General discussion on "Guidelines for behaviour" policy
- Given that this has been open for discussion for some time I am now putting it in place as official wiki policy. If anyone has any changes they wish to make in the future, anything other than minor grammar or spelling fixes needs to be discussed with the whole community first. AO (talk) 19:26, September 6, 2013 (UTC)
Suggestions for minor changes.
I'd like to suggest a few minor changes to this policy, that will hopefully clarify it.
- Change the title of the page to "Behaviour Policy" - to make it clear that this page is a policy not a guideline.
- The section titled "General guidelines" to be changed to "The policy" - to make it clear that this section is the main part of the policy.
- The part that reads "Discussion is always a good thing" will now be at the beginning of a new section titled "Further explanation and helpful tips" - this is because this line can't really be used as a rule, it's more a guideline/explanation.
- Adding a part to "The policy" section saying that abuse is also not allowed. This is because I think it's a mistake not to have included this rule in the original version of the policy. I'd suggest wording it like this:
- No abuse. Abuse can be but is not limited to - racism, sexism, homophobia, insults, swearing, shouting (typing all in caps), etc. Basically treat people as you would like to be treated. Remember that there is a real person behind each username, don't say things online that you wouldn't say in real life.
If anyone agrees or disagrees with these suggestions then please leave a comment here to give me an idea of whether these changes are welcomed by the community or not. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 14:38, October 15, 2013 (UTC)
- Given that this suggestion has been open to comment/discussion by the community for some time with no reply I've now put these changes into place. Amateur Obsessive (talk) 22:49, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
I thought it might be a good idea to add a something to this policy about edit warring so I've made a rough draft of what I think might be a good idea to include.
I'd suggest we insert the following at the end of the section headed The policy:
- No edit warring. Edit warring is when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion.
- I think that, for the sake of this, edit warring should be defined. How many edits constitutes an edit war? How is it to be resolved? I think that, to resolve it, status quo prevails—that is, the edit that is under dispute is completely removed (the page is restored to how it was before said edit). I'm all up for having a policy, though. Perhaps an edit war is if user c makes an edit, then user a adds info, user b removes it, and if user a adds it again, that is the beginnings of an edit war. The page should be restored to user c's last edit (the 'status quo'). Thoughts? Fruipit (talk • contribs • editcount) 23:31, May 6, 2014 (UTC)
- I'd rather not put strict definitions on it and simply leave things up to the admins discretion. Not every situation will be the same and this wording allows for more flexibility I think. The section below the policy one says that people should always make discussion their first action so we've already got a bit that tells people how to solve their problems. If we get to a point where the wiki is a lot busier and this becomes a bigger problem we can always add specifics then if we feel we need them. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 15:06, May 7, 2014 (UTC)
- We can always add an 'exceptions may apply to this policy', and leave it at that. I think that, while the community is small, it's best to implement these changes. That way, when we do get busier and more new people are coming, they know what's expected of them. If that can't be agreed upon, I do want the 'status quo prevails until the issue is discussed and sorted out'; that way, the page won't continue to be changed until it is discussed, and there's an actual line of policy to state, 'well, hang on. This is an edit war. So the page has to go back to the way it was, and we have to discuss it'. Fruipit (talk • contribs • editcount) 21:50, May 7, 2014 (UTC)
- How about this wording:
- No edit warring. Edit warring is when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion. Three or more reversions of a page would constitute an edit war.
- And then in the Further explanation and helpful tips we could write this:
- When an edit war occurs the page should remain in it's original state before changes where made until the issue is discussed and consensus is reached.
- Nope, that about covers it. Perhaps saying "... three or more revisions, regardless of contributors...", because on occasion, other users jump in with their opinion. Other than that, I like that wording. It's clear-cut and as far as I can see, leaves little room to move (in this case, a good thing). Fruipit (talk • contribs • editcount) 22:28, May 22, 2014 (UTC)