4/16/13, Kathleen McCook <klmccook(a)gmail.com> wrote: