Project:Conduct policy

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

These policies build on top of the policies laid out in the Terms of Use. If any policies here contradict the Terms of Use, the Terms of Use supersedes it.

Civility

Differences of opinion are inevitable in a collaborative project. When discussing these differences, some editors can seem unnecessarily harsh, while simply trying to be forthright. Other editors may seem oversensitive when their views are challenged. Faceless written words on talk pages and in edit summaries do not fully transmit the nuances of verbal conversation, sometimes leading to misinterpretation of an editor's comments. An uncivil remark can escalate spirited discussion into a personal argument that no longer focuses objectively on the problem at hand. Such exchanges waste our efforts and undermine a positive, productive working environment.

Resolve differences of opinion through civil discussion; disagree without being disagreeable. Discussion of other editors should be limited to polite discourse about their actions.

Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions. Try to treat your fellow editors as respected colleagues with whom you are working on an important project. Be especially welcoming and patient towards new users who contribute constructively, but politely discourage non-constructive newcomers.

• Explain yourself. Insufficient explanations for edits can be perceived as uncivil. Use good edit summaries, 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. Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are "superior"; nobody likes a bully.
• Avoid editing while you're in a bad mood. It does spill over.
• Take a real-life check. Disengage by two steps to assess what you're about to say (or have just said). Asking yourself "How would I feel if someone said that to me?" is often not enough; many people can just brush things off. To get a better perspective, ask yourself: "How would I feel if someone said that to someone I love who cannot just 'brush it off'?" If you would find that unacceptable, then do not say it. And, if you have already said it, strike it and apologize.
• Be professional. Just because we are online and unpaid does not mean we can behave badly to each other. People working together in a newspaper office are not supposed to get into punch-ups in the newsroom because they disagree about how something is worded or whose turn it is to make the coffee. Nor are volunteers working at the animal rescue center allowed to start screaming at each other over who left ferrets in the filing cabinet or the corn snake in the cutlery drawer. In fact, there's pretty much nowhere in this world where people working together to do something good are allowed to get into fist-fights, shouting matches, hair-pulling or name-calling; the same principle applies here.
• 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. They cannot be changed after pressing "Save", and are often written in haste, particularly in stressful situations. Remember to explain your edit, especially when things are getting heated; to avoid personal comments about any editors you have disputes with; and to use the talk page to further explain your view of the situation.

No personal attacks

Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Online Communipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the community and the collaborative atmosphere. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans.

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 a railfan so what would you know about fashion?" Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic; but beware – speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing.
• Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions.
• 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, usually in the form of diffs and links.
• Threats, including, but not limited to:
  • Threats of legal action
  • 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. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery.
  • 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.

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 collaborate 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. These editors are never paid for the work they do for this project and the work tends to be thankless.

Editors of the site are obligated to adhere to the instructions of administrators in relation to editor conduct and participation unless their instructions violate a project policy or the Terms of Use.