User:FT2/Civility draft

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.

What incivility is
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:




 * -valign=top
 * Targets someone: || targets a specific user or real-world peoples, either directly or by implication;
 * -valign=top
 * 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;
 * -valign=top
 * 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;
 * -valign=top
 * 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);
 * -valign=top
 * 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.

What incivility isn't
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:


 * Consider carefully the phrasing of any negative comment
 * Write negative statements narrowly - that is, do not claim that all of user's actions are negative when only certain actions are a concern, or that a user is generally negative if that is only true for certain areas.
 * Makes sure it is clear which actions are seen as negative and why, by enumerating examples, when making a general statement about a user ("you seem to just be here to edit war"), so other users can judge if it is fair.
 * When criticizing, use a writing style that tends to aid dispute resolution and project benefit rather than emotion, impact, or rhetoric.

Misuse of this policy
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.

General guidance
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.

Common examples of incivility covered by this policy
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:


 * Rudeness, insulting terms, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions;
 * Racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities;
 * Ill-considered accusations;
 * Dismissive mis-characterization of a user or their actions (describing a reasonable good-faith edit or viewpoint as vandalism or "POV")
 * Judgmental "throwaway" comments (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen");
 * Fake politeness, often intended to get a response or cause distress to the user.
 * Taunting or baiting: pushing others unnecessarily in a way that most people would feel driven to react back in kind;
 * Deliberately asserting false information (lying to mislead), mis-quoting other editors, claiming a user said something they did not, or quoting out of context, to provocatively claim a user holds views they do not hold, or to malign them.

A number of behaviors may also more seriously be seen as personal attacks or harassment.

Common mistakes
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:


 * Explain yourself. Not sufficiently explaining edits can lead to misunderstandings and a sharp response. Use good explanations on the talk page, linked from edit summaries if needed.


 * State or ask exactly what's wrong, rather than labeling and claiming generalizations. A general comment (eg: "More ignorant posts!") is unlikely to help. Detailing the reasons why they are felt to be lacking allows dialog to focus on differences and to see what's really going on. It may seem unnecessary or a waste of time to have to explain "the obvious", but a large part of the time it may not actually be obvious. It's also important to remember that dialog is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. Do not assert that other editors "should" have the level of knowledge one is used to elsewhere.


 * Be careful with edit summaries. Edit summaries are relatively short and often easily misinterpreted, cannot be changed after pressing Save, and often written in haste. Use them to explain your edit factually and avoid epithets. Again, consider using the talk page to explain your view more carefully.


 * Be careful with user warning templates. Be careful about issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with (see Don't template the regulars) and exercise caution when using templated messages for newcomers (see Please do not bite the newcomers). Consider using a personal message instead of, or at least in addition to, the templated message, to reduce the impersonal 'sting'.


 * Apologize for poor wordings. The apology is a form of ritual exchange between both parties, where words are said that allow reconciliation and help to reduce grudges and emnities being carried forward. For some people, it may be crucial to hear their concerns acknowledged or an apology, although a demand for an apology is almost never helpful. However offering an apology or suggesting the matter is put behind (for example, to focus on the content issue) can be extremely effective.

What to do if you see uncivil behavior
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.

How experienced editors avoid being dragged into uncivil behavior
These approaches are often used by experienced editors when they need to comment on conduct:


 * Don't react. Continue being the "good guy"
 * This skill often needs learning but it's incredibly effective, making you look good at the end of it. It can be easy to believe that you have to answer everything otherwise everyone will believe the other user, but it does work. Often incivility is best ignored rather than rising to the bait. A good rule of thumb if that fails is, explain twice then calmly request help. Especially, don't be sarcastic or "snarky" in return.


 * Assume good faith
 * Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help and can learn. Assume Good Faith does not require assuming good faith in the presence of obvious contrary evidence; but legitimate views vary widely and many users may simply not understand usual expectations. Do not assume more deliberate wrongdoing than the evidence clearly supports. In any event if there is a concern, focus on the project issue.


 * Accept how Wikipedia works
 * Accept you may have to explain your point several times, even if it's "obvious" the user is acting deliberately. This shows good faith on your part. Put yourself in an administrator's shoes: if two parties are both arguing poorly then it's much harder to see clearly who is right or wrong if you later need to seek help. If your posts are clear, calm and ignore the incivility then everyone uninvolved will see it. If their post does contain something that "crosses the line" you can always ask at the Wikiquette alerts noticeboard for advice on removing the improper comment.


 * Focus strictly on a policy basis not a personal one
 * Don't let the dialog get distracted off the core issue. Speak plainly. Explain what the issue is about their conduct, in the context of Wikipedia norms and policies.


 * If the user persists, continue with factual dialog
 * If the other user just keeps going despite best efforts to explain why it's uncalled for (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT), then explain more carefully why their actions breach norms and ask them to stop and discuss, failing which, get help (see below)


 * Common wordings and styles
 * Experienced users often use a number of common wordings and styles that effectively help to deflect incivility and attempts at provocation. (see /Wording examples)

More help

 * For very sensitive or privacy-related issues, see Dispute resolution: Sensitive and privacy-related issues.

In escalating order of seriousness, here are the usual means of Wikipedia dispute resolution if discussion on the article talk page is insufficient.


 * Content noticeboards and Editor assistance - Seeking opinions on the underlying content issue can often resolve a dispute.
 * Talk page discussion - Explain why you are still concerned and what you hope for. 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.
 * Wikiquette alerts - A non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors, and seek second opinions, perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum.
 * Mediation - Formal and informal mediation between users. Works best when it seems the other user is capable of being reasonable but you may need help to sort it out.
 * Request for Comment on user conduct (FORMAL) - RFC is a request for community discussion of a user who has violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines persistently, or in a major way. Scrutiny may be applied to all editors in the dispute.
 * Request for Arbitration (FORMAL) - This is the last step, only for serious cases and when other avenues have been tried and failed. The Arbitration Committee will decide if the case is sufficiently serious and disruptive to warrant a decision.

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.

Removing possibly uncivil comments
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).


 * Your own unhelpful wording
 * Explain what you meant in a way that is less likely to offend.
 * Withdraw the offending words by striking them out (using &lt;s&gt; HTML strikeout tags &lt;/s&gt;), [replacement wording], or a note.
 * Quietly remove or rewrite the comment – usually only a good idea if it hasn't been noticed. Assume someone will eventually notice the removed comment, and leave a brief explanation in its place or in the edit summary.
 * Simply apologize. Even if you feel the thrust of your words is true, or that they are misunderstanding what you meant, you can still apologize for wording them in a way that led to problems.


 * Someone else's unhelpful wording
 * Politely ask the author to remove or edit ("tone down") the comment. (Examples).
 * Comments of a deliberately provocative nature may be handled by uninvolved users advocating ignoring the provocation or talking to the user (In extreme cases: "This looks like an attempt at provocation. I suggest we ignore it.").
 * Parties often want to know above all, that other users see and recognize they are not whatever the user is saying. As an uninvolved party, simply noting something is uncivil and commenting the target should probably ignore it, is often the single best response.
 * If removal is best (perhaps for users known for uncivil comments) simple removal with an appropriate edit summary, redaction, or strikeout, and a brief note why it's done. Examples of redaction can be seen here.


 * Other removal reasons
 * {| class="wikitable" style="font-size:90%"

! Item !! Relevant policies and guidelines and purely disruptive material of little or no project value (in any page, username, or log entry) || Revision Deletion tool: Criteria for redaction
 * 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,
 * 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,
 * Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material,
 * Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material,
 * }

Why civility matters
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.


 * INCIVILITY harms good dialog - When people speak rudely, others tend to get defensive, feel attacked, and often over-react. People get dragged in to "defend" rather than to "resolve". It encourages "heat" not "light". It's unproductive.
 * Poisons the atmosphere - Most users here wish to contribute content. They see disputes as undesirable and an obstruction to that. When a dispute arises, it poisons the atmosphere and discourages or de-motivates others.
 * Causes double standards and discouragement - People realistically know there will be disagreement. But seeing people behave like children and speaking in a rude and clearly offensive manner (as would be uncivil in most cultures) and getting away with it, is demotivating. Especially, being spoken to that way can be discouraging.
 * CIVILITY helps dispute resolution - Polite language tends to hold the emotional temperature down. It may not stop users misbehaving, but a general policy of disallowing disrespectful speech will almost always have some positive effect. Disputes can usually be resolved calmer if people are not needling others.
 * Sets a useful focus - Civility, done right, is helpful. It focuses users on issues and content, not on each other.
 * Central to sustaining the community which maintains the project itself - As identified by the Strategy Taskforce "There was a general consensus that work is needed to make Wikimedia a welcoming place for newcomers.... require[s] continued attention to the health of the community. Wikimedia needs to be a respectful, civil, and welcoming place."

Uninvolved administrator guidance
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.

OLD STUFF
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.