User:Tompw/Arbcom principles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is a collection/index of Arbitration Committe principles, defined to be be all those statments listed under "Principles" as part of any final decsion by the Arbitration Committe (a.k.a "ArbCom"). These have been gathered for ease of reference, and also because these have formed a de facto body of case law. However, it worth stressing that nothing in the ArbCom's terms of reference compell it follow its previous descisions. In fact, the "Ignore all rules" policy could be interpreted to mean that ArbCom should ignore its previous findings whenever it wants.

The material is grouped under broad headings for ease of reference. The lower-level headings have generally been taken straight from ArbCom descisions, with exception of those used to group similar principles together. The text is lifted absolutly verbatim from the descision. Generally, one principle is listed under one bullet point. However, where variations exsist, it may be split across several points (e.g. Decorum).

After each principle, the case(s) where it appears are given, linked to the relevant Requests for arbitration page. The descision number is given in brackets after the name. The cases are listed in reverse chronological order, newest to oldest.

For a full list of of past descsions, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests. The first descision with explicitly stated "Principles" was Lir, in August 2004.


Notes[edit]

A more personal note: Whether the contents of this page will have any use remains to be seen. I tend to do these sorts of things to satisfy personal curisosity, without really thinking about their use. Currently, all cases back to Piotrus (end of Aug 2007) have been examined/included. Other users are wmore than welcome to contribute. If you don't know where to put something, put it somewhere - you're probably right. Failing that, I'll move it... this a wiki, after all ;-) Tompw (talk) (review) 20:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: This pages used alll cases from start of August 2007 through to Franco-Mongol alliance, the last case of March 2008. Tompw (talk) (review) 02:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC))


Plans:

  • Include all descisions for 2007, and ultimately back to 2004.
  • Give each principle a ref number, based on when the principle first appeared (the current numbering system is there to test a few things, and will get changed).
  • Create index by theme/topic, listing relevant principles (using ref numbers). This would be useful where a topic gets mentioned in prinicples in different sections on this page.
  • (Maybe) index of principle (ref numbers) by case/date.

Test[edit]


General[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

  • (001) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors.
    Franco-Mongol alliance (1); Mantanmoreland (1); Episodes and characters 2 (2)
    • (002) Conduct that conflicts with this goal—such as importing off-wiki disputes into Wikipedia, creating or escalating unnecessary controversy unrelated to improving the site, harassing other editors either onsite or offsite, or encouraging others to do any of these things—is disruptive and unwelcome.
      Mantanmoreland (1)
    • (003) While disagreements among editors are inevitable, all editors are expected to work calmly and reasonably towards resolving them, to collaborate in good faith, and to compromise where appropriate—even if they believe that their viewpoint is the only correct one.
      Episodes and characters 2 (2)
  • (128) Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited.
    Anonimu (1); Macedonia (1);Railpage Australia (1)
  • (004) Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.
    Waterboarding (1); Palestine-Israel articles (1); Dbachmann (1); John Gohde 2 (3); RodentofDeath (1)
  • (005) The core purpose of the Wikipedia project is to create a high-quality free encyclopedia. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.
    Stefanomencarelli (4)
  • (130) The primary purpose of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia. Importing disputes from other venues into the English Wikipedia, including from real life or from other Wikimedia projects, is extremely disruptive.
    Zacheus-jkb (3)

Satire[edit]

  • (006) Satirical treatment of Wikipedia, its users, errors and policies is to be expected.
    Attack sites (23)

What Wikipedia is not[edit]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox[edit]

Wikipedia is not a battleground[edit]


Behavioral[edit]

Courtesy[edit]

Reasonable behavior[edit]

Decorum[edit]


Decorum: fair criticism[edit]

  • (018) Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision-making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, and by policies which prohibit behavior such as personal attacks and legal threats. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums.
    IRC (6); Durova (11)
  • (019) Wikipedia users and administrators are expected to have made a realistic appraisal of the risks involved in volunteering for Wikipedia, to take appropriate precautions, and to deal with external pressures in a mature way. For example, it is predictable that Wikipedia and its users will from time to time be subjected to harsh, and occasionally unfair, criticism. This comes with the territory, and it is unseemly, even ridiculous, to react harshly to predictable phenomena.
    Attack sites (22.1)

Don't bite the newcomers[edit]

  • (020) New contributors are prospective Wikipedians and are therefore our most valuable resource. Editors are expected to treat newcomers with kindness and patience. Nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. Blocking policy states, "Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking, ... but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking."
    Matthew Hoffman (2)

Raising good-faith concerns[edit]

  • (021) Under certain circumstances, a user may have good reason to warn another editor that the editor's conduct is putting himself or herself at risk (for example, that he or she is inadvertently revealing personal identifying information or is creating a legal risk). At times, such a communication may be in the best interest of the recipient. However, the sender should be sure that the communication serves a legitimate purpose and should take great care to ensure that it will not be perceived as threatening by the recipient. Such situations are sensitive and in cases of doubt a user should consult privately with an experienced administrator or the Arbitration Committee.
    Jim62sch (5)

No personal attacks[edit]

Harassment[edit]

  • (023) Engaging in a pattern of threatening or intimidating behavior directed at another user is unacceptable; Wikipedia:Harassment.
    Attack sites (3)
  • (024) It is unacceptable for any editor to harass another. See Wikipedia:Harassment. Acts of harassment damage the editing environment and may deter contributors from continuing to edit Wikipedia.
    Jim62sch (1)
  • (025) Editors who severely harass other users may be banned.
    The Troubles (4)

Perceived harassment[edit]

  • (026) Any user conduct or comments that another editor could reasonably perceive as harassing (as defined in Wikipedia:Harassment) should be avoided. On occasion, an action or comment may cause someone to feel harassed, with justification, even if the action or comment was not intended as harassing. In such situations, the user's discontinuing the objected-to behavior, promising not to repeat the behavior, or apologizing is often sufficient to resolve the concern, especially where there is an isolated comment rather than a pattern of them.
    Jim62sch (2)

Linking to external sites as harassment[edit]

  • (027) Linking to external sites which contain information harmful to another person so as to harass them is unacceptable.
    Attack sites (4.2)

Malicious sites[edit]

  • (028) Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of or substantially devoted to harassing its volunteers. Harassment in this context refers to cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence.
    Attack sites (15.1)

Dealing with harassment but not of oneself[edit]

  • (029) Users have the right to expect harassment of themselves to be combated. Users who are not directly involved are encouraged to achieve this through the removal of personal attacks, removal of links to external harassment, and, in extreme cases, removal of references to attack sites; these activities are not subject to revert limitations.
    Attack sites (7.2)

Threats[edit]

  • (030) The making of express or implied threats against another editor is a form of harassment and is prohibited. In particular, any suggestion of seeking to disrupt or harm an editor's off-Wikipedia life (including his or her employment) in retaliation for his or her editing on Wikipedia is unacceptable.
    Jim62sch (3)

Dealing with harassed editors[edit]

  • (031) An editor who is harassed and attacked by others, whether on Wikipedia or off, should not see that harassment as an excuse for fighting back and attacking those who are criticising them. Editors should report on-wiki harassment to administrators and off-wiki harassment privately to the Arbitration Committee. Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with harassed editors who have themselves breached acceptable standards.
    Bluemarine (6.1)

Assume good faith and remain civil[edit]

  • (032) Users are expected to assume good faith in their dealings with other editors, especially those whom they had conflicts with in the past.
    John Buscema (3); Durova (1); Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 (8)
    • (033) All users are expected to display civility toward one another, even in the presence of editorial disagreements or when another user has made a mistake.
      John Buscema (3)
  • (034) Editors on Wikipedia are expected to assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This keeps the project in-line with our long-standing tradition of being open and welcoming. However, as oft-quoted from Jimmy Wales, "our social policies are not a suicide pact".
    Stefanomencarelli (1)

Off-wiki disputes[edit]

  • (035) Wikipedia's role with respect to serious off-wiki or "real world" controversies and disputes is to provide encyclopedic coverage of such matters from a neutral point of view where they are notable and sufficiently documented in reliable sources. Neither Wikipedia's mainspace article content, nor its administrative and dispute-resolution procedures culminating in Arbitration, are intended or may be used as a vehicle for off-wiki disputes such as those involving the financial markets or legal or regulatory issues.
    Mantanmoreland (5)
  • (036) While users' conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions, the Committee may choose to consider off-wiki activities which are egregiously disruptive to the project in determining findings and sanctions.
    Zeraeph (2)

Conduct outside Wikipedia[edit]

  • (037) A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions. This includes actions such as sending private e-mails or commenting on Wikipedia and its users in other forums. However, in truly extraordinary circumstances, a user who engages in egregiously disruptive off-wiki conduct endangering the project and its participants may be subject to sanction. An example is a user whose off-wiki activities directly threaten to damage another user's real-world life or employment in retaliation for his or her editing.
    Jim62sch (4)

Provocative actions[edit]

  • (038) Needlessly provocative acts can lead to disruption, in which the provoker must share a degree of responsibility for the consequences. Conversely, reasonable and mature self-management is expected even if provoked. Attempts by others to provoke should be ignored or dispute resolution sought.
    IRC (9)
  • (144) When another user is having trouble due to editing conflicts or a dispute with another user it is inappropriate to provoke them as it is predictable that the situation will escalate. Provocation of a new or inexperienced user by an experienced and sophisticated user is especially inappropriate.
    Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 (14)
  • (147) Editing in a manner so as to intentionally provoke other editors goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors.
    List of Republics (3)

Responsibility[edit]

  • (039) Users are responsible for the editorial and administrative actions they undertake, and must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their actions in a timely manner. If a user feels that they cannot justify their actions in public, they are obliged to refrain from that action altogether or to bring the matter before the Arbitration Committee. This does not apply to users carrying out official tasks as authorized by the Foundation or the Committee (including, but not limited to, CheckUser, OverSight, and OTRS activity).
    Durova (3)

Vested Contributors[edit]

  • (040) Editors are expected to make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgement, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy.
    Durova (13)

Tu quoque[edit]

  • (041) Wikipedia editors are expected to adhere to policy regardless of the behavior of those they are in disputes with; inappropriate behavior by others does not legitimize one's own.
    Martinphi-ScienceApologist (8)

Fighting back[edit]

  • (042) Persons aggrieved by Wikipedia and its users, those banned, subjects who don't like the content of their article, subjects, or notable people, who attempt to edit and feel harassed, etc., sometimes attempt to fight back, and in addition to legitimate criticism, engage in name calling, create critical websites, attempt to determine the real identity of editors, create links to edit a user's page, etc.
    Attack sites (38)

Struggle[edit]

  • (043) Once struggle is commenced with Wikipedia, or one of its users, on an external site, Wikipedia users may attempt to respond with removal of links, or criticism of its initiator. This can rapidly degenerate into a struggle between aggrieved users and supporters of free expression or of the external site.
    Attack sites (39)


NPA[edit]

  • (044) WP:NPA is about conduct, not about content. Concepts that apply to user behavior have nothing to do with article content, regardless of the article subject matter. Article content should be determined in a disinterested editorial manner; applying community policies or guidelines not intended for article content, or allowing one's own opinions of, or experiences with, the subject of an article, to be a consideration, is inappropriate.
    Attack sites (40)

Negotiation[edit]

  • (135) Willingness to negotiate in a more or less civil way with the other editors of an article is a condition of editing the article.
    Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 (1)
  • (141) It is when there are serious disagreements that courteous negotiation is most necessary.
    Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 (10)

Dispute resolution[edit]

  • (133) Wikipedia's dispute resolution process exists for the benefit of editors acting in good faith to resolve a disagreement. Bad-faith attempts to game the process are prohibited, and will result in sanctions against those engaging in them.
    Attachment Therapy (1)

Requests for comment[edit]

  • (142) A user-conduct request for comment represents a forum in which editors may raise concerns about the conduct of a fellow editor. Although this procedure can be misused, when utilized in good faith it presents an editor with the opportunity to learn that concerns exist about his or her behavior, respond to the concerns, and if appropriate adjust his or her behavior.
    Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 (12); Jeffrey O. Gustafson (5.2)

Expectation of improvement[edit]

  • (146) Editors whose editing is restricted by the Committee are expected to refrain from the behavior which resulted in those restrictions being imposed. Failure to do so may lead to additional restrictions, up to and including a ban from the project.
    List of Republics (1)

Content and style[edit]

Verifiability[edit]

Reliable sources[edit]

Reliability of content[edit]

  • (046) Maintaining the reliability and accuracy of article content is extremely important. Where the accuracy or reliability of an edit or an article is questioned, contributors are expected to engage in good-faith, civil discussion and work toward a resolution of the concern.
    Franco-Mongol alliance (2)

Sourcing[edit]

  • (047) Statements in articles should be supported by citation to reliable sources and may not constitute original research. Appropriate sourcing is particularly important where the contents of an article are controversial or their accuracy is disputed.
    Franco-Mongol alliance (3)

Accuracy of sourcing[edit]

  • (048) The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context.
    Franco-Mongol alliance (4)

Falsification of sources[edit]

  • (049) Deliberate attempts to misrepresent or falsify the content of sources are extremely harmful to the project.
    Sadi Carnot (2)

Specific sources requirements[edit]

  • (136) Armenian, Azeri or other local sources are subject to the same requirements of reliability as any other scholarly or journalistic sources. Use of material from propagandistic nationalist sites is unacceptable.
    Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 (2)

Integrity of content[edit]

  • (050) The project has always aspired to the highest standards of reliability and integrity. The ongoing growth and prominence of the English Wikipedia, which is now one of the top ten websites in the world and often the first search engine hit when research is done on a topic, makes these goals even more important. This is especially essential where article content relates to living persons or to ongoing off-wiki controversies.
    Mantanmoreland (2)

No original research[edit]

  • (051) Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing, or promoting original research in any way.
    Sadi Carnot (1)
  • (130) Wikipedia:Attribution prohibits original research; editors may not synthesize viewpoints or draw conclusions of their own from primary sources or other raw data. Instead, Wikipedia documents what reliable sources state about their subjects.
    Great Irish Famine (7)

Neutral point of view[edit]

  • (052) The neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject.
    The Troubles (1); Great Irish Famine (5)
  • (053) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant point of view regarding a subject.
    Martinphi-ScienceApologist (4); Piotrus (1)
    • (155) If there is controversy regarding the subject, all sides of the controversy should be fairly represented.
      Piotrus (1)
  • (054) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars.
    Franco-Mongol alliance (5)
  • (055) Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy requires all encyclopedic content to be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly and without bias all significant views on a topic.
    COFS (1)

Users national background and neutrality[edit]

  • (145) Editors with a national background are encouraged to edit from a Neutral Point of View, presenting the point of view they have knowledge of through their experience and culture without aggressively pushing their particular nationalist point of view by emphasizing it or minimizing or excluding other points of view.
    Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 (17)

Undue weight[edit]

  • (148) Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.
    List of Republics (5)

Problematic editing[edit]

  • (056) Contributors whose actions over a period of time are detrimental to the goal of creating a high-quality encyclopedia may be asked to refrain from those actions, when other efforts to address the issue have failed, even when their actions are undertaken in good faith.
    Franco-Mongol alliance (6)

Editorial process[edit]

Editorial process: guidelines[edit]

  • (062) Editors working to implement guidelines that have wide consensus support within the community need not rehash the discussion of a general guideline each time they apply it.
    Episodes and characters (5.1)


Editorial process: consensus can change[edit]

  • (063) Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and particularly the community as a whole to change its mind.
    Episodes and characters (6)

External links[edit]

Edit-warring considered harmful[edit]

  • (065) Edit-warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.
    John Buscema (2)
  • (137) Edit warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.
    Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 (3)

Fait accompli[edit]

  • (066) Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.
    Episodes and characters 2 (3)

Reversion not a substitute for discussion[edit]

  • (067) Wikipedia:Reversion states, "Editors are discouraged to revert because there is disagreement, or the edit is bad or problematic. Users are encouraged to explore alternate methods such as raising the objections on a talk page, or following the processes in dispute resolution." When disputes arise among experienced editors, consensus should be built and demonstrated using the talk page instead of through repeat reversion, even when the content in dispute is clearly problematic. (See WP:LIVING for exceptions)
    IRC (2)

Pages are not owned[edit]

  • (068) Wikipedia:Ownership of articles provides that Wikipedia pages are not owned by particular individuals or groups. Even on those pages where relatively narrow conventions exist regarding who may edit, the community at large is expected to enforce the convention, not the individual or group who, by convention, edits the page.
    IRC (4)
  • (131) Wikipedia articles do not have owners or custodians who control edits to them. Instead, they are "owned" by the community at large, which comes to a consensus version by means of discussion, negotiation, and/or voting.
    Bluemarine (3)

Subjects of articles[edit]

  • (069) Individuals who are the subjects of articles on Wikipedia are encouraged to help improve those articles within established policies. In the event of an editing dispute, existing procedures of dispute resolution should be used in good faith. Confidential corrections may be made through the Open Ticket Request System. An editor who disagrees with the contents of an article about them has no excuse for disruption of Wikipedia. However administrators should be understanding with editors who are the subjects of articles.
    Bluemarine (5)

Biographies of living people[edit]

  • (070) Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious.
    Privatemusings (4)

Adminisrators and their actions[edit]

Administrators[edit]

  • (071) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status.
    Matthew Hoffman (1.1); Dbachmann (4); Physchim62 (1); Eyrian (1); Alkivar (1)
  • (149) Wikipedia administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Occasional lapses may be overlooked, but consistently poor judgment may result in desysopping.
    Jeffrey O. Gustafson (1)
  • (150) Administrators are expected to lead by example. To a greater extent than other editors, administrators are expected to observe the principles of Wikiquette by behaving in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.
    Jeffrey O. Gustafson (2)

Administrative discretion[edit]

  • (072) Administrators are normally afforded wide discretion to block users who they believe are a danger to the project.
    Sadi Carnot (3)

Disruption by administrators[edit]

  • (073) Administrators act as role models for users in the community. Sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator. Even if no misuse of administrative tools took place, administrators whose actions are inappropriate and disruptive risk being desysopped by the Arbitration Committee.
    IRC (3.2)

Administrators: use of administrative tools in a dispute[edit]

Warlike behavior using administrative tools[edit]

  • (075) Administrators are strictly and most seriously forbidden from engaging in warlike behavior using administrative tools, whether for desirable reasons or not. With very few exceptions, when an action performed using tools has been rejected to the point that a second administrator has reversed it (or similar related actions were reversed), then there is almost never a valid reason for any administrator to reinstate the same or similar action (or end result) again, without clear discussion leading to a consensus decison, and administrators who do so may risk desysopping for abuse of their access. As a corollary, reversal of an administrative action should also not be undertaken without good cause. The policy Wikipedia:Wheel war describes this kind of behavior.
    IRC (12.1)

Wheel-warring[edit]

  • (076) In a non-emergency situation, administrators are expected to refrain from repeatedly undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute by means of discussion.
    Alkivar (5)

Administrators and decorum[edit]

  • (077) Administrators are expected to maintain an appropriate level of decorum. In particular, they are expected to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others, and to avoid acting in a way that brings the project into disrepute.
    Alkivar (2)

Communication[edit]

  • (078) Due to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, proper communication is extremely important, and all editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner and to constructively discuss controversial issues. This is especially true for administrators in regard to administrative actions. Such expected communication includes giving appropriate (as guided by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) warnings prior to, and notification messages following, their actions; using accurate and descriptive edit and log summaries; and responding promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about their administrative actions.
    Alkivar (3)
  • (151) Administrators are expected to provide timely, patient, civil explanations for their actions. All administrative actions are logged and offer a "reason" field which administrators are encouraged to utilize for this purpose unless a full explanation is being provided elsewhere. While all editors are expected to reply to good-faith queries about their activities placed on their talk page, administrators have a particular duty in this regard.
    Jeffrey O. Gustafson

Rollback[edit]

  • (079) The rollback tool allows administrators to quickly perform reverts. It should be used with caution and restraint, in part because it does not allow adding an explanation to the automatic edit summary. The rollback tool should not be used to perform any revert which ought ordinarily to be explained, such as a revert of a good-faith content edit.
    Dbachmann (6)

Know yourself[edit]

  • (080) It is important for all users, but especially administrators, to be aware of their own agendas, feelings and passions, and to deal with them appropriately, avoiding both biased editing and ill-considered administrative actions.
    Matthew Hoffman (6)

Transparency and chilling effect[edit]

  • (081) Administrators are expected to act in a reasonable and transparent manner. Even when reversed, administrative actions that appear arbitrary or capricious, or are based on poor methodology and evidence, have a chilling effect on people's willingness to contribute to Wikipedia.
    Durova (5)

Return of access levels[edit]

  • (082) Users who give up their sysop (or other) powers and later return and request them back may have them back automatically, provided they did not leave under controversial circumstances. Users who do leave under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels to get them back. Determining whether a user left under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, to be left up to bureaucrats' discretion.
    Durova (7)

Arbitration[edit]

Conduct on Arbitration pages[edit]

  • (083) The pages associated with Arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
    Mantanmoreland (6); Jim62sch (9)

Purpose of Arbitration[edit]

  • (084) The purpose of Arbitration is to provide a fair, equitable, well-informed, expeditious, and final resolution of disputes on Wikipedia that have not been resolved through other forms of dispute resolution, in the best interests of the encyclopedia and all of its contributors. To serve this purpose, the Arbitration Committee may after due deliberation elect to address a dispute primarily by issuing remedies designed to safeguard the best interests of the encyclopedia going forward, rather than by adopting findings addressing sharply contested historical facts.
    Mantanmoreland (7)

Scope of Arbitration[edit]

  • (085) The scope and effect of an Arbitration decision is generally limited to the situation addressed.
    Attack sites (14)

Circumstances[edit]

  • (086) In deciding what sanction, if any, to impose against a user who has violated site policies, the Arbitration Committee may consider all surrounding mitigating or other circumstances.
    Jim62sch (7)

At wit's end[edit]

  • (087) In cases where all reasonable attempts to control disruption have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly Draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the project.
    Durova (12); Digwuren (5)

Investigation of prohibited links[edit]

  • (088) If an editor believes that the content of a prohibited link reveals a serious violation of Wikipedia policy, they may forward the link to the Committee for investigation.
    Attack sites (32)

Limitations of Arbitration[edit]

  • (132) Despite certain formal aspects of the proceedings and legalistic terminology that is sometimes used, Wikipedia Arbitration is not and does not purport to be a legal system comparable to courts or regulatory agencies. The Arbitration Committee strives for fairness in every case. However, the evidence is generally limited to what can be located and presented online, safeguards such as mandatory disclosure of information and cross-examination of witnesses are not available, and only issues directly affecting Wikipedia are considered and resolved. Arbitration decisions should be read with these limitations in mind and should not be used, or misused, by any side in connection with any off-wiki controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding.
    Mantanmoreland (8)

No legal advice[edit]

  • (089) The Arbitration Committee cannot provide legal advice to users.
    Jim62sch (8)

Content disputes[edit]

ArbCom Compliance[edit]

Wikipedians are expected to observe dispute resolution guidelines[edit]

Dispute resolution[edit]

  • (093) Users should not respond to inappropriate behavior in kind, or engage in sustained editorial conflict or unbridled criticism across different forums. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism.
    Waterboarding (4); Palestine-Israel articles (4); John Gohde 2 (2)

Responding to the Arbitration Committee[edit]

  • (094) Editors are expected to respond reasonably and in good faith to questions and concerns raised by the Arbitration Committee.
    Eyrian (3)

Enforcing policies[edit]

Compliance[edit]

Disruption[edit]

  • (096) The editing of users who disrupt Wikipedia by aggressive, sustained point of view editing may be restricted. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.
    The Troubles (3)
  • (139) Users who engage in disruptive editing may be banned from the site.
    Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 (6)

Banned users[edit]

  • (097) A ban is a last step in the dispute resolution process, resulting in a formal revocation of a user's privilege on the English language Wikipedia (or in the case of an article or topic ban, of a subset of pages on the English language Wikipedia). Bans are issued to individuals, not accounts, and as such a banned user may not edit anonymously, or under any account name, unless and until the ban is lifted.
    Ehud Lesar (1.1)

Blocking[edit]

  • (098) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking. Blocks should be made only if other means are not likely to be effective.
    Durova (8.1)

Community bans[edit]

  • (099) This Committee reaffirms the authority of the community to ban users at its discretion. Where such bans affect established contributors, a period of discussion and consensus-building should precede the ban (or, in emergency situations, follow it).
    Ferrylodge (1.1)

Right of appeal[edit]

  • (100) Any user considered to be "banned by the community" may appeal to the Arbitration Committee, which may overturn any ban that has been improperly imposed.
    Ferrylodge (2)

Review and discussion of blocks[edit]

  • (101) Since administrators are strongly discouraged from reversing one another's blocks, it is of particular importance that blocking admins respond to good-faith requests to review blocks they have made. Similarly, administrators who perform independent reviews of unblock requests are expected to familiarize themselves with the full facts of the matter before marking the unblock request "declined."
    Matthew Hoffman (5)

Confirmation bias in block reviews[edit]

  • (102) Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of unblock requests are wholly without merit, those who choose to review them are expected to carry out an impartial, evidence-based review. Administrators are specifically cautioned to be on the lookout for confirmation bias in the course of a block review.
    Matthew Hoffman (8)

Page protection[edit]

  • (103) Pursuant to the protection policy, full protection may be used to end an edit war. When this occurs, the editors should seek consensus through talkpage discussion, or initiate dispute resolution where necessary, so that protection can be lifted promptly and the page can be edited again.
    John Buscema (4)

Recidivism[edit]

  • (104) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.
    John Gohde 2 (4)

Compliance with basic policy[edit]

  • (105) An editor who feels unable for legal, professional, or other reasons to comply with Wikipedia's essential policies, such as the policy against engaging in harassment or making threats, should seek guidance and attempt to determine whether it is possible to reconcile what he or she perceives as the competing obligations.
    Jim62sch (6)

Other[edit]

Bad Blood[edit]

  • (106) An administrator or other user who feels the need to comment on the actions of someone with whom they have bad blood or past fallings out, should seek impartial advice and allow others to handle the matter who have no such connection, in order for clear neutrality of handling. If no impartial uninvolved editor or administrator is evident, the matter can be passed to the administrators' incidents noticeboard for communal consideration which allows the originator to cede it to others.
    IRC (15)

Policy issues surrounding IRC[edit]

  • (107) The Arbitration Committee has recently been asked by Jimbo Wales to take an expanded role in the governance of IRC. The Committee is formulating policy and procedure changes based on this new role independently from this case.
    IRC (17)


Conflict of interest[edit]

  • (108) Guidelines on editors with a conflict of interest strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests". This includes subjects of biographical articles editing those articles in order to remove aspects of their history which they wish not to be discussed.
    Bluemarine (2)
  • (109) Editors who have duties, allegiances, or beliefs that prevent them from making a genuine, good-faith effort to edit from a neutral point of view in certain subject areas are expected to refrain from editing in those subject areas. Instead, they may make suggestions or propose content on the talk pages of affected articles.
    COFS (2)
  • (110) Editors who work in subject areas where a perception may arise that they have duties or allegiances that could prevent them from writing neutrally and objectively are encouraged to disclose the nature and extent of any such duties or allegiances.
    COFS(3)
  • (134) Editors at Wikipedia are expected to work towards neutral point of view in their editing activities. It is not possible to simultaneously pursue NPOV and an activist agenda. Editors who have exceptionally strong professional, political, or financial commitments to a particular point of view are asked to refrain from editing in affected subject areas. This is particularly true when the affected subject areas are controversial.
    Attachment Therapy (3)

Responsibility of organizations[edit]

  • (111) Editors who access Wikipedia through an organization's IP address and who edit Wikipedia articles which relate to that organization have a presumptive conflict of interest. Regardless of these editors' specific relationship to that organization or function within it, the organization itself bears a responsibility for appropriate use of its servers and equipment. If an organization fails to manage that responsibility, Wikipedia may address persistent violations of fundamental site policies through blocks or bans.
    COFS(6)


Sockpuppetry[edit]

  • (112) The policy on multiple accounts addresses situations in which the same individual edits Wikipedia from more than one user account. The use of multiple accounts, while discouraged, is generally permitted. However, abusive sockpuppetry—such as the use of multiple accounts to vote or comment more than once in the same discussion, or to seek to create an illusion of more support for a position than actually exists—is forbidden.
    Mantanmoreland (3)
  • (113) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability — and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize — is prohibited.
    Ehud Lesar (2.1);Privatemusings (3); Eyrian (3); Railpage Australia (4); Martinphi-ScienceApologist (7)
    With emphasis added to "use" and "abuse": Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 (15)
    • (154) Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates.
      Privatemusings (3)
  • (114) The use of alternate accounts, while not forbidden, is discouraged. Use of alternate accounts as sockpuppets, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability – and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, create false consensus, or vandalize – is strictly forbidden.
    Artaxerex (4)
  • (153) The contemporaneous use of multiple accounts by a single user to create a false impression of consensus is prohibited.
    Attachment Therapy (2.2)

Determination of sockpuppetry[edit]

  • (115) In determining whether two accounts are sockpuppets of the same individual, administrators, the community, and the Arbitration Committee may consider all relevant evidence, including CheckUser findings, contribution histories and patterns, similarities or differences in online mannerisms, explanations provided by the users in question, and any other legitimate and reliable information available. In accordance with the principle of assuming good faith, allegations of sockpuppetry are not to be made lightly, but only based upon reasonable cause. In investigating and resolving such allegations, abusive sockpuppetry by established contributors will not be presumed, but is to be inferred based only upon a substantial weight of credible evidence.
    Mantanmoreland (4)
  • (116)/(118) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors with very similar behavior are sock-puppets, meat-puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. Editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of disruptive edits may be treated as a single editor.
    Ehud Lesar (2); Railpage Australia (5); Alkivar (1)
  • (117) Evidence that a user is familiar with Wikipedia editing conventions (such as the use of Wikitext markup, edit summaries, and core policies) is, by itself, insufficient basis to treat the user as a sock puppet.
    Matthew Hoffman (4)
  • (119) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors from the same IP or corporate server are sockpuppets, meat puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. The Arbitration Committee may determine that editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits be treated as a single editor. (Based on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood)
    COFS(8)

Restrictions[edit]

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppeteers[edit]

Private correspondence[edit]

  • (121) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. See Wikipedia:Copyrights.
    Durova (2)

Removal of private correspondence[edit]

  • (122) Any uninvolved administrator may remove private correspondence that has been posted without the consent of any of the creators. Such material should instead be sent directly to the Committee.
    Durova (6)

Non-native speakers[edit]

  • (123) Editors on Wikipedia who are non-native speakers should not a priori be considered inferior contributors, but should be assessed on the merits of their input. Those who have poor skills in English should be helped to improve the project as much as is practical.
    Stefanomencarelli (3)

Freedom of Expression[edit]

  • (124) Wikipedia attracts legitimate criticism. Nothing in this decision should be construed as to indicate that sites criticizing Wikipedia or individual Wikipedians must never be linked to. This decision is about actual harassment, not legitimate criticism.
    Attack sites (1)

Anonymity and conflict of interest[edit]

  • (125) Allowing anonymous editing and forbidding conflict of interest is an obvious contradiction which necessarily is imperfectly resolved.
    Attack sites (24)

Error[edit]

  • (126) From time to time, Wikipedia users and administrators err, engaging in inappropriate activities which may come to our notice through external criticism.
    Attack sites (37)

User names[edit]

  • (127) Username policy discourages the use of names of corporations and other organizations as user names. While the main reason for this prohibition is to discourage casual promotion of relatively unknown organizations by this means, an ancillary reason is to avoid questions of whether the user is acting in some official capacity for the organization so named.
    COFS (5)


To be sorted[edit]

Disclosure of personal information[edit]

  • (128) Wikipedia is not a forum for disclosure of nonpublic personal information, whether in regard to an article subject, a Wikipedia editor, or an individual unrelated to the project. However, nonpublic personal information may be disclosed in specific circumstances detailed in the privacy policy.
    Zacheus-jkb (1.1)

Personal identifying information[edit]

  • (131) Editors may choose whether to disclose their real-world identities on Wikipedia or to edit anonymously. For a variety of reasons, a majority of Wikipedians edit anonymously. It is believed the opportunity to edit anonymously increases participation.
    Zacheus-jkb (4)

Notable persons who are Wikipedia editors[edit]

  • (132) Where a person is notable in his or her own right, legitimate discussion of that person in appropriate articles is not restricted because that person happens to edit Wikipedia. In borderline situations, good judgment must be used in determining, for example, whether to refer to such a person as an example of a phenomenon rather than referring to a different individual.
    Zacheus-jkb (6)

Who may edit[edit]

  • (133) Editing of Wikipedia is open to anyone who conforms to our policies.
    Zacheus-jkb (7)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tompw/Arbcom_principles&oldid=563187888"