Get consensus before such a change, this has been policy a long time |
Any pattern of incivility is a problem. doesn't have to be both a pattern and gross. This puts it in sync with "a few, minor" |
||
(150 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) | |||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{policy in a nutshell | Participate in a respectful and civil way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and avoid upsetting other editors whenever possible.}} |
{{policy in a nutshell | Participate in a respectful and civil way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and avoid upsetting other editors whenever possible.}} |
||
{{Policylist}} |
{{Policylist}} |
||
Our [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedia community]] has a number of [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|core principles]], developed through experience. The most important states that articles should be written from a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]. After that, we request a reasonable degree of '''civility''' towards others. |
|||
'''Civility''' is one of Wikipedia's [[WP:5P|core principles]]. While other core principles give strict guidelines as to the content of articles, the civility policy is a code of conduct, setting out how you should interact with other editors. All editors are expected to be civil to all of their fellow Wikipedians. Remaining civil, even during heated debates over content, keeps the focus on improving the encyclopedia. |
|||
'''Civility''' is a standard which all Wikipedians are expected to follow. It is, perhaps, easier to define its opposite, however: ''[[civility|incivility]]'', as defined on Wikipedia, consists of ''personally-targeted, belligerent behavior and persistent rudeness that results in an atmosphere of [[m:source of conflict|conflict]] and [[m:wikistress|stress]].'' This behavior and the ensuing atmosphere it creates is detrimental to the project, and is therefore to be avoided. |
|||
The community realizes that editors are human, capable of mistakes, and so a few, minor, isolated incidents are not in themselves a concern. A pattern of |
[[civility|Incivility]] consists of [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict. The community realizes that editors are human, capable of mistakes, and so a few, minor, isolated incidents of incivility are not in themselves a concern. A pattern of incivility is highly disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocks]]. A single act of incivility can also cross the line if severe enough: for instance, [[WP:NPA|extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor]], or a threat against another person can all be extreme enough to result in blocks without the need to consider any patterns. However, this policy is not meant to be used as a weapon against other contributors: To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, [[Infraction|minor offense]], or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself disruptive, and may result in warnings or blocks. |
||
Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. This policy applies to all editing on Wikipedia, including [[Wikipedia:User page|user pages]], [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk pages]], edit summaries, and any other discussion with fellow Wikipedians. [[Common sense]] should be used to decide what is appropriate and inappropriate in specific situations, and when [[WP:ADMIN|administrative action]] (such as [[WP:BLOCK|blocking]], [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions|topic bans]], or [[Wikipedia:Page protection|page protection]]) is required in relation to it. |
|||
This policy is not meant to be used as a weapon against other contributors. To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself disruptive, and may result in warnings or blocks. |
|||
== Co-operation and civility == |
== Co-operation and civility == |
||
{{seealso|Wikipedia:Consensus}} |
{{seealso|Wikipedia:Consensus}} |
||
Differences of opinion are inevitable in a collaborative project. When discussing these differences some editors, in trying to be forthright, can seem unnecessarily harsh. Other editors can seem oversensitive when their views are challenged. Silent and faceless words on talk pages and in edit summaries do not transmit fully the nuances of verbal conversation, sometimes leading to misinterpretation of an editor's comments. An uncivil remark can escalate spirited discussion into a personal argument that no longer focuses objectively on the problem at hand. Such exchanges waste our efforts and undermine a positive, productive working environment. Resolve differences of opinion through civil discussion; disagree without being disagreeable. |
|||
Wikipedia invites editors to improve text. Often there are differences of opinion over whether a change is an improvement. Editors, in trying to be clearly understood, can be unnecessarily harsh. Conversely, editors can also be oversensitive when they see their contribution replaced by an edit that is said to be better, despite a possible difference of opinion as to whether the replacement was truly an improvement. Community members may become interested in "triumphing" over the "enemy" instead of improving articles. |
|||
Editors are expected to be reasonably [[Wikipedia:Etiquette|cooperative]], to refrain from making [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attacks]], to work within the scope of [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policies]], and to be responsive to [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|good-faith]] questions. Try to treat your fellow editors as respected colleagues with whom you are working on an important project. Be especially welcoming of [[Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers|new users]]. |
|||
Silent and faceless words on talk pages and in edit summaries do not transmit fully the nuances of verbal conversation, sometimes leading to misinterpretation of an editor's comments. An uncivil remark can easily cause escalation into a heated discussion that no longer focuses objectively on the editing problem at hand. These exchanges waste our efforts and they undermine and erode a positive, productive working environment. Attempts should always be made to solve possible disagreements through a civil discussion. |
|||
Editors are expected to remain civil, refrain from making [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attacks]], operate within the scope of [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policies]], and are urged to be responsive to [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|good-faith]] questions. |
|||
== Engaging in incivility == |
== Engaging in incivility == |
||
{{seealso|Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts|Wikipedia:No personal attacks}} |
|||
These behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment: |
These behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment: |
||
* Rudeness |
* Rudeness |
||
* Insults and name calling. |
* Insults and name calling. Comment on the actions and not the editor |
||
* Referring to other editors' good-faith changes as vandalism.<ref>Use your best judgment when sending warnings of [[wikipedia:vandalism|vandalism]] and using templates. Poor judgement might lead to templates being posted without due investigation and in error which can leave another User unfairly branded and unhappy. The removal of a warning template from a user talk page is considered as an indication that the warning will be heeded, and acted upon appropriately, by the appropriate User.</ref> ''See [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]] for what constitutes vandalism on Wikipedia'' |
|||
* Judgmental tone in edit summaries (e.g. "snipped rambling crap") or talk-page posts ("that's the stupidest thing I've ever seen") |
* Judgmental tone in edit summaries (e.g. "snipped rambling crap") or talk-page posts ("that's the stupidest thing I've ever seen") |
||
* Gross [[profanity]] directed at another contributor |
* Gross [[profanity]] or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor |
||
* Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice |
* Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice |
||
* [[Wiktionary:taunt|Taunting]]; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves |
* [[Wiktionary:taunt|Taunting]]; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves |
||
Line 33: | Line 28: | ||
* Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors |
* Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors |
||
* Quoting another editor [[Fallacy of quoting out of context|out-of-context]] in order to give the impression that he or she hold views they do not hold, or in order to malign them |
* Quoting another editor [[Fallacy of quoting out of context|out-of-context]] in order to give the impression that he or she hold views they do not hold, or in order to malign them |
||
* Indecent suggestions |
|||
* Making [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attacks]], including but not limited to racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs |
* Making [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attacks]], including but not limited to racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs |
||
* Using derogatory language towards other contributors or in general referring to groups such as social classes, nationalities, ethnic groups, religious groups, or others in a derogatory manner |
* Using derogatory language towards other contributors or in general referring to groups such as social classes, nationalities, ethnic groups, religious groups, or others in a derogatory manner |
||
* Feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb" |
* Feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb" |
||
As well, lack of care when applying other policies can lead to conflict and stress. For instance, referring to a user's good-faith edits as [[WP:VANDAL|vandalism]] may lead to them feeling unfairly attacked. Use your best judgement, and be ready to apologize if you turn out to be wrong. |
|||
== Why incivility is inappropriate == |
|||
{{seealso|Wikipedia:No personal attacks}} |
|||
Incivility creates a hot, unfriendly space, and a sense of threat. With civility, respect and a sense of safety and collegiality between all concerned is created, producing ample room for negotiation. Incivility may put editors on the defensive, may create closed-mindedness to multiple, alternative ideas, and can help to prevent a [[Wikipedia:consensus|consensus]] from forming. |
|||
A more serious consequence of incivility may be that an editor becomes so unhappy that he or she leaves [[Wikipedia]]. Wikipedia is at heart an online community. To maintain the effectiveness of the community, all members must be civil to one another and remember why they have joined the community in the first place. Editors should strive to create an environment that supports other editors and that does not encourage or support breaches of incivility. All contributors are expected to [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]] towards each other (within reason), in order to try to uphold a reasonably civil atmosphere. |
|||
Editors can apply peer pressure by voicing displeasure each time rudeness or incivility occurs; however, some care is required: If the comment is read as an insult, or seems to belittle another editor; the situation could be inflamed further. Peer pressure works best when it comes from friends or people the editor already trusts or respects. |
|||
== Situations that may foster incivility == |
|||
{{seealso|Wikipedia:Etiquette}} |
|||
*Incivility can occur, for example, when you are creating a new page, and another user tells you, "''If you're going to write a pointless page, could you spell-check it?''" And escalation occurs when you reply, "''Get lost!''" This style of interaction between Wikipedians drives away contributors, distracts others from more important matters, and weakens the entire community. |
|||
*Incivility can occur during an edit war, when editors have differing opinions, or when there is a conflict based on power. |
|||
*As the community grows larger, editors may not know all other editors, and may not perceive the importance of each individual to the project. |
|||
*In a larger community editors may be more able to hide less than positive reputations than is possible in a smaller community. |
|||
*Sometimes, a particularly impolite user joins the project. This can also aggravate other editors, and impair the collaborative environment. Editors may find themselves becoming upset in such an environment, and may themselves engage in less than civil behaviour. |
|||
*Editors may use insults in the heat of the moment during a longer conflict. The person who made the insult may regret having used such words afterwards. |
|||
*In other cases, insults may be deliberate and could be used to either distract other editors from the issue, or to simply drive them away from working on the article or even from the Wikipedia project itself. |
|||
*Editors may be under pressure from external variables, and for example a lack of sleep may contribute to a loss of good judgment that can lead to speaking in socially unacceptable ways. Take a break from the issue if you sense your judgment may be lowered by any external variables. |
|||
== Dispute resolution == |
== Dispute resolution == |
||
{{seealso|Wikipedia:Dispute resolution}} |
{{seealso|Wikipedia:Dispute resolution}} |
||
In a case of ongoing incivility, first decide if anything needs to be done. Confronting someone over a very minor incident – particularly if it turns out that you misinterpreted what they meant – may produce more stress and drama than the incident itself. Consider your own behaviour, and, if you find you have been incivil, [[WP:Apology|apologise]] to them instead. |
|||
If some action is necessary, first consider discussing it on that user's talk page. Be careful not to escalate the situation, and explain your objection with unfailing politeness. You may also wish to include a [[WP:DIFF|diff]] of the specific uncivil statement. If you are in active dispute with the user, consider offering an [[olive branch]] to them instead. |
|||
[[ |
If the problem continues, the [[WP:mediation cabal|mediation cabal]] can be requested to intervene. The mediation cabal consists of volunteers who will work with all editors involved with the conflict, and attempt to decrease tensions and find a compromise. Alternatively, [[Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts|Wikiquette alerts]] is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors, and seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum. |
||
If previous attempts to solve the situation have failed, a ([[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users |Request for Comment on user conduct]]) (RfC) can be opened. RfCs are intended to discuss a specific user who has violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines persistently, or in a major way. During an RfC, scrutiny may be applied to all editors involved. The last step - only when other avenues, including RfC, have been tried and failed - is the [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]], who will scrutinise all sides involved in the dispute, and create binding resolutions. |
|||
For death threats, racist attacks, legal threats, threats of violence, and other cases where immediate action is required, use the [[WP:ANI|Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents page]] to contact the site's admins. |
|||
For death threats, racist attacks, threats of violence, [[WP:NLT|legal threats]], and other cases where immediate action is required, use the [[WP:ANI|Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents page]] to contact the site's admins. |
|||
The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration committee|Arbitration committee]] has given this advice to editors: ''pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption''. <!-- See- [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-11/Arbitration report]] --> |
|||
== |
==Personal attacks== |
||
{{seealso|Wikipedia:No personal attacks|Wikipedia:No legal threats}} |
|||
Civility is appropriate on all [[WP:UP|user pages]]. Wikipedia provides user pages to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia, and if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption. Observe community policies in user space. Do not make [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attacks]] in user space or elsewhere. |
|||
The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit, damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia, and may result in [[WP:BLOCK|blocks]]. |
|||
Do [[WP:UP#NOT|not include]] in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute. Inappropriate content on user pages may be removed. You should not reveal the personal information of other editors without their consent. |
|||
== Harassment and disclosing personal information (outing) == |
|||
{{seealso|Wikipedia:Harassment|Wikipedia:Outing}} |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Harassment|Harassment]] occurs when a particular user is "targeted" by another editor, and may include any untoward attention such as seeking to communicate inappropriately with that user, or contacting other persons (either on- or off-wiki) in order to cause harm to that user. Repeated instances of incivility, if unchecked, can also constitute harassment. |
|||
Because of privacy concerns, which apply to the Internet in general, editors (users) are encouraged not to supply superfluous identifying information about themselves, such as home address or telephone number. This minimizes the likelihood of spamming or harassment by outside parties. If personal information becomes available in such a way as to constitute a risk of harm to a user, the information can be deleted or [[Wikipedia:Requests for oversight|oversighted]] if necessary. |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Outing|Outing]] occurs when a particular editor's personal information is revealed by another editor without their explicit permission. |
|||
Editors who harass other users, publicly disclose personal information on another user, or enable the harassment of a user, may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] for doing so. |
|||
== No legal threats == |
|||
{{seealso|Wikipedia:No legal threats}} |
|||
You should always first attempt to resolve disputes using Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures. |
|||
Wikipedia cannot prevent editors from taking legal action if they feel they must do so. However, we require that you do not edit Wikipedia ''until the legal matter has been resolved'' to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels. |
|||
== Removal of uncivil comments == |
== Removal of uncivil comments == |
||
{{seealso|Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines}} |
{{seealso|Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|Wikipedia:Outing|Wikipedia:Oversight}} |
||
Where the incivil comment is yours, any of these options will help to reduce the impact: |
Where the incivil comment is yours, any of these options will help to reduce the impact: |
||
* Where someone is taking offense at your comment where none was intended, calmly explain what you meant. |
* Where someone is taking offense at your comment where none was intended, calmly explain what you meant. |
||
* Strike |
* Strike it out (using <s><s>HTML strikeout tags</s></s>), to show, publicly, that you withdraw the comment. |
||
* Quietly remove it, or rewrite the comment to be more civil - Usually only a good idea if you think better of it before anyone took offense to it. If someone has taken offense already, you should acknowledge the change in a quick comment after the changed text, for instance, ''Comment removed by author''. |
* Quietly remove it, or rewrite the comment to be more civil - Usually only a good idea if you think better of it before anyone took offense to it. If someone has taken offense already, you should acknowledge the change in a quick comment after the changed text, for instance, ''Comment removed by author''. |
||
* Simply apologise. This option ''never'' hurts, and can be combined well with any of the others. Even if you feel the thrust of your words is true, or that they are misunderstanding what you meant, you can still apologise for the offense caused. |
* Simply apologise. This option ''never'' hurts, and can be combined well with any of the others. Even if you feel the thrust of your words is true, or that they are misunderstanding what you meant, you can still apologise for the offense caused. |
||
In the event of rudeness or incivility on the part of |
In the event of rudeness or incivility on the part of another editor, it is usually appropriate to discuss the offending words with that editor, and to request that editor to change that specific wording. Some care is necessary, however, so as not to further inflame the situation. It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment. Exceptions include to remove obvious [[WP:TROLL|trolling]] or [[WP:VANDAL|vandalism]], or if the comment is on your own user talk page. |
||
A special case is [[WP:OUTING|outing]], that is, revealing information about another editor that they have not revealed themselves and probably do not want known, such as their name (if not revealed by the editor in question), phone number, or address. These should be immediately reverted, then an [[WP:OVERSIGHT|oversighter]] should be contacted to remove the information from the edit history, so that it cannot be found by anyone else later. This applies ''whether or not the information is correct'', as to confirm the information is incorrect by treating it any differently gives the outer useful information. [[Wikipedia:Outing]] has full information. |
|||
* Simply remove the offensive comments from talk pages (''since they remain in the page history, anyone can find them again or refer to them later on''). This is appropriate if the words appear to be vandalism.<ref>Revert an edit with &bot=1, so that the edit made by the offender appears invisible in Recent Changes (''do-able on ip contributions, requires technical help for logged-in user'').</ref> |
|||
* Delete (entirely and permanently) an edit made by the offender (''requires technical help''). |
|||
* Permanently delete an offensive comment made on the mailing lists (''requires technical help''). |
|||
* Replace a comment made in an edit summary by another less offensive comment (''requires technical help''). |
|||
== Apologizing == |
|||
== Preventing incivility within Wikipedia == |
|||
{{seealso|Wikipedia:Be nice|Wikipedia:Apology}} |
|||
Several policies and guidelines seek to lessen the disruption and drama caused by incivility and [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT|problems with editors not listening to each other]]. Policies such as our [[WP:NPA|No Personal Attack policy]], and [[WP:HARASS|Harassment policy]] set firm lines. Anyone crossing those lines cannot expect to escape retribution. [[WP:3RR|The three-revert rule]] seeks to place firm limits on [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit-warring]]. [[WP:BLOCK|Blocks]] allow disruptive editors to be prevented from editing, and topic bans allow otherwise productive editors to be prevented from editing the few pages or topics which regularly incite them to disruptive behaviour. |
|||
For broader issues, [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]] allows admins to stop editing on an article in heated and unproductive dispute (to allow editors time to calm down), and the [[WP:RFM|the mediation cabal]] and other forms of [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] exist to step in and attempt to solve the root of problems between editors, or suggest compromises. |
|||
== Considerations ''concerning'' civility == |
|||
{{seealso|Wikipedia:Etiquette}} |
|||
Treat your fellow editor as a respected and admired colleague, who is working in collaboration with you on an important project. |
|||
=== Personally reducing the impact === |
|||
These suggestions may help you maintain civility in the face of difficulties. Use common sense and personal preferences to choose an appropriate option, or create a solution that better suits the specific situation you find yourself in. |
|||
* Balance criticisms by providing constructive comments. |
|||
* If possible forget about offensive comments without replying, and forgive the editor. Do not escalate the conflict. |
|||
* Alternatively, respond to perceived incivility with greater civility and respect. Many editors will then moderate their tone to match yours. |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Be nice|Please]]. [[Wikipedia:Thank you|Thank you]]. I'm [[Wikipedia:Apology|sorry]]. You're welcome. You're a good person and I know we'll work this out. Treat your fellow editor as a respected and admired colleague, who is working in collaboration with you on an important project. |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Don't take the bait|Walk away]]. Wikipedia is a very big place. Just go edit somewhere else for a while and return when tempers have cooled. |
|||
* You do not have to like an editor as a person to appreciate that they are also working for the good of the project. If you do not like a fellow editor, try not to hold that fact against them. |
|||
=== Apologizing === |
|||
{{seealso|Wikipedia:Be nice}} |
|||
Disputes, and even misunderstandings, can lead to situations in which one party feels injured by the other. The [[meta:apology | apology]] is a form of ritual exchange between both parties, where words are said that allow reconciliation. |
Disputes, and even misunderstandings, can lead to situations in which one party feels injured by the other. The [[meta:apology | apology]] is a form of ritual exchange between both parties, where words are said that allow reconciliation. |
||
Line 141: | Line 71: | ||
For some people, it may be crucial to receive an apology from those who have offended them. ''Demanding'' an apology is almost never helpful and often inflames the situation further, though a polite, good-faith ''request'' for an apology may be acceptable. ''Offering'' an apology is even better, and can be a key to resolving conflict. An apology provides the opportunity for a fresh start, and can clear the air when one person's perceived incivility has offended another. |
For some people, it may be crucial to receive an apology from those who have offended them. ''Demanding'' an apology is almost never helpful and often inflames the situation further, though a polite, good-faith ''request'' for an apology may be acceptable. ''Offering'' an apology is even better, and can be a key to resolving conflict. An apology provides the opportunity for a fresh start, and can clear the air when one person's perceived incivility has offended another. |
||
== Footnotes == |
|||
<references/> |
|||
== See also == |
== See also == |
||
* [[Wikipedia:No legal threats]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Harassment]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Outing]] |
|||
* [[Ethic of reciprocity]] |
* [[Ethic of reciprocity]] |
||
* [[Wikipedia:Honesty]] |
* [[Wikipedia:Honesty]] |
||
* [[Wikipedia:How to be civil]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:An uncivil environment is a poor environment]] |
* [[Wikipedia:An uncivil environment is a poor environment]] |
||
* [[Wikipedia:Be reasonable]] |
* [[Wikipedia:Be reasonable]] |
||
* [[Wikipedia:Don't be inconsiderate]] |
|||
* [[User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism]] |
* [[User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism]] |
||
* [[:Category:User essays on civility]] |
* [[:Category:User essays on civility]] |
Revision as of 21:14, 21 September 2008
Civility is one of Wikipedia's core principles. While other core principles give strict guidelines as to the content of articles, the civility policy is a code of conduct, setting out how you should interact with other editors. All editors are expected to be civil to all of their fellow Wikipedians. Remaining civil, even during heated debates over content, keeps the focus on improving the encyclopedia.
Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict. The community realizes that editors are human, capable of mistakes, and so a few, minor, isolated incidents of incivility are not in themselves a concern. A pattern of incivility is highly disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks. A single act of incivility can also cross the line if severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person can all be extreme enough to result in blocks without the need to consider any patterns. However, this policy is not meant to be used as a weapon against other contributors: To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself disruptive, and may result in warnings or blocks.
Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. This policy applies to all editing on Wikipedia, including user pages, talk pages, edit summaries, and any other discussion with fellow Wikipedians. Common sense should be used to decide what is appropriate and inappropriate in specific situations, and when administrative action (such as blocking, topic bans, or page protection) is required in relation to it.
Co-operation and civility
Differences of opinion are inevitable in a collaborative project. When discussing these differences some editors, in trying to be forthright, can seem unnecessarily harsh. Other editors can seem oversensitive when their views are challenged. Silent and faceless words on talk pages and in edit summaries do not transmit fully the nuances of verbal conversation, sometimes leading to misinterpretation of an editor's comments. An uncivil remark can escalate spirited discussion into a personal argument that no longer focuses objectively on the problem at hand. Such exchanges waste our efforts and undermine a positive, productive working environment. Resolve differences of opinion through civil discussion; disagree without being disagreeable.
Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions. Try to treat your fellow editors as respected colleagues with whom you are working on an important project. Be especially welcoming of new users.
Engaging in incivility
These behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment:
- Rudeness
- Insults and name calling. Comment on the actions and not the editor
- Judgmental tone in edit summaries (e.g. "snipped rambling crap") or talk-page posts ("that's the stupidest thing I've ever seen")
- Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor
- Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice
- Taunting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves
- Ill-considered accusations of impropriety; for instance, calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel
- Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors
- Quoting another editor out-of-context in order to give the impression that he or she hold views they do not hold, or in order to malign them
- Making personal attacks, including but not limited to racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs
- Using derogatory language towards other contributors or in general referring to groups such as social classes, nationalities, ethnic groups, religious groups, or others in a derogatory manner
- Feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb"
As well, lack of care when applying other policies can lead to conflict and stress. For instance, referring to a user's good-faith edits as vandalism may lead to them feeling unfairly attacked. Use your best judgement, and be ready to apologize if you turn out to be wrong.
Dispute resolution
In a case of ongoing incivility, first decide if anything needs to be done. Confronting someone over a very minor incident – particularly if it turns out that you misinterpreted what they meant – may produce more stress and drama than the incident itself. Consider your own behaviour, and, if you find you have been incivil, apologise to them instead.
If some action is necessary, first consider discussing it on that user's talk page. Be careful not to escalate the situation, and explain your objection with unfailing politeness. You may also wish to include a diff of the specific uncivil statement. If you are in active dispute with the user, consider offering an olive branch to them instead.
If the problem continues, the mediation cabal can be requested to intervene. The mediation cabal consists of volunteers who will work with all editors involved with the conflict, and attempt to decrease tensions and find a compromise. Alternatively, Wikiquette alerts is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors, and seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum.
If previous attempts to solve the situation have failed, a (Request for Comment on user conduct) (RfC) can be opened. RfCs are intended to discuss a specific user who has violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines persistently, or in a major way. During an RfC, scrutiny may be applied to all editors involved. The last step - only when other avenues, including RfC, have been tried and failed - is the Arbitration Committee, who will scrutinise all sides involved in the dispute, and create binding resolutions.
For death threats, racist attacks, threats of violence, legal threats, and other cases where immediate action is required, use the Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents page to contact the site's admins.
Personal attacks
The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit, damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia, and may result in blocks.
Removal of uncivil comments
Where the incivil comment is yours, any of these options will help to reduce the impact:
- Where someone is taking offense at your comment where none was intended, calmly explain what you meant.
- Strike it out (using <s>
HTML strikeout tags</s>), to show, publicly, that you withdraw the comment. - Quietly remove it, or rewrite the comment to be more civil - Usually only a good idea if you think better of it before anyone took offense to it. If someone has taken offense already, you should acknowledge the change in a quick comment after the changed text, for instance, Comment removed by author.
- Simply apologise. This option never hurts, and can be combined well with any of the others. Even if you feel the thrust of your words is true, or that they are misunderstanding what you meant, you can still apologise for the offense caused.
In the event of rudeness or incivility on the part of another editor, it is usually appropriate to discuss the offending words with that editor, and to request that editor to change that specific wording. Some care is necessary, however, so as not to further inflame the situation. It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment. Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling or vandalism, or if the comment is on your own user talk page.
A special case is outing, that is, revealing information about another editor that they have not revealed themselves and probably do not want known, such as their name (if not revealed by the editor in question), phone number, or address. These should be immediately reverted, then an oversighter should be contacted to remove the information from the edit history, so that it cannot be found by anyone else later. This applies whether or not the information is correct, as to confirm the information is incorrect by treating it any differently gives the outer useful information. Wikipedia:Outing has full information.
Apologizing
Disputes, and even misunderstandings, can lead to situations in which one party feels injured by the other. The apology is a form of ritual exchange between both parties, where words are said that allow reconciliation.
For some people, it may be crucial to receive an apology from those who have offended them. Demanding an apology is almost never helpful and often inflames the situation further, though a polite, good-faith request for an apology may be acceptable. Offering an apology is even better, and can be a key to resolving conflict. An apology provides the opportunity for a fresh start, and can clear the air when one person's perceived incivility has offended another.
See also
- Wikipedia:No legal threats
- Wikipedia:Harassment
- Wikipedia:Outing
- Ethic of reciprocity
- Wikipedia:Honesty
- Wikipedia:How to be civil
- Wikipedia:An uncivil environment is a poor environment
- Wikipedia:Be reasonable
- Wikipedia:Don't be inconsiderate
- User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism
- Category:User essays on civility