Wikipedia:Civility: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:48, 21 September 2008

This page documents an English Wikipedia policy.

It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus.

Shortcuts

This page 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.

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 gross 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 warnings or a block without any 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, consider discussion on that user's talk page, not to escalate the situation, but to explain your objection. Be polite. You may also wish to include a diff of the specific uncivil statement.

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 the problem continues and further action is required, a (Request for Comment on user conduct) (RfC) can be requested. 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 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, 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 and 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 them 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 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.

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 [[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 gross 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 warnings or a block without any 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 [[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:Topic bans|topic bans]], or [[Wikipedia:Page protection|page protection]]) is required in relation to it.
+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.
 == Co-operation and civility ==