User:Sakaratte/Principles

All visitors and contributors to the wiki are important to the community and should be treated with respect, dignity and be welcomed. As a collaborative volunteer project and community healthy collaboration is a must. To this end the following principles should be followed as a general code of conduct for collaboration.


 * 1) The spirit, not the word of the rule should be followed.
 * 2) All users are equal in decision making.
 * 3) All decisions are based on consensus.
 * 4) All decisions are open to challenge.

The spirit, not the word of the rule should be followed
Rules are written to either ensure or prevent an act from occurring, be it to allow for consistency in articles, or to encourage positive behaviours. What they are not there for is to allow users to bludgeon their stance into other users, or intimidate other users into a certain standpoint; the spirit of the rule is the intent.

A rule that states "please speak English" for example is there to reflect conversation should be in English, however it should not be taken as "speak English at all times, or suffer the consequences". Other languages certainly do add flavour and variety to conversation and expands our minds culturally.

The same also applies to sanctions. The rule may say this offense is this result, but in many cases, the rule doesn't fit the offence and in some cases the offence doesn't quite fit the rule. The rule should be used as a guide and the decision made must be one that the issuer can confidently present and justify.

All users are equal
In short, everyone from a new user to a bureaucrat are equal in the decisions around content and policy. No one voice is more important than another and no voice should be dismissed. Someone disagreeing with another user, but explaining why they disagree is not dismissal, it is a differing point of view which can be built upon. Dismissal can be identified as: Those who are dismissing others views should be challenged on their behaviour and in extreme or persistent cases conduct/rights abuse policies should be considered.
 * Telling a user they are wrong, but not explaining why.
 * Opening a discussion or vote with "views of this nature will be discredited. This silences users before they can speak.
 * Ignoring a user who is challenging your opinions or actions.
 * Telling a user their opinion doesn't matter, for any reason.
 * Using user rights to stop a user from engaging in discussion where their opinion differs.
 * Asking another rights holder to use their tools to silence someone they disagree with.

There should be acknowledgement that someone needs to make a final decision somewhere and generally this lies with the bureaucrat(s) as their rights grant them tools to block and unblock users and grant rights to other users in regards to content and policy discussions. For social//user interaction issues this will be by the moderators and administrators as appropriate.

The intent of this is to ensure everyone has a voice to collaborate and to also break down barriers between those with rights and/or experience and those without. No-one owns a wiki nor has more right to it than anyone else.

All decisions are based on consensus
Consensus is the means of establishing how the wider community feels about complex subjects, be it rules, article layout, lore, etc. Quick consensus can be done with a vote, but ideally should only be for information gathering or where a contentious decision must be answered and discussion cannot resolve it.

Consensus generally starts with a discussion and is built from there, common ground is found in opinions and where there are divides attempts are made to bridge them until there is a significant majority who are satisfied with the idea proposed. It should be accepted that not everyone can be pleased and the objective is to find the solution that most, if not all can get on board with. If 15 agree initially with 10 disagreeing those voices should be heard and the solution adapted based on the feedback where appropriate. If after a reasonable time of active discussion and there is no progress or room to adapt, a decision should be made by those outside the discussion (as agreed by the community and if available) as to if the changes are worth accepting if there is a majority agreement, or a wider vote is required. A decision to accept without vote must be fully justified on the merits of the discussion and if there are risks that can be identified. Where someone from outside the discussion is not available best practice would be pass what a clear majority agree on and pass contentious details (or the whole thing) to a vote.

Parroting the view point of another user (e.g. per X) is discouraged as this reflects an agreement with another user which can be interpreted in many ways, for example it could be that they have said exactly what you wanted to say or it could be that you are agreeing because you like that individual. If you agree with another user, explain why. Parroted responses should be asked to expand as to why they agree and if there is no expansion discredited. Consistent parroting of a user or a pattern of behaviour which indicates consistently supporting or rejecting the standpoints or discussions of specific users may be considered an issue where "party lines" are being drawn and those views should be discredited as part of consensus discussion and votes.

The intent of the above is to ensure all users are heard, their views matter and form policy based on the feeling of the community, it is also to prevent "group think" from becoming a power greater than the individual, keeping all users equal.

All decisions are open to challenge
There are times when moving unilaterally (being bold) makes more sense than seeking consensus. Whether this be a change to the layout of certain articles to improve readability or better structure content or blocking a user from the wiki. No matter the action, be prepared to justify your actions and if overturned by consensus accept the reversion.

This is not to say that some decisions should not be sustained regardless of the general consensus. For example if a change fixes a problem that rendered a page unreadable in mobile, but isn't liked, a new alternative should be supplied rather than removing the change. This is because the change, although not liked fixes a problem, a problem should not be restored. Another example would be user blocks, overturning a block because the user is popular or knowledgeable creates two tiers of users and inequality so the block should be sustained.

With user blocks it may be preferable to allow Fandom's mechanisms take over and make the decision; they are independent of the community and will review the block against policy. In the most extreme cases they overturn a block and remove the blocking of their rights if they feel said user abuses them.

Assume good faith
Good faith is looking at any action and trying to understand why something was done the way it was. A user breaking a word in two with other good changes? Probably an accident. Raft of changes that are plain destructive (insertion of curse words or garbage text for example)? Almost certainly cannot be given in good faith. When it comes to user behaviour, an occasional slip can be considered a lack of thought, but a pattern of poor behaviour or humor does not give much room for good faith.

Where good faith can be assumed or inappropriate behaviour is minor/not the normal for the user, a discussion should be the first step to understanding why and addressing the issue where practical to do so. Using good faith as a defense toward their actions being called out may well be using a good faith argument in bad faith; if the only defense is that the other person should act in good faith without being able to point out clear examples of potentially acting in bad faith, it may actually be the one arguing lack of good faith who is acting in bad faith.

The intent of good faith is to look at things with the lens of is this an accident or a user having a bad day. It is not an excuse for repeated bad behaviour or a defense for said behaviour being called out.