![]() | This page in a nutshell: Editors should treat others with consideration and respect, especially avoiding words that are negative, inflammatory, and do not benefit the project. Even in heated debates, editors should behave calmly and reasonably, and keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia to help maintain a pleasant editing environment. Editors should take account of the feelings of others, allow for possible misunderstandings, be conciliatory, not over-react, and aim to calmly resolve issues if they are unable to be ignored. While incivility is often best ignored, extreme/gross incivility or an established pattern of incivility can be disruptive and may lead to warnings or blocks, especially if it reaches the point of personal attack or harassment. |
Civility is one of Wikipedia's five pillars and a core policy on editors' on-wiki conduct. The civility policy describes the standard of behavior expected of users when talking to (or referring to) other users, and appropriate ways of dealing with problems that may arise. It applies to all interactions on Wikipedia, including on user and article talk pages, in edit summaries, and anywhere else on the wiki.
The Wikipedia culture is one of mutual respect and finding ways to work with other users. Users with a criticism of another user should either talk to that user, ignore that user, or seek dispute resolution if there is evidence of a genuine concern. Users who instead express their disapproval of another user or their actions in a personally directed, provocative, crude or disruptive manner unlikely to aid the project or resolve any personal differences, are likely to be in breach of this policy.
On Wikipedia, incivility generally involves pointed comments that do not objectively aid the dialog or set out facts. Uncivil words or comments usually meet the following criteria:
Targets someone: | targets a specific user or real-world peoples, either directly or by implication; |
Is usually negative: | usually (but not always) phrased in such a way as to be taken as disparaging, insulting, innuendo, unpleasant, or egregiously offensive by ordinary people if they were in the target's situation, or implies something of this kind in the context; |
Improper character: | unlikely to help inspire the calm evidence-based collaborative handling of a matter, but instead appear intended to inflame emotions, or for their negative effect on the target or those sympathetic to the group; |
Lacks project benefit: | objectively the wording or style chosen seems to have little or no project benefit - ie unlike a reasoned critique, nothing seems gained from the wording or style except personal satisfaction from the inclusion of the uncivil words, implication, or statement (for example a rhetorical or over-aggressive question, smear, slur, or insult); |
Meets the "redaction test": | could easily be removed or paraphrased without loss of any material significant to the project debate. |
For civility purposes, broad judgmental characterizations of a person's general actions on-wiki, or in some area of the project, and claims of what "some people may think" about a person, are effectively the same as a general comment about that person.
Incivility is often due to frustration and often best ignored or gently asked to stop. Do not over-react to trivial lapses or brief frustration that will quickly blow over, as this can cause matters to escalate. However a user who grossly or repeatedly engages in incivility may be warned or blocked as below. Incivility is also blockable when it reaches the level of personal attacks, outing, harassment or disruption, as described in those policies.
Civility is not a weapon or game to use in undermining other contributors. Users are expected to act in ways that help to create a positive editing environment. Wording (however called) that tends to breach the criteria is cause for a change in behavior, and persistent "verging on the edge" or subtle but repeated disparagement will tend to be seen as gaming the system".
By the same token civility does not prevent appropriate expression of criticism and negative views. A user whose contributions are harmful, who does genuinely appear to be edit warring, or who may face administrator action, can be told this in a forthright plain manner by anyone.
Civility covers how negative views about other users and their conduct are expressed. In general users are expected to:
Civility is not a weapon or game to use in undermining other contributors, nor is it an "optional" courtesy that may be given to some people but not others. All editors are expected to show civility to all other editors (even those they dislike) in all of their activities on-wiki.
Especially, conduct calculated to game civility and get an advantage by undermining, baiting, or unhelpfully provoking opponents in a dispute, or making unwarranted aggressive claims and allegations, will often be seen as uncivil and can result in warnings or even blocks. Examples include (but are not limited to): - insisting that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated minor offense or error, mischaracterizing constructive criticism as an attack, and posting unreasonable and/or invalid warning notices to users.
Incivility disrupts the project and leads to unproductive stress and conflict. Editors are human and capable of mistakes, so a few minor incidents of incivility are not in themselves of much concern and can be ignored. In general, listen to others' views and focus on the editorial issue not the personal matter, if someone is rude. Try to draw conversation back to a non-confrontational position rather than accusatory.
In more serious cases, a pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable. A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse, profanity, or threats.
If attempts to disengage, (reasonably) discuss or ignore, or asking the other person to stop, are unsuccessful then seek help at the Wikiquette noticeboard or for more serious matters seek mediation or other dispute resolution, or present the facts at the administrator's incident noticeboard and ask for administrator assistance.
This list should be used with care. It is extremely easy to assume someone is speaking improperly when there is a genuine misunderstanding. The first step should always be a calm response - ask the user to clarify and politely ask them to not to use such terms (or not make the assumptions or mis-statements) about you. That said, the following are the most common forms of incivility that are encountered:
A number of behaviors may also more seriously be seen as personal attacks or harassment.
Incivility – or the appearance of incivility – typically arises from heated content disputes. The following can help reduce the chance that you will be perceived as uncivil:
First and foremost consider ignoring it (and not by making a point about doing so). Try to refocus the discussion on the content issues. Bear in mind that the editor may not have considered it uncivil - Wikipedia is edited by people from many different backgrounds, and standards vary. Only take things to dispute resolution if there is an ongoing problem you can't resolve.
Differences of opinion are inevitable in a collaborative project. Some editors' discussion style can seem unnecessarily harsh or abrasive. Others can seem oversensitive or fixed when their views are challenged. Do not automatically assume that the faceless words on a web page always transmit fully and accurately the nuances of verbal conversation; for this reason assuming good faith and responding thoughtfully to others' good-faith questions is essential. An uncivil remark can escalate spirited discussion into a personal argument that no longer focuses objectively on the content issue. Such exchanges waste our efforts and undermine a positive, productive working environment. Editors are expected to disagree as adults, without acting disagreeably.
These approaches are often used by experienced editors when they need to comment on conduct:
In escalating order of seriousness, here are the usual means of Wikipedia dispute resolution if discussion on the article talk page is insufficient.
Administrator help may also be requested at the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents.
This is usually because there are ongoing problems with an editor and usual measures (dialog and Wikiquette alerts) have not led to any improvement.
It is also the preferred route where the problem has gone beyond incivility into serious disruption, harassment or the like, and immediate action is needed – Examples include a "deluge" of extreme gross incivility (especially if combined with other significant issues such as clear edit warring or ongoing disruption), death threats, racist attacks, threats of violence, legal threats, and other similar cases.
Specialist administrator noticeboards exist for any user to report edit warring/3RR, ongoing serious vandalism, sock-puppetry concerns, and arbitration enforcement.
Unless there are specific reasons making it worthwhile, it is usually inappropriate to edit other users' comments. (If they were, users would end up fighting by editing each others posts. It also helps that other users can see the dispute fully in future.)
It will usually be taken badly if you edit or remove comments by people you are in dispute with as being "uncivil". Generally the risk of making it worse outweighs the benefits. Exception – you have discretion to remove posts on your own talk page. If you do, use a civil edit summary.
Blatant grossly offensive posts, trolling and vandalism by users who are clearly not editing seriously can be removed by anyone (including the target if the case is clear).
Item | Relevant policies and guidelines |
---|---|
Personal information, harassment, defamation | Outing, Harassment, Oversight ( requests) |
Personal attacks | Personal attacks policy and Speedy delete criteria (for "attack pages") |
Uncivil material in userspace | While considerable tolerance is granted in userspace, see User page contents for norms on acceptability |
Uncivil vandalism | Vandalism |
Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material, and purely disruptive material of little or no project value (in any page, username, or log entry) |
Revision Deletion tool: Criteria for redaction |
Although cultural and personal norms vary enormously there are good reasons why civility is a core policy for all Wikipedia editors.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where users edit for the project's benefit. Most academic journals and many legislative bodies have a civility norm to allow groups of people to get on productively despite any personal differences. The Wikipedia community has its equivalent for very similar reasons.
Editors are generally not blocked or even warned for minor incivility. Other forms of dispute resolution are preferred, including explanation, gentle comments, advising parties to take the "higher road" of ignoring, and similar approaches. Often it can help for a capable third party to explain (calmly and carefully) what's wrong or where the misunderstanding is, what the community's norms are, what is best, and how to handle it if it repeats or continues. Then leave both users to work it out from there.
In serious, gross, or repeated instances where there is a problem, civility can rise to the point of disruption and a line may need to be drawn or explanation given. Understand that the user may feel entirely right and justified, may feel provoked themselves; the job here is to explain calmly and dispassionately what the problem is and what they need to do (and how they can get help if required). It may be necessary to point out that if the issue continues other users may take action, but dwelling on this or making it sound like a "threat" or "warning" is usually unnecessary. A personal note takes a lot of the 'sting' from a warning.
In more serious cases where a firm or final warning or action is needed, the community is considering how this policy can best be enforced.
Traditionally administrators have used their judgment and handling has been fairly similar to handling edit warring (but with more emphasis on ignoring minor and isolated lapses). Where incivility is part of a personal attack, harassment, outing, or other more serious matter, read those policies for their enforcement suggestions.
Try to treat your fellow editors as respected colleagues with whom you are working on an important project. Be especially welcoming and patient towards new users. Welcome other people to edit the articles but do discourage non constructive edits.
Other common solutions include hearing and recognizing others' concerns before criticizing them, and recapping the issue in a fair neutral manner.
Wikipedia does have a steep learning curve. Aim to help users rather than berating them.
Comments that show a complete disregard for their effect on others' feelings for no good project purpose.
It is sometimes difficult to make a hard-and-fast judgement of what is uncivil and what is not. Such a judgement may need to take into account such matters as (i) the intensity of the language/behavior; (ii) whether the behavior has occurred on a single occasion, or is occasional or regular; (iii) whether a request has already been made to stop the behavior, and whether that request is recent; (iv) whether the behavior has been provoked; and (v) the extent to which the behavior of others need to be treated at the same time.
![]() | This page in a nutshell: Editors should treat others with consideration and respect, especially avoiding words that are negative, inflammatory, and do not benefit the project. Even in heated debates, editors should behave calmly and reasonably, and keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia to help maintain a pleasant editing environment. Editors should take account of the feelings of others, allow for possible misunderstandings, be conciliatory, not over-react, and aim to calmly resolve issues if they are unable to be ignored. While incivility is often best ignored, extreme/gross incivility or an established pattern of incivility can be disruptive and may lead to warnings or blocks, especially if it reaches the point of personal attack or harassment. |
Civility is one of Wikipedia's five pillars and a core policy on editors' on-wiki conduct. The civility policy describes the standard of behavior expected of users when talking to (or referring to) other users, and appropriate ways of dealing with problems that may arise. It applies to all interactions on Wikipedia, including on user and article talk pages, in edit summaries, and anywhere else on the wiki.
The Wikipedia culture is one of mutual respect and finding ways to work with other users. Users with a criticism of another user should either talk to that user, ignore that user, or seek dispute resolution if there is evidence of a genuine concern. Users who instead express their disapproval of another user or their actions in a personally directed, provocative, crude or disruptive manner unlikely to aid the project or resolve any personal differences, are likely to be in breach of this policy.
On Wikipedia, incivility generally involves pointed comments that do not objectively aid the dialog or set out facts. Uncivil words or comments usually meet the following criteria:
Targets someone: | targets a specific user or real-world peoples, either directly or by implication; |
Is usually negative: | usually (but not always) phrased in such a way as to be taken as disparaging, insulting, innuendo, unpleasant, or egregiously offensive by ordinary people if they were in the target's situation, or implies something of this kind in the context; |
Improper character: | unlikely to help inspire the calm evidence-based collaborative handling of a matter, but instead appear intended to inflame emotions, or for their negative effect on the target or those sympathetic to the group; |
Lacks project benefit: | objectively the wording or style chosen seems to have little or no project benefit - ie unlike a reasoned critique, nothing seems gained from the wording or style except personal satisfaction from the inclusion of the uncivil words, implication, or statement (for example a rhetorical or over-aggressive question, smear, slur, or insult); |
Meets the "redaction test": | could easily be removed or paraphrased without loss of any material significant to the project debate. |
For civility purposes, broad judgmental characterizations of a person's general actions on-wiki, or in some area of the project, and claims of what "some people may think" about a person, are effectively the same as a general comment about that person.
Incivility is often due to frustration and often best ignored or gently asked to stop. Do not over-react to trivial lapses or brief frustration that will quickly blow over, as this can cause matters to escalate. However a user who grossly or repeatedly engages in incivility may be warned or blocked as below. Incivility is also blockable when it reaches the level of personal attacks, outing, harassment or disruption, as described in those policies.
Civility is not a weapon or game to use in undermining other contributors. Users are expected to act in ways that help to create a positive editing environment. Wording (however called) that tends to breach the criteria is cause for a change in behavior, and persistent "verging on the edge" or subtle but repeated disparagement will tend to be seen as gaming the system".
By the same token civility does not prevent appropriate expression of criticism and negative views. A user whose contributions are harmful, who does genuinely appear to be edit warring, or who may face administrator action, can be told this in a forthright plain manner by anyone.
Civility covers how negative views about other users and their conduct are expressed. In general users are expected to:
Civility is not a weapon or game to use in undermining other contributors, nor is it an "optional" courtesy that may be given to some people but not others. All editors are expected to show civility to all other editors (even those they dislike) in all of their activities on-wiki.
Especially, conduct calculated to game civility and get an advantage by undermining, baiting, or unhelpfully provoking opponents in a dispute, or making unwarranted aggressive claims and allegations, will often be seen as uncivil and can result in warnings or even blocks. Examples include (but are not limited to): - insisting that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated minor offense or error, mischaracterizing constructive criticism as an attack, and posting unreasonable and/or invalid warning notices to users.
Incivility disrupts the project and leads to unproductive stress and conflict. Editors are human and capable of mistakes, so a few minor incidents of incivility are not in themselves of much concern and can be ignored. In general, listen to others' views and focus on the editorial issue not the personal matter, if someone is rude. Try to draw conversation back to a non-confrontational position rather than accusatory.
In more serious cases, a pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable. A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse, profanity, or threats.
If attempts to disengage, (reasonably) discuss or ignore, or asking the other person to stop, are unsuccessful then seek help at the Wikiquette noticeboard or for more serious matters seek mediation or other dispute resolution, or present the facts at the administrator's incident noticeboard and ask for administrator assistance.
This list should be used with care. It is extremely easy to assume someone is speaking improperly when there is a genuine misunderstanding. The first step should always be a calm response - ask the user to clarify and politely ask them to not to use such terms (or not make the assumptions or mis-statements) about you. That said, the following are the most common forms of incivility that are encountered:
A number of behaviors may also more seriously be seen as personal attacks or harassment.
Incivility – or the appearance of incivility – typically arises from heated content disputes. The following can help reduce the chance that you will be perceived as uncivil:
First and foremost consider ignoring it (and not by making a point about doing so). Try to refocus the discussion on the content issues. Bear in mind that the editor may not have considered it uncivil - Wikipedia is edited by people from many different backgrounds, and standards vary. Only take things to dispute resolution if there is an ongoing problem you can't resolve.
Differences of opinion are inevitable in a collaborative project. Some editors' discussion style can seem unnecessarily harsh or abrasive. Others can seem oversensitive or fixed when their views are challenged. Do not automatically assume that the faceless words on a web page always transmit fully and accurately the nuances of verbal conversation; for this reason assuming good faith and responding thoughtfully to others' good-faith questions is essential. An uncivil remark can escalate spirited discussion into a personal argument that no longer focuses objectively on the content issue. Such exchanges waste our efforts and undermine a positive, productive working environment. Editors are expected to disagree as adults, without acting disagreeably.
These approaches are often used by experienced editors when they need to comment on conduct:
In escalating order of seriousness, here are the usual means of Wikipedia dispute resolution if discussion on the article talk page is insufficient.
Administrator help may also be requested at the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents.
This is usually because there are ongoing problems with an editor and usual measures (dialog and Wikiquette alerts) have not led to any improvement.
It is also the preferred route where the problem has gone beyond incivility into serious disruption, harassment or the like, and immediate action is needed – Examples include a "deluge" of extreme gross incivility (especially if combined with other significant issues such as clear edit warring or ongoing disruption), death threats, racist attacks, threats of violence, legal threats, and other similar cases.
Specialist administrator noticeboards exist for any user to report edit warring/3RR, ongoing serious vandalism, sock-puppetry concerns, and arbitration enforcement.
Unless there are specific reasons making it worthwhile, it is usually inappropriate to edit other users' comments. (If they were, users would end up fighting by editing each others posts. It also helps that other users can see the dispute fully in future.)
It will usually be taken badly if you edit or remove comments by people you are in dispute with as being "uncivil". Generally the risk of making it worse outweighs the benefits. Exception – you have discretion to remove posts on your own talk page. If you do, use a civil edit summary.
Blatant grossly offensive posts, trolling and vandalism by users who are clearly not editing seriously can be removed by anyone (including the target if the case is clear).
Item | Relevant policies and guidelines |
---|---|
Personal information, harassment, defamation | Outing, Harassment, Oversight ( requests) |
Personal attacks | Personal attacks policy and Speedy delete criteria (for "attack pages") |
Uncivil material in userspace | While considerable tolerance is granted in userspace, see User page contents for norms on acceptability |
Uncivil vandalism | Vandalism |
Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material, and purely disruptive material of little or no project value (in any page, username, or log entry) |
Revision Deletion tool: Criteria for redaction |
Although cultural and personal norms vary enormously there are good reasons why civility is a core policy for all Wikipedia editors.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where users edit for the project's benefit. Most academic journals and many legislative bodies have a civility norm to allow groups of people to get on productively despite any personal differences. The Wikipedia community has its equivalent for very similar reasons.
Editors are generally not blocked or even warned for minor incivility. Other forms of dispute resolution are preferred, including explanation, gentle comments, advising parties to take the "higher road" of ignoring, and similar approaches. Often it can help for a capable third party to explain (calmly and carefully) what's wrong or where the misunderstanding is, what the community's norms are, what is best, and how to handle it if it repeats or continues. Then leave both users to work it out from there.
In serious, gross, or repeated instances where there is a problem, civility can rise to the point of disruption and a line may need to be drawn or explanation given. Understand that the user may feel entirely right and justified, may feel provoked themselves; the job here is to explain calmly and dispassionately what the problem is and what they need to do (and how they can get help if required). It may be necessary to point out that if the issue continues other users may take action, but dwelling on this or making it sound like a "threat" or "warning" is usually unnecessary. A personal note takes a lot of the 'sting' from a warning.
In more serious cases where a firm or final warning or action is needed, the community is considering how this policy can best be enforced.
Traditionally administrators have used their judgment and handling has been fairly similar to handling edit warring (but with more emphasis on ignoring minor and isolated lapses). Where incivility is part of a personal attack, harassment, outing, or other more serious matter, read those policies for their enforcement suggestions.
Try to treat your fellow editors as respected colleagues with whom you are working on an important project. Be especially welcoming and patient towards new users. Welcome other people to edit the articles but do discourage non constructive edits.
Other common solutions include hearing and recognizing others' concerns before criticizing them, and recapping the issue in a fair neutral manner.
Wikipedia does have a steep learning curve. Aim to help users rather than berating them.
Comments that show a complete disregard for their effect on others' feelings for no good project purpose.
It is sometimes difficult to make a hard-and-fast judgement of what is uncivil and what is not. Such a judgement may need to take into account such matters as (i) the intensity of the language/behavior; (ii) whether the behavior has occurred on a single occasion, or is occasional or regular; (iii) whether a request has already been made to stop the behavior, and whether that request is recent; (iv) whether the behavior has been provoked; and (v) the extent to which the behavior of others need to be treated at the same time.