Bulbapedia talk:Code of conduct

Contents

Hide

Close table of contents

• (Return to top)
• Improvements
• Banned Words
• Friend lists and dislike lists
• Edits, 1/3/2009
• Reverting other's edits
• Nice
• Concluding thoughts
• Uh...
• Editor-in-Chief
• Comma error
• "Bulbaquette"
• Use of Wikipedia
• Problematic imbalance

Contents

Improvements

Hey folks, now let's look at this and see what could be improved!

Anyone got any ideas whatsoever? And I'm not talking the stylistic improvements, I'm talking the specifics. Ought we address superspecific issues or no? TTEchidna 05:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I was gonna say "BULBASPACE IT NOW" but TTE got in the way.... I see nothing wrong. What do you mean "specifics"? — THE TROM — 06:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Specific things of what not to do. TTEchidna 06:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. It does say it doesn't cover edit wars, but maybe it should? I know it says it isn't against the code of conduct, but technically it is because it's about ignoring what someone else is saying, and just following your own opinion. — THE TROM — 06:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

My take on edit wars is that it's how you behave during the edit war that matters, not whether or not it takes place. If people play nice we shouldn't have too many wars, but the actual editing-reverting-re-editing process, and the potential consequences, are already covered elsewhere. Thus, I felt no need to re-hash punishments for that, instead seeking to make that process more pleasant. evkl 06:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. What about using edit summaries to explain what and why changes are being made? This is not in the MoS either, and inclusion here could get rid of those annoyingly angry "WHAT ARE YOU DOING!!!!1!eleven!!1" messages. — THE TROM — 08:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you just mean enforcing the use of edit summary box? evkl 17:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I like this very much, I do have a few suggestions of which i hope a few get put into practice Super-Max 14:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Banned Words

Im talking about this on the forum, what about a list of offensive words that arent constructive, and if you use one you get a 2 day block. Obviously all swear words should be banned, but im also talking about words like "idiot and douche".

As a community we need constructive critisim to improve not only the project but improve ourselves, and words like those offer nothing constructive just an insult. Super-Max 14:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Seeing the word idiot to abuse someone just makes me feel like this is Bullypedia rather than Bulbapedia, users should pick up their act and use nicer words instead of BIG CAPS LOCKED ABUSEIVE RUDE WORDS. This is the internet, Be nice.

But yet again people say Crap or Damn which isn't really rude words, often used when someone is frustrated.--Force ^Fire talk 14:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I mean, I don't think I need to make a specific list of banned words--the forum doesn't have such a list. I'm willing to leave it up to administrator discretion regarding the intent of the word and the consequences that come out from it. At the same time, anything George Carlin couldn't say on TV is probably not okay here...I don't think that's the domain of the code of conduct per se, though. evkl 15:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Friend lists and dislike lists

Saying you dislike someone isnt constructive earlier, things like these can lead to bullying and to users either feeling left out of being in someones friend list, or upset that people are openly voicing a dislike for them, it can really emotionally damage some people, and lets face it FRIEND LISTS SERVE LESS PURPOUS THAN ALREADY BANNED THINGS LIKE FANFICTION. So they should be removed to. Super-Max 14:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, But lets face it, people here are a bit kiddy but it just takes them time to grow up, I don't have a friends list myself but it could let some users be accepted in the community. What I don't like is users who abuse people for what they did in the past, and the main thing that was letting them abuse people was the whole friendly thing, So we should actually ban that, BUT, let users know that everyone is a friend to anyone anytime.--Force ^Fire talk 14:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Those users have legitamate reasons. You cant assume everyone changed. Friends lists are stupid, so are degrading raps.DCM_{((曲奇饼妖怪Spy on My Edits))} 16:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I quite agree, I got rid of my rap, (well I said I didnt want it back when i was offered) and im glad to see you got rid of your lists DCM.

In the Manual of Nice, it says it would be really great if everyone could bury the hatchet and extend the hand of friendship and drain the bad blood, Im extending the hand of friendship, will you join me in burying the hatchet and draining the bad blood? And being friends? Fresh Year Fresh Start? Super-Max 18:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah.... After the things you said, you can't snap your fingers and make it go away like that. You accused DCM of having inappropriate relations with his parents. That's VASTLY different from saying that you don't like a certain person. No matter how many times you wash your hands, it will never go away. --ケンジのガール 19:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Kenji you dont know half the stuff he has done and said about me. I just want to do what Evkl says and bury the hatchet. Also, I've never done anything wrong to you, in my rap I even said good stuff about you Kenji, but you always put me down. Im editing a lot more now, im not getting into trouble, what more do you want from me. Super-Max 20:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I do. Its never been as low as you just made it. So heres a hint.DCM_{((曲奇饼妖怪Spy on My Edits))} 20:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You do what? And what have I just made low? And what are you hinting? Super-Max 20:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I know what Ive done and I know how low youve sunk. YOU ACCUSED ME OF HAVING INNAPROPRIATE RELATIONSHIPS WITH MY PARENTS! You cant go any lower. Heres the hint, leave USer tand User talk alone and actually *gasp* contribute to the mainspace. Any aspiring admin would do that.DCM_{((曲奇饼妖怪Spy on My Edits))} 21:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Were you not here the last 2 days, I made 40 edits in 2 days. I know that its only a start, but it proves that Ive already taken that advice onboard, as i havent done any user or user talk edits. Plus, I dont want to be an admin, so why say that DCM?

What I want to know is can we follow Evkl's advice and be friends? Super-Max 21:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Er, yeah, the idea is kind of, everyone might have been an asshole to somebody else at some point in time, but can't we kind of put that behind us and move along? I know not-nice things were said. Inappropriate relationships may have been inferred--or stated--which weren't true. But is being angry about it from now until some point in the future really going to make anything better? Max apologized. I think he means it. Shouldn't that count for something? evkl 21:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Evkl, your too late into the game! Max apologized for bashing gays and calling people pedophiles but still does! ie however sincere he is nows, hes not in the long runDCM_{((曲奇饼妖怪Spy on My Edits))} 22:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont bash gays, just because i dont think they should be allowed to marry doesnt mean its bashing them. AND ive never called anyone a pedo. And I always keep my promises, i have changed, i am editing quite a bit now. Super-Max 22:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm not the universe police here. I'm just doing my best to make everything run smoothly. As I said in the Manual of Nice, if you can't deal with a situation on your own, contact an administrator who can help you--don't just try to confront somebody over something that will get everybody irritated. For now I'm willing to take him at his word, and his politics, whatever they are, shouldn't change your view of him as a user of the website. -- evkl _{(need to talk?)} 22:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits, 1/3/2009

I added a section on enforcement, and also made more explicit some inappropriate things on user pages. evkl 16:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverting other's edits

IDK if this is the right policy page to put this on, but I think that reverting others' edits should ALWAYS require a reason. This would help stop arguing and edit wars. I know a lot of people do this anyway, but maybe something official about it? — THE TROM — 05:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless the reason is obvious, yes. TTEchidna 05:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice

Wow..... the page is really well-put! Very nice, everyone shouldn't have a problem following this code, it's just plain respect, nothing complicated! Good job on making the code, guys.--DRAGONBEAST^X 19:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! --XxXcharmanderXxX 22:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Concluding thoughts

Should that not be "Concluding thoughts, in three words"? Because it's obviously a humorously concise version of what was said before. Just saying. Ztobor 04:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh...

What does writing on talk pages in five words and something so bad you wouldn't say it have to do with each other? --☆YoshisWorld☆ 18:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesnt mean writing five words, it is saying that profanity shouldnt be used, and it is summing that up in five words. XVuvuzela2010X 18:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Editor-in-Chief

Because Werdnae is no longer an Editor-in-Chief, could someone replace him with Kogoro, the current Editor-in-Chief? --Cinday123 (Talk) 04:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Updated. --Pokemaster97 04:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, could someone change "him" to "her"? slimey01 00:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Comma error

In the third paragraph of section 2.3 ("How to write nicely"), there is a misplaced comma which makes the sentence hard to understand. It is this sentence: "If it's an administrator, causing the problem or you don't feel comfortable talking to any of the admins, ...". The comma should be moved from after "administrator" to after "problem". --Pokechu22 (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks for noticing! ☼ BlazingFist ☼ 17:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

"Bulbaquette"

When is it referred to as this. What does it even mean? - unsigned comment from Horton Hears a murder (talk • contribs)

It's a combination of the words "Bulbapedia" and "etiquette", meaning manners. TechSkylander1518 (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't realize this. - unsigned comment from Horton Hears a murder (talk • contribs)

Use of Wikipedia

I think that there should be a rule made against linking to Wikipedia, as the content of Wikipedia has become increasingly more inappropriate over the years. I've noticed several very common explicit and inappropriate topics on Wikipedia that are creeping into seemingly everyday topic pages. For example, each game has a list of ratings that a Pokemon game is rated in each country; clicking the rating system name links to Wikipedia's page on the system. Because Wikipedia describes these ratings in depth, it also describes ratings for games with adult content and links to the topics in them. Therefore, linking to Wikipedia can inadvertently expose people to content that is repulsive to even reasonable adults who might have moral issues with this type of content. The reason I mention this is because I've noticed lots of pages on this site link to Wikipedia, and I've noticed an increasing amount of inappropriate content on Wikipedia (or it's been there all along and I only realize now what it is). Mario60866 (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Problematic imbalance

There are rules against calling people out for arguing in bad faith but no rules against arguing in bad faith. This needs to be changed, because it's a recipe for toxicity. Don't take this as me relitigating any specific incidents, I want this to be based on principle. Biblical Bambi (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

"Bad faith" is a nebulous term, so a policy against "bad faith" arguments would be unclear and unenforceable. However, frequently assuming others are acting in bad faith may constitute as uncivil behavior and can result in a block to enforce a break from the wiki, as this sort of behavior is damaging to the collaborative editing environment. Landfish7 00:25, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I think at minimum, these should be considered bad faith and thus should be disallowed:

• Nitpicking one small point of someone's argument and using it to dismiss their entire response.
• Strawmanning someone's argument to make it easier to refute, and especially repeating said strawman even after they clarified their points.
• Constantly moving the goalposts of an argument.

There's probably more but especially when multiple people are doing these it creates an environment that makes it impossible for anyone who has a different opinion from the majority. I know this is "collaborative", but that doesn't mean you should shoo away anyone with a different opinion of how to best contribute. Banning people from calling out bad faith arguments only compounds this problem, so there need to be standards on good-faith debate. Biblical Bambi (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

This turned into a longer response than I first intended, so I've split it into three parts for clarity.

1.) I think a slight confusion here is that talk pages aren't really a debate space, so typical debate rules aren't really appropriate here. Talk pages are for reaching a consensus through mutual agreement and compromise. While the consensus may not always be completely unanimous or something everyone is pleased with, it should reflect community norms and wiki guidelines and be informed by well-reasoned arguments, inclusive of a variety of viewpoints, and above all else, based on respectful and civil discussion. And of course, consensus can always change when new context emerges or if conventions have shifted.

2.) As for your examples of "bad faith" behaviors, they are still highly subjective and problematic to identify.

• Nitpicking: What looks like nitpicking to one person might be seen by another as legitimately clarifying an important detail.
• Strawmanning: People often genuinely misunderstand each other. Accusing someone of strawmanning assumes intent to misrepresent, which isn't always provable.
• Goalpost moving: Defining or narrowing an argument can look like "goalpost moving" depending on perspective. It's hard to tell the difference between bad faith evasiveness and just the natural evolution of a discussion.

Now, there are ways in which these can cross into plainly uncivil behaviors:

• Nitpicking: Plainly dismissing another's argument as wrong and invalid by focusing in on one detail.
• Strawmanning: Blatantly misrepresenting someone else's argument and using that to disregard their opinion.
• Goalpost moving: Repeatedly evading someone else's attempts to reach a compromise by changing the terms of discussion such that resolution is impossible.

That said, the code of conduct and blocking policy deliberately avoid an exhaustive list of uncivil behaviors. Instead, they aim to give general expectations, only listing behaviors that are particularly detrimental or harmful, as to not dilute the underlying principle of "be nice". In cases where editors feel a particular user's behavior falls short of that principle, even if it's not explicitly listed, they're encouraged to reach out to staff, who can apply discretion in handling the situation.

3.) I do want to emphasize that I hear you, and I agree there's room for improvement on our part as staff in how we approach these larger disputes - that's something we'll be working on. Our dispute resolution process could also do with some updating, so we may look into that as well.

Thank you for bringing this up and we will certainly take the points raised here into account as we continue improving our practices, with the goal of ensuring that talk pages remain a productive and pleasant environment for collaboration. Landfish7 02:08, 7 September 2025 (UTC)