Project:Conduct policy

The purpose of this project is to be a collaborative platform for documenting English video game online communities. In order to facilitate a healthy environment, the following policies relating to editor behavior have been written.

These policies build on top of the policies laid out in the terms of use. In the event of a contradiction between this page and the terms of use, the terms of use take precedence.

Civility

Editors are expected to have civil conversations and debate among one another, especially when they disagree, even should the subject matter be sensitive or inflammatory. Disagree without being disagreeable. All editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions. As a means of upholding this value, all editors will be expected to partake in the following behaviors, so as to continue to facilitate a collegial environment.

• Explain yourself. Insufficient explanations for edits can be perceived as uncivil. Use good edit summaries (e.g the box that pops up before a change is saved), and use the talk page if the edit summary does not provide enough space, or if a more substantive debate is likely to be needed.
• Try not to get too intense. Passion can be misread as aggression, so take great care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy.
• Avoid editing while you're in a bad mood or under the influence of any substance. It does spill over.
• 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.
• Avoid condescension. No matter how frustrated you are, do not tell people to "grow up" or include any language along the lines of "if this were kindergarten" in your messages.
• Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment. Even if you see the comment as ridiculous, they very probably don't, and expressing ridicule is likely only to offend and antagonize, rather than helping.
• Be careful with edit summaries. They are relatively short comments and thus potentially subject to misinterpretation or oversimplification.

No personal attacks

In line with civility, it is unacceptable for an editor to attack the identity or personage of another editor. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks. There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable:

• Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors.
  • Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
• Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be, "You're an otaku so what would you know about the real world?"
• Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor.
• Comparing editors to Nazis, communists, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons. (See also Godwin's law.)
• Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.
• Threats of any kind with specific examples list below. Administrators are empowered to block editors indefinitely without warning or appeal upon discovery of a threat.
  • Threats of legal action against a specific editor or Online Communipedia
  • Threats of violence or other off-wiki action (particularly death threats)
  • Threats or actions which deliberately expose other Online Communipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by a government, their employer, or any others.
  • Threats to out (give out personal details about) an editor.

These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.

Edit warring

An edit war is defined as when 2 or more editors continuously revert each-other's edits in order to bring the content of the page to their preferred version, rather than having a discussion to achieve compromise or consensus. This behavior is unacceptable, and may lead to blocks - to the page or site-wide - and/or the application of page protection.

3 revert rule

Online Communipedia makes use of the 3 revert rule.

An editor may not perform more than 3 reverts on a single page (in any namespace) —whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. A "revert" is classified as using the "undo" button on a page's history, or making edits manually to the page that are functionally equivalent.

The following exceptions apply.

1. Reversion is of the editor's own material.
2. Reversion removes personally identifying information.
3. Reversion removes material that is clearly and unequivocally illegal.
4. Reversion removes copyright infringement.
5. Reversion removes material that is clearly in violation of our policy on maintaining the informational security of communities.
6. Reversion removes clear and unequivocal vandalism (see below).

Violations of this guideline may result in blocks, usually starting at 1 day.

Vandalism

Vandalism on this project is defined as edits made that explicitly obstruct this project's purpose or explicitly deface any page of the project. Blanking an article without explanation, random profanity/slurs, random antagonistic commentary, and the like are the behaviors associated with vandalism.

Edits made that can be reasonably interpreted to be in good faith to try and improve a page - even if to an experienced editor it is objectively incorrect, wrong, and potentially even harmful - are NOT vandalism. Also note that edits made that are tests of the software, such as adding random words, the removal of a single letter or word, the breaking of links and templates, and the like should not be automatically assumed to be vandalism. At least, not without additional behavior informing the decision. It is not the fault of anonymous or newer editors that they do not understand the policies, tools, and editing norms of this website.

Proper and true vandalism, if sighted, may be reverted on the spot without prejudice. Continued vandalism after 1 or more warnings on the relevant editor's talk page may result in an automatic indefinite block by any administrator. Vandalism performed by IP addresses may be blocked on sight, though preferably not indefinitely, by any administrator.

Site officials

The administration of the project is done by it's administrators (and in extension the site operator). These editors work in tandem to maintain a positive environment for collaborative editing. This includes enforcing this conduct policy, the content policy, the terms of use, any other policy, fighting copyright infringement, and contributing to the project like any other editor.

Editors of the project are obligated to adhere to the instructions of administrators unless their instructions violate a project policy or the terms of use. Otherwise, said editors may be blocked.

At least one revision of this page incorporates text from multiple sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility was used and is released under CC BY-SA-4.0. (view authors) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks was used and is released under CC BY-SA-4.0. (view authors) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring was used and is released under CC BY-SA-4.0. (view authors) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism was used and is released under CC BY-SA-4.0. (view authors)