Wikipedia talk:Civility

Amendment to WP:UNCIVIL

Just wondering if we should make an amendment to WP:UNCIVIL: Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. → Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness or disrespectful comments. Recently had an editor (not going to out them here) argue that they hadn't violated WP:UNCIVIL—against several users' warnings—because they were only rude and disrespectful, but didn't make personal attacks. MB2437 10:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

NO, and I would be surprised that was accepted at wp:ani, as it's clearly wikilaywering. Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Yes it can "well I did all three and that is not forbidden". So then we have to have "and or" after each instance. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Doing all three would distinctly be three separate violations under the proposed wording, but "and/or" would also work. MB2437 15:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Link to offensive material guideline

Should some sort of link over to Wikipedia:Offensive material, which addresses the use of potentially offensive words and images in articles, be included on the project page? That content guideline links to this page, and some users seeking information here might find a corresponding link useful. Coining (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I think you are referring to the hatnote. The problem is that this guideline already has a long hatnote and adding quite a bit more to it may not achieve anything useful. Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the hatnote is what I am referring to. Thank you. Wouldn't the page's existing use of Template:Hatnote group help consolidate things? I do think it's important to somewhere distinguish between editing that is uncivil and content that is truly offensive/vulgar/obscene -- points that are not addressed on this page, but that are addressed at the offensive material content guideline. Coining (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Idiots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mentorship

Any pointers on a good place 'round here to get mentored on civility? I'm trying to get some help and struck out so far. No mention of it on the page. RememberOrwell (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey RememberOrwell, while not directly civility related, Wikipedia:Mentorship might be of use to you. Additionally, there's also the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user program. I hope this was helpful! - Otherwise (Talk?) 07:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Ohio! Thanks! Trying to contact my mentor, but unable: Help talk:Your first article#I'm working on my 1st new article; how do I Contact my Wikipedia mentor? Would be great but the mentorship system is broken. RememberOrwell (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Moving essay related to civility to Wikipedia Namespace

Hello! I recently wrote an essay on my user page and I wanted to ensure that it did not "overtly contradict consensus" as outlined in WP:Policy before I attempted to move it to the Wikipedia namespace. I figured it might be a good idea to ask here. I would really appreciate any and all feedback as to whether it belongs on namespace. Thank you! - Otherwise (Talk?) 07:36, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Update, I have moved the essay to mainspace. If you don't believe it matches consensus feel free to tell me on it's talk page.- Otherwise (Talk?) 01:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Profanity

Would not it be better if there was rule banning words like 'F*ck' and such? TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 11:00, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

No, as it will make nonsense of quotes (for example). Also, we could get a Sc*nthorpe sittuation were perfectly normal words (like Bastard) have to get censored to not to upset people. Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I understand that a filter might malfunction but I was thinking about blocking this word manually, like if an administrator saw someone saying F*ck to insult someone, he or she will ban the acount? TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 11:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Ahh, yes I agree that when used as an insult towards another editor it should be a violation wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I added that right now in the wp:npa article. TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 11:23, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Whilst I agree, others may not, and to change policy needs a lot mroe discusion. Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you know where I can propose the idea? TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 11:42, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

You have, here, now just wait more than 5 minutes before deciding you have won. Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Has someone used fuck when describing AI slop (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TrueMoriarty defending AI hallucinations)? The community does not support profanity and does not support AI slop, but of the two, profanity is far preferable. Johnuniq (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

This is a fucking silly proposal. - Walter Who mentioned Pearl Harbour? Ego 10:03, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 6 April 2026

• What I think should be changed:
• Before:

Implicitly accusing one of socking or meating violates this policy?

I thought about raising this at WT:BITE, WT:sockpuppetry, here, or WP:VPP. As I see, the two rules literally haven't yet mentioned how to be careful of making implicit accusations or something like that. Well, WP:BITE says avoid such name-calling, but I just wanna be careful about jumping into conclusions and avoid creating an WP:SPI subpage. [For further context, click/tap this: (revision).] (Tried searching for past threads about accusing one of socking or meating.) George Ho (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I consider the implied accusation of sock puppets resolved, but now I'm as curious as you about the location or motive to these two, possibly three accounts as you. I don't know if it's worth investigating but if it is and "a checkuser, who can look at technical data behind the accounts" checks locations and wants to find the account mentioned which created a typo in the Whitney Webb page and they still have access to the history, it will be easy to find. Shortly after it I made an edit to his correction which mistakenly thought I meant "alleged" when I wrote "allies," my reply correcting bad grammar included a explanation saying something like "typo, thanks for pointing it out." The account right before this was temporary and either the one mentioned by George Ho or a third temporary account. If this account isn't related to the other two there's no reason to believe it was involved.

P.S. Yes, I found this conversation by checking George's contributions, but this isn't a grudge or intended stalking, although we disagreed on an issue. Zacherystaylor (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2026 (UTC)