User:Tompw/sandbox4

Trains

Railways in Birmingham

Fatal train collisions in the UK not preventable by ATP

List of British rail accidents - All done back to 1970

What	When	Deaths	Cause
Selby / Great Heck	28 February 2001	10 killed, 80+ injured	Land Rover ran down embankment, derailing passenger train into path of frieght train
Stafford rail crash (1996)	8 March 1996	1 killed, 35 injured	Siezed bearing on tanker derails it into path of train coming other way
Ais Gill rail crash (1995)	31 January 1995	1 killed, 30 injured	Landslide derails train into path of oncoming train
Morpeth (1992)	13 November 1992	1 killed	Light engine's driver misunderstands a signalman during degraded working and hits train in rear
Clapham Junction	12 December 1988	35 killed, 100+ injured	Faulty installation of signalling causes rear-end collision. Another train thne runs into wreckage
Colwich	19 September 1986	1 killed, 60 injured	Collision at crossing: driver confused by recent change in meaning of some signals
Seer Green	11 December 1981	4 killed, 5 injured	Signalman erroronously gives permission for train past to procede past red light, causing rear-end collision

ArbCom table

#	Title	Date	Number	Heading	Detail
1	Lir	23-Aug-04	1	Creation of user accounts	A Wikipedia user may create an account under an alias. A few additional accounts may also be created.
2	Lir	23-Aug-04	2	Policy proposals	Any Wikipedia user may create a page such as Wikipedia:Sysop Accountability Policy proposing a change in Wikipedia policy requesting discussion and feedback from other users.
3	Lir	23-Aug-04	3	Editing disputes	The Wiki software and Wikipedia policy anticipates that disputes may arise regarding the wording and content of Wikipedia articles. Should disputes arise editors are expected to engage in research, discussion with other users, and make reasonable compromises regarding the wording and content of Wikipedia articles.
4	Lir	23-Aug-04	4	Multiple accounts	Creation by a Wikipedia user of more than a few accounts is not acceptable and may be grounds for negative sanctions. See Mailing list comment by Jimbo Wales
5	Lir	23-Aug-04	5	Personal attacks	Making personal attacks on other users is not permitted.
6	Lir	23-Aug-04	6	Acting as another user	A Wikipedia user is not permitted to portray themselves as another user in editing any page, especially not during a vote.
7	Lir	23-Aug-04	7	Three revert rule	A Wikipedia user may revert an article a maximum of 3 times during any 24 hour period
8	Lir	23-Aug-04	8	Use of sockpuppets to evade the three revert rule	While a user may have more than one account and edit without logging in they may not use a combination of their accounts to evade the three revert rule.
9	Lir	23-Aug-04	9	No ""trolling"" or disruptive behaviour	The community has made it abundantly clear, over the course of many discussions that they do not feel it is appropriate to ""troll"" on Wikipedia, or to engage in disruptive behaviour. While there is some dissent over method of enforcement, and over whether individual Wikipedians are or are not engaging in ""trolling"", there is little or no dissent over this underlying principle.
10	Mr-Natural-Health	27-Aug-04	1	Wikiquette	Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile working environment. All users are instructed to refrain from this activity. Admins are instructed to use good judgement while enforcing this policy. All users are encouraged to remove personal attacks on sight.
11	User:Guanaco versus User:Lir	30-Aug-04	1	Administrators	Wikipedia administrators are Wikipedia users who on the basis of trustworthiness have been granted the power to execute certain commands which ordinary users can not execute. This includes the power to block other users or IP addresses provided that Wikipedia:Blocking policy is followed. Wikipedia:Administrators
12	User:Guanaco versus User:Lir	30-Aug-04	2	Blocking policy	Wikipedia:Blocking policy provides that users may be blocked for repeated vandalism but not under current policy for disruptive editing although such a policy is proposed. Nor may users be blocked for unpopular opinions. Editing under multiple accounts when their ""main"" account is not blocked is not grounds for blocking.
13	Lyndon LaRouche	13-Sep-04	1	No original research	Wikipedia does not provide a forum for original research, see Wikipedia:No original research
14	Lyndon LaRouche	13-Sep-04	2	What Wikipedia is not	Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy or propaganda, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which states that Wikipedia articles are not to used for ""Propaganda or advocacy of any kind"".
15	Lyndon LaRouche	13-Sep-04	3	Personal attacks	Wikipedia does not allow personal attacks.
16	Lyndon LaRouche	13-Sep-04	4	Personal attacks (arbitration)	Personal attacks which occur during the course of arbitration either on the arbitration pages or on the talk pages of the arbitrators fall within the jurisdiction of the arbitrators.
17	Lyndon LaRouche	13-Sep-04	5	Personal attacks (truth)	Personal attacks are not excused or justified by offers of demonstration of their truth.
18	Kenneth Alan	01-Oct-04	1	No personal attacks	Wikipedia does not allow personal attacks. (See Wikipedia:No personal attacks.)
19	Kenneth Alan	01-Oct-04	2	NPOV	All contributions should be written from the NPOV. (See Wikipedia:NPOV.)
20	Kenneth Alan	01-Oct-04	3	Civility	Users are expected to work with other Wikipedians in a mature fashion. (See Wikipedia:Civility.)
21	Kenneth Alan	01-Oct-04	4	No original research	Wikipedia is not a vehicle for original research. (See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, expounded in Wikipedia:No original research.)
22	Kenneth Alan	01-Oct-04	5	Banning	Wikipedia users who demonstrate over a period of time that they are unable or unwilling to conform to Wikipedia policy may be banned.
23	RK	08-Oct-04	1	No personal attacks	Wikipedia does not allow personal attacks. (See Wikipedia:No personal attacks.)
24	RK	08-Oct-04	2	NPOV	All contributions should be written from the NPOV. (See Wikipedia:NPOV.)
25	RK	08-Oct-04	3	Political advocacy and propaganda	Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy or propaganda, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which states that Wikipedia articles are not to used for ""Propaganda or advocacy of any kind"".
26	RK	08-Oct-04	4	Civility	Users are expected to work with other Wikipedians in a mature fashion. (See Wikipedia:Civility.)
27	RK	08-Oct-04	5	No legal threats	Legal threats are anti-social, and may be grounds for banning. (See Wikipedia:No legal threats.)
28	Jimmyvanthach	12-Nov-04	1	Political advocacy and propaganda	Wikipedia is not a vehicle for Propaganda or advocacy of any kind, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
29	Avala	17-Nov-04	1	Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point	Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. See Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
30	Avala	17-Nov-04	2	International participation	The English language Wikipedia site is an international site which welcomes and expects participation by editors from all countries.
31	Avala	17-Nov-04	3	NPOV	Editors with a national background, in this case, Serbian, 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.
32	Avala	17-Nov-04	4	NPOV - allviewpoints	Neutral point of view as defined on Wikipedia contemplates inclusion of all significant perspectives regarding a subject. While majority perspectives may be favored by more detailed coverage, minority perspectives should also receive sufficient coverage. No perspective is to be presented as the ""truth""; all perpectives are to be attributed to their advocates. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
33	Avala	17-Nov-04	5	Wikiquette	Although negotiation is not explicitly mentioned in Wikipedia:dispute resolution it is contemplated under the initial steps of Wikipedia's dispute resolution policies under language which suggests users who are in conflict talk to one another on their respective talk pages and on the talk page of any article in dispute. Effective negotiation often requires courtesy and respect for the other party and their point of view, see Wikipedia:Wikiquette.
34	Cantus vs. Guanaco	24-Nov-04	1	Administrator behaviour	Administrators are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this: administators are not expected to be perfect. Consistently poor judgement may result in removal (temporary or otherwise) of admin status.
35	Cantus vs. Guanaco	24-Nov-04	2	Error in blocking	Those who believe they have been blocked in error are instructed on MediaWiki:Blockedtext to resolve the issue by emailing an admin(s), or by posting to wikien-l.
36	Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily	22-Dec-04	1	Wikipedia policies	Contributors are expected to obey Wikipedia policies, including the three revert rule.
37	Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily	22-Dec-04	2	Revert war	When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum.
38	Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily	22-Dec-04	3	Edit summaries	When reverting, users are expected to give their reasons in the edit summaries.
39	Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily	22-Dec-04	4	Wikiquette	When disputing the accuracy or neutrality of an article, users are always expected to give a reason on the article's talk page.
40	Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily	22-Dec-04	5	Assume good faith	Editors are expected to be cooperative with other users and to assume good faith on the part of others.
41	Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily	22-Dec-04	6	Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a poin	Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
42	Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily	22-Dec-04	7	Compromise	Although discussion is always encouraged, the Arbitration Committee does not expect users to compromise in all circumtances; doing so would serve only to support cranks and POV pushers.
43	Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily	22-Dec-04	8	Dispute resolution	In cases where compromise cannot be reached, users are expected to follow the Dispute resolution process.
44	Snowspinner vs. Lir	01-Jan-05	1	ArbCom rulings	Wikipedia users are expected to abide by rulings made by the Arbitration Committee.
45	Snowspinner vs. Lir	01-Jan-05	2	Wikiquette	Editing in a manner so as to intentionally provoke other editors is a violation of Wiki-etiquette.
46	Snowspinner vs. Lir	01-Jan-05	3	Anonymous voting	In general, anonymous IP addresses are not allowed to vote on Wikipedia.
47	Gene Poole vs. Samboy	01-Jan-05	1	Wikipedia is not a link repository	Wikipedia is not a link repository See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
48	Gene Poole vs. Samboy	01-Jan-05	2	Advertising	Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising and self-promotion. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
49	Gene Poole vs. Samboy	01-Jan-05	3	Ownership of articles	No person or group has the right to control content of Wikipedia articles, See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.
50	Gene Poole vs. Samboy	01-Jan-05	4	Propaganda	Wikipedia is not a platform for Propaganda or advocacy of any kind, See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
51	User:66.20.28.21 and other accounts	06-Jan-05	1	Advocacy or propaganda	Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda or advocacy.
52	User:66.20.28.21 and other accounts	06-Jan-05	2	No original research	Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing of otherwise unpublished original research.
53	User:66.20.28.21 and other accounts	06-Jan-05	3	Discussion of controversial edits	When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum.
54	User:66.20.28.21 and other accounts	06-Jan-05	4	NPOV includes only significant published viewpoints	Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy contemplates including only significant published viewpoints regarding a subject. It does not extend to novel viewpoints developed by Wikipedia editors which have not been independently published in other venues.
55	Alberuni	10-Jan-05	1	Three-revert rule	Users must follow the three-revert rule; Articles may not be reverted more than three times in a 24 hours period except for simple vandalism.
56	Alberuni	10-Jan-05	2	Courtesy	Users are expected to be courteous to other users. The prinicples of wikietiquette should followed.
57	Alberuni	10-Jan-05	3	No personal attacks	Users are expected to avoid using personal attacks.
58	Ciz	10-Jan-05	1	No personal attacks	No personal attacks.
59	Ciz	10-Jan-05	2	Disruption	Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point.
60	Ciz	10-Jan-05	3	Controversial changes	Wikipedia users are usually expected to discuss changes which are controversial; while this does not necessarily mean discussing the edit before making it, if an edit is reverted a user should make an attempt at discussion before changing it back.
61	Ciz	10-Jan-05	4	Second accounts	Creating a second account for a given class of edits does not itself constitute sockpuppet abuse. However, it does not give an editor free rein to use that account abusively.
62	CheeseDreams	12-Jan-05	1	Customary practices	Certain customary practices used on Wikipedia are not written down, but can be ascertained by communication with other users.
63	CheeseDreams	12-Jan-05	2	Archiving of talk pages	It is the practice on Wikipedia when a talk page becomes too long for convenient editing to move older material to archives linked from the main page.
64	CheeseDreams	12-Jan-05	3	Refactoring talk pages	Talk pages may be refactored in order to improve their usability, brief, unbiased summaries of past discussion may be useful, especially for new editors, see Wikipedia:Refactoring.
65	CheeseDreams	12-Jan-05	4	Avoiding personal attacks	Wikipedia users are required to avoid personal attacks.
66	CheeseDreams	12-Jan-05	5	Three revert rule	Wikipedia editors may not revert an article more than three times in a 24 hour period. This rule is based on individual users, not on a group of users who are reverting the same material (CheeseDream's ""tag team"" concept).
67	CheeseDreams	12-Jan-05	6	Modification of other user's edits of Arbitration page	Users who modify other user's edits of arbitration pages, inserting peripheral material, and especially deleting them or portions of them will be heavily penalized.
68	CheeseDreams	12-Jan-05	7	Disruption	Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point.
69	HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg	16-Jan-05	1	Personal attacks	No personal attacks.
70	HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg	16-Jan-05	2	NPOV	Wikipedia editors are expected to edit from a neutral point of view.
71	HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg	16-Jan-05	3	NPOV policy and situations where there is serious conflict	The Wikipedia policy of editing from a neutral point of view, a central and non-negotiable principle of Wikipedia, applies to situations where there are conflicting viewpoints and contemplates that significant viewpoints regarding such situations all be included in as fair a manner as possible.
72	HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg	16-Jan-05	4	Wikiquette	Wikipedia editors are required to maintain a minimum level of courtesy toward one another, see Wikiquette, Civility and Wikipedia:Writers rules of engagement.
73	HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg	16-Jan-05	5	Content of articles	While the content of articles is the province of Wikipedia editors, a number of Wikipedia policies relate to content in peripheral ways, for example, it is desirable to limit reversions and to provide adequate references for material included in articles. See Reversions, Wikipedia:Edit war, Wikipedia:Three revert rule, Wikipedia:Check your facts, Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability
74	HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg	16-Jan-05	6	Original work and neologisms	Wikipedia is not the place for publishing original work or development of Neologisms, Wikipedia:No original research.
75	HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg	16-Jan-05	7	Three revert rule	Contributors are expected to obey Wikipedia policies, including the three revert rule.
76	HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg	16-Jan-05	8	What is a revert	The term ""revert"" as used in Wikipedia policy is intended to include both absolute reverts (that is, where versions differ not at all) as well as edits to versions that are only very slightly different).
77	HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg	16-Jan-05	9	Attempting to avoid claims of reversion	Attempting to avoid being accused of reversion by making very minor edits that are then edited out again, whilst not expressly forbidden, is in bad faith and against the spirit of policy, and a violation of Wikiquette.
78	HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg	16-Jan-05	10	Ownership of articles	No person or group has the right to control content of Wikipedia articles. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.
79	HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg	16-Jan-05	11	Usability of evidence presented in arbitration cases	In order for the arbitrators to be able to decide a case based on evidence, the evidence to be presented by the parties must be brief and well organized, focusing on the principle issues involved with adequate references to examples of the behavior complained of.
80	HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg	16-Jan-05	12	Staying cool when the editing gets hot	When editing on highly conflicted topics, editors should not allow themselves to be goaded into ill-considered edits and policy violations. Administrators in particular have a responsibility to set an example by staying cool when the editing gets hot.
81	IZAK	18-Jan-05	1	No personal attacks	No personal attacks.
82	IZAK	18-Jan-05	2	Propaganda or advocacy	Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda or advocacy of any kind.
83	IZAK	18-Jan-05	3	Communication	Wikipedia provides a variety of forums, including article and user talk pages, for communication by Wikipedia users regarding content of articles and Wikipedia policies and decisions which Wikipedia users are encouraged to use in furtherance of Wikipedia policies and goals.
84	IZAK	18-Jan-05	4	Aggressive mobilisation of support	Aggressive use of Wikipedia forums to mobilize support for point of view editing results in exacerbation of conflict.
85	IZAK	18-Jan-05	5	Arbitration Committee use of policy	The Arbitration Committee may consider current community norms and practice, regardless of whether the community have got as far as writing up an ""official"" policy on the matter, in making its decisions. This is an Arbitration Committee, not a court of law, and the community has empowered us to make such judgements by ratifying the Arbitration policy. By the same policy, we are to apply such judgements with common sense, discretion, and an eye to the expectations of the community.
86	IZAK	18-Jan-05	6	Cross-posting	The occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice. Excessive cross-posting goes against current Wikipedia community norms. In a broader context, it is ""unwiki. Wikipedia editors make use of a variety of methods to avoid excessive cross-posting.
87	IZAK	18-Jan-05	7	Aggressive point-of-view editing	Aggressive point-of-view editing can produce widespread reactions as editors attempt to combat an outbreak of it, mobilizing others to join the fray. While this creates the appearance of disorder, it is better seen as an attempt to deal with a refractory problem.
88	168.209.97.34	22-Jan-05	1	Discourtesy and personal attacks	Wikipedia editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy and avoid personal attacks.
89	168.209.97.35	22-Jan-05	2	Edit warring and the three revert rule	Editors are expected to avoid edit wars and to respect the three revert rule consulting with one another on talk pages in a courteous manner regarding the content of articles.
90	168.209.97.36	22-Jan-05	3	Proxy servers	In our decisions we should avoid requiring permanently blocking Proxy/caching servers that belong to an ISP if possible. (See User:202.72.131.230.)
91	Everyking	24-Jan-05	1	Ownership of articles	No individual or selected group of people is entitled the right to control the content of an article. (See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.)
92	Everyking	24-Jan-05	3	Status of administrators	Administrators of Wikipedia are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. (See Wikipedia:Administrators.)
93	Libertas	27-Jan-05	1	Following official policy	Contributors are expected to follow Wikipedia official policy, particularly the three-revert rule, prohibition against personal attacks, and neutral point of view policy. POV pushing, revert warring, and personal attacks will not be tolerated.
94	Libertas	27-Jan-05	2	Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point	Users should not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point; that is, users should not act in bad faith.
95	Libertas	27-Jan-05	3	Pointless RfCs/RfAs	Requests for comment and requests for arbitration should be used appropriately within the guidelines on that page. They should not be used for frivolous or pointless disputes and should not be used as a forum for personal attacks, harassment, and abuse.
96	Libertas	27-Jan-05	4	Sockpuppets	The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks and bans, make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize, is strictly forbidden.
97	Libertas	27-Jan-05	5	Changing others' comments	A user may not edit another user's comments except to make insubstantial changes (such as archiving/moving, formatting, or correcting typos) or with express permission from the other user. (This does not apply to simple vandalism or spam.)
98	Libertas	27-Jan-05	6	Userpages	A user may say whatever he/she wants on his/her user page within reason (e.g. Wikipedia:No personal attacks). Generally, you should avoid any substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:User page.)
99	Rienzo	28-Jan-05	1	Sockpuppet abuse	The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts is strictly forbidden.
100	Rienzo	28-Jan-05	2	No personal attacks	No personal attacks.
101	Rienzo	28-Jan-05	3	IP blocks	Admins may, at their judgement, block IP addresses that vandalise Wikipedia for up to one month at a time (Wikipedia:Blocking policy)
102	Antifinnugor	01-Feb-05	1	Cite sources	Cite sources.
103	Antifinnugor	01-Feb-05	2	No original research	No original research.
104	Antifinnugor	01-Feb-05	3	No personal attacks	No personal attacks.
105	Antifinnugor	01-Feb-05	4.4	Consensus	As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.
106	Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute	04-Feb-05	1	Consensus	As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.
107	Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute	04-Feb-05	2	No personal attacks	No personal attacks.
108	Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute	04-Feb-05	3	Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point	Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.
109	Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute	04-Feb-05	4	3RR is not an entitlement	The three revert rule is an electric fence, not an entitlement. The 3RR is intended as a means to stop sterile edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every twenty-four hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others.
110	Chuck F	06-Feb-05	1	Following official policy	Contributors are expected to follow Wikipedia official policy, particularly the three-revert rule, prohibition against personal attacks, and neutral point of view policy.
111	Chuck F	06-Feb-05	2	Neutral point-of-view	Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.
112	Chuck F	06-Feb-05	3	Removal of Arbitration evidence	Removing evidence from an Arbitration page is unacceptable.
113	Chuck F	06-Feb-05	4	Unexplained deletions on controversial articles	Unexplained deletions of portions of controversial articles are unacceptable.
114	Chuck F	06-Feb-05	5	Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point	Editors should not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
115	Chuck F	06-Feb-05	6	Changing of votes	Changing the votes of other people in a Wikipedia poll such as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion is a serious offense.
116	Gzornenplatz	07-Feb-05	1	Sockpuppets	The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks and bans, make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize, is strictly forbidden.
117	Gzornenplatz	07-Feb-05	2	Redemption	All banned editors are theoretically redeemable. The canonical example is Michael, who was hard-banned as a persistent vandal but has since reformed and become a good editor.
118	Lyndon LaRouche 2	17-Feb-05	1	Sockpuppets	The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks and bans, make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize, is strictly forbidden.
119	Lyndon LaRouche 2	17-Feb-05	2	Wikipedia is not a soapbox	Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda advocacy or advertising. (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)
120	Lyndon LaRouche 2	17-Feb-05	3	Revert wars considered harmful	Revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Users are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration.
121	Lyndon LaRouche 2	17-Feb-05	4	No personal attacks	No personal attacks.
122	Lyndon LaRouche 2	17-Feb-05	5	One user or several?	For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar behavior they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.
123	Lyndon LaRouche 2	17-Feb-05	6	Holding a strong POV does not necessarily imply POV-pushing edits	A strong point of view expressed elsewhere on a subject does not necessarily mean POV-pushing editing on Wikipedia; that can only be determined by the edits to Wikipedia.
124	Robert the Bruce	18-Feb-05	1	Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point	Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.
125	Robert the Bruce	18-Feb-05	2	No personal attacks	No personal attacks.
126	Robert the Bruce	18-Feb-05	3	Neutral point-of-view	Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.
127	Robert the Bruce	18-Feb-05	4	Advocacy and propaganda	Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advocacy or propaganda.
128	Robert the Bruce	18-Feb-05	5	Citing sources	It is highly desirable that editors cite the sources of the information in their edits, especially on controversial articles.
129	Robert the Bruce	18-Feb-05	6	Do not remove references from articles	Removal of references from articles is generally inappropriate.
130	Robert the Bruce	18-Feb-05	8	Removal of relevant information	It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view.
131	Robert the Bruce	18-Feb-05	9	Etiquette	Wikipedia users are expected to conduct themselves in a courteous manner in their dealing with other editors.
132	Robert the Bruce	18-Feb-05	10	Holding a strong POV does not necessarily imply POV-pushing edits	A strong point of view expressed elsewhere on a subject does not necessarily mean POV-pushing editing on Wikipedia; that can only be determined by the edits to Wikipedia.
133	WikiUser	26-Feb-05	1	No personal attacks	No personal attacks.
134	WikiUser	26-Feb-05	2	Courtesy	Wikipedia users are required to be courteous in their dealings with other users.
135	WikiUser	26-Feb-05	3	Vandalism	Vandalism of Wikipedia will not be tolerated.
136	WikiUser	26-Feb-05	4	Edit warring / three-revert rule	Users are expected to avoid edit wars and to respect the three-revert rule.
137	WikiUser	26-Feb-05	5	Legal threats	No legal threats.
138	WikiUser	26-Feb-05	5.5	Editing Wikipedia during a legal dispute	It is best for both Wikipedia and its users that those who are in a legal dispute with it or its users discontinue editing until all legal disputes which they have initiated have been resolved.
139	WikiUser	26-Feb-05	6	Sockpuppetry	The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks and bans, make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize, is strictly forbidden.
140	WikiUser	26-Feb-05	7.1	Reasonableness and disruption	Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably with respect to editing and relating to other users. Editing practices that cause disruption to the normal functioning of Wikipedia will not be tolerated.
141	CheeseDreams 2	03-Mar-05	2	Pointless RfCs/RfAs	Requests for comment and requests for arbitration should be used appropriately within the guidelines on that page. They should not be used for frivolous or pointless disputes and should not be used as a forum for personal attacks, harassment, and abuse.
142	CheeseDreams 2	03-Mar-05	3	Sockpuppet abuse	The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks and bans, make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize, is strictly forbidden.
143	CheeseDreams 2	03-Mar-05	4	One user or several?	For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.
144	CheeseDreams 2	03-Mar-05	5	Impersonation accounts	Accounts designed to impersonate other contributors are not permitted (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Impersonation). Accounts designed to impersonate may be immediately blocked indefinitely by any administrator.
145	CheeseDreams 2	03-Mar-05	6	Security of accounts	Contributors are responsible for the security of their password. While accidental breaches are understandable and sometimes unavoidable, a contributor who deliberately releases their password should expect to be held responsible for any malicious edits made as a result.
146	CheeseDreams 2	03-Mar-05	7	Arbitration rulings	Arbitration rulings on the English Wikipedia are binding on contributors to the project and violations will be regarded seriously.
147	CheeseDreams 2	03-Mar-05	8	Proxy edits	Proxy edits on behalf of a banned user, or that assist a user in violating an arbitration injunction, are not permitted.
148	CheeseDreams 2	03-Mar-05	9	Reasonableness and disruption	Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably with respect to editing and relating to other users. Editing practices that cause disruption to the normal functioning of Wikipedia will not be tolerated.
149	JonGwynne	06-Mar-05	1	No personal attacks	No personal attacks.
150	JonGwynne	06-Mar-05	2	Civility	Wikipedia users are expected to behave civilly and calmly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to utilise dispute resolution procedures instead of merely attacking each other.
151	JonGwynne	06-Mar-05	3	Consensus	As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.
152	JonGwynne	06-Mar-05	4	Neutral point of view	Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.
153	Xed	09-Mar-05	1	No personal attacks	No personal attacks.
154	Xed	09-Mar-05	2	Civility	Wikipedia users are expected to behave civilly and calmly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to utilise dispute resolution procedures instead of merely attacking each other.
155	Xed	09-Mar-05	4	Provocation	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.
156	Xed	09-Mar-05	5	Good behaviour does not excuse bad behaviour	Good work on Wikipedia does not constitute an excuse for bad or abusive behaviour on Wikipedia. (Although many editors feel it has mitigatory value.)
157	Xed	09-Mar-05	6	Do not retaliate to personal attacks	Wikipedia editors must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.
158	Xed	09-Mar-05	7	Assume good faith	Assume good faith. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points of view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment.
159	PSYCH	12-Mar-05	1	Avoid personal attacks	Wikipedia users are expected to avoid personal attacks on other users.
160	PSYCH	12-Mar-05	2	Editing from anonymous IPs	Wikipedia users are welcome to edit from anonymously, but are encouraged to register and edit under a username (see Why create a account?). When controversies arise this helps with accountability.
161	PSYCH	12-Mar-05	3	Proper use of article talk pages	Article talk pages on Wikipedia are for discussion of the article, what information might properly be included in the article, and sources of information regarding the subject; they are not forums for debate of the topic or issues related to the topic except where such debate has a potential impact on the content of the article.
162	PSYCH	12-Mar-05	4	Content of Wikipedia articles	Wikipedia articles should contain information regarding the subject of the article; they are not a platform for advocacy regarding one or another point of view regarding the topic. Sweeping generalizations which label the subject of an article as one thing or another are inappropriate and not a substitute for adequate research regarding details of actual positions and actions which can speak for themselves.
163	PSYCH	12-Mar-05	5	Personal viewpoints	Injection of personal viewpoints regarding the subject of an article is inappropriate and not to be resolved by debate among the editors of an article, but referenced from reputable outside resources. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
164	PSYCH	12-Mar-05	1	Neutral point-of-view	Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.
165	PSYCH	12-Mar-05	2	Advocacy and propaganda	Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advocacy or propaganda.
166	PSYCH	12-Mar-05	3	Citing sources	It is highly desirable that editors cite the sources of the information in their edits. This is especially important on controversial articles.
167	PSYCH	12-Mar-05	4	Do not remove references from articles	Removal of references from articles is generally considered inappropriate.
168	PSYCH	12-Mar-05	5	Removal of relevant information	It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view.
169	PSYCH	12-Mar-05	6	Arbitration rulings	Arbitration rulings are binding on editors; violations will be regarded seriously.
170	JarlaxleArtemis	18-Mar-05	1	No personal attacks	No personal attacks.
171	JarlaxleArtemis	18-Mar-05	2	Civility	Wikipedia users are expected to behave civilly and calmly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to utilise dispute resolution procedures instead of merely attacking each other.
172	JarlaxleArtemis	18-Mar-05	3	Consensus	As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.
173	JarlaxleArtemis	18-Mar-05	4	Edit summaries	Editors are generally expected to provide appropriate edit summaries for their edits; failing to provide edit summaries for potentially contentious edits, or providing misleading edit summaries, is considered incivil and bad wikiquette.
174	JarlaxleArtemis	18-Mar-05	5	Talk pages	Article talk pages on Wikipedia are for discussion of the article, what information might properly be included in the article, and sources of information regarding the subject; they are not forums for debate of the topic or issues related to the topic except where such debate has a potential impact on the content of the article. Adding large amounts of material to talk pages which does not relate to the article in the fashion above is considered inappropriate.
175	Anthony DiPierro 2	26-Mar-05	1	Userpages	A user may say whatever he/she wants on his/her user page within reason (e.g. Wikipedia:No personal attacks). However, Wikipedia is not a hosting service, and you should generally avoid any substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:Userpage.)
176	Anthony DiPierro 2	26-Mar-05	2	Deletion of content from userspace	Deleting content from the user namespace or adding deletion tags to content in the User namespace without the affected user's permission is discouraged.
177	Anthony DiPierro 2	26-Mar-05	3	Speedy deletion of recreations of deleted articles	If content is recreated in the main Wikipedia namespaces after having been deleted (via votes for deletion or speedy deletion, it may be speedily deleted. (See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#General.)
178	Anthony DiPierro 2	26-Mar-05	4	Civility	Wikipedia users are expected to behave civilly and calmly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to utilise dispute resolution procedures instead of merely attacking each other.
179	Anthony DiPierro 2	26-Mar-05	5	Assume good faith	Assume good faith. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points-of-view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment.
180	Dr Zen	27-Mar-05	1	Consensus	As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.
181	Dr Zen	27-Mar-05	2	Civility	Wikipedia users are expected to behave calmly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of personal attacks.
182	Dr Zen	27-Mar-05	3	Revert warring	Edit wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Users are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration.
183	Dr Zen	27-Mar-05	4	Assume good faith	Assume good faith. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points of view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment.
184	Everyking 2	05-Apr-05	1	Arbitration rulings	Arbitration rulings are binding on editors; violations will be regarded seriously.
185	Everyking 2	05-Apr-05	2	Civility	Wikipedia users are expected to behave calmly, courteously, and civilly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.
186	Everyking 2	05-Apr-05	3	Revert wars considered harmful	Revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Users are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration.
187	RK 2	07-Apr-05	1	Civility	Wikipedia users are expected to behave in a calm and mutally respective manner in their dealings with other users. When disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of merely attacking each other.
188	RK 2	07-Apr-05	2	No personal attacks	No personal attacks.
189	RK 2	07-Apr-05	3	Consensus	As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of policies and guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and requests for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.
190	Baku Ibne, et al.	10-Apr-05	1	No personal attacks	No personal attacks.
191	Baku Ibne, et al.	10-Apr-05	2	Sockpuppets	The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks and bans, make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize, is strictly forbidden.
192	Baku Ibne, et al.	10-Apr-05	3	Impersonation accounts	Accounts designed to impersonate other contributors are not permitted (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Impersonation). Accounts designed to impersonate may be immediately blocked indefinitely by any administrator.
193	Baku Ibne, et al.	10-Apr-05	4	Vandalism	Vandalism of Wikipedia will not be tolerated.
194	Baku Ibne, et al.	10-Apr-05	4.5	IP blocks	Admins may, at their judgement, block IP addresses that vandalise Wikipedia for periods of time ranging from 24 hours (to single violations) to one month (for repeat violations). (See Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Vandalism.)
195	Baku Ibne, et al.	10-Apr-05	5	Civility	Wikipedia users are expected to behave civilly and calmly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to utilise dispute resolution procedures instead of merely attacking each other.
196	Baku Ibne, et al.	10-Apr-05	6	Consensus	As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.
197	Baku Ibne, et al.	10-Apr-05	7	One user or several?	For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.
198	Baku Ibne, et al.	10-Apr-05	8	Usability of evidence	In order for the arbitrators to be able to decide a case based on evidence, the evidence to be presented by the parties must be brief and well organized, focusing on the principle issues involved with adequate references to examples of the behavior complained of.
199	Grider	10-Apr-05	1	Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point	Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
200	Grider	10-Apr-05	2	Consensus	As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.
201	Irate	17-Apr-05	1	No personal attacks	No personal attacks.
202	Rex071404 3	23-Apr-05	1	Arbitration rulings	Arbitration rulings are binding on editors; violations will be regarded seriously.
203	Rex071404 3	23-Apr-05	2	Revert wars considered harmful	Revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Users are encouraged to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration.
204	Rex071404 3	23-Apr-05	3	Consensus	As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.
205	Rex071404 3	23-Apr-05	4	Wikipedia is not a soapbox	Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda advocacy or advertising.
206	John Gohde	30-Apr-05	1	Manner in dealing with other editors	Wikipedia editors are expected to behave in a calm and mutally respective manner in their dealings with other users. When disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of merely attacking each other.
207	John Gohde	30-Apr-05	2	Personal attacks	Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile enviroment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encylopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion and encouraging a bunker mentality).
208	John Gohde	30-Apr-05	3	Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point	Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. State your point, but don't attempt to illustrate it experimentally.
209	John Gohde	30-Apr-05	4	Assume good faith in the absence of any evidence to the contrary	Wikipedia editors are strongly encouraged to assume good faith in the absence of any evidence to the contrary in keeping with our long-standing tradition of being open and welcoming.
210	John Gohde	30-Apr-05	5	Ownership of articles	Wikipedia pages do not have owners or custodians who control edits to them. Instead, they are ""owned"" by the community-at-large, and come to a consensus version by means of discussion, negotiation, and/or voting. This is a crucial part of Wikipedia as an open-content encylopedia.
211	Netoholic 2	04-May-05	1	Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point	Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point.
212	Netoholic 2	04-May-05	2	Assume good faith	Assume good faith. Assumption of bad faith can lead to personal attacks and an unpleasant working atmosphere. This is particularly important in the Wikipedia: project page space, where policy is discussed and administered.
213	Netoholic 2	04-May-05	3	Revert warring is bad	As per Wikipedia:Edit war, revert warring is considered harmful.
214	Netoholic 2	04-May-05	4	Personal attacks	No personal attacks
215	Netoholic 2	04-May-05	5	Wikipedia policy	In general, Wikipedia policies are formulated through wide discussion by Wikipedia users who attempt by a process of consenus to make policies which advance the basic goal of creating a free and neutral encyclopedia. Wikipedia policy is discussed in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and the associated articles Wikipedia:How to create policy, Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), See Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#How_are_policies_decided.3F and [[Category:Wikipedia policy thinktank]].
216	Netoholic 2	04-May-05	5.1	Wide discussion	In order for a proposed Wikipedia policy to be considered binding it is desirable that the proposal be widely publicized and discussed and Wikipedia:Consensus reached.
217	Netoholic 2	04-May-05	5.2	Role of talk pages in policy determination	In determination of specialized areas of policy, discussion on the talk page of the relevant project page plays a central role. It is important that sufficient interest be generated in the discussion to formulate a valid consensus.
218	Netoholic 2	04-May-05	5.3	Difficulty of determining what is policy	Discussions of proposed policy are sometimes inconclusive or involve only a small group of users, thus questions arise of whether a valid policy has been formulated.
219	Netoholic 2	04-May-05	5.4	Provisional and ambiguous policies	In instances where policy is ambiguous the solution is more discussion, not struggle through revert wars, assumption of bad faith or personal attacks.
220	LevelCheck	02-Jun-05	1	Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point	Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
221	LevelCheck	02-Jun-05	2	Sockpuppetry	The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks and bans, make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize, is strictly forbidden.
222	Internodeuser	19-Jun-05	1	Personal attacks	Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion and encouraging a bunker mentality). The community and the Arbitration Committee will sanction users who show a pattern of making personal attacks.
223	Internodeuser	19-Jun-05	2	Legal threats	Threats of legal action, whether overt or implied, are prohibited on Wikipedia. Users who make legal threats will be sanctioned.
224	Internodeuser	19-Jun-05	4	Disruption to illustrate a point	Disruption to illustrate a point will not be tolerated on Wikipedia.
225	Internodeuser	19-Jun-05	5	Userspace	Generally, Wikipedia has few restrictions on userspace content. However, userpages are not exempt from policy, especially as it regards to disruption or personal attacks. See Wikipedia:Userpage.
226	Internodeuser	19-Jun-05	6	Vandalism	Vandalism of Wikipedia will not be tolerated. Administrators may, at their discretion, block IP addresses that vandalize Wikipedia for up to one month at a time (Wikipedia:Blocking policy).
227	Skyring	25-Jun-05	1	Not a soapbox or forum	Wikipedia is not a soapbox or forum for discussion.
228	Skyring	25-Jun-05	2	Courtesy	Wikipedia editors are expected to exhibit courtesy toward other users.
229	Skyring	25-Jun-05	3	Limited bans on editing	Editors whose activities are troublesome and disruptive may be banned from areas which have been the focus of their activities.
230	Skyring	25-Jun-05	4	wiki-stalking	The term ""wiki-stalking"" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This is distinct from following a contributor in order to clear repeated errors.
231	Climate change dispute	26-Jun-05	1	Revert wars considered harmful	Revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Users are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration.
232	Climate change dispute	26-Jun-05	2	Neutral point of view	Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion. However, this does not imply that all competing points of view deserve equal consideration in an article.
233	Climate change dispute	26-Jun-05	3	Consensus	As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.
234	Climate change dispute	26-Jun-05	4	Provide adequate references	While the content of articles is the province of Wikipedia editors, a number of Wikipedia policies relate to content in peripheral ways, for example, it is desirable to limit reversions and to provide adequate references for material included in articles. See Wikipedia:Edit war, Wikipedia:Three revert rule, Wikipedia:Check your facts, Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability
235	Climate change dispute	26-Jun-05	5	Ownership of articles	No individual or selected group of people is entitled the right to control the content of an article. (See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.)
236	Climate change dispute	26-Jun-05	6	Wikipedia is an encyclopedia	The goal of this project is to build an neutral, comprehensive, and accurate encyclopedia. The authority of all policies and guidelines springs from a desire to regulate the behavior of the community in a way that will hopefully help us attain our goal. Therefore this fact must be kept in mind when those polices and guidelines are applied. The desire to apply rules for the sake of rules must be suppressed.
237	Climate change dispute	26-Jun-05	8	Relative value of references	Since the goal of Wikipedia is to provide accurate content, we cannot regard all references as equally valid and give them all equal weight. Editors should exercise care in the selection and use of references. The closer a reference is to current peer reviewed work, the better. Balance must also be attained by properly labeling and attributing significant dissenting views (where they exist).
238	Climate change dispute	26-Jun-05	9	Civility	Wikipedia editors are required to maintain a minimum level of courtesy toward one another, see Wikiquette, Civility and Wikipedia:Writers rules of engagement.
239	Njyoder	30-Jun-05	1	Purpose of Wikipedia	The purpose of Wikipedia is to collect and organize established knowledge in a usable form.
240	Njyoder	30-Jun-05	2	Role of Wikipedia editors	The role of a Wikipedia editor is to find knowledge in published references, including alternative versions, and include them in appropriate Wikipedia articles.
241	Njyoder	30-Jun-05	3	Governance	In addition to gathering information and editing articles Wikipedia editors participate in governance of Wikipedia selecting editors to serve as administrators who discharge routine duties involving editing and participation in Wikipedia.
242	Njyoder	30-Jun-05	4	The pursuit of truth	The establishment of truth is not one of the purposes of Wikipedia which merely attributes the knowledge it contains to published sources.
243	Njyoder	30-Jun-05	5	Editing of controversial articles	Wholesale changes to controversial articles are unproductive as the only likely response is reversion. It is much more desirable to make small changes and couple them with discussion on the talk page of the article.
244	Njyoder	30-Jun-05	6	Original research	Material which originates with a Wikipedia editor, however well crafted, may be removed from an article.
245	Njyoder	30-Jun-05	7	Cite your sources	Material which has no source associated with it may be removed from a Wikipedia article pending production of a source.
246	Njyoder	30-Jun-05	8	Disruption	It is unacceptable to disrupt either the editing or the governance of Wikipedia by making provocative edits or by persisting either through editing the article or by continued discussion on talk pages in ways which substantially diverge with the purposes of Wikipedia.
247	Njyoder	30-Jun-05	9	Relationship of IRC to Wikipedia for purposes of dispute resolution	Wikipedia users' activities on IRC channels are not considered relevant in the resolution of disputes between Wikipedia users.
248	Njyoder	30-Jun-05	11	Wikipedia policies	Wikipedia editors and administrators are expected to follow present Wikipedia policies. These policies are used as the basis of dispute resolution.
249	Njyoder	30-Jun-05	11.1	Change in policy	It is acceptable to comment on Wikipedia policies and to advocate change in policies. It is not acceptable to repeatedly insist that editors or administrator ignore or overturn established Wikipedia policies on the grounds that they are obviously wrong or irrational. Most Wikipedia policies are a work in progress and can be improved though a process of discussion and consensus. They are nevertheless, for the moment, the policies in place.
250	Njyoder	30-Jun-05	12	Subtle matter	As a compendium of all human knowledge, Wikipedia contains subject matter which is the provence of various subcultures (as applied to the instant case, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered (LGBT) communities.)
251	Njyoder	30-Jun-05	12.1	Competency	Editing specialized subject matter requires familiarity with those areas and the specialized language and information resources which concern them. The assertion that something ""makes no sense"" or is limited to a subculture (in the instant case "" 99% of those hits are from LGBT websites"") is not grounds for a subject's exclusion from Wikipedia. The solution is rather to study the matter until is familiar to you before you engage in extensive or aggressive editing or to edit in other areas
252	Jguk	30-Jun-05	1	Style guide	Wikipedia has established a Wikipedia:Manual of Style for the ""purpose of making things easy to read by following a consistent format,"" see [1]. The prescriptions of Wikipedia's manual of style are not binding, but it is suggested that with respect to eras that ""Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article."" [2].
253	Jguk	30-Jun-05	2	Optional styles	When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable.
254	Jguk	30-Jun-05	3	Courtesy	Courtesy between Wikipedia editors is important, especially with respect to matters which are in dispute.
255	Jguk	30-Jun-05	4	Revert wars considered harmful	Revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Users are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration.
256	Jguk	30-Jun-05	5	Sincere disputes are unlikely to be resolved by forcing the issue	At times the proper implementation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy will be a matter of dispute between reasonable editors who sincerely wish to uphold the principle. In these cases, no attempts to dictate the proper solution, whether coming from the Arbitration Committee or from a mechanism such as a poll, will be helpful. All that can be done is to insist that the participants in the dispute remain civil and respectful.
257	KaintheScion et al.	02-Jul-05	1	Sockpuppets	While is is permissible for a person to have several user accounts on Wikipedia, such accounts may be misused in a variety of ways. When there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sock puppet
258	KaintheScion et al.	02-Jul-05	1.1	Template:Sockpuppet	While controversial and perhaps exacerbating conflict, it is acceptable to place Template:Sockpuppet on the user page of a suspected account together with links to supporting evidence, see Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Tagging_identified_sock_puppets.
259	KaintheScion et al.	02-Jul-05	2	No personal attacks	Personal attacks and disparaging remarks directed at other users are unacceptable, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks
260	KaintheScion et al.	02-Jul-05	3	Advocacy	Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
261	KaintheScion et al.	02-Jul-05	4	Editing bans	Wikipedia editors may be banned from articles where their point of view advocacy has proven disruptive.
262	Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell	21-Jul-05	1	No personal attacks	No personal attacks.
263	Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell	21-Jul-05	2	Civility	Wikipedia users are expected to behave calmly, courteously, and civilly in their dealings with other users.
264	Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell	21-Jul-05	3	Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary	Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points of view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment.
265	Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell	21-Jul-05	4	No original research	No original research.
266	Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell	21-Jul-05	5	Cite sources	Cite sources. As per Wikipedia:Verifiability, ""Fact checking is time consuming, economically costly, and not particularly rewarding. It is unfair to make later editors dig for sources."" This particularly applies to controversial additions.
267	Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell	21-Jul-05	6	Neutral point of view	Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.
268	Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell	21-Jul-05	7	Disruption	Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
269	Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell	21-Jul-05	8	Sockpuppets	The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks and bans, make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize, is strictly forbidden.
270	Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell	21-Jul-05	9	Anonymous users are allowed to edit Wikipedia	While some Wikipedians consider anonymous editors less credible than logged-in editors, anonymous users have made valuable contributions to Wikipedia, and the community has consistently rejected all moves to block anonymous users from editing. See m:Foundation issues.
271	Cantus 3	08-Aug-05	2	Sustained edit warring	Sustained edit warring is harmful to Wikipedia.
272	Cantus 3	08-Aug-05	3	Use of Sockpuppets	The use of anonymous editing or sockpuppets to evade editing bans is prohibited.
273	Trey Stone and Davenbelle	11-Aug-05	1	Verifiability	For information to be included in Wikipedia, it must have been published elsewhere in reliable sources and those sources should be cited as references in Wikipedia articles (see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Cite sources).
274	Trey Stone and Davenbelle	11-Aug-05	1.1	Obscure topics and dubious sources	Sometimes, especially regarding topics which have not been the subject of extensive journalistic or scholarly inquiry, published information regarding a topic is limited or available only through sources which because of their editorial policies (strong point of view) are suspect (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious_sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Obscure_topics).
275	Trey Stone and Davenbelle	11-Aug-05	2	Consensus	As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.
276	Trey Stone and Davenbelle	11-Aug-05	3	Wikipedia is not a soapbox	Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advocacy.
277	Trey Stone and Davenbelle	11-Aug-05	4	Relationship of Wikipedia policies and controversial articles	Wikipedia policies regarding courtesy, assuming good faith, communicating about edits on the talk page of articles, producing appropriate references are especially relevant to articles which involve controversy.
278	Trey Stone and Davenbelle	11-Aug-05	5	Editing of controversial articles	Users who are unable or unwilling to follow the Wikipedia policies which relate to editing of controversial articles may be restricted with respect to editing in those areas.
279	Trey Stone and Davenbelle	11-Aug-05	7	NPOV	Wikipedia policy requires inclusion of all significant points of view regarding a subject.
280	Trey Stone and Davenbelle	11-Aug-05	8	Talk pages	Wikipedia policy requires discussion of the content of an article when disputes arise on the talk pages of the article.
281	Trey Stone and Davenbelle	11-Aug-05	11	Talk pages	Sustained edit warring is wasteful of resources and destructive to morale.
282	Skyring	12-Aug-05	1	Not a soapbox or forum	Wikipedia is not a soapbox or forum for discussion.
283	Skyring	12-Aug-05	2	Courtesy	Wikipedia editors are expected to exhibit courtesy toward other users.
284	Skyring	12-Aug-05	3	Limited bans on editing	Editors whose activities are troublesome and disruptive may be banned from areas which have been the focus of their activities.
285	Skyring	12-Aug-05	4	wiki-stalking	The term ""wiki-stalking"" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This is distinct from following a contributor in order to clear repeated errors.
286	Alfrem	12-Aug-05	1	Edit warring	Edit wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Users are required to respect the three-revert rule and to avoid edit-warrior behavior, and are encouraged to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as talk page discussion, negotiation, surveys, then requests for comment, mediation, or, finally, Arbitration.
287	Alfrem	12-Aug-05	2	Reasonableness and disruption/Ownership of articles	Editors are expected to behave reasonably with respect to editing and dealing to other users. Editing practices that cause disruption to the normal functioning of Wikipedia—such as the persistant removal of a phrase or sentence, and the reversion of its restoration—will not be tolerated. In addition Wikipedia articles, do not have 'owners' or 'custodians 'who control edits to them. Instead, they are ""owned"" by the community-at-large, and come to a consensus version by means of discussion, negotiation, and/or polling.
288	Alfrem	12-Aug-05	3	Removal of references, sources, and explanatory material	Removal of references, sources, and explanatory material from articles without a compelling reason, especially when other users object, is generally considered inappropriate.
289	Mlorrey	15-Aug-05	1	Advocacy	Wikipedia is not a forum for advocacy of a political cause, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
290	Mlorrey	15-Aug-05	2	Legal dispute	Any user involved in a legal dispute with Wikipedia or another Wikipedia user may be banned until the dispute is resolved or settled.
291	Emico	21-Aug-05	1	No personal attacks	It is not acceptable to make personal attacks on other users, Wikipedia:No personal attacks
292	Emico	21-Aug-05	2	Original research	Information used in Wikipedia articles should have its source in a reputable reference, not personal experience, Wikipedia:Cite your sources and Wikipedia:Original research
293	Emico	21-Aug-05	3	NPOV	While consensus is important in making decisions with respect to editing, it does not trump Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, NPOV, see Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. In the instant case a vote which occurred several months ago among one group of editors does not continue to control indefinitely as the editors change, especially if it would result in exclusion of important information representing an important point of view. Repeated arguing about such a vote as a controlling precedent is an example of Wikilawyering.
294	Emico	21-Aug-05	3.1	Deletion of significant information	Removal of well-referenced relevant material from an article is not acceptable.
295	Argyrosargyrou	21-Aug-05	1	Advocacy	Wikipedia is not a forum for issue advocacy, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
296	Argyrosargyrou	21-Aug-05	2	Sockpuppets	While a Wikipedia user may edit under more than one account, misuse of Sockpuppets is not allowed.
297	Argyrosargyrou	21-Aug-05	3	Disruptive users	Disruptive users may be banned for a limited period from Wikipedia.