Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:40, 18 July 2009

This page documents an English Misplaced Pages policy.It describes a widely accepted standard that editors should normally follow, though exceptions may apply. Changes made to it should reflect consensus.

Shortcuts WP:CIV WP:CIVIL

This page in a nutshell: Participate in a respectful and considerate way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and avoid upsetting other editors whenever possible This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors.

Civility is part of Misplaced Pages's code-of-conduct, one of Misplaced Pages's five pillars. The civility policy is a standard of conduct, setting out how Misplaced Pages editors should interact: editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. Even during heated debates, editors should behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant work environment. This policy applies to all editing on Misplaced Pages, including user pages, talk pages, edit summaries, and any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians.

Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict. Editors are human, capable of mistakes, so a few, minor, isolated incidents of incivility are not in themselves a concern. A pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks. A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person can all result in blocks without consideration of a pattern.

This policy is not a weapon to use 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 even blocks if repeated.

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. Discussion of other editors should be limited to polite discourse about their actions.

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. Welcome other people to edit the pieces but do discourage any unnecessary edits.

Engaging in incivility

These behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment:

• Rudeness
• Insults and name-calling
• Judgmental tone in edit summaries (e.g. "snipped rambling crap") or talk-page posts ("that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen")
• Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor
• Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice
• Taunting or baiting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves
• Ridiculing comments from other editors, rather than making serious criticism of them
• 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 to mislead one or more editors
• Quoting another editor out-of-context to give the impression that he or she holds views they do not hold, or 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
• Harassment
• Feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb"
• Attempts to publicly volunteer other people's time and effort for work they have not agreed to perform.

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 their feeling unfairly attacked. Use your best judgement, and be ready to apologize if you turn out to be wrong.

Assume good faith

Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. Everyone makes mistakes, and a reminder is sufficient most of the time, but even when difficult disagreements occur, it may well be that no one involved has any ill intent.

Assume good faith as much as possible. The Assume Good Faith guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious contrary evidence; however, do not assume any more intentional wrongdoing than the evidence clearly supports, and given equally plausible interpretations of the evidence, choose the most positive one. Attempting to believe the best of your fellow Wikipedians, and they of you, helps to eliminate some of the problems that arise when we communicate only in text, and cannot use all the verbal and visual cues used in talking face-to-face.

Dispute resolution

In a case of ongoing incivility, first decide if anything needs to be done. Confronting someone over a 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 him or her instead.

If some action is necessary, first consider discussing it on that user's talk page. Be careful not to escalate the situation, and politely explain your objection. 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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 and harassment

Editors are expected to avoid personal attacks and harassment of other Wikipedians. This 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. Misplaced Pages encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks and harassment are contrary to this spirit, damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia, and may result in blocks.

Removal of uncivil comments

Where the uncivil 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 apologize. 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 apologize 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. Misplaced Pages: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

Policies

• Misplaced Pages:Harassment
• Misplaced Pages:No legal threats
• Misplaced Pages:Outing

Essays and other information

• Ethic of reciprocity
• Misplaced Pages:An uncivil environment is a poor environment
• Misplaced Pages:Do not insult the vandals
• Misplaced Pages:Don't be inconsiderate
• Misplaced Pages:Honesty
• Misplaced Pages:How to be civil
• Misplaced Pages:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion
• Category:User essays on civility

• Misplaced Pages policies
• Misplaced Pages user conduct
• Misplaced Pages conduct policy