Wikipedia talk:Civility
 | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Civility page. |
|
Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | See WP:PROPOSAL for Wikipedia's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Wikipedia guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages. |
 | The initial Wikipedia:Civility essay was largely authored by Anthere and others at m:Incivility (history, Jan-Feb. 2004). It was copied here and put into substantive form ("Civility") by Stevertigo (Feb. 2004), who earlier raised the issue on wikien-l.[1] & [2] (Oct. 4, 2003). In codified form, it was thereafter referenced as a statement of principle and soon after considered "policy." Long before the creation of the formal policy, Jimbo Wales wrote his statement of principles, wherein certain points echo the idea of civility. Larry Sanger raised the issue of "making [WP] more civil," [3], [4] & [5] (Nov. 2002) after reading The Cunctator's essay "How to destroy Wikipedia" (Mar. 2002). Jimbo Wales picked up on Sanger's point [6] [7], and thereafter Ed Poor and others kept it alive, until the need for a formal policy came about in late 2003. Also, note a poll on editors' thoughts on the policy at the time in 2009. |
 | This page was nominated for deletion on 10 December 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
| This page was nominated for deletion on 2 February 2013. The result of the discussion was withdrawn. |
"Wikipedia:BEHAVIOUR" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
The redirect Wikipedia:BEHAVIOUR has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 14 § Wikipedia:BEHAVIOUR until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
About AGF
[edit]I'd like to expand Wikipedia:Civility#Assume good faith to add:
- Even if you are convinced that the other editor is acting maliciously or in bad faith, you are still required to be civil. Being civil to a potential bad-faith actor does not mean agreeing with them; instead, it means using politely worded warnings and other messages instead of resorting to insults, name-calling, and other uncivil forms of communication.
I've seen a few editors who may believe that if they believe someone who disagrees with them is acting in bad faith, then that exempts them from the "always" at the top of this policy. I would like to make that unmistakably clear. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- I would be down for that. I have seen examples of it was understandable because the other person was clearly such and such. PackMecEng (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- The way I read it, that section talks about how important assuming good faith, to a fault, is for civility and cooperation. What you are suggesting might fit better in the lower (and far more extensive) part on incivility. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe it should be split up. I think "Even if you are convinced that the other editor is acting maliciously or in bad faith, you are still required to be civil" belongs in the AGF section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Amendment to WP:UNCIVIL
[edit]Just wondering if we should make an amendment to WP:UNCIVIL: Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments.
→ Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness or disrespectful comments.
Recently had an editor (not going to out them here) argue that they hadn't violated WP:UNCIVIL—against several users' warnings—because they were only rude and disrespectful, but didn't make personal attacks. MB2437 10:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- NO, and I would be surprised that was accepted at wp:ani, as it's clearly wikilaywering. Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- Couldn't be wikilawyered against if the wording was ironclad. MB2437 14:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- Yes it can "well I did all three and that is not forbidden". So then we have to have "and or" after each instance. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- Doing all three would distinctly be three separate violations under the proposed wording, but "and/or" would also work. MB2437 15:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- Yes it can "well I did all three and that is not forbidden". So then we have to have "and or" after each instance. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- Couldn't be wikilawyered against if the wording was ironclad. MB2437 14:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Link to offensive material guideline
[edit]Should some sort of link over to Wikipedia:Offensive material, which addresses the use of potentially offensive words and images in articles, be included on the project page? That content guideline links to this page, and some users seeking information here might find a corresponding link useful. Coining (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
- I think you are referring to the hatnote. The problem is that this guideline already has a long hatnote and adding quite a bit more to it may not achieve anything useful. Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, the hatnote is what I am referring to. Thank you. Wouldn't the page's existing use of Template:Hatnote group help consolidate things? I do think it's important to somewhere distinguish between editing that is uncivil and content that is truly offensive/vulgar/obscene -- points that are not addressed on this page, but that are addressed at the offensive material content guideline. Coining (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)