This article lists and explains the rules of the Just Cause Wiki.
When blocking a user/editor, there is a short drop-down list of default reasons. These reasons are "Other", "Inserting false information", "Removing content from pages", "Spamming links to external sites", "Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages", "Intimidating behavior/harassment", "Abusing multiple accounts" and "Unacceptable username". For convenience, the rules will mention these exact terms where needed.
- 2: Articles should be written according to the Manual of Style.
- 3: This wiki should ideally remain at approximately level PG-13/ESRB T/PEGI 12. The only exceptions to those levels are minor references to alcoholism, tobacco, drug cartels/smuggling and prostitution that are present in the games. The games themselves are marked as "PEGI 16+" and "PEGI 18", but those a bit of an exaggeration, because the games only vaguely mention the aforementioned exceptions.
- 4: Indecent language should be limited. The only exceptions are quotes of game dialogue.
- 5: "Inserting false information" can get a person blocked, but only if it's purposeful. Accidents can reasonably happen, if the player for example mixes up what level of heat they were at when a specific enemy appeared, or if someone mixes up a minor detail when writing a walkthrough for a long mission.
- 5: "Removing content from page(s)" can get a person immediately blocked with out warning. Exceptions are covered in rule 12.
- 6: "Spamming links to external sites" can get a person immediately blocked with out warning. This refers to advertisements and off-topic spam. The wiki has many relevant links to wikipedia, youtube, tvtropes and more.
- 7: "Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages" can get a person immediately blocked with out warning.
- 8: "Intimidating behavior/harassment" can get a person blocked, but this is something that can easily be misinterpreted, so it obviously depends.
- 9: "Abusing multiple accounts" can get some of those accounts blocked. This refers to a situation where one user is known to make edits from multiple different accounts.
- 10: An "unacceptable username" can get a person blocked, but ideally if the user is a helpful editor, they should be warned on their user talk page and given time to get their account renamed. This refers to obscene usernames, or usernames that differ too little from a known admin username.
- 11: Helpful, but poorly written edits are not prohibited. This means that if someone has a poor grasp of the english language, but they have useful information, they should not be penalized for their grammar.
- 12: Unhelpful edits, such as any sort of removing information, are prohibited. Rewording a poorly written long article, to eliminate duplicate statements is fine, but people should be careful not to let any information get lost. This also includes any form of changing an article away from compliance with rule 2.
- 13: Unhelpful/dubious edits that are purposely made on the edge of legality are considered a form of spam. This will result in a warning at first.
Rules (more like guidelines) for disciplinary action
The admin/staff/bureaucrat should start by evaluating the suspicious/unwanted edit to determine if it's a purposeful violation of rules (such as general vandalism), or just a new editor who's unfamiliar with the wiki.
- In case of a new editor, it's best to link them to the Manual of Style and/or to explain to them what the problem is. In most cases, the "problem" can be solved by a simple edit to the article and there isn't even anything to discuss.
- In case someone is providing helpful information, but seems to be refusing to edit in accordance with the Manual of Style, then the problem should be explained to them on their talk page. If necessary, warn them. They might just not even know about the manual.
- If the edit is found to be intentionally malicious, then it should be undone, or otherwise fixed. The editor may then be blocked.
- Not every rule violation warrants a block. In case of minor problems, a simple warning/explanation on the talk page should be enough.
- When blocking a user/editor, we see a short drop-down list of default reasons. These reasons are "Other", "Inserting false information", "Removing content from pages", "Spamming links to external sites", "Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages", "Intimidating behavior/harassment", "Abusing multiple accounts" and "Unacceptable username". The admin/staff/bureaucrat may choose to use the drop-down list, or may mention which rule was broken. The default reason "other" should be avoided.
- The duration of the block should be relative to the offense. A short block of only a day or two can easily work as a strong warning (as in stronger than the warning on a user talk page). In case of repeated violations of rules 5 and 7, the block duration should be multiple months at least.
- When a block has been carried out, the admin/staff/bureaucrat should look at the recent changes page (or that same blocked persons contributions list) to make sure every one of their malicious actions has been undone.