Powerbase:Etiquette

This page offers some principles of etiquette, on how to work with others on SpinProfiles. You can read about more basic conventions at the policy and guideline pages (link at bottom of this page).

SpinProfiles's contributors come from many different countries and cultures. We have many different views, perspectives, opinions, and backgrounds, sometimes varying widely. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an international online encyclopedia.

Principles of SpinProfiles etiquette

• Assume good faith. wikipedia sites such as SpinProfiles has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. People come here to collaborate and write good articles.
• Treat others as you would have them treat you – even if they are new. We were all new once...
• Be polite, please!
  • Keep in mind that raw text is ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of you. Irony isn't always obvious - text comes without facial expressions, vocal inflection or body language. Be careful of the words you choose – what you intended might not be what others perceive, and what you read might not be what the author intended.
• Sign and date your posts to talk pages (not articles!)
• Work toward agreement.
• Argue facts, not personalities.
• Don't ignore questions.
  • If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate.
• Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste.
• Be civil.
• Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if other editors are not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than they are, not less. That way at least you're not spiralling down to open conflict and name-calling by your own accord; you're actively doing something about it: taking a hit and refraining from hitting back – everybody appreciates that (or at least they should).
  • However, don't hesitate to let the other party know that you're not comfortable with their tone in a neutral way – otherwise they might think you're too dense to understand their "subtlety", and you'll involuntarily encourage them (e.g. "I know you've been sarcastic above, but I don't think that's helping us resolve the issue. However, I don't think your argument stands because...").
• Be prepared to apologize. In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we hadn't. Say so.
• Forgive and forget.
• Recognize your own biases and keep them in check.
• Give praise when due. Everybody likes to feel appreciated, especially in an environment that often requires compromise. Drop a friendly note on users' talk pages.
• Remove or summarize resolved disputes that you initiated.
• Help mediate disagreements between others.
• If you're arguing, take a break. If you're mediating, recommend a break.
  • Take it slowly. If you're angry, take time out instead of posting or editing. Come back in a day or a week. You might find that someone else has made the desired change or comment for you. If no one is mediating, and you think mediation is needed, enlist someone.
  • Walk away or find another SpinProfiles article to distract yourself.
• Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible. Explain reversions in the edit summary box.
  • Amend, edit, discuss.
• Remind yourself that these are people you're dealing with. They are individuals with feelings and probably have other people in the world who love them. Try to treat others with dignity. The world is a big place, with different cultures and conventions. Do not use jargon that others might not understand. Use acronyms carefully and clarify if there is the possibility any doubt.

How to avoid abuse of talk pages

• Most people take pride in their work and in their point of view. Egos can easily get hurt in editing, but talk pages are not a place for striking back. They're a good place to comfort or undo damage to egos, but most of all they're for forging agreements that are best for the articles they're attached to. If someone disagrees with you, try to understand why, and in your discussion on the talk pages take the time to provide good reasons why you think your way is better.
• Like science, the improvement process employed by SpinProfiles is iterative and the critical analysis of prior work is a necessary part of that process. If you are not prepared to have your work thoroughly scrutinized, analyzed and criticized, or if your ego is easily damaged, then SpinProfiles is probably not the place for you.
• Don't label or personally attack people or their edits.
  • Terms like "racist", "sexist" or even "poorly written" make people defensive. This makes it hard to discuss articles productively. If you have to criticize, you must do it in a polite and constructive manner.
• Always make clear what point you are addressing, especially in replies.
  • In responding, make it clear what idea you are responding to. Quoting a post is O.K., but paraphrasing it or stating how you interpreted it is better. Furthermore, qualify your interpretation with a remark such as "as you seem to be saying" or "as I understand you" to acknowledge that you are making an interpretation. Before proceeding to say that someone is wrong, concede you might have misinterpreted him or her.
  • Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments, however, is generally a bad idea. It disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to the two of you, but it's virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow.

A few things to bear in mind

• If someone disagrees with you, this does not necessarily mean that the person hates you, that the person thinks you're stupid, that the person themself is stupid, or that the person is mean. When people post opinions without practical implications for the article, it's best to just leave them be.
• Always remember that anything that is written on SpinProfiles is kept permanently, even if it is not visible.
• Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle. When you amend and edit, it is remarkable how you might see something useful in what was said. Most people have something useful to say. That includes you. Deletion upsets people and makes them feel they have wasted their time – consider moving their text to a sub-directory of their user pages instead (saying not quite the right place for it but so they can still use it): much less provocative.
• Before initiating discussion, ask yourself: is this really necessary to discuss? Could I provide an summary with my edit and wait for others to quibble if they like?
• You can always take a discussion to e-mail or to your user page if it's not essential to the article.
• If you know you don't get along with someone, don't interact with them more than you need to. Unnecessary conflict distracts everyone from the task of making a good encyclopedia, and is just unpleasant. Actually following someone you dislike around SpinProfiles could be considered stalking, and is frowned on because it can be disruptive. If you don't get along with someone, try to become more friendly. If that doesn't help the situation then it is probably best to avoid them.
• Though editing articles is acceptable (and, in fact, encouraged), editing the signed words of another editor on a talk page or other discussion page is not acceptable, as it can alter the intent or message of the original comment and misrepresent the original editor's thoughts.

What to do in case of problems

• Dispute resolution

Some Info for merging

SpinProfiles invites visitors to improve its text. But often there are differences of opinion on whether a change in text is an "improvement". When editors weigh the pros and cons of whether a change is an improvement, it may be difficult to criticize text without being subjective about the situation. Editors, in trying to be clear, can be unnecessarily harsh on the giving end. Conversely, on the receiving end, editors can be oversensitive when they see what they wrote replaced by something that claims to be "better", despite it being the opposite of what they wrote.

Silent and faceless words on talk pages and edit summaries do not transmit the nuances of verbal conversation, leading to small, facetious comments being misinterpreted. One uncivil remark can easily escalate into a heated discussion which may not focus objectively on the problem at hand. It is during these exchanges that community members may become uninterested in improving articles and instead focus on "triumphing" over the "enemy".

---

During an edit war, when people have different opinions, or when there is a conflict over sharing power.

• When the community grows larger. Each editor does not know all the others and may not perceive the importance of each individual to the project — so they do not worry about maintaining relationships that do not exist. Covering up a bad reputation is easier in a larger community than it is in a smaller community.
• Sometimes, a particularly impolite user joins the project. This can also aggravate other editors into being impolite themselves.

Most of the time, editors use insults in the heat of the moment during a longer conflict. Insults essentially end the discussion. Often the person who made the insult regrets having used such words afterwards.

In other cases, the offender is doing it on purpose: either to distract the "opponent(s)" from the issue, or simply to drive them away from working on the article or even from the project, or to push them to commit an even greater breach in civility, which might result in ostracism or banning. In those cases, it is far less likely that the offender will have any regrets and apologize.

Some editors deliberately push others to the point of breaching civility, without seeming to commit such a breach themselves. This is certainly not a civil way to interact.

---

1. Walk away. SpinProfiles is a very big place. Just go edit somewhere else for a while and return when tempers have cooled.
2. Please. Thank you. I'm sorry. You're welcome. You're a good person and I know we'll work this out. Treat your fellow editor as a respected and admired colleague, who is working in collaboration with you on an important project.
3. You do not have to like an editor as a person, to appreciate that they are also working for the good of the project.

For some people, it may be crucial to receive an apology from those who have offended them. For this reason, a sincere apology is often the key to the resolution of a conflict: an apology is a symbol of forgiveness. An apology is very much recommended when one person's perceived incivility has offended another.

---

• Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.
• If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but it is not ever necessary nor productive to accuse others of harmful motives.

To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on SpinProfiles. In allowing anyone to edit, we work from an assumption that most people are trying to help the project, not hurt it. If this were not true, a project like SpinProfiles would be doomed from the beginning. 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.

Consider using talk pages to clearly explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do the same. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives and look for ways to reach consensus if possible. This can avoid misunderstandings and prevent problems from escalating.

Good faith is obviously not bad faith. Bad faith editing can include deliberate disruption just to prove a point, playing games with policies, and vandalism. Even if good faith is in doubt, assume good faith where you can, be careful to remain civil yourself, and if necessary follow dispute resolution processes rather than edit warring or attacking other editors.

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.

---

Even if bad faith is evident, do not act uncivilly yourself in return, or attack others or lose your cool over it. It is not necessary to be a fanatic yourself. Even though it demands a lot of self control and patience, it is ultimately a lot easier for others to resolve a dispute and see who is breaching policies, if one side is clearly editing appropriately throughout.

SpinProfiles editors will be glad to help and are capable of identifying policy-breaching conduct, if their attention is drawn to clear and specific evidence of it.

Consensus

SpinProfiles works fundamentally by building consensus.

Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it.

When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite reasoning, cooperation, and if necessary, negotiation on talk pages,

When consensus is referred to in SpinProfiles discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'

exceptions that supersede consensus decisions on a page = Declarations from the Personnel/Editor's in charge of SpinProfiles, particularly for server load or legal issues (copyright, privacy rights, and libel) that have policy status.

---

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in SpinProfiles. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the SpinProfiles community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia.

some types of comments are never acceptable:

• Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against disabled people) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
• Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.
• Threats of legal action.
• Threats of violence, particularly death threats.
• Threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages.
• Threats or actions which expose other SpinProfiles editors to political, religious or other persecution by 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.

SpinProfiles encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia.

While personal attacks are not excused because of these factors, editors are encouraged to disregard angry and ill-mannered postings of others when it is reasonable to do so, and to continue to focus their efforts on improving and developing the encyclopedia.

If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you should leave a polite message on the other user's talk page. Do not respond on a talk page of an article; this tends to escalate matters. Likewise, it is important to avoid becoming hostile and confrontational yourself, even in the face of abuse. When possible, try to find compromise or common ground regarding the underlying issues of content, rather than argue about behavior.

Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical or legal threats) should not be ignored.

Recurring, non-disruptive personal attacks that do not stop after reasoned requests to cease should be resolved through the dispute resolution process.

The most serious types of personal attacks, such as efforts to reveal nonpublic personal information about SpinProfiles editors, go beyond the level of mere invective, and should be reported immediately to management AT spinprofiles.org.

Off-SpinProfiles personal attacks

SpinProfiles cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of SpinProfiles, but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt as to whether an editor's on-SpinProfiles actions are conducted in good faith. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-SpinProfiles is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks take the form of violating an editor's privacy. Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators.

Do not post external links to pages which call for the malicious harassment of a SpinProfiles editor, or contain privacy violations of a SpinProfiles editor. Doing so deliberately and repeatedly may result in a block. As with personal attacks, extreme and deliberate harassment by way of external links are grounds for a ban.

Although editors are encouraged to ignore or respond politely to isolated personal attacks, that should not imply that they are acceptable or without consequences. A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing. Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks are likely to end up in the dispute resolution process.

In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption. Legal threats, death threats, and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning.

---

Some contributors feel very possessive about material (be it categories, templates, articles, images, essays, or portals) that they have donated to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all intruders. It is one thing to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist. Maybe you really are an expert or you just care about the topic a lot. But if this watchfulness crosses a certain line, then you are overdoing it.

In many cases (but not all), primary editors engaged in ownership conflicts are also primary contributors to the article, so keep in mind that such editors may be experts in their field and/or have a genuine interest in maintaining the quality of the article and preserving accuracy. Editors of this type often welcome discussion, so a simple exchange of ideas will usually solve the problem of ownership. If you find the editor continues to be hostile, makes personal attacks, or wages revert wars, try to ignore disruptive behavior by discussing the topic on the talk page. If the ownership behavior persists after a discussion, dispute resolution may be necessary, but at least one will be on record as having attempted to solve the problem directly with the primary editor.

The involvement of multiple editors, each defending the ownership of the other, can be highly complex. The simplest scenario usually comprises a dominant primary editor who is defended by other editors, reinforcing the former's ownership. This can be frustrating to both new and seasoned editors. As before, address the topic and not the actions of the editors. If this fails, proceed to dispute resolution.

While it may be easy to identify ownership issues, it is far more difficult to resolve the conflict to the satisfaction of the editors involved. It is always helpful to remember to stay calm, assume good faith, and remain civil. Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack. Address the editor in a civil manner, with the same amount of respect you would expect. Often, editors accused of ownership may not even realize it, so it is important to assume good faith. Some editors may think they are protecting the article from vandalism, and may respond to any changes with hostility.