Skip to table of contents

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:CIVILWT:CIVIL WT:CIVWT:CIV

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 The result of the discussion was withdrawn.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Couldn't be wikilawyered against if the wording was ironclad. MB2437 14:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm just wondering if this is a healthy rule:

"Avoid name-calling. Someone may very well be an idiot, but telling them so is neither going to increase their intelligence nor improve your ability to communicate with them."

I don't think we should validate viewing another editor as an idiot. We shouldn't call other editors idiots, and we also shouldn't think about them that way. Another editor might be ignorant, inexperienced, abusive, rude or overbearing, but those are all more descriptive words that talk about behavior. It makes me a bit uncomfortable that the civility guide is basically saying, "Yeah, people are idiots, just don't say it to their face." If you are labeling someone an idiot, even just in your own head, you've forgotten that you might be wrong about them, or about the discussion you're having with them. As always, the focus should be on content, and not on people. Even saying that certain behavior is idiotic is better than saying a person is an idiot.

Maybe I'm wrong about this. Please let me know your thoughts. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be good. However, policies like CIVIL need to outline key points in a few words that might achieve a desired outcome. Suppose that editor A thinks B is an idiot. What is needed at Wikipedia is that A focuses on what B does—A's opinion of B is not useful information. We don't need to convince A that they shouldn't think of B as an idiot—that would be a big step for a lot of people and would not help Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 05:53, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly do you intend to prevent users from thinking someone is an idiot? There are a lot of things that the majority of society has decided are unspeakable, but the best outcome is to put a brave face on things. There's no way to control people's thoughts, other than not saying them. It would be best to stick to what you can actually control; Wikipedia isn't a social education course. Sira Aspera (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will clarify. I'm not saying we should try to change how people think with Wikipedia policy. Let's say the tendency to view other people as idiots is a fire. We don't need to put the fire out. We don't even need to throw any water on it. But perhaps we should avoid feeding more wood to that fire. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]