This is anessay on theconduct policy. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not beenthoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcut WP:BEYONDWP:BEYOND

When a discussion is unproductive,incivility is often blamed, but this puts thecart before the horse: incivility is often aresult of unproductive discussion, not its cause. Productive discussion demands goingbeyond civility: while civility is very important, four other patterns of behavior are just as important to reaching a productive outcome:

1. Acknowledgeprecedent.

Ignoring precedent, intentionally or not, leads to repeating old arguments, which can frustrate everyone. When participating in a discussion, you should try to understand how similar situations have been handled in the past, and to act in light of that understanding. If there is a precedent for the present situation, but you think an exception should be made,acknowledge the consensus andexplain why it shouldn't apply. If you want to challenge the consensus itself, do so at theright venue. ("Precedent" includes – in decreasing order of priority – all thepolicies,guidelines, andclosed discussions that bear on the matter at hand.Global consensus supersedes local consensus.)

2. Avoidlogical fallacies.

Fallacious arguments don't convince, they only frustrate productive discussion. Make sure your conclusionsfollow logically from the available information, and your argument isobjectively and succinctly stated. Justify your assumptions and generalizations. Be precise. Understand where theburden of proof lies, and what thestatus quo is. When you see logical fallacies being committed, point them out – civilly of course.

3. Don't gometa.

Make sure you're talking about the original matter of dispute, andnot having a dispute about the dispute, or a dispute about the dispute about the dispute. If you have an issue with how another editor conducts themselves, you may note this, but if discussion continues along that line, it should be taken to another forum (seeWikipedia:Dispute resolution). Once you get more than one level of abstraction away from the original dispute, it is very unlikely that anything you say is going to help resolve that original dispute.

4. Don'trepeat yourself.¹

Consensus is determined by thesoundness of arguments and the support they receive from different editors,nothow often they are expressed, or whether they havethe last word.Closers will review the discussion with this in mind. Repeating yourself to someone who wasn't convinced the first time won't produce your desired outcome – it will only generate aggravation. If you need to clarify a point or address a misunderstanding, go ahead – but make sure you're not just saying the same thing over again.

The point of any discussion is to get to a resolution. If you ignore precedent, employ a logical fallacy, stray into meta-discussion, or argue by exhaustion, you make a productive outcome less likely.If youknowingly do any of these things, you arenot acting ingood faith,even if you remain civil. So repeat these rules to yourself like amantra:Acknowledge precedent. Avoid logical fallacies. Don't go meta. Don't repeat yourself.

^ 1. This does not apply touser talk warnings; if an editor is engaging in behavior that the community has clearly defined as unacceptable, repetition and escalation of warning messages is standard procedure.

• Wikipedia:Precedents
• Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid

• Wikipedia behavioral essays
• Wikipedia essays about consensus
• Wikipedia essays explaining processes