From StrategyWiki, the video game walkthrough and strategy guide wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

We want the members of the StrategyWiki community to get along with each other, but with any community, there are always those who will disrupt it. Whether from ignorance or malice, those who engage in inappropriate behavior will not be tolerated. Administrators can choose to act on those that are disruptive towards the community.

Assuming Good Faith[edit]

A good rule of thumb is to always assume good faith in other editors. In allowing anyone to edit, we must assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. When you can reasonably assume that a mistake someone made was a well-intentioned attempt to further the goals of the project, correct it without criticizing. When you disagree with people, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project. Use talk pages to explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do the same. This can avoid misunderstandings and prevent problems from escalating.

Be patient with newcomers. Newcomers unaware of StrategyWiki's culture and the mechanics of editing often make mistakes or fail to respect community norms. Many newcomers bring with them experience or expertise for which they expect immediate respect. Behaviors arising from these perspectives are not malicious.

Assuming good faith is about intentions, not actions. Well-meaning people make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do. You should not act like their mistake was deliberate. Correct, but do not scold. There will be people on StrategyWiki with whom you disagree. Even if they are wrong, that does not mean they are trying to wreck the project. There will be some people with whom you find it hard to work. That does not mean they are trying to wreck the project either. It is never necessary that we attribute an editor's actions to bad faith, even if bad faith seems obvious, as all our countermeasures (i.e. reverting, blocking) can be performed on the basis of behavior rather than intent.

Civility is a code for the conduct of editing and writing edit summaries, comments, and talk page discussions on all articles. Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another. What does this mean? Just be professional and courteous to others on talk pages and in edit summaries. It only hurts the project to act out against someone whether than working it out civilly.

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Editors should not accuse the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith in the absence of reasonable supporting evidence.

Personal Attacks[edit]

Personal attacks are arguments that focus on attacking another user personally, rather than addressing his arguments regarding the subject matter. Personal attacks are completely inappropriate in all conversations that take place in StrategyWiki.

Users who participate in personal attacks are immediately subject to administrative action, including banning. Warnings may be given, but are not guaranteed.

If you are the target of personal attacks, do not reciprocate. Contact an administrator so that offenses can be handled administratively. Any personal attack, even one in retaliation, is subject to administrative penalties.

Edit Warring[edit]

iCat disapproves of your edits!

An edit war is the act of two or more parties adding and/or reverting an article's content to suit their own view of the subject. The content is changed by one user, then changed back by another, effectively "warring" over who's edit is best.

Depending on the severity of the edit war, administrators will decide if a ban is warranted, or just a warning. Edit wars that do not stop after a warning may result in being banned from StrategyWiki. In the case of edit wars where vandalism or spam is involved, those adding the offending material will be immediately banned pursuant to policies on vandalism and spam.

Avoid taking part in an edit war. If you believe the content being added is incorrect or inappropriate, please inform an administrator that you believe an edit war may be starting, and take your suggestions to the article's discussion page. Constantly reverting content solves nothing and causes conflict, use of the discussion pages allows the editors to work out their issues and come to a consensus.