Wikipedia:Civility - Wikipedia
Jump to content
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia conduct policy
"Wikipedia:Cooperation" redirects here; not to be confused with
WikiProject Cooperation
"Wikipedia:Courtesy" redirects here. Not to be confused with
Wikipedia:Courtesy blanking
of discussion pages, the permanent leaving Wikipedia and
Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing
, or
WP:COURTESY
about our etiquette.
This page documents an English Wikipedia
policy
It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should
normally
follow.
Substantive
edits to this page
should reflect consensus
Shortcuts
WP:CIV
WP:CIV
WP:CIVIL
WP:CIVIL
WP:NICE
WP:NICE
WP:POLITE
WP:POLITE
This page in a nutshell:
Participate in a respectful and considerate way.
Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of your fellow editors.
Present coherent and concise arguments, and refrain from making
personal attacks
; encourage others to do the same.
This page is referenced in the
Wikipedia Glossary
Conduct policies
Block evasion
Civility
Clean start
Consensus
Dispute resolution
Edit warring
Editing policy
Harassment
No personal attacks
Ownership of content
Sockpuppetry
Username policy
Vandalism
Civility
is part of
Wikipedia
's
code of conduct
and one of its
five pillars
. Stated simply,
editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect
Wikipedia's civility expectations apply to all editors during all interactions on Wikipedia, including discussions at user and article
talk pages
, in
edit summaries
, and in any other discussion with or about fellow
Wikipedians
Cooperation and civility
Civil, respectful interactions are important.
Editors are expected to be reasonably
cooperative
, to refrain from making
personal attacks
, to work within the scope of
policies
, and to be responsive to
good-faith
questions. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly, and reasonably, even during heated discussions.
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. Resolve differences of opinion through civil discussion; disagree without being disagreeable.
Be professional.
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.
Assume good faith
The
assume good faith
guideline states that unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, editors should assume that others are trying to help, not hurt the project.
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.
And bear in mind that the editor may not have thought they were being uncivil; Wikipedia is edited by people from many different backgrounds, and standards vary. And in addition, faceless written words on talk pages and in
edit summaries
do not fully transmit the nuances of verbal conversation, and can sometimes lead to misinterpretation of an editor's comments.
Apologising: It's OK to say sorry
See also:
Wikipedia:Apology
Disputes, and even misunderstandings, can lead to situations in which one party feels injured by the other. 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
apology
, offer the apology.
An apology provides the opportunity for a fresh start, and can clear the air when one person's perceived incivility has offended another.
Don't be too proud to make the first move when it comes to saying sorry. That kind of "pride" is destructive. There's no loss of face in apologising. Apologising does not hurt you.
Remember, though, that you cannot
demand
an apology from anyone. 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.
Different places, different atmospheres
See also:
Help:Talk pages
and
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines
Article talk pages should be, on the whole, considered to be professional workspaces. They are places to collaborate on how to improve the article, and to discuss the article (though it's OK for conversations to wander into related areas, or go more into depth than the article does, as that helps with research and gives ideas on improvement).
While an
editor's talk page
may have a more informal atmosphere than article talk pages,
civility policy
still applies everywhere, including there. Note that, in general, the editor may
remove comments
there at their discretion.
Edit summary dos and don'ts
Shortcuts
WP:ESDOS
WP:ESDOS
WP:ESDONTS
WP:ESDONTS
See also:
Help:Edit summary § Always provide an edit summary
§ How to write an edit summary
, and
§ What to avoid in edit summaries
Be careful with edit summaries
- They are relatively short comments, often written in haste, and thus potentially subject to misinterpretation or oversimplification.
Explain your edit
- Be clear about what you did, so that other editors can assess your changes accurately. And be prepared to use the
talk page
to more fully explain, or to engage in more substantive discussion.
Review your edit summaries before saving your edits.
- Remember, after pressing "Save", you cannot go back and change the wording of your edit summary.
Here is a list of tips about edit summaries:
Use neutral language.
Remain calm.
Don't be aggressive.
Don't make snide comments.
Don't make
personal remarks
about editors.
No personal attacks or harassment
Main pages:
Wikipedia:No personal attacks
and
Wikipedia:Harassment
See also:
Wikipedia:Casting aspersions
Editors are expected to not personally attack or harass other editors. This applies equally to all: it is as unacceptable to attack an editor who has a history of foolish or boorish behaviour, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other. Wikipedia 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,
disruptive
to the work of building an encyclopedia, and editors engaging in such behaviour, may be
sanctioned
, including, but not limited to
being blocked
Incivility
Shortcut
WP:UNCIVIL
WP:UNCIVIL
Civility is to human nature what warmth is to wax.
Arthur Schopenhauer
Incivility consists of
personal attacks
rudeness
and disrespectful comments.
An uncivil remark can escalate spirited discussion into a personal argument that no longer focuses objectively on the problem at hand. Especially when done in an aggressive manner, these often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict. Such exchanges waste our efforts and undermine a positive, productive working environment.
While a few minor incidents of incivility that no one complains about are not necessarily a concern, an act of severe incivility, such as a single episode of extreme
verbal abuse
profanity
directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person, is unacceptable, and the offender may be
blocked from editing
. And a continuing pattern of incivility may result in the editor being
banned from the community
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, is in itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated.
Identifying incivility
Shortcuts
WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL
WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL
WP:IUC
WP:IUC
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:
the intensity and context of the language/behaviour;
whether the behaviour has occurred on a single occasion, or is occasional or regular;
whether a request has already been made to stop the behaviour, and whether that request is recent;
whether the behaviour has been provoked; and
the extent to which the behaviour of others needs to be treated at the same time.
The following behaviours can contribute to an uncivil environment:
Direct rudeness
rudeness
, insults, name-calling, gross
profanity
or indecent suggestions
personal attacks
, including racial, ethnic, sexual, disability-related, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities
Shortcut
WP:ICA
ill-considered accusations of impropriety
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")
Other uncivil behaviours
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 meant something they did not.
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
vandalism
may lead to them feeling unfairly attacked. Use your best judgement, and be ready to
apologize
if you turn out to be wrong.
Avoiding incivility
See also:
§ Identifying incivility
, and
§ Edit summary dos and don'ts
Shortcut
WP:AVOIDUNCIVIL
WP:AVOIDUNCIVIL
Incivility – or the appearance of incivility – typically arises from heated content disputes.
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 the text
and
apologise
Try not to get too intense
. In the heat of a lively discussion, passion could be misread as aggression.
Avoid the appearance of being "bossy"
or oppressive in tone. Nobody likes to feel like they are being
bossed about
, or bullied.
Avoid condescension
. Even if you see another editor's comments as ridiculous, the editor very probably doesn't, and expressing ridicule is likely only to offend and antagonise, rather than helping. Do
not
tell people to "grow up", or negatively compare the situation to
kindergarten
Avoid name-calling
. You may feel that someone may very well be an idiot, but telling them so is neither likely to increase your perception of their intelligence, nor improve your ability to positively communicate with them.
Avoid
personal attacks
when discussing other editors.
Discussion should be limited to polite discourse about their actions.
Avoid editing while you're in a bad mood.
It
does
spill over. (See
Wikipedia:Editing Under the Influence
and
Wikipedia:No angry mastodons
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 (see
Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers
). Consider using a personal message instead of, or in addition to, the templated message.
Being right is not enough
See also:
Wikipedia:Being right isn't enough
Shortcut
WP:CIVBRINE
WP:CIVBRINE
Incivility is not excused on the grounds that an editor has the "correct" position on an underlying substantive dispute or the interpretation of policies and guidelines within those disputes. Civility is expected of all editors; incivility is harmful to the functioning of the project irrespective of the merits of an underlying dispute.
Dealing with incivility
See also:
Wikipedia:Responding to incivility
Shortcut
WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL
WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL
When faced with an isolated example of incivility, consider ignoring it and simply moving forward with the content issue. And 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.
If you don't feel that is an option in the current situation, then consider the following:
First of all, consider whether you and the other editor may simply have misunderstood each other. Clarify, and ask for clarification.
Consider the possibility that something you said or did wrongly provoked a defensive, irritated or fed-up response. Be prepared to
apologize
for anything which you could/should have done better. (
If an awful lot of people seem to be getting frustrated with you, the problem may be with you
.)
However, this does not excuse incivility.
In general,
be understanding and non-retaliatory in dealing with incivility
. If others are uncivil, do not respond the same way. 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.
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..."
Ask the editor to
strike through
an uncivil comment, or to re-word it calmly and neutrally.
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
the editor who can't be baited
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. Take things to dispute resolution (see
below
) only if there is an ongoing problem that you feel that you cannot resolve.
When 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 the
administrators' "Incidents" noticeboard
. Bear in mind the risk of
shooting yourself in the foot
if you yourself are guilty of policy violations. Please also read the
ANI advice
first.
Removing uncivil comments
Shortcuts
WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL
WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL
WP:RUC
WP:RUC
See also:
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines
and
Wikipedia:No personal attacks § Removal of personal attacks
Where the uncivil comment is yours, any of these options will help reduce the impact:
Where someone is unintentionally offended at your comment, calmly explain what you meant.
Strike it
out (using
HTML strikeout tags
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 apologise
. 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 apologise.
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
trolling
or
vandalism
, or if the comment is on your own user talk page. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor.
Dispute resolution
Dispute resolution
Requests
Tips
Assume good faith
Use etiquette
Be civil
Be open to compromise
Discuss on talk pages
Failure to discuss
Help desk
Request
Content disputes
Third opinion
Request
Mediation
Noticeboards
Requests for comment
Resolution noticeboard
Request
Conduct disputes
Administrator assistance
Request
Arbitration
Request
See also:
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution § Resolving user conduct disputes
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,
apologise to them
instead.
In escalating order of seriousness, here are the venues you may use for
dispute resolution
if the relevant page's talk page is insufficient:
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
diff
of the specific uncivil statement. If you are in active dispute with the user, consider offering an
olive branch
to them instead.
WP:Third opinion
. The forum itself is in general rather used to request input from an uninvolved editor regarding content disputes. For conduct disputes, you may try advertising the issue with the relevant link in its talk page but without discussing it there.
Dispute resolution noticeboard talk page
(DRN). Similar to Third Opinion, it deals only with content disputes but in a highly moderated format. For conduct disputes, you may try advertising the issue with the relevant link in its talk page but without discussing it there.
Administrator
. If discussions with the editor fail to resolve the issue, you may
ask an administrator
to evaluate the conduct of the user, specially if the conduct damages Wikipedia unduly, is against policy and affects you or others very much. But be aware that
your conduct
will also be scrutinized.
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
. The Administrators' noticeboard is intended to report and discuss severe incidents of misconduct that require intervention by
administrators
and experienced editors.
The last step
—only
when other avenues have been tried and
failed—
is the
Arbitration Committee
. It is the final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. It scrutinises all sides involved in the dispute and creates binding resolutions. But it may accept or decline any matter at its sole discretion.
Blocking for incivility
See also:
Blocking policy § Cool-down blocks
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 believe that taking admin action against someone who was uncivil might be contentious, it is expected that discussion will be opened on the matter, via
WP:ANI
, 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.
Users should be clearly warned, in most circumstances, before being blocked for incivility, and should be allowed sufficient time to retract, reword 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 or blocks.
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 preventive and
not punitive
Emergency situations
See also:
Wikipedia:No legal threats
and
Wikipedia:Oversight
Hateful speech, legal threats, and other urgent incidents should be reported at the
Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents page
A special case is
outing
, that is, revealing
personally identifiable information
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
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.
Wikipedia:Outing
has full information.
Threats of violence or suicide should be reported immediately.
See
WP:EMERGENCY
See also
Civility barnstar
Meta:Don't be a jerk
Wikimedia:Friendly space policy
Wikimedia:Non discrimination policy
Wikipedia:Society
Wikimedia:Terms of Use
Notes
Grayling, A.C.
(2001).
The Meaning of Things
. Weidenfeld & Nicolson. p. 13.
Originally formulated by the
Arbitration Committee
at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute § Being right isn't enough
Administrators should try to follow
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.
"[The] law and its fulfilment, namely punishment, are essentially directed to the
future
, not to the
past
. This distinguishes
punishment
from
revenge
; for the motives which instigate the latter are solely concerned with what has happened, and thus with the past as such. All requital of wrong by the infliction of pain, without any aim for the future, is revenge, and can have no other end than consolation for the suffering one has borne by the sight of the suffering one has inflicted upon another. This is wickedness and cruelty, and cannot be morally justified." —
Arthur Schopenhauer
(1883).
The World as Will and Representation
, Vol. I, § 62.
Further reading
Reagle, Joseph (2010).
Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia
. MIT Press.
ISBN
978-0-262014-47-2
Sutton, Robert
(February 2007).
The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't
. Business Plus.
ISBN
978-0-446-52656-2
Doctorow, Cory
(May 14, 2007).
"How to Keep Hostile Jerks from Taking Over Your Online Community"
InformationWeek
. TechWeb Business Technology Network
. Retrieved
June 30,
2019
Carnegie, Dale
(1936).
How to Win Friends and Influence People
Simon & Schuster
ISBN
1-4391-6734-6
{{
cite book
}}
ISBN / Date incompatibility (
help
"Characterizing Incivility on Wikipedia" in the
mw:Wikimedia Research/Showcase#July 2019
on YouTube
Wikipedia key
policies and guidelines
(?)
Five pillars
Ignore all rules
Content
(?)
Verifiability
No original research
Neutral point of view
What Wikipedia is not
Biographies of living persons
Copyright violations
Image use
Article titles
Notability
Autobiographies
Citing sources
Reliable sources
Medicine
Do not include copies of lengthy primary sources
Plagiarism
Do not create hoaxes
Fringe theories
Patent nonsense
External links
Writing articles with large language models
LLM-assisted translation
Conduct
(?)
Civility
Consensus
Harassment
Vandalism
Ignore all rules
No personal attacks
Ownership of content
Edit warring
Dispute resolution
Sockpuppetry
No legal threats
Child protection
Paid-contribution disclosure
Assume good faith
Conflict of interest
Disruptive editing
Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
Etiquette
Gaming the system
Please do not bite the newcomers
Courtesy vanishing
Responding to threats of harm
Talk page guidelines
Signatures
Deletion
(?)
Deletion policy
Proposed deletion
Biographies
Speedy deletion
Attack page
Oversight
Revision deletion
Enforcement
(?)
Administrators
Banning
Blocking
Page protection
Editing
(?)
Editing policy
Article size
Summary style
Be bold
Disambiguation
Hatnotes
Broad-concept article
Understandability
Style
Manual of Style
Contents
Dates and numbers
Images
Layout
Lead section
Linking
Lists
Classification
Categories, lists, and navigation templates
Categorization
Template namespace
Project content
(?)
Project namespace
WikiProjects
User pages
User boxes
Shortcuts
Subpages
WMF
(?)
Universal Code of Conduct
List of policies
Friendly space policy
Licensing and copyright
List of all policies and guidelines
List of policies
List of guidelines
Summaries of values and principles
Wikipedia essays
(?)
Building, editing, and deletion
Philosophy
Articles are more important than policy
Articles must be written
All Five Pillars are equally important
Avoid vague introductions
Civil POV pushing
Cohesion
Competence is required
Concede lost arguments
Dissent is not disloyalty
Don't lie
Don't search for objections
Duty to comply
Editing Wikipedia is like visiting a foreign country
Editors will sometimes be wrong
Eight simple rules for editing our encyclopedia
Explanationism
External criticism of Wikipedia
Five pillars
Here to build an encyclopedia
Leave it to the experienced
Levels of competence
Levels of consensus
Most ideas are bad
Need
Not broken is ugly
Not editing because of Wikipedia restriction
Not every article can be a Featured Article
The one question
Oversimplification
Paradoxes
Paraphrasing
POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields
Process is important
Product, process, policy
Purpose
Reasonability rule
Systemic bias
There is no seniority
Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia
Tendentious editing
The role of policies in collaborative anarchy
The rules are principles
Trifecta
We are absolutely here to right great wrongs
Wikipedia in brief
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
Wikipedia is a community
Wikipedia is not RationalWiki
Article construction
100K featured articles
Abandoned stubs
Acronym overkill
Adding images improves the encyclopedia
Advanced text formatting
Akin's Laws of Article Writing
Alternatives to the "Expand" template
Amnesia test
A navbox on every page
An unfinished house is a real problem
Archive your sources
Article revisions
Articles have a half-life
Autosizing images
Avoid mission statements
Be neutral in form
Beef up that first revision
Blind men and an elephant
BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
Build content to endure
Cherrypicking
Chesterton's fence
Children's lit, adult new readers, & large-print books
Citation overkill
Citation underkill
Common-style fallacy
Concept cloud
Creating controversial content
Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability
Dictionaries as sources
Don't cite Wikipedia on Wikipedia
Don't demolish the house while it's still being built
Don't get hung up on minor details
Don't hope the house will build itself
Don't panic
Don't "teach the controversy"
Editing on mobile devices
Editors are not mindreaders
Encourage the newcomers
Endorsements (commercial)
Featured articles may have problems
Formatting bilateral relations articles
Formatting bilateral relations templates
Fruit of the poisonous tree
Give an article a chance
Gotfryd custom
How to write a featured article
Identifying and using independent sources
History sources
Law sources
Primary sources
Science sources
Style guides
Tertiary sources
Ignore STRONGNAT for date formats
Introduction to structurism
Link rot
Mine a source
Merge Test
Minors and persons judged incompetent
"Murder of" articles
Not every story/event/disaster needs a biography
Not everything needs a navbox
Not everything needs a template
Nothing is in stone
Obtain peer review comments
Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area
Permastub
Potential, not just current state
Presentism
Principle of Some Astonishment
The problem with elegant variation
Pro and con lists
Printability
Publicists
Put a little effort into it
Restoring part of a reverted edit
Robotic editing
Sham consensus
Source your plot summaries
Specialized-style fallacy
Stublet
Stub Makers
Run an edit-a-thon
Temporary versions of articles
Tertiary-source fallacy
There are no shortcuts to neutrality
There is no deadline
There is a deadline
The deadline is now
Try not to leave it a stub
What is a reliable source
Understanding Wikipedia's content standards
Walled garden
What an article should not include
Wikipedia is a work in progress
Wikipedia is not being written in an organized fashion
The world will not end tomorrow
Write the article first
Writing better articles
Writing article content
Avoid thread mode
Copyediting reception sections
Coup
Don't throw more litter onto the pile
Gender-neutral language
Myth vs fiction
Proseline
Reading in a flow state
Turning biology research into a Wikipedia article
Use our own words
We shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions
Write the article first
Writing about women
Writing better articles
Removing or
deleting content
Adjectives in your recommendations
AfD is not a war zone
Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews
Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions
Arguments to make in deletion discussions
Avoid repeated arguments
Before commenting in a deletion discussion
But there must be sources!
Confusing arguments mean nothing
Content removal
Counting and sorting are not original research
Delete or merge
Delete the junk
Deletion is not cleanup
Does deletion help?
Don't attack the nominator
Don't confuse stub status with non-notability
Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument
Emptying categories out of process
Follow the leader
How the presumption of notability works
How to save an article nominated for deletion
I just don't like it
Identifying blatant advertising
Identifying test edits
Immunity
Keep it concise
Liar liar pants on fire
No Encyclopedic Use
Notability is not everything
Nothing
Nothing is clear
Overzealous deletion
Relisting can be abusive
Relist bias
The Heymann Standard
Unopposed AFD discussion
Wikipedia is not Whack-A-Mole
Why was the page I created deleted?
What to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion
When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork
Zombie page
Civility
The basics
Accepting other users
Apology
Autistic editors
Being right isn't enough
Contributing to complicated discussions
Divisiveness
Don't retaliate
Editors' pronouns
Edit at your own pace
Encouraging the newcomers
Enjoy yourself
Expect no thanks
How to be civil
Maintaining a friendly space
Negotiation
Obsessive–compulsive disorder editors
Please say please
Relationships with academic editors
Thank you
Too long; didn't read
Truce
Unblock perspectives
We are all Wikipedians here
You have a right to remain silent
Philosophy
A thank you never hurts
A weak personal attack is still wrong
Advice for hotheads
An uncivil environment is a poor environment
Be the glue
Beware of the tigers!
Civility warnings
Deletion as revenge
Duty to comply
Failure
Forgive and forget
It's not the end of the world
Nobody cares
Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals
On Wikipedia no one knows you're a dog
Old-fashioned Wikipedian values
Profanity, civility, and discussions
Revert notification opt-out
Shadowless Fists of Death!
Staying cool when the editing gets hot
The grey zone
The last word
There is no Divine Right of Editors
Most ideas are bad
Nothing is clear
Reader
The rules of polite discourse
There is no common sense
Two wrongs don't make a right
Wikipedia clichés
Wikipedia is not about winning
Wikipedia should not be a monopoly
Writing for the opponent
Dos
Assume good faith
Assume the assumption of good faith
Assume no clue
Avoid personal remarks
Avoid the word "vandal"
Be a humble article creator
Be excellent to one another
Be pragmatic
Beyond civility
Call a spade a spade
Candor
Deny recognition
Desist
Discussing cruft
Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass
Encourage full discussions
Get over it
How to lose
Imagine others complexly
Just drop it
Keep it concise
Keep it down to earth
Mind your own business
Say "MOBY"
Mutual withdrawal
Read before commenting
Read the room
Settle the process first
You can search, too
Don'ts
Wikipedia:Because I can
Civil POV pushing
Cyberbullying
Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack
Don't be a fanatic
Don't be a jerk
Don't be an ostrich
Don't be ashamed
Don't be a WikiBigot
Don't be high-maintenance
Don't be inconsiderate
Don't be obnoxious
Don't be prejudiced
Don't be rude
Don't be the Fun Police
Don't bludgeon the process
Don't call a spade a spade
Don't call people by their real name
Don't call the kettle black
Don't call things cruft
Don't come down like a ton of bricks
Don't cry COI
Don't demand that editors solve the problems they identify
Don't eat the troll's food
Don't fight fire with fire
Don't give a fuck
Don't help too much
Don't ignore community consensus
Don't knit beside the guillotine
Don't make a smarmy valediction part of your signature
Don't remind others of past misdeeds
Don't shout
Don't spite your face
Don't take the bait
Don't template the regulars
Don't throw your toys out of the pram
Do not insult the vandals
Griefing
Hate is disruptive
Jew-tagging
Nationalist editing
No angry mastodons
just madmen
No ableism
No Nazis
No racists
No Confederates
No queerphobia
No, you can't have a pony
Passive aggression
POV railroad
Superhatting
There are no oracles
There's no need to guess someone's preferred pronouns
You can't squeeze blood from a turnip
UPPERCASE
WikiRelations
WikiBullying
WikiCrime
WikiHarassment
WikiHate
WikiLawyering
WikiLove
WikiPeace
Neutrality
Academic bias
Activist
Advocacy
Avoid thread mode
Be neutral in form
Blind men and an elephant
Cherrypicking
Civil POV pushing
Coatrack
Controversial articles
Creating controversial content
Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability
Criticism
Describing points of view
Don't "teach the controversy"
Endorsements
Let the reader decide
Inaccuracy
Myth vs fiction
NPOV dispute
Neutral and proportionate point of view
Not Wikipedia's fault
POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields
Partisans
Partisanship
Presentism
Pro and con lists
Systemic bias
Tendentious editing
There are no shortcuts to neutrality
Wikipedia:Truth
We are absolutely here to right great wrongs
We shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions
What is fringe?
Why Wikipedia cannot claim the Earth is not flat
Wikipedia is not RationalWiki
Yes, it is promotion
Notability
Advanced source searching
All high schools can be notable
Alternative outlets
Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
Articles with a single source
Avoid template creep
Bare notability
Big events make key participants notable
Businesses with a single location
But it's true!
Common sourcing mistakes
Clones
Coatrack
Discriminate vs indiscriminate information
Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity
Every snowflake is unique
Existence ≠ Notability
Existence does not prove notability
Extracting the meaning of significant coverage
Google searches and numbers
How the presumption of notability works
High schools
Historical/Policy/Notability/Arguments
Inclusion is not an indicator of notability
Independent sources
Inherent notability
Insignificant
Just because BFDI has an article doesn't mean you can add fancruft about it
Masking the lack of notability
Make stubs
Minimum coverage
News coverage does not decrease notability
No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability
No one cares about your garage band
No one really cares
Notability and tornadoes
Notability cannot be purchased
Notability comparison test
Notability is not everything
Notability is not a level playing field
Notability is not a matter of opinion
Notability is not relevance or reliability
Notability means impact
Notabilitymandering
Not all Vocaloid songs deserve their own article
Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article
Obscurity ≠ Lack of notability
Offline sources
One sentence does not an article make
Overreliance upon Google
Perennial websites
Popularity ≠ Notability
Read the source
Red flags of non-notability
Reducing consensus to an algorithm
Run-of-the-mill
Solutions are mixtures and nothing else
Significance is not a formula
Source content comes first!
Sources must be out-of-universe
Subjective importance
Slow news day
Third-party sources
Trivial mentions
Video links
Vanispamcruftisement
What BLP1E is not
What is and is not routine coverage
What notability is not
What to include
Why was
BFDI
not on Wikipedia?
Wikipedia is not Crunchbase
Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause
Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé
Two prongs of merit
Two sources are good enough
Humorous
Adminitis
Ain't no rules says a dog can't play basketball
Akin's Laws of Article Writing
Alternatives to edit warring
ANI flu
Anti-Wikipedian
Anti-Wikipedianism
Articlecountitis
Asshole John rule
Assume bad faith
Assume faith
Assume good wraith
Assume stupidity
Assume that everyone's assuming good faith, assuming that you are assuming good faith
Avoid using the preview button
Avoid using wikilinks
Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense
Barnstaritis
Before they were notable
Be the fun police
BOLD, revert, revert, revert cycle
Boston Tea Party
Butterfly effect
CaPiTaLiZaTiOn MuCh?
Case against LLM-generated articles
Complete bollocks
Counting forks
Counting juntas
Crap
Delete the main page
Diffusing conflict
Don't stuff beans up your nose
Don't-give-a-fuckism
Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"!
Don't delete the main page
Editcountitis
Edits Per Day
Editsummarisis
Editing under the influence
Embrace Stop Signs
Emerson
Fart
Five Fs of Wikipedia
Seven Ages of Editor, by Will E. Spear-Shake
Go ahead, vandalize
How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb?
How to get away with UPE
How to put up a straight pole by pushing it at an angle
How to vandalize correctly
How to win a citation war
If you have a pulse
Ignore all essays
Ignore all user warnings
Ignore every single rule
Is that even an essay?
Keep beating the horse
List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create
Mess with the templates
My local pond
Newcomers are delicious, so go ahead and bite them
Legal vandalism
List of jokes about Wikipedia
LTTAUTMAOK
No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man
No episcopal threats
No one cares about your garage band
No one really cares
No, really
No self attacks
Notability is not eternal
Oops Defense
Play the game
Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you
Please bite the newbies
Please do not murder the newcomers
Pledge of Tranquility
Project S.C.R.A.M.
R-e-s-p-e-c-t
Requests for medication
Requirements for adminship
Rouge admin
Rouge editor
Sarcasm is really helpful
Sausages for tasting
Spaling Muich?
Template madness
The first rule of Wikipedia
The Five Pillars of Untruth
The Night Before Wikimas
The Truth
Things that should not be surprising
The WikiBible
Watchlistitis
We are deletionist!
Why is
BFDI
on Wikipedia?
Why you shouldn't write articles with ChatGPT, according to ChatGPT
Wikipedia is an MMORPG
WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!
Yes, falsely
Yes legal threats
Yes personal attacks
You don't have to be mad to work here, but
You should not write meaningless lists
About
About essays
Essay guide
Value of essays
Difference between policies, guidelines and essays
Don't cite essays as if they were policy
Avoid writing redundant essays
Finding an essay
Quote your own essay
Policies and guidelines
About policies and guidelines
Policies
Guidelines
How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance
Policy writing is hard
Essay search
Retrieved from "
Categories
Wikipedia policies
Wikipedia glossary items
Wikipedia civility
Wikipedia conduct policies
Hidden categories:
Wikipedia semi-protected project pages
Wikipedia move-protected project pages
CS1 errors: ISBN date
Wikipedia
Civility
Add topic
US