Wikipedia talk:Civility/sandbox

Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of Wikipedia's five pillars. The civility policy is a standard of conduct that sets out how Wikipedia editors should interact. Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates.

This policy describes the standards expected of users when they interact, and appropriate ways of dealing with problems that may arise. It applies to all editors and all interaction on Wikipedia, including on user and article talk pages, in edit summaries, and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians. However, editors should be especially careful to avoid making snide comments, personal remarks about other editors, or otherwise being aggressive in edit summaries as they are listed in the revision history and cannot be changed.

Editors should read and follow several specific policies to maintain civility:


 * Outing
 * No personal attacks
 * No legal threats
 * Harassment
 * Consensus
 * Offensive usernames

Editors also generally should follow relevant behavioral guidelines:


 * Etiquette
 * Assume good faith
 * Talk page guidelines (such as when deciding whether it is acceptable to remove a comment)

For many cases of incivility editors can use Dispute resolution. Particularly problematic comments (such as releases of personally identifiable information) can be dealt with by Oversight. For legal threats, bigoted attacks or other hateful speech, and other cases where immediate action is required, use the Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents page to contact the site's admins.

Threats of violence (including death threats in general, and suicide threats in particular) should be reported immediately by e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation at ; see WP:VIOLENCE for more on this.

Identifying incivility
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 and context of the language/behaviour; (ii) whether the behaviour has occurred on a single occasion, or is occasional or regular; (iii) whether a request has already been made to stop the behaviour, and whether that request is recent; (iv) whether the behaviour has been provoked; and (v) the extent to which the behaviour of others need to be treated at the same time.

The following behaviours can all contribute to an uncivil environment:


 * rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions
 * personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities
 * ill-considered accusations of policy violation or impropriety. For instance, referring to a user's good-faith edits as vandalism may lead to their feeling unfairly attacked.
 * belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap")
 * taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves. All editors are responsible for their own actions in cases of baiting; a user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response, and a user who baits is not excused from their actions by the fact that the bait may be taken.
 * harassment, including Wikihounding, bullying, personal or legal threats, posting of personal information, repeated email or user space postings
 * sexual harassment
 * lying
 * quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them

Blocking for incivility
While a few minor incidents of incivility that no one complains about are not necessarily a concern, a continuing pattern of incivility is unacceptable. If incivility consists of repeated harassment or egregious personal attacks against one or more individuals, then it may result in blocks. Even a single act of severe incivility can result in blocks; for example, a single episode of extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person.

Blocking for incivility is possible when incivility causes serious disruption. However, the civility policy is not intended to be used as a weapon and blocking should not be the first option in most cases. To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor incident, to repeatedly bring up past incivility after an individual has changed their approach, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated.

This is not to say that blocking for incivility should not or cannot happen, but immediate blocking is generally reserved for cases of major incivility, where incivility rises to the level of clear disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing.

Criteria for civility blocks

 * 1) Be sure to take into account all the relevant history. Avoid snap judgments without acquainting yourself with the background to any situation.
 * 2) Think very hard of the possible merits of all other avenues of approach before you take action. Sanctions for civility violations should only happen when nothing else would do. Poorly considered civility blocks have at times worsened disputes and increased disruption. Remember that sanctions may be more applicable under another heading (disruption, personal attack, tendentious editing, or harassment)
 * 3) Civility blocks should be for obvious and uncontentious reasons, because an editor has stepped over the line in a manner nearly all editors can see. In cases where you have reason to suspect this would not be the case – cases where there is reason to believe that taking admin action against someone who was uncivil would not be an uncontentious (or nearly so) prospect – it is expected that discussion will be opened on the matter, via WP:ANI or WP:RFC/U, before any admin action is taken. Benefits derived from long or controversial civility blocks should be weighed against the potential for disruption caused by block reviews, and unblock requests.
 * 4) Users should be clearly warned, in most circumstances, before being blocked for incivility, and should be allowed sufficient time to retract, refactor or explain uncivil comments. Even experienced contributors should not be blocked without warning. Exceptions to this may include users who make egregious violations or threats, or who have received multiple warnings.
 * 5) Cool-down blocks are (as always) to be avoided.
 * 6) As with other blocks, civility blocks should be preventative and not punitive.