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.
Previous penalties relating to principle
This principle does not have a directly associated penalty; however, it is often viewed to be an inherent cause of other punishable behaviour (e.g. personal attacks).
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.
Removing evidence from any Arbitration page is unacceptable. Modification of other users' edits of Arbitration pages, inserting peripheral material, and especially deleting them or portions of them will not be tolerated.
Previous penalties relating to principle
Users that abuse measures of introducing new cases may be declared vexatious litigants, prohibiting them from filing new requests under such categories. If the user feels they have valid grounds for a new case they may be directed to contact one or more Arbitrators (named on a case-by-case basis).
No user has yet been found to have deliberately removed evidence from an underway arbitration case; as such, no penalties have been devised for this circumstance.
Wikipedia administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this–administrators are not expected to be perfect–but consistently poor judgement may result in reapplication for adminship via the requests for adminship procedure or suspension or revocation of adminship. If revoked, the user may have a temporary or permanent limitation placed on reapplying.
Administrators have been granted the power to execute certain commands which ordinary users can not execute. This includes the power to block users, to protect pages, to edit protected pages, and to delete and restore pages. All of these abilities must be used in accordance with policy (the blocking, page protection, and deletion policies, respectively), and must never be used to "win" a content dispute.
One aspect of the responsibilities of an administrator is to attempt to prevent disruption to the Wikipedia site and its users. Administrators are authorized to use their best judgment in accordance with accepted principles in order to do this.
Arbitration rulings
Statement(s) of principle
Arbitration rulings are binding on editors; violations will be regarded seriously.
Arbitration rulings on the English Wikipedia are binding on contributors to the project and violations will be regarded seriously.
Wikipedia users are expected to abide by rulings made by the Arbitration Committee.
Previous penalties relating to principle
Disregard for rulings of the Arbitration Committee will result in a temporary ban of up to one year.
This principle does not have a directly associated penalty; however, it is often viewed to be an inherent cause of other punishable behaviour (e.g. personal attacks).
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.
A ban is a standing order that a particular person (and all his/her reincarnations) is not permitted to edit the Wikipedia web site. This is different from an Admin-imposed block, which is usually imposed to prevent vandalism.
Users can be banned and unbanned by the Wikimedia Board, by Jimbo Wales personally, and by the Arbitration Committee.
One of the tools used to effect bans against people is to block a user account suspected of being used by them, which is a specific technical measure that stops the user account from editing; one result of this is that their IP address will be blocked from editing for 24 hours from each time that they attempt to edit with that account.
Users who are generally agreed to be a "reincarnation" of a banned user can be summarily blocked.
All Administrators are expected to abide by rulings and decrees from Jimbo Wales, the Board, and the Arbitration Committee.
"[Wikipedia asks] that users generally refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users." -- Wikipedia:Banning policy
"If a user does knowingly reinstate an edit by a banned user, they have taken responsibility for it, in some sense, so there is no benefit in reverting that edit again, and there is the risk of causing unnecessary conflict amongst the Wikipedia community." -- Wikipedia:Banning 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.
Previous penalties relating to principle
This principle does not have an associated penalty.
Changing the comments and recommendations of other people in a Wikipedia poll such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is a serious offense.
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.)
Previous penalties relating to principle
No penalty has explicitly been issued for violation of this principle; penalties are usually subsumed by wider general bans.
Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably in their dealings with other users and to observe the principles of assuming good faith, civility, and the writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.
Editing in a manner so as to intentionally provoke other editors is a form of trolling and goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors.
Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile 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.
The Wiki software and Wikipedia policy anticipates that disputes may arise regarding the wording and content of Wikipedia articles. When 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.
Previous penalties relating to principle
This principle does not have a directly associated penalty; however, it is often viewed to be an inherent cause of other punishable behaviour (e.g. personal attacks). Summary bans have been issued for violations of other principles which depend on this one (e.g. personal attacks, vandalism, and edit warring).
Although discussion is always encouraged, the Arbitration Committee does not expect users to compromise in all circumstances; doing so would serve only to support cranks and POV pushers.
In cases where compromise cannot be reached, users are expected to follow the Dispute resolution process.
Previous penalties relating to principle
This principle does not have a directly associated penalty; however, it is often viewed to be an inherent cause of other punishable behaviour (e.g. personal attacks).
An encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details.
Previous penalties relating to principle
This principle does not have an associated penalty. It is generally considered defunct, as the arbitration committee does not judge content of articles.
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.
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.
When reverting, users are expected to give their reasons in the edit summaries.
Previous penalties relating to principle
This principle does not have a directly associated penalty; however, it is often viewed to be an inherent cause of other punishable behaviour (e.g. POV disputes).
Wikipedia users are welcome to edit anonymously, but are encouraged to register and edit under a username (see Why create an account?). When controversies arise this helps with accountability.
In general, anonymous IP addresses are not allowed to vote on Wikipedia. (this refers to actual elections only, such as the Steward elections, and not discussions such as WP:AFD)
Previous penalties relating to principle
This principle does not have an associated penalty.
Edit wars or revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encouraged to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration. When disagreements arise, users are expected to adhere to the three-revert rule and discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad nauseam. "Slow revert wars," where an editor persistently reverts an article but technically adheres to the three-revert rule are also strongly discouraged and are unlikely to constitute working properly with others.
This rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.
The rule applies only to individuals, not groups.
The term "revert" as used in Wikipedia policies and guidelines is intended to include both absolute reverts (where versions differ not at all) as well as de facto reverts (where versions are only very slightly different). Attempting to avoid being accused of reversion by making very minor edits that are then edited out again is in bad faith and against Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Sockpuppets and anonymous editor accounts may not be used to evade the three-revert rule.
It is expected that editors, when reverting, will provide an explanation for doing so in the edit summary.
Previous penalties relating to principle
In cases of edit-warring, revert limitations are applied in which reverting is restricted and violators can be blocked for specified periods.
Harassment of any editor is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target. The purpose could be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely.
"Any user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment of a user. This includes harassment directed at the user themselves." "Wikipedia users, especially administrators, will not permit a user under attack to be isolated, but will support them. This may include reverting harassing edits, protecting or deleting pages, blocking users, or taking other appropriate action."
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.
A Wikipedia user is not permitted to portray themselves as another user in editing any page, especially not during a vote.
Previous penalties relating to principle
As described above, accounts designed to impersonate may be immediately blocked indefinitely by any administrator.
Most users making legal threats are hardbanned by the community. When before the arbitration committee, users making legal threats face a unique ban, whereupon an immediate ban for a period of one year is issued. After one year with no further legal threats and no action taken it will be assumed that all disputes have been resolved and the ban for legal threats will be lifted. Further legal threats will reset the ban, and the ban will remain in place during and after any formal action taken. If other bans are not active and the matter is resolved prior to the lifting of this ban, the banned user can apply to the committee for a change to these conditions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Unexplained deletions of portions of controversial articles are unacceptable.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When disputing the accuracy or neutrality of an article, users are always expected to give a reason on the article's talk page.
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.
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 perspectives are to be attributed to their advocates. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Wikipedia articles are edited from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which contemplates that all significant viewpoints regarding a matter shall be appropriately represented. Where necessary, contributors must be willing to "write for the enemy".
All contributions should be written from the NPOV. (See Wikipedia:NPOV.)
Previous penalties relating to principle
Attempts to "push (one's) POV" are usually met with revert limitations whereupon the Wikipedia:three-revert rule is reduced to two, one, or even zero reverts with similar penalties, as revert warring is often associated with violations of this policy. For a period between January 2005 and February 2005, an experimental POV parole was implemented in some cases, wherein re-insertion of any edits which were judged by a majority of those commenting on the relevant talk page in a 24-hour poll to be a violation of the NPOV policy would result in temp-bans for a short time, up to one week. The experiment was generally regarded as a failure.
Bans on editing the articles in question are issued in more extreme cases.
(a) Wikipedia pages 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. (b) This is a crucial part of Wikipedia as an open-content encylopedia. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages
This principle does not have a directly associated penalty; however, it is often viewed to be an inherent cause of other punishable behaviour (e.g. personal attacks).
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned. 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.
Previous penalties relating to principle
This principle does not have an associated penalty.
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). Wikipedia editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy, and must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.
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 Arbitration.
Personal attacks are not excused or justified by offers of demonstration of their truth.
Previous penalties relating to principle
In most cases, a personal attack parole is passed, varying in length from three months to one year. This is usually worded as:
John Doe is placed on standard personal attack parole for (period of time). If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week.
In more extreme cases, full out bans may be implemented of up to one year.
Users who are provoked with personal attacks are generally warned not to respond in kind.
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.
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.
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.
In instances where policy is ambiguous the solution is more discussion, not struggle through revert wars, assumption of bad faith or personal attacks.
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
Contributors are expected to obey Wikipedia policies, including the three revert rule.
Certain customary practices used on Wikipedia are not written down, but can be ascertained by communication with other users.
Wikipedia users who demonstrate over a period of time that they are unable or unwilling to conform to Wikipedia policy may be banned.
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.
Previous penalties relating to principle
Punishments depend on the policy violated. This principle is mostly defunct; instead principles relating to the individual policies are usually passed.
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.
Wikipedia editors must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.
Previous penalties relating to principle
Users that are provoked with personal attacks are generally warned not to respond in kind.
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.
Previous penalties relating to principle
This principle does not have an associated penalty, beyond the loss of advanced permissions.
The current community practice with respect to public accounts is to block such accounts on sight indefinitely due to potential security risks et al.
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.
Previous penalties relating to principle
Accounts with publicly known passwords are blocked indefinitely on sight.
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 strictly forbidden.
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.
"Proxy" edits on behalf of a banned user, or that assist a user in violating an arbitration injunction, are not permitted.
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.
A Wikipedia user may create an account under an alias. A few additional accounts may also be created.
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
Possibly amongst other things, Sock puppets should not be used to evade legitimate bans or arbitration committee rulings.
Previous penalties relating to principle
Abusive sockpuppet accounts are invariably blocked indefinitely. Users with large numbers of abusive sockpuppets are frequently restricted to one account.
If a subsection of an article grows past a certain point in size, it is generally desirable to split that subsection into its own article and leave an appropriately-sized summary in its place (e.g. "History of (country)" articles are normally branched off from "(country)" articles).
Previous penalties relating to principle
This principle does not have an associated penalty.
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.
Previous penalties relating to principle
This principle does not have a directly associated penalty; however, it is invariably an inherent cause of other punishable behaviour (e.g. personal attacks).
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.
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.
Aggressive use of Wikipedia forums to mobilize support for point of view editing results in exacerbation of conflict.
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.
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.
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.
When disputing the accuracy or neutrality of an article, users are always expected to give a reason on the article's talk page.
Previous penalties relating to principle
This principle does not have an associated penalty.
Usability of evidence presented in arbitration cases
Statement(s) of principle
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 principal issues involved with adequate references to examples of the behavior complained of.
Previous penalties relating to principle
This principle does not have an associated penalty.
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.)
Deleting content from the user namespace or adding deletion tags to content in the User namespace without the affected user's permission is discouraged.
Previous penalties relating to principle
This principle does not have an associated penalty.
Admins may, at their judgement, block IP addresses that vandalise Wikipedia for up to one month at a time (Wikipedia:Blocking policy).
Previous penalties relating to principle
As outlined above, users making deliberately vandalising edits may normally be summarily blocked by any Wikipedia administrator; as such, cases before the Committee do not normally issue penalties. Accounts whose contributions consist of nothing but personal attacks may be banned for periods of up to one year (which may in effect be an indefinite ban.)
