View source for Commons:Civility

{{Shortcut|COM:CIV|COM:CIVIL|COM:CIVILITY}}
{{#ifeq:{{PAGELANGUAGE}}|en|{{policy}}|{{Translated policy|lang={{PAGELANGUAGE}}}}}}
<languages/>
<translate>
<!--T:1-->
{{policy in a nutshell 
| 1=Participate in a respectful and considerate way.
| 2=Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of your fellow editors.
| 3=Present coherent and concise arguments, and refrain from making [[:en:WP:NPA|personal attacks]]; encourage others to do the same.
}}

<!--T:2-->
'''Civility''' is part of Commons' code of conduct. The civility policy describes the standards expected of users and provides appropriate ways of dealing with problems when they arise. Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the project while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates.

<!--T:3-->
Commons' civility expectations apply to all editors during all interactions on Commons, including discussions at user and [[Commons:Talk page guidelines|talk pages]], in [[COM:ES|edit summaries]] and in any other discussion with or about fellow Commoners, and users of other projects.

<!--T:4-->
== Cooperation and civility ==
[[File:Jimmy Carter greets residents of South Bronx, New York - NARA - 176402.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Civil, respectful interactions are important.]]
Differences of opinion are inevitable in a collaborative project. When discussing these differences some editors can seem unnecessarily harsh, while simply trying to be forthright. Other editors may seem oversensitive when their views are challenged. Faceless written words on talk pages and in edit summaries do not fully transmit 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.

<!--T:5-->
Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of [[Commons:Policies and guidelines|policies]], and to be responsive to [[Commons:Assume good faith|good-faith]] questions. 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 who contribute constructively, but politely discourage non-constructive newcomers.</translate>

<translate>=== Avoiding incivility === <!--T:6--></translate>
<translate><!--T:45--> Incivility – or the appearance of incivility – typically arises from heated content disputes.</translate>
* <translate><!--T:46--> ''Explain yourself''. Insufficient explanations for edits can be perceived as uncivil. Use good edit summaries, and use the talk page if the edit summary does not provide enough space or if a more substantive debate is likely to be needed.</translate>
* <translate><!--T:47--> ''Be careful with user warning templates''. Be careful about issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with, and exercise caution when using templated messages for newcomers. Consider using a personal message instead of, or in addition to, the templated message.</translate>
* <translate><!--T:48--> ''Try not to get too intense''. Passion can be misread as aggression, so take great care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy. Nobody likes to be ''bossed about'' by an editor who appears to believe that they are "superior"; nobody likes a bully.</translate>
* <translate><!--T:49--> ''Avoid editing while you're in a bad mood.'' It ''does'' spill over.</translate>
* <translate><!--T:50--> ''Take a Real-Life check''. Disengage by ''two'' steps to assess what you're about to say (or have just said). Asking yourself "How would I feel if someone said that to me?" is often not enough, many people can just brush things off. To get a better perspective, ask yourself: "How would I feel if someone said that to someone I love who ''cannot'' just 'brush it off'?" If you would find that unacceptable, then ''do not say it''. And, if you have already said it, strike it and apologise.</translate>
* <translate><!--T:51--> ''Be professional''. Just because we are online and unpaid does not mean we can behave badly to each other. People working together in a newspaper office are not supposed to get into punch-ups in the newsroom because they disagree about how something is worded or whose turn it is to make the coffee. Nor are volunteers working at the animal rescue centre allowed to start screaming at each other over who left ferrets in the filing cabinet or the corn snake in the cutlery drawer. In fact, there's pretty much nowhere where people working together to do something good are allowed to get into fist-fights, shouting matches, hair-pulling or name-calling; the same principle applies here.</translate>
* <translate><!--T:52--> ''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.</translate>
* <translate><!--T:53--> ''Avoid condescension''. No matter how frustrated you are, do '''not''' tell people to "grow up" or include any language along the lines of "if this were kindergarten" in your messages.</translate>
* <translate><!--T:54--> ''Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment''. Even if you see the comment as ridiculous, they very probably don't, and expressing ridicule is likely only to offend and antagonise, rather than helping.</translate>
* <translate><!--T:55--> ''Be careful with edit summaries''. They are relatively short comments and thus potentially subject to misinterpretation or oversimplification. They cannot be changed after pressing "Publish changes", and are often written in haste, particularly in stressful situations. Remember to explain your edit, especially when things are getting heated; to avoid personal comments about any editors you have disputes with; and to use the talk page to further explain your view of the situation.</translate>

<translate>
=== Edit summary dos and don'ts === <!--T:39--></translate>
{{Policy shortcut|COM:ESDOS|COM:ESDONTS}}
{{seealso|Help:Edit summary#Always provide an edit summary}}
{{seealso|Help:Edit summary#How to summarize}}
<translate><!--T:40--> Review your edit summaries before saving your edits. Remember you cannot go back and change them.</translate>

<translate>
<!--T:8-->
Here is a list of tips about Edit summaries:

<!--T:9-->
*Be clear about what you did, so that other editors can assess your changes accurately.
*Use neutral language.
*Remain calm.
*Don't make snide comments.
*Don't make personal remarks about editors.
*Don't be aggressive.</translate>

<translate>== Incivility == <!--T:10--></translate>
{{Policy shortcut|COM:UNCIVIL}}
{|class="toccolours" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 2em; font-size: 85%; background:#white; color:black; width:30em; max-width: 40%;" cellspacing="5"
|style="text-align: left;"|<translate><!--T:41--> "Civility is to human nature what warmth is to wax."</translate>
|-
|style="text-align: right;" |—[[Arthur Schopenhauer]]<ref>{{cite book|author=[[:en:A. C. Grayling|Grayling, A.C.]]|title=[[:en:The Meaning of Things|The Meaning of Things]]|publisher=Weidenfeld & Nicolson|year=2001|page=13}}</ref>
|}
<translate><!--T:42-->
Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. Especially when done in an aggressive manner, these often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict. While a few minor incidents of incivility that no one complains about are not necessarily a concern, a continuing pattern of incivility is unacceptable. In cases of repeated harassment or egregious personal attacks, then the offender may be [[COM:Blocking policy|blocked]]. Even a single act of severe incivility could result in a block, such as a single episode of extreme [[:en:verbal abuse|verbal abuse]] or [[:en:profanity|profanity]] directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person.

<!--T:11-->
In general, ''be understanding and non-retaliatory in dealing with incivility''. If others are uncivil, do not respond in kind. Consider ignoring isolated examples of incivility, and simply moving forward with the content issue. If necessary, point out gently that you think the comment might be considered uncivil and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue. Bear in mind that the editor may not have thought they were being uncivil; Commons is edited by people from many different backgrounds, and standards vary. Take things to dispute resolution (see [[#Dispute resolution|below]]) only if there is an ongoing problem that you cannot resolve.

<!--T:12-->
This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors. 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, are in themselves potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated.</translate>

<translate>=== No personal attacks or harassment === <!--T:13--></translate>
{{see also|Commons:Harassment}}
<translate><!--T:43--> Editors are expected to avoid personal attacks and harassment of other Commoners. This applies equally to all Commoners: it is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by an Administrator, as it is to attack any other user. Commons 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 a free media repository, and may result in [[COM:BLOCK|blocks]].</translate>

<translate>== Identifying incivility == <!--T:14--></translate>
{{Policy shortcut|COM:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL|COM:IUC}}
<translate><!--T:44-->
It is sometimes difficult to make a hard-and-fast judgement of what is uncivil and what is not. Editors should take into account factors such 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.

<!--T:15-->
The following behaviours can contribute to an uncivil environment:

<!--T:16-->
'''1. Direct rudeness'''
*(a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross [[:en:profanity|profanity]] or indecent suggestions
*(b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, disability-related, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities
*(c) {{anchor|ICA}}ill-considered accusations of impropriety
*(d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap")

<!--T:17-->
'''2. Other uncivil behaviours'''
*(a) [[Wiktionary:taunt|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.
*(b) harassment, including wikihounding, bullying, personal or legal threats, posting of personal information, repeated email or user space postings
*(c) [[:en:sexual harassment|sexual harassment]]
*(d) lying
*(e) quoting another editor [[:en:Fallacy of quoting out of context|out of context]] to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them

<!--T:18-->
In addition, lack of care when applying other policies can lead to conflict and stress. For instance, referring to a user's good-faith edits as [[COM:Vandalism|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 === <!--T:19-->

<!--T:20-->
The [[COM:Assume good faith|assume good faith]] (AGF) guideline states that unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, editors should assume that others are trying to help, not hurt the project.

<!--T:21-->
The guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence of intentional wrongdoing. However, do not assume there is more misconduct than evidence supports. Given equally plausible interpretations of the evidence, choose the most positive one.</translate>

<translate>== Dealing with incivility == <!--T:22--></translate>
# <translate><!--T:56--> First of all, consider whether you and the other editor may simply have misunderstood each other. Keep in mind: Commons is a multilingual platform, and many users participate by using machine-translation tools which often lack nuance; or they directly contribute in a foreign language in which they don't fully understand each term. Also keep in mind that Commons is a multicultural platform, where different groups of contributors with large behavioral differences are interacting.</translate>
# <translate><!--T:57--> Consider the possibility that despite all advice about "Avoiding incivility" being given above, the other user may just be too stressed to edit politely themselves. Also consider the possibility that something you said or did wrongly provoked a defensive, irritated or fed-up response. Be prepared to apologise for anything which you could / should have done better.</translate>
# <translate><!--T:58--> Per the above, do not search for implied incivility in otherwise constructive arguments by others. If you are unsure they might have been uncivil, you might want to clarify yourself and also ask for clarification. (However, be aware that doing so might derail the conversation, possibly against your interest.)</translate>
# <translate><!--T:59--> Even if you're offended, be as ''calm and reasonable'' as possible in your response. Until there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that the offense was unintended.</translate>
# <translate><!--T:60--> Explain, clearly but kindly, exactly what you felt was uncivil. Sometimes it helps to let the other editor know how their edit made ''you'' feel. Editors are not mind-readers. (''"That made me feel..."'' is much less likely to incite more anger or resentment than ''"Your post was..."'')</translate>
# <translate><!--T:61--> Ask them to strike out an uncivil comment, or re-word it calmly and neutrally, if they have not already done so by this point.</translate>
# <translate><!--T:62--> No matter how much you're being provoked, resist the temptation to snap back. It never works; it just makes things worse. Strive to become [[:en:User:ThatPeskyCommoner/Essay on civility|the editor who can't be baited]].</translate>
# <translate><!--T:63--> If none of this is working, and the other person is not damaging the project or being uncivil or unkind to other editors, either walk away or request dispute resolution from uninvolved editors.</translate>
# <translate><!--T:64--> In "emergency" situations, where the other editor needs to be stopped in their tracks to avoid causing serious disruption or needs a fast and strong wake-up call, file a report at [[COM:AN/I|the administrator "Users" noticeboard]]. Bear in mind the risk of being [[:en:Hoist with his own petard|hoist by your own petard]] if you yourself are guilty of policy violations.</translate>

<translate>=== Dispute resolution === <!--T:23--></translate>
<translate><!--T:65-->
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 uncivil, apologize to them instead.

<!--T:24-->
In escalating order of seriousness, here are the venues you may use for dispute resolution if the relevant page's talk page is insufficient:
* ''[[com:Talk_page|User talk page]]''. 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 [[m:Help:Diff|diff]] of the specific uncivil statement. If you are in active dispute with the user, consider offering an [[:en:olive branch|olive branch]] to them instead.
* The last step – only when other avenues have been tried and failed – is the ''[[Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems|Administrators' noticeboard for User problems]] (AN/U)''. The Administrators' noticeboard is intended to report and discuss severe incidents of misconduct that require intervention by administrators and experienced editors.

<!--T:25-->
'''Threats of violence''' (including suicide threats) should be reported immediately{{snd}}see [[m:HARM]]. Legal threats, hateful speech, and other urgent incidents should be reported at the [[Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems|Administrators' noticeboard for User problems]] page.</translate>

<translate>=== Removing uncivil comments === <!--T:26--></translate>
{{Policy shortcut|COM:REMOVEUNCIVIL|COM:RUC}}
{{anchor|Removal of uncivil comments}}
{{seealso|COM:Talk page guidelines}}
{{seealso|COM:Oversight}}

<translate><!--T:27-->
Where the uncivil comment is yours, any of these options will help to reduce the impact:

<!--T:28-->
* Where someone is unintentionally offended at your comment, calmly explain what you meant.
* Strike it out (using <s><s>HTML strikeout tags</s></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 objected to it. If someone has already reacted, 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.

<!--T:29-->
In the event of rudeness or incivility on the part of another editor, it may be 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 [[m:What is a troll?|trolling]] or [[COM:Vandalism|vandalism]], or if the comment is on your own user talk page. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor.

<!--T:30-->
A special case is outing, that is, revealing about another editor that they have not revealed themselves and probably do not want known, such as their name, phone number or address. These should be immediately reverted, then an [[COM:Oversight|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. [[COM:OUTING]] has full information.

<!--T:31-->
=== Apologising: It's OK to say sorry ===
Disputes, and even misunderstandings, can lead to situations in which one party feels injured by the other. There's no loss of face in apologising. We all make mistakes, we all say the odd hurtful thing, we all have bad days and bad moments. If you have a sneaky feeling you owe someone an [[meta:apology|apology]], offer the apology. Apologising does not hurt you.

<!--T:32-->
Remember, though, that you cannot ''demand'' an apology from anyone else. It will only get their back up and make it either less likely to happen, or to be totally insincere if you do get an apology. Never be too proud to make the first move when it comes to saying sorry. That kind of "pride" is destructive. An apology provides the opportunity for a fresh start, and can clear the air when one person's perceived incivility has offended another.

<!--T:33-->
=== Blocking for incivility ===
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.
# Be sure to take into account all the relevant history. Avoid snap judgments without acquainting yourself with the background to any situation.
# 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)
# 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 [[COM:ANU]], 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.<ref>Administrators should try to follow [[:en:Wikipedia:Drama#The_Principle_of_Least_Drama|The Principle of Least Drama]]: when given a choice between several ways of dealing with a problem, pick the one that generates the least drama.</ref>
# 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.

<!--T:34-->
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. As with other blocks, civility blocks should be preventative and [[COM:BLOCK|not punitive]].<ref>"the law and its fulfillment, namely punishment, are directed essentially to the ''future'', not to the ''past''. This distinguishes ''punishment'' from ''revenge'', for revenge is motivated by what has happened, and hence by the past as such. All retaliation for wrong by inflicting a pain without any object for the future is revenge, and can have no other purpose than consolation for the suffering one has endured by the sight of the suffering one has caused in another. Such a thing is wickedness and cruelty, and cannot be ethically justified." —[[Arthur Schopenhauer]] ''[[:en:The World as Will and Representation|The World as Will and Representation]]'', Vol. I, § 62.</ref></translate>

<translate>== See also == <!--T:35--></translate>
*[[Wikimedia:Universal Code of Conduct]]
*[[Wikimedia:Friendly space policy]]
*[[Wikimedia:Non discrimination policy]]
*[[Wikimedia:Terms of Use]]

<translate>== Notes == <!--T:36--></translate>
{{reflist}} 

<translate>== Further reading == <!--T:37--></translate>
*{{cite book |last=Reagle |first=Joseph |title=Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia |year=2010 |publisher=MIT Press |isbn=978-0-262014-47-2 |url=http://books.google.ca/books?id=ml7SlTq8XvIC}}
*{{cite book |last=Sutton |first=Robert |author-link=Robert I. Sutton |title=[[:en:The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't|The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't]] |date=February 2007 |publisher=Business Plus |isbn=978-0-446-52656-2 }}
*{{cite web |title=How to Keep Hostile Jerks from Taking Over Your Online Community |url=https://www.informationweek.com/it-leadership/how-to-keep-hostile-jerks-from-taking-over-your-online-community |first=Cory |last=Doctorow |authorlink=Cory Doctorow |work=[[:en:InformationWeek|InformationWeek]] |publisher=TechWeb Business Technology Network |date=May 14, 2007 |accessdate=September 22, 2015}}
*''[[:en:How to Win Friends and Influence People|How to Win Friends and Influence People]]'' (book)

{{Commons policies and guidelines}}