User:Szmenderowiecki/Attempt at compilation/Conduct: Difference between revisions

Line 106: Line 106:

There are several ways to harm Wikipedia, and regardless of your motivations to be here, ”’don’t do it”’. We are spending thousands of manhours to get the thing right, and we do not like people who mess around the work we have done unless for good cause. And while we’re at it, ”’do not test our boundaries, it’s a bad idea.”’ Just because you technically ”can” do something doesn’t mean you ”should”. When dealing with problematic editors, ”’make sure you have a paper trail of you objectively doing the good thing”’ (here, we tell you how) and let the other editor make a jackass of themselves if they so choose. All the better for intervening outsiders to effectively show where the problem lies.

=== ~~Vandalism~~ ===

=== ===

==== Vandalism ====

On Wikipedia, ”’vandalism”’ has a very specific meaning: ”’editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the [[User:Szmenderowiecki/Attempt at compilation/Intro#General philosophy and principles|project’s purpose]]<nowiki>”</nowiki>”’, which is to create a free trustworthy encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. ”’Such behaviour ”must be in bad faith” and willfully ignore our core goal of creating a good encyclopedia”’.{{Efn|This means the person knows what they are doing (or is expected to know what they are doing) and it is harmful. In some cases, newbies may introduce some nonsense into articles, basically as test editing. While test editing is not allowed outside your userspace (you have the sandbox, e.g. [[User:Example]]/sandbox, if you need a test ground), it is not vandalism. Newbies may also misunderstand or may not be aware of the purpose of Wikipedia, so they start editing it as if it were a blog or a forum. It is inappropriate, but it’s not vandalism. Also, doing something inadvertently does not in general constitute vandalism, but if you make several “oopsies” like that, you will be treated with suspicion.}} This doubly applies to any vandalism that employs any tactics to cover up the fact of vandalism. Vandalism includes:

* changing encyclopedic content beyond all recognition with wanton disregard to our [[User:Szmenderowiecki/Attempt at compilation/Content|content policies]]

* creating pages or adding content ~~with~~ the ~~sole~~ ~~intent~~ of ~~malicious~~ ~~behaviour,~~ ~~including~~ ~~making~~ ~~personal~~ ~~attack~~ ~~pages~~ ~~and~~ ~~hoaxes~~

* creating pages adding content the

** patent nonsense

* creating pages or adding content that is obviously nonsensical and that would not belong in an encyclopedia

** crude humour

* adding irrelevant obscenities or crude humour, spam or simply malicious content, including into edit summaries or even by hiding said content using embedded text or invisible comments

** [[trolling]]

* uploading shock images, inappropriately placing explicit media on pages, or simply using any media in a way that is disruptive, unless there is a legitimate reason for using such media.

** [[Flaming (Internet)|flaming]]

* adding or changing any links on a page to disruptive, irrelevant, or inappropriate targets while disguising them with mislabeling

** spam

* adding above types of content to lengthen the render time of the page and/or to overload the browser

** personal attacks

* reverting edits to the latest revisions that are nonsense, promotional, personal attacks, and/or harassment

** harassment

** hoaxes

** mislabeled links which direct to disruptive, irrelevant, or inappropriate targets

** obscenities or explicit media, where article context does not make their usage appropriate

** other malicious content, text, media or otherwise

* adding above types of content to lengthen the render time of the page, to overload the browser or to corrupt existing content

* obstructing removal of content that clearly violates our content policies or which obviously does not belong

* changing the names of pages to disruptive, irrelevant, or otherwise inappropriate names

* ~~redirecting~~ or changing ~~the~~ ~~target~~ of ~~redirect~~ ~~pages~~ to ~~other~~ ~~pages~~ ~~that~~ ~~are~~ ~~vandalism~~, ~~nonsense,~~ promotional, ~~non-existent~~ ~~pages,~~ or ~~attack~~ pages, ~~including~~ ~~with~~ ~~the purpose of~~ ~~disparaging~~ ~~the~~ ~~subject~~

* or changing , promotional pages,

* removing of encyclopedic content, including whole pages (“blanking”), for malicious reasons, for no reason or for a frivolous reason

* malicious removal of encyclopedic content

* removing all content of the page (blanking) for no reason or for a frivolous reason

* abuse of tags, including placing non-content tags (e.g.{{tl|afd}}, {{tl|db}}, {{tl|sprotected}}), or other tags on inappropriate pages

* baseless removal of {{tl|policy}} and related tags

* creating accounts with deliberately offensive or disruptive terms, whether they are used or not

* impersonating other users

Most vandalism appears in the page’s edit history, so monitor it for signs of this behaviour.

Most vandalism appears in the page’s edit history, so monitor it for signs of this behaviour. If no vandalizing edits appear in the page’s edit history, or the vandalism obscures the page tabs so you can’t easily access the history or edit the page,{{Efn|1=To access the page history or edit the page when the “View history” or “Edit” tabs are inaccessible, use [[Wikipedia:Keyboard shortcuts|Wikipedia keyboard shortcuts]]. You can also access the history through a [[Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism|vandalism patrolling tool]] if you’re using one, or from your [[Help:Watchlist|watchlist]] if you are [[Help:Watching pages|watching the page]]), or from your [[Help:User contributions|user contributions]] if you have edited the page. Or, enter the [[Uniform Resource Locator|URL]] manually into the [[address bar]] of your browser: it will take the form <code><nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/</nowiki><var>Name_of_article</var>?action=edit</code> or <code><nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/</nowiki><var>Name_of_article</var>?action=history</code>.}} it is probably [[Wikipedia:Template|template]] or [[Help:Cascading Style Sheets|Cascading Style Sheets]] vandalism. To find the template page where you suspect vandalism, edit the article (using [[Wikipedia:Keyboard shortcuts|Wikipedia keyboard shortcuts]]<nowiki> if necessary). Look for {{</nowiki><var>Template name</var><nowiki>}} or {{</nowiki><var>Template name</var>|<var>parameter …</var><nowiki>}} in the text, approximately where the vandalism appears, then go to the page Template:</nowiki><var>Template name</var> and revert any vandalism. Usually, the targets for vandalism are in pages that are not [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|protected]].

{{cot|title=If you see that there was vandalism but cannot locate it in the page’s edit history or if you cannot access or edit the page due to vandalism, it is likely [[Wikipedia:Template|template]] or [[Help:Cascading Style Sheets|Cascading Style Sheets]] vandalism. Follow these steps}}

”’Vandalism is prohibited and is a blockable offence. Remove vandalism on sight”’ (ask for [[Wikipedia:Rollback|rollback permission]]<nowiki> for more efficient bulk reverts). If a page only consists of vandalism and there is no good version to revert to, nominate the page for speedy deletion by adding {{</nowiki>[[Template:Db-g3|Db-g3]]<nowiki>}} to the page code. After undoing vandalism, warn the user on their talkpage </nowiki>”’each time”’ you notice vandalism. You may deploy a manual warning, but for convenience, you have a choice of templates (see [[Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace]]).{{Efn|The templates have numbers attached, starting from relatively innocuous level 1 and up to level 4im, by which you indicate that the user is ”way over” the line. Adjust the degree of warning based on the severity and persistence of the issues.}} Whatever option you choose, describe the issue in the most accurate manner possible and in the manner that you believe has the best chance of averting bad behaviour. Then, check their [[Special:Contributions|other contributions]]. If it is clear that they do not stop, ignore warnings and/or if the matter is really urgent, report them to administrators at the [[Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism|vandalism noticeboard]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection|request page protection]] for pages that get persistently vandalised. Vandalism blocks may come without any warning.

#To access the page history or edit the page when the “View history” or “Edit” tabs are inaccessible, use [[Wikipedia:Keyboard shortcuts|Wikipedia keyboard shortcuts]]. You can also access the history through a [[Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism|vandalism patrolling tool]] if you’re using one, or from your [[Help:Watchlist|watchlist]] if you are [[Help:Watching pages|watching the page]]), or from your [[Help:User contributions|user contributions]] if you have edited the page. Or, enter the [[Uniform Resource Locator|URL]] manually into the [[address bar]] of your browser: it will take the form <code><nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/</nowiki><var>Name_of_article</var>?action=edit</code> or <code><nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/</nowiki><var>Name_of_article</var>?action=history</code>.

#To find the template page where you suspect vandalism, edit the article (using [[Wikipedia:Keyboard shortcuts|Wikipedia keyboard shortcuts]] if necessary).

#Look for <nowiki>{{</nowiki><var>Template name</var><nowiki>}} or {{</nowiki><var>Template name</var>|<var>parameter …</var><nowiki>}}</nowiki> in the text, approximately where the vandalism appears, then go to the page Template:<var>Template name</var> and revert any vandalism.

#Usually, the targets for vandalism are in pages that are not [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|protected]].

”’Vandalism is prohibited. You may be blocked, even indefinitely, without prior warning.”’

[[Wikipedia:Deny recognition|”’Do not feed the trolls”’]]. Fanning the fire will only serve to make the situation worse. Besides, trolls may, through their bad-faith behaviour, provoke you into lashing out against them or starting to make accusations which they will later portray as baseless and/or incivil. That’s a bait! You don’t have to take it, you have the right to stay silent and just walk away if you feel they are wasting your time. Similarly, ”’do not insult the vandals”’. If someone is doing something they know is wrong, insulting them over it is likely to make them vandalize more, just to get that reaction. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not the place for personal attacks, it is not a battleground, and [[two wrongs don’t make a right]]. Instead, report them to the administrators if they continue.

”’Remove vandalism on sight”’ (ask for [[Wikipedia:Rollback|rollback permission]] for more efficient bulk [[User:Szmenderowiecki/Attempt at compilation/Conduct#Rules|reverts]]<nowiki>). If a page only consists of vandalism and there is no good version to revert to, nominate the page for speedy deletion by adding {{</nowiki>[[Template:Db-g3|Db-g3]]<nowiki>}} to the page code. After undoing vandalism, warn the user on their talkpage </nowiki>”’each time”’ you notice vandalism. You may deploy a manual warning, but for convenience, you have a choice of templates (see [[Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace]]).{{Efn|The templates have numbers attached, starting from relatively innocuous level 1 and up to level 4im, by which you indicate that the user is ”way over” the line. Adjust the degree of warning based on the severity and persistence of the issues.}} Whatever option you choose, describe the issue in the most accurate manner possible and in the manner that you believe has the best chance of averting bad behaviour. Then, check their [[Special:Contributions|other contributions]]. If it is clear that they do not stop, ignore warnings and/or if the matter is really urgent, report them to administrators at the [[Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism|vandalism noticeboard]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection|request page protection]] for pages that get persistently vandalised.

”’Any editing whose goal is clearly to improve the encyclopedia, or in good faith, is not vandalism, even if misguided.”’ Assume good faith unless it is clear that the user’s goal is to deliberately harm Wikipedia.

[[Wikipedia:Deny recognition|”’Do not feed the trolls”’]]. Fanning the fire will only serve to make the situation worse. Besides, trolls may, through their bad-faith behaviour, provoke you into lashing out against them or starting to make accusations which they will later portray as baseless and/or uncivil. That’s a bait! You don’t have to take it, you have the right to remain silent and just walk away if you feel they are wasting your time. Similarly, ”’do not insult the vandals”’. If someone is doing something they know is wrong, insulting them over it is likely to make them vandalize more, just to get that reaction. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not the place for personal attacks, it is not a battleground, and [[two wrongs don’t make a right]]. Instead, report them to the administrators if they continue.

=== Trying to illustrate your point via disruption ===

When one becomes frustrated with the way a [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policy or guideline]] is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one’s view, applying it consistently, in a sort of [[malicious compliance]]. Sometimes, this is done simply to prove a point in a local dispute. In other cases, one might try to enforce a rule in a generally [[Wikipedia:Reasonability Rule|unpopular]] way, with the aim of getting it changed. In still other cases, this is done just to spite someone else. Such behaviour is highly disruptive and may lead to sanctions. Instead, use the relevant talk pages to raise your concerns, or seek dispute resolution if the discussion was not productive. There is in fact a way to make your point [[User:Szmenderowiecki/Attempt at compilation/Conduct#Don’t be a dick|without being a dick]]. For as long as you confine your arguments to the talk pages, playing [[devil’s advocate]] or saying something along the lines of {{Tq|By that standard, we ought to remove all the cited sources on this page}} is probably fine. But ”don’t actually do that” just to spite the user(s) you disagree with.

=== Edit warring for the TRUE™ version ===

[[File:Editwar.png|thumb|An example of a severe edit war. Avoid this]]”’Don’t use edits to fight with other editors.”’ Repeatedly overriding other editor’s contributions to your own is called ”’edit warring”’, which does nothing useful for the reader, wastes our resources and causes unnecessary animosity. It it looks a lot like [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, revert, revert|what is described in the BOLD, revert, revert, revert]] essay, chances are you are on the wrong side of things. Edit warring is a blockable offence, even if you think that your cause is just or you were right. ”’Disagreements should be resolved through discussion.”’

==== ~~”’Rules”’~~ ====

==== ====

[[File:Editwar.png|thumb|An example of a severe edit war. Avoid this]]”’Don’t use edits to fight with other editors.”’ Repeatedly overriding other editor’s contributions to your own is called ”’edit warring,”’ which is a blockable offense. It it looks a lot like [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, revert, revert|what is described in the BOLD, revert, revert, revert]] essay, chances are you are on the wrong side of things. ”’Disagreements should be resolved through discussion.”’

===== ”’Rules”’ =====

* A ”’revert”’ means any action that undoes or reverses by any means at least a part of some other contribution(s).

* ~~A [[bright-line rule]] known as the~~ ”’three-revert rule”’ (3RR): ”’An editor”’ (through all accounts they control) ”’must not perform more than three reverts on a single page”’—whether involving the same or different material—”’within a 24-hour period”’.

* ”’three-revert rule”’ (3RR): ”’An editor”’ (through all accounts they control) ”’must not perform more than three reverts on a single page”’—whether involving the same or different material—”’within a 24-hour period”’.

* This rule may be modified to 1RR (one-revert rule), 0RR (zero-revert rule) or enacted on a longer timeframe, as imposed by the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]], by administrators under [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics]] procedures, or by the community under [[Wikipedia:General sanctions|general sanctions]]. Such restrictions do not apply retroactively. Strongly consider more restrictive voluntary anti-edit-warring rules for controversial and sensitive pages, like those about policies and guidelines, or about contemporary politics.

* ~~Not exceeding the limit of reverts doesn~~‘~~t always mean you are not edit warring – what~~ matters is your general behaviour with the content. If you are being aggressive towards others, time your reverts to skirt the revert-limiting rules, or clearly see the dispute in terms of a battle which you must not lose, or which you cannot let others win, you are obviously in a edit war even if you technically don’t violate the revert ~~restrictions~~.

* ‘ matters is your general behaviour with the content. If you are being aggressive towards others, time your reverts to skirt the revert-limiting rules, or clearly see the dispute in terms of a battle which you must not lose, or which you cannot let others win, you are obviously in a edit war even if you technically don’t violate the revert .

* There are certain exceptions that do not count towards the revert counter. If you want to use them, you must clearly indicate this in your edit summary or on the talk page. These exceptions include reverting:

# yourself (“self-reverting”)

# users violating their own bans~~, and~~ sockpuppets and meatpuppets

# users violating their own bans

sockpuppets and meatpuppets

# ”’obvious”’ [[User:Szmenderowiecki/Attempt at compilation/Conduct#Vandalism|vandalism]] and spam (unambiguous promotion and/or advertisement, under [[Wikipedia:G11|speedy deletion criterion G11]])

# ”’unquestionable”’ copyright/non-free content policy violations or things that are clearly in violation of United States law (e.g. child pornography, links to pirated software). Consider using [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion]] before relying on this exception

# contentious material that is ~~libelous~~, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced, as mandated by the [[User:Szmenderowiecki/Attempt at compilation/Content#Privacy and reputation of living people|policy on articles about living people]] (but better consult the [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard|biographies of living people noticeboard]])

# contentious material that is , biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced, as mandated by the [[User:Szmenderowiecki/Attempt at compilation/Content#Privacy and reputation of living people|policy on articles about living people]] (but better consult the [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard|biographies of living people noticeboard]])

# external links that are subject to the dispute – they must stay out while you are ironing things out

# most, but not all edits on your user page – see the user page guidelines for details.

Line 162: Line 173:

* You may and in fact should revert yourself if you are in violation of the revert-limiting rules by mistake.

==== What to do instead ====

”’First and foremost, identify that you likely have a dispute.”’ If there is a big chance you are in an argument, ”’resist the urge to draw it on, stop and take a breath.”’ Consider if it’s worth it after all – because a lot of edit wars [[Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars|are utterly ridiculous]] if you look at them. Maybe just say “to hell with that” and stop caring? If you still believe there is a problem, ”’go to the talk page”’ and post your concerns, and in the meantime, revert the content to a ”status quo” position ”’and stop there, if somebody else hasn’t stopped it already”’ (it may be at [[metawiki:The_Wrong_Version|the wrong version]] for you, but suck it up and start a discussion). Place an [[Wikipedia:Template index/Disputes#For inline article placement|inline dispute tag]] for articles or <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:Under discussion inline|under discussion inline]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> for other pages.

”’Communication is the key to avoiding conflict”’. ”’Solicit outside advice if you can’t resolve your issues between yourselves”'<nowiki>. If the user is unaware of the anti-edit-warring rules, kindly post that information on their talk page. {{</nowiki>[[Template:Uw-ewsoft|subst:uw-ewsoft]]<nowiki>}}, {{</nowiki>[[Template:Uw-ew|subst:uw-ew]]<nowiki>}}, or {{</nowiki>[[Template:Uw-3rr|subst:uw-3rr]]<nowiki>}}, in order of escalating gravity of the situation. If the debate comes to the natural end, just let it go and move on. If, however, this doesn’t happen, and despite meaningful attempts to reach out to the editor you were in argument with, they refuse to abide by outside advice, or continue edit warring, or are generally uncooperative, request administrators’ help at </nowiki>[[Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Edit warring|the edit warring noticeboard]].

”’Communication is the key to avoiding conflict”’. ”’Solicit outside advice if you can’t resolve your issues between yourselves”'<nowiki>. If the user is unaware of the anti-edit-warring rules, kindly post that information on their talk page. {{</nowiki>[[Template:Uw-ewsoft|subst:uw-ewsoft]]<nowiki>}}, {{</nowiki>[[Template:Uw-ew|subst:uw-ew]]<nowiki>}}, or {{</nowiki>[[Template:Uw-3rr|subst:uw-3rr]]<nowiki>}}, in order of escalating gravity of the situation. If the debate comes to the natural end, just let it go and move on. If, however, this doesn’t happen, and despite meaningful attempts to reach out to the editor you were in argument with, they refuse to abide by outside advice, continue edit warring, or are generally uncooperative, request administrators’ help at </nowiki>[[Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Edit warring|the edit warring noticeboard]].

=== Guarding the article as if it were your property ===

==== Guarding the article as if it were your property ====

A related concept to edit warring is a phemonenon known as ownership of content, as editors who feel possessive of some content often try to “enforce” it through edit warring. However, ”’no one owns the article content, no matter what, and no one has any right to dictate what an article should look like, not even its subjects.”’ What’s more, ”’any work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed by anyone, and you cannot do anything to prevent it.”’ No page is immune, not even your userpage. Attempts to impede this are a sure way to know that we are dealing with a person overly possessive of the content. This may happen by one person, usually a primary contributor to the article, or, in more complicated cases, through a group of editors coalescing around a primary contributor, or in even harder cases, in cliques that mutually assist one another in “enforcing” ownership of a group of articles.

A related concept to edit warring is a phenomenon known as ownership of content, as editors who feel possessive of some content often try to “enforce” it through edit warring. However, ”’no one has any right to dictate what an article should look like, not even its subjects.”’ What’s more, ”’any work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed by anyone, and you cannot do anything to prevent it. No page is immune”’, not even your userpage. Attempts to impede this are a sure way to know that we are dealing with a person overly possessive of the content. This may happen by one person, usually a primary contributor to the article, or, in more complicated cases, through a group of editors coalescing around a primary contributor, or in even harder cases, in cliques that mutually assist one another in “enforcing” ownership of a group of articles.

The concept of no ownership of content also means that no one has a responsibility to continuously maintain or update an article, including article creators and subjects themselves. ”’Wikipedia is not compulsory – you only need to spend as much time on it as you decide.”’ ~~While editors~~ are responsible for the quality of their own edits at the time of submission, they are not normally responsible for the end version of the article.

The concept of no ownership of content also means that no one has a responsibility to continuously maintain or update an article, including article creators and subjects themselves. ”’Wikipedia is not compulsory – you only need to spend as much time on it as you decide.”’ are responsible for the quality of their own edits at the time of submission, they are not normally responsible for the end version of the article.

Hallmarks of ownership behaviours include:

Line 178: Line 187:

* outright claiming the exclusive right for themselves, or some other entity, to review and preapprove any changes to the articles (this does not include routine maintenance of article consistency, such as preservation of established [[Wikipedia:ENGVAR|spelling]] or [[Wikipedia:CITEVAR|citation styles]])

* frequently disputing minor changes to the article

* claiming that changes to the article are vandalism or otherwise undesired even though they are not so.

* claiming that changes to the article are vandalism or otherwise undesired even though they are not so

* edit warring to a preferred version of the article, without regard to the soundness of later changes

* claiming that later changes are “unnecessary” but not addressing their soundness~~, or~~ claiming perfection of the current state of the article

* claiming that later changes are “unnecessary” but not addressing their soundness

claiming perfection of the current state of the article

* refusing to explain reverts of good-faith edits, or explaining them with personal attacks or by demeaning other editors

* pulling rank in front of other editors (such as by challenging them based on user rights, edit count, bytes added to the article, or amount of good articles) in order to suggest others’ “inferiority” as editors

* discouraging others from editing the article. This could happen in various ways, including through taunting editors, patronising them, claiming that editors who have not previously contributed are off-limits, [[stonewalling]] discussions to make a high barrier to enacting any change etc.

If you see a person that appears to be taking it too seriously, first see if they have an actual legitimate reason for that. Maybe they are a subject-matter expert or are passionate about a certain topic and just advise you that your editing is good-faith but wrong, by referencing ~~policies~~ ~~and guidelines~~, sources and previous discussions that justify (not) making a certain edit. If you see that you might be dealing with actual ownership problems, where justification is flimsy or just absent, engage with the editor regardless, explain your concerns ”’but never insinuate any bad motives on that editor’s part.”’ Make sure you have a paper trail of you doing the good thing and if the other editor chooses to be hostile, attack you or begin [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit wars]] – so be it. Ignore their initial outbursts; only if they persist should you request outside help – that way you make it obvious to outside parties that ”you” ~~tried~~ hard to be productive but ”they” didn’t.

If you see a person that appears to be taking it too seriously, first see if they have an actual legitimate reason for that. Maybe they are a subject-matter expert or are passionate about a certain topic and just advise you that your editing is good-faith but wrong, by referencing , sources and previous discussions that justify (not) making a certain edit. If you see that you might be dealing with actual ownership problems, where justification is flimsy or just absent, engage with the editor regardless, explain your concerns ”’but never insinuate any bad motives on that editor’s part.”’ Make sure you have a paper trail of you doing the good thing and if the other editor chooses to be hostile, attack you or begin [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit wars]] – so be it. Ignore their initial outbursts; only if they persist should you request outside help – that way you make it obvious to outside parties that ”you” hard to be productive but ”they didn’t.

=== Other editorial misconduct ===

While above ways are obvious signs that somebody violates our rules, there are many more ways to edit Wikipedia in a way that does not [[User:Szmenderowiecki/Attempt at compilation/Intro|conform to the purpose]], which is to write and maintain a free encyclopedia that others can trust, that presents the summary of all human knowledge. This section covers violations that stem from malicious disregard of [[User:Szmenderowiecki/Attempt at compilation/Content|policies and guidelines related to creation of content]].

==== Tendentious editing ====

”’Tendentious editing”’ (also known as ”'{{Abbr|POV|point of view}} pushing”’) is a pattern of editing that is partisan, biased, skewed, and does not maintain an editorially [[User:Szmenderowiecki/Attempt at compilation/Content#Stick to a neutral point of view|neutral point of view]]. Such editing has the goal of not creating a trustworthy encyclopedia but to “enforce” a certain viewpoint. To be clear, we don’t care about your personal biases or viewpoints, and you are allowed to have strong opinions on the article subjects, it’s that you are not supposed to let them define your editing style and behaviour. There are many ways that can reveal that the editing pattern likely wants to push a certain viewpoint:

* engaging in an edit war and/or continuing to edit war even after returning from a block

* attempting to prevent others from soliciting independent input on the issue; when such input is provided and the editor disagrees with it, they refuse to accept it and start arguing or repeat arguments that were already rejected

* repeating the same arguments on the same subject after they have been rejected, particularly if not trying to adapt it to the feedback received

* seeing disputes as a war fought to have preferred wording and presentation of content, and opponents as enemies or just stupid people; such war must be won, any rules to the contrary be damned, and mistakes never admitted to.

* pushing for unreasonable interpretations of sources, misrepresenting them, [[User:Szmenderowiecki/Attempt at compilation/Content#Do not conduct original research on Wikipedia|interpreting them beyond what the sources say]] and amplifying/discrediting chosen sources for reasons unrelated to merit or pertinence. They will often bend the rules to adapt to allow their proposed usage, which clearly advances the editor’s own viewpoint. The end goal may be, for instance, to promote [[false balance]] or fringe theories; another is to [[Whitewashing (communications)|whitewash]] a subject. ”See also” [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive|Arbitration Committee finding]] on unreasonable removal of pertinent sources.

Line 204: Line 210:

* not cooperating with others’ straightforward good-faith questions about their editing

* having a “black list” of people with whom the editor refuses all communications, unless in cases of harassment from that editor or when an interaction ban was imposed

* threatening to quit Wikipedia in an attempt at [[emotional blackmail]]. It doesn’t work, and besides, Wikipedia is not compulsory, so go ahead and take a break if that is the [[Wikt:hill to die on|hill you want to die on]]. ”See also”: [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable|You are not irreplaceable]]

Many POV pushers will not be that obvious and will try to influence the content ever so subtly, while also being [[User:Szmenderowiecki/Attempt at compilation/Conduct#Do it in a civil manner|courteous to other editors]]. However, there is no good excuse for tendentious editing, and hiding behind civility usually shows bad faith on behalf of the editor who pushes their point of view.

* attempting to prevent others from soliciting independent input on the issue; when such input is provided and the editor disagrees with it, they refuse to accept it and start arguing

Many POV pushers will not be that obvious and will try to influence the content ever so subtly, while also being [[User:Szmenderowiecki/Attempt at compilation/Conduct#Do it in a civil manner|courteous to other editors]]. Being civil, however, is not enough and does not excuse tendentious editing and usually shows bad faith on behalf of the editor who pushes their point of view.

== ~~How~~ to ~~resolve~~ ~~disagreements~~ ==

== to ==

==== Uncivility ====

Disagreements are an inevitable part of Wikipedia process, and in fact it is thanks to them that we detect issues that are not that obvious. It is OK to disagree if you see an issue. It is great if you can point to exactly why this is an issue, as formulated in our policies and guidelines. It is best if also done in a certain manner. However, the very basic thing you should always do is ”’identify that you are part of the dispute and state the reason why you are arguing”’.

”’Every person on Wikipedia is always expected to be civil in interactions with other parties, to be reasonably cooperative with each other, to respond to good-faith questions, and to work within the framework of Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines.”’ There is no exception to this expectation – and this ”’particularly”’ applies during an argument.

Remember that behind every account and IP address there ultimately is a live person – [[User:Szmenderowiecki/Attempt at compilation/Conduct#Don’t be a dick|don’t be a dick]] to them.

=== Do it in a civil manner ===

==== Not assuming good faith ====

* ”’Every person on Wikipedia is always expected to be civil in interactions with other parties, to be reasonably cooperative with each other, to respond to good-faith questions, and to work within the framework of Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines.”’ There is no exception to this expectation – and this ”’particularly”’ applies during an argument.

””’Assume” good faith unless there is strong evidence to the contrary as supported by concrete proof of misconduct, and lead by example by ”demonstrating” good faith, even if the other person will not”’.{{Efn|It also doesn’t mean “assume blind faith” or “do not ever think I’m bad”. If a person clearly is disruptive to the project and you reasonably suspect some bad faith efforts behind it, such as in cases of vandalism or pushing an agenda, you are not obliged to assume good faith. It still may be a bad idea to show it.}} Editors should assume that others are trying to help, not hurt the project; ”intend” to follow the rules, and not break them, and if they did break them, assume they did so innocuously. It does not, however, mean “I assume the editor has done all due diligence” – you are free to review any work if you think you see a problem. The rule should never be used as a tool to shut down discussion or declare reasoned criticism off-bounds. [[Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity]] (e.g. not having enough knowledge or not understanding Wikipedia culture well enough yet).

* Remember that behind every account and IP address there ultimately is a live person – [[User:Szmenderowiecki/Attempt at compilation/Conduct#Don’t be a dick|don’t be a dick]] to them.

* ””’Assume” good faith unless there is strong evidence to the contrary as supported by concrete proof of misconduct, and lead by example by ”demonstrating” good faith, even if the other person will not”’.{{Efn|It also doesn’t mean “assume blind faith” or “do not ever think I’m bad”. If a person clearly is disruptive to the project and you reasonably suspect some bad faith efforts behind it, such as in cases of vandalism or pushing an agenda, you are not obliged to assume good faith. It still may be a bad idea to show it.}} Editors should assume that others are trying to help, not hurt the project; ”intend” to follow the rules, and not break them, and if they did break them, assume they did so innocuously. It does not, however, mean “I assume the editor has done all due diligence” – you are free to review any work if you think you see a problem. The rule should never be used as a tool to shut down discussion or declare reasoned criticism off-bounds. [[Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity]] (e.g. not having enough knowledge or not understanding Wikipedia culture well enough yet).

==== Personal attacks ====

* ”’Resist the urge to have the last word, stop and take a breath.”’ You may be tempted to continue, but you need to know a time when you just need to move on. [[File:Disputeresolution.svg|thumb|[[Paul Graham (programmer)#Graham’s hierarchy of disagreement|Graham’s hierarchy of disagreement]]: Aim at the top during disputes.]]

[[File:Disputeresolution.svg|thumb|[[Paul Graham (programmer)#Graham’s hierarchy of disagreement|Graham’s hierarchy of disagreement]]: Aim at the top during disputes]]”’Never make personal attacks.”’ ”’Comment [[Wikipedia:Focus on content|on ”content”]], not [[Ad hominem|on the ”contributor”]]”’,{{Efn|As a rare exception, if you have reasonable suspicion that an editor has a conflict of interest, particularly one they have not disclosed, you may raise this issue when relevant. However, be aware that there is a fine line between digging for conflict of interest and outing a person – the latter not allowed}} even if you believe they are being obnoxious. Never [[wiktionary:call_names|call anyone names]], lob ”[[Ad hominem|ad hominems]],” compare editors to infamous people (Nazis, terrorists etc.) or accuse editors of misconduct absent evidence (“cast aspersions”), for whatever reason you may have. ”’Editors are allowed to have a personal point of view for as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions.”’

”’Whenever possible, make your argument in such a way that does not insinuate misconduct.”’ Even if you are right that the other editor misbehaves, accusing them of misconduct is very rarely helpful and, instead of alerting the user to their bad behaviour, usually makes them more belligerent and think you are personally attacking them. Nobody likes to be called the bad guy. And if you are wrong, that is even worse because it shows you believe others are acting in bad faith without good evidence. Also, “reminders” urging to comply with the policies can very often be interpreted as an accusation of violating them, and as such are counterproductive. Again, focus [[Wikipedia:Focus on content|on ”content”]], not [[Ad hominem|on the ”contributor”]]. Politely ask them to do the same.

”’Be the wiser person and do not answer the editor’s ill manners with more of ill manners”’. Ignore their invectives, ill-mannered postings and threats unless they are really serious (e.g. any of the kinds of threats listed below, or particularly offensive insults). [[Sarcasm]] and [[Wikt:passive-aggressive|passive-aggressive]] behaviour is not generally helpful, either.

If you believe you really have to address their behaviour specifically, do so in a [[User:Szmenderowiecki/Attempt at compilation/Conduct#Do it in a civil manner|tactful manner]] ”on their user talk page”. Try to be as friendly as possible; customise the language to specifically address the problems you see in the editor, and avoid the temptation of [[Wikt:give as good as one gets|giving as good as you get]]. If they clearly ignore your calls to return to civility and productive editing, or if the behaviour really serious from the start, report it to the [[Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents|Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents]]. Remember that ”’the only better thing than being a good guy is having a paper trail of being a good guy”’.

==== Threats ====

”’Do not use threats to win disputes.”’

* ”’Legal threats”’ means using off-wiki (“real-life”) governmental or legal processes against Wikipedia or its editors (internal processes of Wikipedia are not covered). Using such threats is incompatible with editing on Wikipedia and may result in immediate blocks for as long as you keep threatening legal action.{{Efn|If the threat is posted on the user’s own talk page, it’s not normally as disruptive, so it’s best to try to talk the person away from the threat. However, persistent, repeating or vexatious threats will be sanctioned}}

** Avoid comments that can be reasonably perceived as a legal threat, e.g. describing something as ”libelous” or ”defamatory” unless you really mean it.

** If you see a legal threat, let the user clarify their position and give a chance to withdraw the threat.

** If you have an issue with potential legal implications, use relevant internal Wikipedia processes or contact the Wikimedia Foundation instead (see [[User:Szmenderowiecki/Attempt at compilation/Content#Privacy and reputation of living people|instructions for privacy/libel issues]] at Treatment of article subject’s grievances; for asserting copyright infringements, see here).

** Paid editors may be reminded of Wikimedia Foundation’s [[foundation:Terms_of_use|terms of use]] and relevant laws against undisclosed advertising without triggering this provision.

* ”’Threats of physical harm, violence or death.”’ Making such threats ”to others” is a serious offence and will result in immediate blocks, including revocation of talk page access and possibly your email as well, and may carry legal consequences as well.

** ”’If you are injured or in immediate danger, [[List of emergency telephone numbers|call emergency services]]”’

** ”’If you feel you may harm yourself or others, consult [[M:Mental health resources|support resources]]”’

** Regardless of what you think about them, and whether the threat is to physically harm self or others, ”’treat all threats seriously”’. <u>Immediately email ”'<code>{{nospam|emergency|wikimedia.org}}</code>”’ with details of the threat</u>, with information where and when this threat was posted. Check your inbox and junk folder; if there is no reply within 30 minutes, forward your email to ”'<code>{{nospam|ca|wikimedia.org}}</code>”’. ”’Contact Wikipedia administrators ”privately””’ (preferably at IRC channel {{IRC|wikipedia-en-revdel}} ([https://web.libera.chat/?channel=#wikipedia-en-revdel Join IRC channel]), or else through Discord or email; see [https://apersonbot.toolforge.org/recently-active/?admins currently active administrators list]). ”’Do not post on publicly visible spaces.”’

** If you are an administrator, notify other administrators ”privately” and revision-delete the threat; contact ”'<code>{{nospam|emergency|wikimedia.org}}</code>”’if needed. [[Wikipedia:Requests for oversight|Request suppression]] (“oversight”) for threats of self-harm, suicide and where there is personal information involved.

* ”’Threats or actions that (would) deliberately expose Wikipedia or its editors to external harassment or persecution.”’ Such behaviour will lead to immediate and heavy sanctions. Administrators applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] of what they have done and why.

* ”’Threats to give out personal details about an editor”’ ([[User:Szmenderowiecki/Attempt at compilation/Conduct#Outing|outing]]) are a serious offense.

Threatening to use standard Wikipedia dispute resolution processes is not sanctionable in itself. However, [[Vexatious litigation|repeated meritless filings]] for dispute resolution may be [[User:Szmenderowiecki/Attempt at compilation/Conduct#Harassment|harassment]].

==== Harassment ====

[[Harassment]] is a pattern of repeated [[Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying incivility|offensive behavior]] that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually, the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing. Harassing other editors is a serious offense and leads to blocks, regardless of the way it is done, for what reason and regardless of the basis for harassment. The same rules also apply to people who are not part of Wikipedia editing community.

”’Hounding”’ on Wikipedia (“wiki-hounding”) is a particular type of harassment. It involves following around the activity of one or more editors to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. It disrupts another user’s own enjoyment of editing, or the project generally, for no constructive reason. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor, and may be done to avenge for something. While following others’ contributions may be done for collegial or administrative purposes, avoid following others unless you are able to demonstrate good cause for that. That good cause may be fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for [[Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol|Recent changes patrol]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam|WikiProject Spam]].

==== Outing ====

”’Outing”’ on Wikipedia is defined very broadly. It means posting any personal information{{Efn|I.e. real-life name, date of birth, [[National identification number|identification numbers]], home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, contact data, personal profiles on external sites or photograph}} that has not been voluntarily posted or linked to by the user ”’on Wikipedia.”'{{Efn|1=A [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=914386202#RfC:_Clarification_of_OUTING September 2019 request for comment] clarified that reposting information voluntarily provided to a Wikimedia Foundation project other than English Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia is not always allowed. It is OK when the editor clearly wanted the information disseminated (e.g. it is on the user page), but will generally not be so if that information has to be found by digging deep in other person’s edit history, especially if they deleted it. Err to the side of preserving their privacy and not posting their information if in doubt; you may also ask them for permission. Also, just because you can post it doesn’t mean you should.}} The fact that the user has social media presence or public presence under the same name/nickname as on Wikipedia does not allow you to “connect the dots” and refer to information posted there on Wikipedia. It doesn’t matter if the information is true – the very act, unless done unintentionally and for innocuous purposes, or under one of the exceptions, is grounds for an immediate block.

”’Assume that all information that you post about yourself on Wikipedia is made public to everyone forever and may be used to establish your real-life identity and activities [[Doxing|without your consent]].”’ Anyone with access to the data may weaponize it against you. Think twice before clicking “Publish changes”. ”See also” [[Wikipedia:Personal security practices|Personal security practices]], [[Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion|On privacy]], and [[Wikipedia:How to not get outed on Wikipedia|How to not get outed on Wikipedia]].

”'[[Wikipedia:Requests for oversight|Request suppression]] ”immediately” for personal information that you posted inadvertently”’ (including IP addresses if you accidentally edited while being logged out), as others are allowed to quote information that is still live. If you see an edit that “outs” someone, revert it and request suppression ”immediately”. ”’Do not draw attention to it in public and do not indicate how accurate the information was.”’ If you have to refer to it, use words like “attempted” or “possible”. Referring to personal information after suppression is considered outing.

”’Exceptions:”’

# Emailing information about editors to individual administrators, [[Wikipedia:Functionaries|functionaries]], or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation, when doing so is necessary to report violations of confidentiality-sensitive policies (such as [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest|conflict of interest]] or [[Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure|paid editing]], harassment, or violations of the [[Wikipedia:Child protection|child-protection policy]]). Private correspondence [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Removal of private correspondence|must be sent to the Arbitration Committee]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Private correspondence|may not be posted on-wiki]] without the other party’s consent.

# Linking to external pages where employers solicit paid Wikipedia editing services, in discussions that deal with conflicts of interest

# Linking to external pages of a subject who has identified themselves and have not redacted it/requested suppression, in discussions that deal with conflicts of interest. If that information was suppressed and is important to the discussions, you may not repost it but exception 1 still applies.

# To combat [[Impersonator|impersonation]] (an editor claiming falsely to be a particular person), it is permissible to post or link to disavowals from that person, if the person explicitly consented to the posting in good faith, and there is a high degree of confidence that the source is authentic.

==== Misuse of other users’ talkpages ====

This includes bogus warnings and accusations, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing {{Template link|Sockpuppet}} and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space. Disputes about misuse of user pages should be raised with administrators; refrain from [[User:Szmenderowiecki/Attempt at compilation/Conduct#Edit warring for the TRUE™ version|edit warring]].

=== Trying to illustrate your point via disruption ===

When one becomes frustrated with the way a [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policy or guideline]] is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one’s view, applying it consistently, in a sort of [[malicious compliance]]. Whatever your reason, such behaviour is highly disruptive and may lead to sanctions. Instead, use the relevant talk pages to raise your concerns, or seek dispute resolution if the discussion was not productive. There is in fact a way to make your point [[User:Szmenderowiecki/Attempt at compilation/Conduct#Don’t be a dick|without being a dick]]. For as long as you confine your arguments to the talk pages, playing [[devil’s advocate]] or saying something along the lines of {{Tq|By that standard, we ought to remove all the cited sources on this page}} is probably fine. But ”don’t actually do that” just to spite the user(s) you disagree with.

== How to resolve disagreements ==

”’Resist the urge to have the last word, stop and take a breath.”’ You may be tempted to continue, but you need to know a time when you just need to move on.

=== Do not escalate ===

”’It’s OK to say “sorry””’. 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. ”Offer” an apology if you feel you may want to offer it, but ”never demand” it. Never be too proud to make the first move when it comes to saying sorry. That kind of “pride” is destructive.

* ”’Never make personal attacks.”’ ”’Comment [[Wikipedia:Focus on content|on ”content”]], not [[Ad hominem|on the ”contributor”]]”’,{{Efn|As a rare exception, if you have reasonable suspicion that an editor has a conflict of interest, particularly one they have not disclosed, you may raise this issue when relevant. However, be aware that there is a fine line between digging for conflict of interest and outing a person – the latter not allowed}} even if you believe they are being obnoxious. Never [[wiktionary:call_names|call anyone names]], lob ”[[Ad hominem|ad hominems]],” compare editors to infamous people (Nazis, terrorists etc.) or accuse editors of misconduct absent evidence (“cast aspersions”), for whatever reason you may have. ”’Editors are allowed to have a personal point of view for as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions.”’

* ”’Whenever possible, make your argument in such a way that does not insinuate misconduct.”’ Even if you are right that the other editor misbehaves, accusing them of misconduct is very rarely helpful and, instead of alerting the user to their bad behaviour, make them more belligerent and think you are personally attacking them. Nobody likes to be called the bad guy. And if you are wrong, that is even worse because it shows you believe others are acting in bad faith without good evidence. Also, “reminders” urging to comply with the policies can very often be interpreted as an accusation of violating them, and as such are counterproductive. Again, focus [[Wikipedia:Focus on content|on ”content”]], not [[Ad hominem|on the ”contributor”]]. Politely ask them to do the same.

* ”’Be the wiser person and do not answer the editor’s ill manners with more of ill manners”’. Ignore their invectives, ill-mannered postings and threats unless they are really serious (e.g. any of the kinds of threats listed below, or particularly offensive insults). [[Sarcasm]] and [[Wikt:passive-aggressive|passive-aggressive]] behaviour is not generally helpful, either.

* If you believe you really have to address their behaviour specifically, do so in a tactful manner ”on their user talk page”. Try to be as friendly as possible; customise the language to specifically address the problems you see in the editor, and avoid the temptation of [[Wikt:give as good as one gets|giving as good as you get]]. If they clearly ignore your calls to return to civility and productive editing, or if the behaviour really serious from the start, report it to the [[Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents|Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents]]. Remember that ”’the only better thing than being a good guy is having a paper trail of being a good guy”’.

* ”’Never use threats”’. This, among other things, includes:

** ”’Legal threats”’, i.e. using off-wiki (“real-life”) governmental or legal processes against Wikipedia or its editors (internal processes of Wikipedia are not covered). Using such threats is incompatible with editing on Wikipedia and may result in immediate blocks until you withdraw the threats.{{Efn|If the threat is posted on the user’s own talk page, it’s not normally as disruptive, so it’s best to try to talk the person away from the threat. However, persistent, repeating or vexatious threats will be sanctioned}} If you have an issue with potential legal implications, use relevant internal Wikipedia processes or contact the Wikimedia Foundation instead (see [[User:Szmenderowiecki/Attempt at compilation/Content#Privacy and reputation of living people|instructions for privacy/libel issues]] at Treatment of article subject’s grievances; for asserting copyright infringements). Paid editors may be reminded of Wikimedia Foundation’s [[foundation:Terms_of_use|terms of use]] and relevant laws against undisclosed advertising.

** ”’Threats of physical harm, violence or death.”’ Making such threats ”to others” is a serious offence and will result in immediate blocks, including revocation of talk page access and possibly your email as well, and may carry legal consequences as well.

*** ”’If you are injured or in immediate danger, [[List of emergency telephone numbers|call emergency services]]”’

*** ”’If you feel you may harm yourself or others, consult [[M:Mental health resources|support resources]]”’

*** Regardless of what you think about them, and whether the threat is to physically harm self or others, ”’treat all threats seriously”’. <u>Immediately email ”'<code>{{nospam|emergency|wikimedia.org}}</code>”’ with details of the threat</u>, with information where and when this threat was posted. Check your inbox and junk folder; if there is no reply within 30 minutes, forward your email to ”'<code>{{nospam|ca|wikimedia.org}}</code>”’. ”’Contact Wikipedia administrators ”privately””’ (preferably at IRC channel {{IRC|wikipedia-en-revdel}} ([https://web.libera.chat/?channel=#wikipedia-en-revdel Join IRC channel]), or else through Discord or email; see [https://apersonbot.toolforge.org/recently-active/?admins currently active administrators list]). ”’Do not post on publicly visible spaces.”’

*** If you are an administrator, notify other administrators ”privately” and revision-delete the threat; contact ”'<code>{{nospam|emergency|wikimedia.org}}</code>”’if needed. [[Wikipedia:Requests for oversight|Request suppression]] (“oversight”) for threats of self-harm, suicide and where there is personal information involved.

** ”’Threats or actions that (would) deliberately expose Wikipedia or its editors to external harassment or persecution.”’ Such behaviour will lead to immediate and heavy sanctions. Administrators applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] of what they have done and why.

** ”’Threats to give out personal details about an editor”’ (outing), also a serious offence.

* ”’It’s OK to say “sorry””’. 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. ”Offer” an apology if you feel you may want to offer it, but ”never demand” it. Never be too proud to make the first move when it comes to saying sorry. That kind of “pride” is destructive.

=== Seek and abide by consensus ===

Line 257: Line 302:

==== Determination of consensus ====

Discussions may generally end up in two outcomes: consensus achieved (for or against) or no consensus. On Wikipedia, consensus does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable). Most of discussions end in a certain consensus nor is it the result of a [[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|vote]]

=== Do not harass other editors ===

”'[[Harassment]]”’ is a pattern of repeated [[Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying incivility|offensive behavior]] that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually, the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing. Harassing other editors is a serious offence and leads to blocks, regardless of the way it is done, for what reason and regardless of the basis for harassment. The same rules also apply to people who are not part of Wikipedia editing community. Apart from typical ways of harassment, certain other behaviours are sanctionable:

* ”’Hounding”’ on Wikipedia (“wiki-hounding”) is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. It disrupts another user’s own enjoyment of editing, or the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor, and may be done to avenge for something. While following others’ contributions may be done for collegial or administrative purposes, avoid following others unless you are able to demonstrate good cause for that. That good cause may be fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for [[Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol|Recent changes patrol]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam|WikiProject Spam]].

* ”’Threatening”’ someone is also in general harassment. Threatening to use standard dispute resolution processes is not harassment but [[Vexatious litigation|repeated meritless filings]] for dispute resolution may be. Avoid comments that can be reasonably interpreted as a legal threat; words such as ”libelous” or ”defamatory” are best avoided for that reason. If you see such a threat, give a chance to clarify their position and withdraw the threat.

* ”’Outing”’ on Wikipedia is defined very broadly. It means posting any personal information{{Efn|I.e. real-life name, date of birth, [[National identification number|identification numbers]], home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, contact data, personal profiles on external sites or photograph}} that has not been voluntarily posted or linked to by the user ”’on Wikipedia.”'{{Efn|1=A [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=914386202#RfC:_Clarification_of_OUTING September 2019 request for comment] clarified that reposting information voluntarily provided to a Wikimedia Foundation project other than English Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia is not always allowed. It is OK when the editor clearly wanted the information disseminated (e.g. it is on the user page), but will generally not be so if that information has to be found by digging deep in other person’s edit history, especially if they deleted it. Err to the side of preserving their privacy and not posting their information if in doubt; you may also ask them for permission. Also, just because you can post it doesn’t mean you should.}} The fact that the user has social media presence or public presence under the same name/nickname as on Wikipedia does not allow you to “connect the dots” and refer to information posted there on Wikipedia. It doesn’t matter if the information is true – the very act, unless done unintentionally and for innocuous purposes, or under one of the exceptions, is grounds for an immediate block.

** ”’Assume that all information that you post about yourself on Wikipedia is made public to everyone forever and may be used to establish your real-life identity and activities [[Doxing|without your consent]].”’ Anyone with access to the data may weaponise it against you. See also [[Wikipedia:Personal security practices|Personal security practices]], [[Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion|On privacy]], and [[Wikipedia:How to not get outed on Wikipedia|How to not get outed on Wikipedia]]

** [[Wikipedia:Requests for oversight|Request suppression]] ”immediately” for personal information that you posted inadvertently (including IP addresses if you accidentally edited while being logged out), as others are allowed to quote information that is still live. If you see an edit that “outs” someone, revert it and request suppression ”immediately”. Referring to that information after suppression is considered outing.

** ”’Do not draw attention to outing in public.”’

** ”’Do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information.”’ Refer to the outing as “attempted”, “possible” or similar to avoid informing about how much the violation was successful.

** Exceptions to outing policy include:

**# Emailing information about editors to individual administrators, [[Wikipedia:Functionaries|functionaries]], or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation, when doing so is necessary to report violations of confidentiality-sensitive policies (such as [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest|conflict of interest]] or [[Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure|paid editing]], harassment, or violations of the [[Wikipedia:Child protection|child-protection policy]]). Private correspondence [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Removal of private correspondence|must be sent to the Arbitration Committee]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Private correspondence|may not be posted on-wiki]] without the other party’s consent.

**# Linking to external pages where employers solicit paid Wikipedia editing services, in discussions that deal with conflicts of interest

**# Linking to external pages of a subject who has identified themselves and have not redacted it/requested suppression, in discussions that deal with conflicts of interest. If that information was suppressed and is important to the discussions, you may not repost it but you can still ”privately” share the information with people who can investigate the issue, as per point 1.

**# To combat impersonation (an editor claiming falsely to be a particular person), it is permissible to post or link to disavowals from that person, if the person explicitly consented to the posting in good faith, and there is a high degree of confidence that the source is authentic.

* ”’Misuse of others’ user (talk) pages,”’ including bogus warnings and accusations, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing “suspected sockpuppet” and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space. Disputes about misuse of user pages should be raised with administrators; refrain from edit warring.

== Do not try to game the system ==

Too much for you? Want just the gist? You can consult the simplified ruleset for a very short version of what you should do.

Conduct policies aim to ensure that despite our different views, you can still work amicably with other editors or at least avoid unnecessary confrontation.

Fundamentals

Don’t be a dick

The fundamental rule of all social spaces. Every other policy for getting along is a special case of it. We will not give you a definition or examples of being a dick, so as to not give the temptation to be one. Besides, you probably know how to be one – Wikipedia is not the place to test the patience of editors. Another formulation of this rule could be the Golden Rule: treat others as you would like others to treat you.

If a significant number of reasonable people suggest, whether bluntly or politely, that you are being a dick, the odds are good that this might be true. If you suspect this, the first step is to become aware of it. Then ask yourself what behavior might be causing this perception. Try changing your demeanour and your mode of presentation. Honestly examine your motivations. Are you here to contribute and make the project good? Or is your goal really to find fault, get your views across, or be the one in control? Maybe you enjoy the thrill of confrontation? This may not make you a bad person, but to everyone who is busily trying to build something great, you become an impediment. People get frustrated, rancor ensues, and the whole project suffers.

A common misconception is that being right means you aren’t being a dick. You couldn’t be more wrong. Dicks can be right — but they’re still dicks; if there’s something in what they say is worth hearing, it goes unheard, because no one likes listening to dicks. It doesn’t matter how right they are or however righteous their cause is.

Competence is required

You saw or heard that slogan that “anyone can edit Wikipedia”? Indeed, anyone with basic technical tools can read and edit Wikipedia (unless your country censors it, or when we talk about select sensitive areas where the disruption is so persistent we needed to introduce some barriers to the novices), but unfortunately there’s more to that. Just because you have the technical tools doesn’t mean you don’t have to use your brain to edit the encyclopedia – in fact, you must. Once you know this, make sure that you have the following skills:

the ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively. It doesn’t have to be perfect or native-level English comprehension.
the ability to read, understand sources and assess their reliability, if you are doing anything beyond copyediting. (See guidance on evaluating sources)
the ability to understand the general idea of our policies and guidelines. As you grow more experienced, we will expect more from you in terms of proper application, but in general, strive towards the goals outlined in the policies and guidelines.
the ability to communicate with other editors in a civil manner and abide by consensus.
the ability to understand your own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where you lack skill or knowledge – a really important skill. This includes more specialized subjects, sources in foreign languages you don’t understand, and policies and guidelines you have not yet mastered. If you don’t know something, ask for help (where?), and better ask for help than make a lot of mistakes that others will have to clean up and later be angry about.

How we know you are here to build an encyclopedia

So you ticked all the points above and you are ready to contribute. You will likely make a lot of mistakes in the beginning, but that’s fine – perfection is not required, particularly in the beginning. For as long as you genuinely want to improve the encyclopedia and focus most of your efforts on it; are ready to learn, listen to those who are more experienced and self-correct, and not try to cross the red lines, or test their boundaries, you will be golden. All improvements are welcome – so choose your favourite area and start from there. In contrast, there are several signs which show to us that an editor is clearly not here do improve the encyclopedia. We do not want such editors. They usually cause more problems than we are ready to put up with. These behaviours include:

being narrowly self-interested or mainly here to promote themselves, their business or advocate for their favourite cause; essentially a single-purpose account (SPA)
having a pattern of disruptive behaviour that the user seems unlikely to change. This includes cases when the editor promises to change bad behaviour but it persists.
trying to score brownie points outside of Wikipedia (when your edits are mainly to impress, amuse or placate third parties outside of Wikipedia), e.g. god(s) you believe in, your significant other, your idol
seeing Wikipedia as a battlefield, where you are supposed to fight to “win” encyclopedia wars and brew conflict instead of just writing a trustworthy encyclopedia. This includes being hostile, aggressive to others and escalating disputes
trying to game the system, lawyer your way through arguments (instead of following what the rules are supposed to mean) and showing other dishonest behaviours that undermine mutual trust
lack of interest in working constructively and cooperatively with the community where the views of other users may differ; extreme disregard for others’ legitimate concerns
focusing on goals unrelated to building an encyclopedia, such as collecting user rights (“hats”) and awards, treating Wikipedia as a social media website or editing your userspace only
other behaviours which show that all things considered, the editor is not trying to contribute productively or is a net burden to the community

On newbies

For newbies, the sheer amount of rules will likely be overwhelming. While there is a very short version of what you should do, not everyone will read even that. In fact, few people read directions from beginning to end. So there may be confusion as to what the rules mean. For established editors: do not bite the newbies, and treat them with the same respect you have for experienced users. Our goal is to retain them and not put them off. When you see a mistake they have done, be patient and explain in simple and polite terms what is wrong with it, why it is wrong and what should change. Avoid Wikipedia jargon and explain the problem in the friendliest approach possible. Remember that ignorance of guidelines can excuse mistakes, so calmly explain what mistakes they made, why it is a mistake and how to avoid them in the future.

For newbies: listen up and learn. Making a mistake does not make you a bad editor if you are willing to self-improve. With time, you will have learned enough to mentor others and edit with confidence.

We are creating an encyclopedia

While this reminder might appear unnecessary, you may forget about it when you get bogged down in passionate discussions about some aspects of a subject. We are not a discussion forum. Remember that the talk page, or any of the noticeboards, are just tools to the goal of creating or maintaining a better encyclopedia; it is not a goal unto itself. Instead of finding reasons to argue with strangers on the Internet, get to work and start writing articles, or things that can enhance them.

General rules around editing

This page in a nutshell: Improve pages wherever you can, and do not worry about leaving them imperfect. If you see a way to improve something – go ahead and do it. Preserve the value that others add, even if they “did it wrong” (try to fix it rather than remove it). Do not edit with the goal of harming Wikipedia

All improvements are welcome

Each contributor may bring something different to the table, whether it be: researching skills, technical expertise, writing prowess or tidbits of information, but most importantly, a willingness to help. Even the best articles (which is the closest we have to what you’d normally call a “finished article”) should not be considered complete, as each new editor can offer new insights on how to enhance the content at any time.

Wikipedia is a work in progress. While we do want excellent articles as an end goal, we do not require perfection. You may start from a poor article with just random facts, but what matters is that each editor may bring something new, or fix existing issues, so at the end we get a great reference. Remember, though, that you need sources for your content, so don’t create an unsourced article; and if you write anything about living people, make sure the sources that confirm what you wrote appear immediately upon publication, lest that content be deleted and your efforts be wasted. Also, you are responsible for your editing (manual, assisted by automation or artificial intelligence) so make some effort and do your best.

As a general rule,^[a] you are not limited as to the type of content, or the kind of contributions you want to bring, so go for it. You may fix grammar and commas, add (properly sourced and verifiable!) content to existing articles, add sources to unsourced statements, delete unsourced statements, add some graphics, write about niche topics and so on. You may also create new articles (provided they can be potentially improved to an excellent status and the topic is notable).

However, any operation that involves semi-automatic or automatic mass creation of articles must be pre-approved by the community at Village pump (proposals), with notification at relevant WikiProjects’ talk pages (and may separately require approval of bot operation). While deploying this automation, you must demonstrate at least one source that would plausibly contribute to satisfying the general notability guideline, all while making sure that each individual topic satisfies the notability requirements.

Be bold, but not reckless

Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes, fixing problems, and changes that you believe are unlikely to be controversial. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes. Nobody owns articles, so if you see an improvement you can make, make it. Don’t wait for someone to do it.

However, being bold is not a licence to do whatever you want. Bold editing does not excuse edits against existing consensus, edits in violation of content policies, or edits designed to create a fait accompli, where actions are justified by the fact they have already been carried out.

If you plan an edit which you think may be controversial, or a significant edit (beyond simple copyediting) to an article about a complex, controversial subject, particularly one with a long history of enforcement procedures, you should visit the talk page of the article and read the whole article to see if your change was discussed or ruled out as a feasible option. It is likely that Wikipedians have already spent hours and spilled much Internet ink on resolving these issues, so why awaken the conflict the second time? You should also be careful around Good and Featured Articles, because careless editing may create issues that are incompatible with these quality distinctions. For these cases, or when in doubt about the best course of action, be cautious, you should best make a proposal on the talk page and see if has consensus. Make sure you explain the nature of your changes in edit summaries or notes on the talk page if there isn’t enough space. If you plan big edits, you may probably want create a draft page (e.g. Draft:XYZ) and link to it, so that others can see what changes you want and discuss them. However, this does not mean that every edit must be consulted – use your best judgment to edit these articles alone.

Try to fix problems if possible

Perfection is not required, so removing content that is imperfect is not always the best option. Fix problems if you can, tag if you can’t, and only remove if there is no other appropriate cure for the problem. Preserve any valuable contributions from other editors, to the fullest extent possible. If you think an article needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do so, but it is best to leave a comment about why you made the changes on the article’s talk page. As an alternative to removal of others’ contributions:

If you decide to tag the problematic fragments instead of fixing them yourself, there are a couple things you have to remember. First, you are expected to explain the issue and engage in meaningful discussion about the problem you highlighted if it is started. Don’t do “drive-by” tagging or de-tagging. Secondly, use the tags wisely. Copyediting is a lower priority issue compared to, for example, neutrality or tone problems, so if you see multiple issues, highlight only the most pressing ones.

There may be situations where removal is justified, as specified by our content policies; in particular if the content is unsourced (an urgent matter for articles about living people), biased and impossible to fix by balancing the viewpoints, or just fundamentally inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Vandalism and obvious nonsense must be removed immediately, as should material that violates copyright. If in doubt whether you actually should remove the content or it it is better to fix it, consult other editors on the talk page and solicit their opinions.

Blockable offenses

There are several ways to harm Wikipedia, and regardless of your motivations to be here, don’t do it. We are spending thousands of manhours to get the thing right, and we do not like people who mess around the work we have done unless for good cause. And while we’re at it, do not test our boundaries, it’s a bad idea. Just because you technically can do something doesn’t mean you should. When dealing with problematic editors, make sure you have a paper trail of you objectively doing the good thing (here, we tell you how) and let the other editor make a jackass of themselves if they so choose. All the better for intervening outsiders to effectively show where the problem lies.

Related to behaviour to other users

Uncivility

Every person on Wikipedia is always expected to be civil in interactions with other parties, to be reasonably cooperative with each other, to respond to good-faith questions, and to work within the framework of Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. There is no exception to this expectation – and this particularly applies during an argument.

Remember that behind every account and IP address there ultimately is a live person – don’t be a dick to them.

Not assuming good faith

Assume good faith unless there is strong evidence to the contrary as supported by concrete proof of misconduct, and lead by example by demonstrating good faith, even if the other person will not.^[d] Editors should assume that others are trying to help, not hurt the project; intend to follow the rules, and not break them, and if they did break them, assume they did so innocuously. It does not, however, mean “I assume the editor has done all due diligence” – you are free to review any work if you think you see a problem. The rule should never be used as a tool to shut down discussion or declare reasoned criticism off-bounds. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity (e.g. not having enough knowledge or not understanding Wikipedia culture well enough yet).

Personal attacks

Graham’s hierarchy of disagreement: Aim at the top during disputes

Never make personal attacks. Comment on content, not on the contributor,^[e] even if you believe they are being obnoxious. Never call anyone names, lob ad hominems, compare editors to infamous people (Nazis, terrorists etc.) or accuse editors of misconduct absent evidence (“cast aspersions”), for whatever reason you may have. Editors are allowed to have a personal point of view for as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions.

Whenever possible, make your argument in such a way that does not insinuate misconduct. Even if you are right that the other editor misbehaves, accusing them of misconduct is very rarely helpful and, instead of alerting the user to their bad behaviour, usually makes them more belligerent and think you are personally attacking them. Nobody likes to be called the bad guy. And if you are wrong, that is even worse because it shows you believe others are acting in bad faith without good evidence. Also, “reminders” urging to comply with the policies can very often be interpreted as an accusation of violating them, and as such are counterproductive. Again, focus on content, not on the contributor. Politely ask them to do the same.

Be the wiser person and do not answer the editor’s ill manners with more of ill manners. Ignore their invectives, ill-mannered postings and threats unless they are really serious (e.g. any of the kinds of threats listed below, or particularly offensive insults). Sarcasm and passive-aggressive behaviour is not generally helpful, either.

If you believe you really have to address their behaviour specifically, do so in a tactful manner on their user talk page. Try to be as friendly as possible; customise the language to specifically address the problems you see in the editor, and avoid the temptation of giving as good as you get. If they clearly ignore your calls to return to civility and productive editing, or if the behaviour really serious from the start, report it to the Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents. Remember that the only better thing than being a good guy is having a paper trail of being a good guy.

Threats

Do not use threats to win disputes.

Legal threats means using off-wiki (“real-life”) governmental or legal processes against Wikipedia or its editors (internal processes of Wikipedia are not covered). Using such threats is incompatible with editing on Wikipedia and may result in immediate blocks for as long as you keep threatening legal action.^[f]
- Avoid comments that can be reasonably perceived as a legal threat, e.g. describing something as libelous or defamatory unless you really mean it.
- If you see a legal threat, let the user clarify their position and give a chance to withdraw the threat.
- If you have an issue with potential legal implications, use relevant internal Wikipedia processes or contact the Wikimedia Foundation instead (see instructions for privacy/libel issues at Treatment of article subject’s grievances; for asserting copyright infringements, see here).
- Paid editors may be reminded of Wikimedia Foundation’s terms of use and relevant laws against undisclosed advertising without triggering this provision.

Threats of physical harm, violence or death. Making such threats to others is a serious offence and will result in immediate blocks, including revocation of talk page access and possibly your email as well, and may carry legal consequences as well.
- If you are injured or in immediate danger, call emergency services
- If you feel you may harm yourself or others, consult support resources
- Regardless of what you think about them, and whether the threat is to physically harm self or others, treat all threats seriously. Immediately email emergencywikimedia.org with details of the threat, with information where and when this threat was posted. Check your inbox and junk folder; if there is no reply within 30 minutes, forward your email to cawikimedia.org. Contact Wikipedia administrators privately (preferably at IRC channel #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect (Join IRC channel), or else through Discord or email; see currently active administrators list). Do not post on publicly visible spaces.
- If you are an administrator, notify other administrators privately and revision-delete the threat; contact emergencywikimedia.orgif needed. Request suppression (“oversight”) for threats of self-harm, suicide and where there is personal information involved.
Threats or actions that (would) deliberately expose Wikipedia or its editors to external harassment or persecution. Such behaviour will lead to immediate and heavy sanctions. Administrators applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee of what they have done and why.
Threats to give out personal details about an editor (outing) are a serious offense.

Threatening to use standard Wikipedia dispute resolution processes is not sanctionable in itself. However, repeated meritless filings for dispute resolution may be harassment.

Harassment

Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually, the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing. Harassing other editors is a serious offense and leads to blocks, regardless of the way it is done, for what reason and regardless of the basis for harassment. The same rules also apply to people who are not part of Wikipedia editing community.

Hounding on Wikipedia (“wiki-hounding”) is a particular type of harassment. It involves following around the activity of one or more editors to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. It disrupts another user’s own enjoyment of editing, or the project generally, for no constructive reason. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor, and may be done to avenge for something. While following others’ contributions may be done for collegial or administrative purposes, avoid following others unless you are able to demonstrate good cause for that. That good cause may be fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam.

Outing

Outing on Wikipedia is defined very broadly. It means posting any personal information^[g] that has not been voluntarily posted or linked to by the user on Wikipedia.^[h] The fact that the user has social media presence or public presence under the same name/nickname as on Wikipedia does not allow you to “connect the dots” and refer to information posted there on Wikipedia. It doesn’t matter if the information is true – the very act, unless done unintentionally and for innocuous purposes, or under one of the exceptions, is grounds for an immediate block.

Assume that all information that you post about yourself on Wikipedia is made public to everyone forever and may be used to establish your real-life identity and activities without your consent. Anyone with access to the data may weaponize it against you. Think twice before clicking “Publish changes”. See also Personal security practices, On privacy, and How to not get outed on Wikipedia.

Request suppression immediately for personal information that you posted inadvertently (including IP addresses if you accidentally edited while being logged out), as others are allowed to quote information that is still live. If you see an edit that “outs” someone, revert it and request suppression immediately. Do not draw attention to it in public and do not indicate how accurate the information was. If you have to refer to it, use words like “attempted” or “possible”. Referring to personal information after suppression is considered outing.

Exceptions:

Emailing information about editors to individual administrators, functionaries, or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation, when doing so is necessary to report violations of confidentiality-sensitive policies (such as conflict of interest or paid editing, harassment, or violations of the child-protection policy). Private correspondence must be sent to the Arbitration Committee and may not be posted on-wiki without the other party’s consent.
Linking to external pages where employers solicit paid Wikipedia editing services, in discussions that deal with conflicts of interest
Linking to external pages of a subject who has identified themselves and have not redacted it/requested suppression, in discussions that deal with conflicts of interest. If that information was suppressed and is important to the discussions, you may not repost it but exception 1 still applies.
To combat impersonation (an editor claiming falsely to be a particular person), it is permissible to post or link to disavowals from that person, if the person explicitly consented to the posting in good faith, and there is a high degree of confidence that the source is authentic.

Misuse of other users’ talkpages

This includes bogus warnings and accusations, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing {{Sockpuppet}} and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space. Disputes about misuse of user pages should be raised with administrators; refrain from edit warring.

Trying to illustrate your point via disruption

When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one’s view, applying it consistently, in a sort of malicious compliance. Whatever your reason, such behaviour is highly disruptive and may lead to sanctions. Instead, use the relevant talk pages to raise your concerns, or seek dispute resolution if the discussion was not productive. There is in fact a way to make your point without being a dick. For as long as you confine your arguments to the talk pages, playing devil’s advocate or saying something along the lines of By that standard, we ought to remove all the cited sources on this page is probably fine. But don’t actually do that just to spite the user(s) you disagree with.

How to resolve disagreements

Disagreements are an inevitable part of Wikipedia process, and in fact it is thanks to them that we detect issues that are not that obvious. It is OK to disagree if you see an issue. It is great if you can point to exactly why this is an issue, as formulated in our policies and guidelines. It is best if also done in a certain manner. However, the very basic thing you should always do is identify that you are part of the dispute and state the reason why you are arguing.

Resist the urge to have the last word, stop and take a breath. You may be tempted to continue, but you need to know a time when you just need to move on.

It’s OK to say “sorry”. 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. Offer an apology if you feel you may want to offer it, but never demand it. Never be too proud to make the first move when it comes to saying sorry. That kind of “pride” is destructive.

Seek and abide by consensus

Consensus is the fundamental and widely accepted way of decision-making on Wikipedia. It involves an effort to address editors’ legitimate concerns through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines.

Ways of establishing consensus

Consensus can be presumed for an edit until disagreement becomes evident. This may happen through disputing the edits, reverting them or otherwise raising legitimate concerns. You can revise the edit if you disagree, and there will be consensus for this version until there is some other disagreement. You are obliged to accurately explain your edits, reverts or other actions, either through an edit summary or by reference to a related discussion. Consider compromising with another editor if your edit is reverted, but do not let the article to fail content policies.

Compromise sometimes may not be achievable by edits alone. Remember to never engage in edit warring. Instead, open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; editors can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy most, if not all concerns. The main goal is to get broad agreement on the treatment of the issue; the compromise need not be perfect but the more important thing is that everybody works on the understanding that the page is gradually improving.

There are times when even after a discussion on the talk page, editors do not feel that they are any closer to compromise. In this case, you may want more eyes on this issue. In order of increasing involvement, these are the venues for discussing content:

Third opinion (3O) – a request for a neutral editor to give non-binding advice to exactly two editors in a dispute.
Dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) – a more formalised mediation process for relatively simple disputes involving more than two parties
Noticeboards – most policy and guideline pages, and many wikiprojects, have noticeboards for interested editors
Request for Comment (RfC) – a sitewide call for editors to opine on certain content issues; all RfCs are listed here
The Village Pump – mainly for discussing policies, guidelines or technical Wikipedia stuff; notifications about discussions being held elsewhere are habitually reserved for large RfCs. An RfC with sitewide implications may be additionally posted to the Centralised discussion template.

If you want to post an invitation for others to comment in these areas, you must frame this invitation in neutral terms.

Determination of consensus

Do not try to game the system

Gaming the system means deliberately misusing Wikipedia policy or process for personal advantage at the expense of other editors or the Wikipedia community. This may range from bad faith attempts to thwart the aims of Wikipedia, to simply engineering “victory” in a content dispute or an untoward result in an RfC or other community discussion. Gaming the system may represent an abuse of process, disruptive editing, or otherwise evading the spirit of community consensus. Editors typically game the system to make a point, to further an edit war, or to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view.

Do not feed the trolls. Trolls may be covering their bad faith under the guise of civility. One tactic involves stonewalling the badgering opposing editors or otherwise stonewalling the discussion

Notes

^
The more common exceptions to these rules include:
- Contentious topics (full list here)
- Articles and other pages with hard restrictions on editing articles for new editors
- Cases when you were sanctioned for disruptive behaviour
^ This means the person knows what they are doing (or is expected to know what they are doing) and it is harmful. In some cases, newbies may introduce some nonsense into articles, basically as test editing. While test editing is not allowed outside your userspace (you have the sandbox, e.g. User:Example/sandbox, if you need a test ground), it is not vandalism. Newbies may also misunderstand or may not be aware of the purpose of Wikipedia, so they start editing it as if it were a blog or a forum. It is inappropriate, but it’s not vandalism. Also, doing something inadvertently does not in general constitute vandalism, but if you make several “oopsies” like that, you will be treated with suspicion.
^ The templates have numbers attached, starting from relatively innocuous level 1 and up to level 4im, by which you indicate that the user is way over the line. Adjust the degree of warning based on the severity and persistence of the issues.
^ It also doesn’t mean “assume blind faith” or “do not ever think I’m bad”. If a person clearly is disruptive to the project and you reasonably suspect some bad faith efforts behind it, such as in cases of vandalism or pushing an agenda, you are not obliged to assume good faith. It still may be a bad idea to show it.
^ As a rare exception, if you have reasonable suspicion that an editor has a conflict of interest, particularly one they have not disclosed, you may raise this issue when relevant. However, be aware that there is a fine line between digging for conflict of interest and outing a person – the latter not allowed
^ If the threat is posted on the user’s own talk page, it’s not normally as disruptive, so it’s best to try to talk the person away from the threat. However, persistent, repeating or vexatious threats will be sanctioned
^ I.e. real-life name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, contact data, personal profiles on external sites or photograph
^ A September 2019 request for comment clarified that reposting information voluntarily provided to a Wikimedia Foundation project other than English Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia is not always allowed. It is OK when the editor clearly wanted the information disseminated (e.g. it is on the user page), but will generally not be so if that information has to be found by digging deep in other person’s edit history, especially if they deleted it. Err to the side of preserving their privacy and not posting their information if in doubt; you may also ask them for permission. Also, just because you can post it doesn’t mean you should.

User:Szmenderowiecki/Attempt at compilation/Conduct: Difference between revisions