This is aninformation page. It is not anencyclopedic article, nor one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects ofWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. It may reflect differing levels ofconsensus andvetting.

Shortcut WP:ARBPRINCIPLESWP:ARBPRINCIPLES

This page in a nutshell: This is an index ofstatements of principles made by theWikipedia:Arbitration Committee in the course of deciding variousRequests for Arbitration cases. While thesedo not have the force ofWikipedia:Policy, they are frequently dispositive in the outcome of variousdispute resolutions, and are sometimes seen as actionable byadministrators, especially in the application ofdiscretionary sanctions.

Wikipedia Arbitration
Arbitration directory About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy(CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports(pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Many citations on the English Wikipedia are to online resources, and this is unsurprising for an online encyclopedia. Online sources are easier to access and easier for editors to verify. Still, many reliable sources are not readily available to everyone online, soreliable sources should not be rejected merely because they are difficult or costly to access. Special care should be taken when using difficult-to-access sources, especially when used to support contentious claims. Editors should take care to provide full bibliographic information, such as the source's reference number or an in-source quotation, to help editors and readers find and verify the claims in the sources. -2023-05

Editors are accountable for their conduct. As such, they are expected to respond appropriately to queries about their actions and to justify them where needed. Where the Arbitration Committee, the community or other authorised person imposes a sanction, editors are expected to comply with both the letter and spirit of the sanction. -2017-09

The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context. Failure to accurately reflect sources, whether by accident or design, is a serious matter as it undermines the integrity of the encyclopedia. Repeated failures to represent sources accurately may result in sanctions. -2015-01

The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor certifies his or her good-faith belief that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes information contained in the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context. Misuse or misleading use of sources, intentional or otherwise, violates our policies requiring that article content beverifiable and prohibiting original research. -2011-04

Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators, is detrimental to finding and achieving consensus. -2015-06

Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Administrators who seriously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or who have lost the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their administrator rights removed by the arbitration committee. Administrators should be reasonably aware of community standards and expectations when using administrative tools. -2019-05

Administrators areaccountable for their actions involving administrative tools. As such, they are expected to respond appropriately to queries about their administrative actions and to justify their actions where needed. Criticism of the merits of administrative actions are acceptable within the bounds ofavoiding personal attacks andcivility. -2014-01

Administrators are expected to objectively consider criticism and questions relating to their decisions. For an administrator to not promptly and appropriately deal with concerns, without good cause, may constitute misconduct. -2019-02

Administrators are expected to objectively consider criticism and questions relating to their decisions including those raised by anonymous editors. For an administrator to not promptly and appropriately deal with concerns, without good cause, may constitute misconduct. -2020-02,2020-02,2021-03

Administrators are expected to observe a high standard of conduct and retain the trust of the community at all times. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators, and consistent or egregious poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator tools. -2017-10,2019-05

Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators who have been blocked for purported violations should not remove the block themselves even if they believe it was clearly improper. SeeWikipedia:Unblocking#Unblocking. -2018-12

Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to followWikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators, and consistent or egregious poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator tools. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors. (WP:ADMINCOND) -2019-09

Administrators are trusted members of the community; they are expected to lead by example and to follow Wikipedia policies. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this, as administrators are not expected to be perfect, though they are expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgment or sustained disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with this trusted role, and administrators who repeatedly engage in inappropriate activity may be desysopped by the Arbitration Committee. -2010-02

Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. -2016-10

Administrators are trusted members of the community who are expected to lead by example. They are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and restrictions which are placed upon them. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators, and consistent or egregious poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator tools. -2017-09

Administrators are trusted members of the community, who are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and are held to a high standard of conduct. They are expected to perform administrative tasks to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, repeated or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. -2019-02,2020-02,2020-02,2021-03

Administratorsshould lead by example and should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, serious disruption of Wikipedia, especially when repeated, through behavior such as incivility and personal attacks, is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators. –2023-07

With few exceptions, editors are expected to not act as administrators in cases where, to a neutral observer, they could reasonably appearinvolved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.While there will always be borderline cases, best practices suggest that, whenever in doubt, an administrator should draw the situation to the attention of fellow sysops, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard, so that other sysops can provide help. -2014-01,2018-12

With few exceptions, editors are expected to not act as administrators in cases where, to a neutral observer, they could reasonably appear involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. While there will always be borderline cases, whenever in doubt, an administrator should draw the situation to the attention of fellow sysops, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard, so that other sysops can provide help. -2019-05

Editors are expected to not act as administrators in cases where, to a neutral observer, they couldreasonably appear involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute; however, involvement does not include prior interactions in a purely administrative role or in making minor edits that do not show bias. The sole listed exception to this prohibition is for straightforward cases, such as blatant vandalism, within which involved editors may take "obvious" administrative actions if "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion". -2023-07,2023-12

Administrator tools are not to be used in connection with disputes in which the administrator isinvolved as an editor.

While there will always be borderline cases, best practices suggest that, whenever in doubt, an administrator should draw the situation to the attention of fellow sysops, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard, so that other sysops can provide help. -2015-08

With few exceptions, editors are expected to not act as administrators in disputes in which they have beeninvolved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

While there will always be borderline cases, best practices suggest that, whenever in doubt, an administrator should draw the situation to the attention of fellow sysops, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard, so that other sysops can provide help. -2020-01

With few exceptions, editors are expected to not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. Involvement does not require that the administrator also has aconflict of interest. –2021-03

Editors are expected to not act as administrators in cases where, to a neutral observer, they could reasonably appear involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute; however, involvement does not include prior interactions in a purely administrative role or in making minor edits that do not show bias. The sole listed exception to this prohibition is for straightforward cases, such as blatant vandalism, within which involved editors may take "obvious" administrative actions if "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion". SeeWikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins. –2022-11

In the context ofarbitration enforcement, which is analogous to enforcement of thecommunity sanctions at issue in this case, the Arbitration Committee has usually defined that "for the purpose of imposing sanctions ... an administrator will be considered 'uninvolved' if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict." Of course, an administrator who has had significant prior disputes with a particular editor would similarly be considered "involved" with regard to a request for sanctions involving that editor.

However, an administrator's taking enforcement action against an editor under an arbitration or community-sanctions decision is not considered to be participation in a dispute that disqualifies the administrator from addressing later misconduct by that editor. It also is unacceptable for an editor to deliberately pick a quarrel with an administrator for the purpose of provoking the administrator into saying or doing something that will make him or her "involved." -2010-10

The purpose of defining involvement is to eliminate as much bias as possible. Bias in a topic area can result from things like editing the topic and having strong views even without editing the topic.

Editors are expected to not act as administrators in disputes in which they are involved. SeeWikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins. For example, an administrator may be deemed too "involved" to block an editor if the administrator has had significant prior disputes with that editor, whether or not directly related to the current issue, or if the issue arises from a content dispute and the administrator is active in editing the article that is the subject of the dispute.

However, the policy also notes that "one important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or article purelyin an administrative role, or whose prior involvement consists of minor or obvious edits that do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting on the article, editor, or dispute either in an administrative role or in an editorial role. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary." There will always be borderline cases; in general, if an administrator is not sure whether he or she would be considered "involved" or not, the better practice is to draw the situation to the attention of other administrators to resolve, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard. -2010-10

There is a trade-off between having a relatively small group of administrators concentrate onarbitration enforcement or community sanctions enforcement versus having a larger number of administrators do so. Having a handful of administrators handle enforcement requests helps ensure that these administrators are familiar with enforcement policies and procedures and come to learn the issues associated with enforcement problems that arise in a particular case. On the other hand, as the same administrators handle multiple enforcement requests, they may increasingly be subject to accusations of "involvement" or bias and prejudgment based on their earlier actions in the same case.

In general, as more administrators participate in enforcement of a decision and develop the relevant expertise, the less necessary it will be for an administrator who might be arguably or borderline "involved" to handle an enforcement request. Conversely, it is understandable that if other qualified administrators are not available to handle the requests, then those who are willing to address them, even if borderline "involved", are more likely to continue making enforcement decisions. -2010-10

Administrators are trusted members of the community, who are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and are held to a high standard of conduct. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status. -2015-08

Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment or multiple violations of policy (in the use of Administrator tools, or otherwise) may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions. -2009-06,2020-01

Administrators are trusted members of the community, and expected to lead by example and behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment, multiple violations of policy (in the use of Administrator tools, or otherwise), or particularly egregious behaviour, may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions. -2012-02

Administrators are trusted members of the community, and are expected to perform their duties to the best of their abilities; to behave in a respectful and civil manner in their interactions with others; to follow Wikipedia policies; to lead by example; and to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.

Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment, multiple violations of policy—whether in the use of administrator tools or otherwise—or particularly egregious behaviour may result in the removal of administrator status. -2013-03

Administrators are trusted members of the community who, afterbeing vetted by the community, have been granted access to a certain set of tools, including the ability to effect blocks and unblocks. Within the boundaries set by policy, administrators are allowed to exercise their discretion in using said tools for the purpose of maintaining the encyclopaedia and protecting its integrity; however, abuse of tools or their repeated misuse may lead to sanctions, up to and including a desysop. -2014-12

Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status. -2018-01,2022-11

Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. To the best of their abilities, administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policy and perform their duties with care and judgment. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator. Administrators who egregiously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or administrators who have lost the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their access removed. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions or conduct. -2012-07

Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies.Their conduct is held to a high standard as a result of this trust. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status. -2023-07,2023-12

Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave respectfully and civilly in their interactions with others. They are expected to follow Wikipedia policy and to perform their duties with care and judgment. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, administrators who egregiously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or administrators who lose the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their access removed. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticism of their actions or conduct. -2014-01

Administrators are trusted members of the community who, afterbeing vetted by the community, have been granted access to a certain set of tools, including the ability to effect blocks and unblocks and to protect and unprotect pages from being edited. Within the boundaries set by policy, administrators are allowed to exercise their discretion in using said tools for the purpose of maintaining the encyclopaedia and protecting its integrity; however, abuse of tools or their repeated misuse may lead to sanctions, up to and including a desysop. -2014-01

Administrators are trusted members of the community, and are expected to perform their duties to the best of their abilities; to behave in a respectful and civil manner in their interactions with others; to follow Wikipedia policies; to lead by example; and to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. -2015-06

Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and follow Wikipedia policies to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment or multiple violations of policy (in the use of administrator tools, or otherwise) may result in the removal of administrator status. –2022-12

Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies.Their conduct is held to a high standard as a result of this trust. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status. –2023-07

The "Involved admins" section of theAdministrators policy states thatan administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'. -2015-01

TheBiographies of Living People policy authorises administrators to "enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents."

Absent objective standards of what is clear and what is less clear, the"Not perfect" provision in the administrator policy is relevant:Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. -2015-01

Administrator tools are not to be used in connection with disputes in which the administrator is involved as an editor. In several recent instances, administrators involved in disputes over an issue or with a user have taken sysop actions relating to that dispute and then referred the actions a noticeboard for endorsement or review. This practice generally is not sufficient to comply withpolicy against action by "involved" administrators. In such circumstances, the administrator should not take the action but should instead report the issue to the noticeboard, perhaps with a suggestion for appropriate action, to be dealt with by another administrator. In limited circumstances, such as blatant vandalism or bad-faith harassment, an involved administrator may act, but such exceptions are likely to be rare. -2009-06

Administrator tools are not to be used in connection with disputes in which the administrator isinvolved as an editor. -2012-07

Administrators are trusted members of the community, are expected to follow Wikipedia policies, and are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with administrator status; administrators are not expected to be perfect. When working in stressful and contentious areas, administrators should consider periodically taking time out from the area of contention lest their own conduct inadvertently descend to the level for which they would sanction others. -2010-10

Administrators should bear in mind that they have many colleagues. If an administrator finds themself in repeated disagreement with another good-faith but allegedly problematic editor, or if other editors disagree with the administrator's actions regarding that editor, it may be better practice for the administrator to request input or review from others, such as by posting on the appropriate noticeboard, rather than continue to address the issue unilaterally. This can be true even if the administrator may not formally be "involved" in a dispute with that editor. Whether to handle a matter oneself or seek broader input can be a judgment call as in more clear-cut instances, an individual administrator may be justified in addressing the problem decisively on their own. The question to be asked can be whether bringing more voices into the discussion will enhance the chances of a fair and well-informed resolution that will be respected as such by the affected editor and by others. A corollary is that this approach can work only if other admins and experienced editors are prepared to invest the time and effort needed to review a situation and provide input when asked to do so. -2019-09

Wikipedia strives towards aneutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not. -2010-08

Wikipedia is not a venue for advocating or advancing a viewpoint or position. Editors should ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or giveundue weight to a particular view. -2011-03

Wikipedia should not be used toadvocate any particular position. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to state neutrally what is currently found inreliable, secondary sources, not to put forward arguments to promote or deride any particular view. -2013-10

Wikipedia articles should present a neutral view of their subject. Use of a Wikipedia article foradvocacy or promotion is prohibited. -2014-04

Thearbitration policy does not place strict limits on the age of evidence that may be submitted in an arbitration case, although the Arbitration Committee will sometimes preemptively limit the scope of a case to a specific period of time. The Committee may choose to disregard or give less weight to evidence that is not recent. -2019-09,2023-05

When an editor of an article faces allegations of improper conduct, such asarticle ownership or failing to deal with potentialconflicts of interest, then review of both sides of the dispute by uninvolved editors should be sought at the relevant noticeboards or the article talk page. If such independent reviews find cause for concern, then steps should be taken to deal with the issues raised. Such steps can include statements of disclosure in an editor's userspace, commitments to reduce involvement in an article, warning an editor for making groundless accusations, or agreeing to pursue further stages indispute resolution. -2009-09

Reports that an editor may be violating Wikipedia's policyregarding the protection of children must be communicated in private to the Arbitration Committee or to the Wikimedia Foundation. Users must not discuss such allegations on-wiki; users who do so may receive sanctions up to and including an indefinite block, regardless of the correctness of the allegations. -2013-08

Wikipedia's policies allowing anonymous editing while discouragingconflicts of interest create a tension that necessarily is imperfectly resolved. Issues arising in this area must be addressed with a high degree of sensitivity to the competing concerns. -2010-05

Wikipedia was founded on the principle that "anyone can edit" and that by the collaboration of editors of all backgrounds, the best possible encyclopedia can be created. Hostility towards any editor is prohibited by Wikipedia'sconduct policies and, if directed towards a particular group, can be especially damaging to the inclusivity of the project. -2020-02

Only the sanctioned editor may file an appeal against a sanction. Other editors may offer assistance, but the decision to appeal and the choice of venue may only be made by the sanctioned editor. Appeals filed by any user other than the one sanctioned may be closed at any time. However, any interested users may ask for clarifications, if they are acting in good faith. -2015-08

The BLP policy applies only in relation to subjects who areliving or recently deceased. There is no firm length of time after death when the policy ceases to apply. In exceptional cases, and normally only in relation to material that is especially contentious and/or has relevance to surviving relatives, this is sometimes extended for up to two years. -2015-08

All living people who are subjects of Wikipedia content are entitled to the protections of thebiographies of living persons policy. An editor's personal dislike of the subject or their actions does not abrogate in any way the usual protections of the policy. -2013-10

There is widespread agreement in the Wikipedia community regarding the importance of the BLP policy. The policy has been adopted and since its inception repeatedly expanded and strengthened by the community. In addition, this Committee has reaffirmed the values expressed through that policy in a series of decisions and motions, and fundamental norms concerning biographical articles have been emphasized in aresolution of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. -2011-09

Editors participating in enforcement cases and appeals must disclose fully their involvement, if any. While good-faith statements are welcome, editors are expected to discuss only evidence and procedure. Insults and personal attacks, soapboxing and casting aspersions are as unacceptable in enforcement discussions as elsewhere on Wikipedia. Uninvolved administrators are asked to ensure that enforcement cases are not disrupted. -2015-08

April Fool's Day jokes are a widespread tradition in the English-speaking world, reflected on Wikipedia as an expression of community jollity and tolerated by established consensus supported by the outcome of various noticeboard and deletion discussions. On Wikipedia the convention has been to speedy close vexatious AfDs but otherwise (for example with joke RfAs) to archive soon after midnight UTC on April 2 with a "humor" template. April Fools is a contentious tradition on Wikipedia, in part because it is not a fully international tradition. April Fool's Day jokes are not exempt from the biographies of living persons policy. -2016-06

Requests for adminship is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators. The task of determining whether consensus to promote exists falls solely in the hands of thebureaucrats. The Arbitration Committee is not tasked to relitigate this decision absent evidence of misconduct. –2021-03

Arbitration enforcement (AE) is the noticeboard, set up by the Arbitration Committee and staffed by administrators, for editors to report suspected breaches of arbitration decisions. When enforcing arbitration decisions, administrators act as delegates of the Arbitration Committee and, in that role, they review the facts and, if necessary, take action. -2015-08,2023-03

In enforcing arbitration decisions, administrators should seek to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment within contentious topics. Administrators are expected to use their experience and judgment to balance (1) the need to assume good faith, to avoid biting genuine newcomers, and to allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom with (2) the need to keep edit-warring, battleground conduct, and disruptive behaviour to a minimum. -2023-03

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. With limited exceptions (such as emergency situations, "unusually divisive disputes among administrators", and matters directly referred by Jimbo Wales), it is expected that other avenues of dispute resolution will have been exhausted before an arbitration case is filed. Arbitration is the last resort for conflicts, rather than the first. -2009-06

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. With limited exceptions, it is expected that other avenues of dispute resolution will have been exhausted before an arbitration case is filed. Arbitration is the last resort for conflicts, rather than the first. -2016-10

The scope of sanctions imposed as remedies in arbitration cases, such as topic-bans, should be clearly defined so as to avoid later misunderstandings and disagreements. A sanction remedy should also clearly specify the duration of the sanction and the procedure, if any, available to the sanctioned user to seek lifting or modification of the sanction in due course. -2011-04

Editorial control over a Wikipedia article is vested in the editing community as a whole, rather than in any one editor; editors are expected to resolve disagreements throughconsensus within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -2010-04

Articles may be placed on probation by the Arbitration Committee or the community. When an article is under probation, editors making disruptive edits may be subject to various administrative sanctions, depending on the terms of probation. -2011-03

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. -2011-11

Wikipedia articles are collaboratively edited, and article subjectsmay not dictate content. Given the sensitive nature of biographies of living persons, the editing community should seriously consider any concerns raised by article subjects about the verifiability and neutrality of material about living persons. Article subjects with such concerns should present them through an appropriate avenue. They may direct concerns to the article's talk page, theBiographies of living persons/Noticeboard, or to theVolunteer Response Team via email atinfo-en-qwikimedia.org. -2018-07

FromWP:TECHNICAL: articles in Wikipedia should be understandable to the widest possible audience. For most articles, this means understandable to a general audience. Every reasonable attempt should be made to ensure that material is presented in the most widely understandable manner possible. -2011-03

In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia. -2007-10,2012-07,2015-11,2019-12

In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt exceptional measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia. -2015-12

Fully automated bot editing and semi-automated editing scripts perform an important and valuable function on Wikipedia. To facilitate the regulation and coordination of such editing, the community has a long-establishedbot policy and aBot Approvals Group responsible for reviewing potential bot operators'requests for bot approval "from a technical and quality-control perspective". -2017-03

Fully automated bot editing and semi-automated editing scripts perform an important and valuable function on Wikipedia. To facilitate the regulation and coordination of automated editing, the community has a long-establishedbot policy and aBot Approvals Group responsible for reviewing potential bot operators'requests for bot approval. -2017-09

All editors, and especially administrators, should strive to avoid conduct that might appear at first sight to violate policy. Examples include an administrator repeatedly making administrator actions that might reasonably be construed as reinforcing the administrator’s position in a content dispute, even where the administrator actually has no such intention; or an editor repeatedly editing in apparent coordination with other editors in circumstances which might give rise to reasonable but inaccurate suspicions of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. -2009-09

Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exceptions notes "The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of thethree-revert rule: [...] Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." -2015-08

Community attempts to resolve disputes calmly and expeditiously are thwarted when the processes are disrupted by inflammatory accusations and disparaging rhetoric as editors seemingly pursue long term feuds with each other. Users with a history of bad blood should take appropriate steps, includingdisengagement, to reduce rather than increase negative interpersonal contact. -2012-07

Editing in a manner so as to provoke other editors goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors. Editing in such a manner may be perceived as trolling and harassment. -2009-06,2012-02

When an editor's conduct is exceptionally disruptive or inappropriate, that user may bebanned from editing Wikipedia. Banned editors are prohibited from editing Wikipedia in any way, from any account or anonymously, and all contributions made in defiance of a ban aresubject to immediate removal. While users in good standing are permitted to restore content from banned users by taking ownership of that content, such restoration should be undertaken rarely and with extreme caution, as banned editors have already had to be removed for disruptive and problematic behavior. A user who nonetheless chooses to do so accepts full responsibility for the consequences of the material so restored. -2014-10

Wikipedia is a reference work, not abattlefield. Each and every user is expected to interact with otherscivilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Borderlinepersonal attacks andedit-warring are incompatible with this spirit. Use of the site to pursue feuds and quarrels is extremely disruptive, flies directly in the face of our key policies and goals, and is prohibited. Editors who are unable to resolve their personal or ideological differences are expected to keep mutual contact to a minimum. If battling editors fail todisengage, they may be compelled to do so through the imposition of restrictions. -2015-01

Wikipedia is a reference work, not abattlefield. Each and every user is expected to interact with otherscivilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Use of the site to pursue personal feuds and quarrels is extremely disruptive, flies directly in the face of our key policies and goals. and is prohibited. Editors who are unable to resolve their personal or ideological differences are expected to keep mutual contact to a minimum. If battling editors fail todisengage, they may be compelled to do so through the use of blocks and bans. -2010-10

Wikipedia is not a forum for the creation or furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions, and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus. Inflammatory accusations often perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than through legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable. See alsoWikipedia is not a battleground. -2014-10

Wikipedia is not a forum for the creation or furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions, and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus on substantive content issues. Inflammatory accusations often perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than through legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable. See alsoWikipedia is not a battleground. -2014-04

Wikipedia is a reference work, not abattleground. Each and every user is expected to interact with otherscivilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Borderlinepersonal attacks andedit-warring are incompatible with this spirit. Use of the site to pursue feuds and quarrels is extremely disruptive, flies directly in the face of our key policies and goals, and is prohibited. Editors who are unable to resolve their personal or ideological differences are expected to keep mutual contact to a minimum. If battling editors fail todisengage, they may be compelled to do so through the imposition of restrictions. -2022-08,2023-05

Wikipedia is not a battleground. Consequently, it is a not a venue for the furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus. Inflammatory accusations perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Private e-mail exchanges or other off-wiki contact can both escalate and de-escalate such conflicts. -2013-11

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. Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehavior must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behavior during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand. -2014-04

Violations of Wikipedia'sbehavioral expectations are not excused on the grounds that the editor who violated those expectations has the correct position on an underlying substantive dispute or the interpretation of policies and guidelines within those disputes. Those expectations apply universally to all editors, and violations of those expectations are harmful to the functioning of the project, irrespective of the merits of an underlying substantive dispute. -2023-08,2023-12

An editor must not engage in a pattern of editing that focuses on a specific racial, religious, or ethnic groupand can reasonably be perceived as insinuating, endorsing or promoting bias and prejudice either against or for the members, beliefs or tenets of the group. -2011-09

An editor must not engage in a pattern of editing that focuses on a specific racial, religious, or ethnic group and can reasonably be perceived as gratuitously endorsing or promoting stereotypes, or as evincing invidious bias and prejudice against the members of the group. -2011-04

TheBiographies of living persons ("BLP") policy applies not only to biographical articles but to all edits about living people in all pages within the encyclopedia. All such edits must be written conservatively, responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate and neutral tone. Edits should be backed byreliable sources, avoiding self-published material. Poorly sourced or unsourced controversial material must be removed immediately, and may not be reinserted without appropriate sourcing. Biographical articles should not be used ascoatracks to describe events or circumstances in which the subject is peripherally or slightly involved, nor to giveundue weight to events or circumstances relevant to the subject. Thepolicy permits "some leeway ... to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community", though administrators may delete defamatory material or personal attacks. Failure to adhere to the BLP policy may result in deletion of material, editing restrictions, blocks or even bans. -2015-01

While biographies of deceased individuals are not (with the possible exception of persons who died very recently) directly subject to thebiographies of living persons policy, such articles still must be written from a neutral point of view and may not be edited for the purpose of gratuitously mocking or disparaging the article subject without an encyclopedic purpose. The same applies on these articles' talkpages. -2014-04

Biographies of living people must be written conservatively, responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate and neutral tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. They should be written usingreliable sources, avoiding self-published sources. Poorly sourced or unsourced controversial material should be removed immediately, and should not be reinserted without appropriate sourcing. Biographical articles should not be used ascoatracks to describe events or circumstances in which the subject is peripherally or slightly involved, nor to giveundue weight to events or circumstances to matters relevant to the subject. Failure to adhere to thepolicy on biographical information of living people may result in deletion of material, editing restrictions, blocks or even bans. -2010-10

It is a core policy of the encyclopedia thatBiographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with a high regard for accuracy and neutrality, using only high quality sources. BLP articles may never be used as a vehicle for aggrandising or diminishing the subject. -2011-09

Articles relating to living individuals continue to be among the most sensitive content on Wikipedia. As the English Wikipedia remains one of the most prominent and visited websites in the world, a Wikipedia article about an individual will often be among the highest-ranking results in any search for information about that individual. The contents of these articles may directly affect their subjects' lives, reputations, and well-being. Therefore, whileall Wikipedia articles should be factually accurate, be based uponreliable sources, and be written from aneutral point of view, it is especially important that content relating to living people adheres to these standards. -2014-04

Articles relating to living individuals continue to be among the most sensitive content on Wikipedia. As the English Wikipedia remains one of the most prominent and visited websites in the world, a Wikipedia article mentioning an individual will often be among the highest-ranking results in any search for information about that individual. The contents of these articles may directly affect their subjects' lives, reputations, and well-being. Therefore, whileall Wikipedia articles should be factually accurate, be based uponreliable sources, and be written from aneutral point of view, it is especially important that content relating to living persons must adhere to these standards.Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (the "BLP policy") is a fundamental policy that enforces these precepts by requiring, among other things, that articles containing biographical information must be kept free of unsourced negative or controversial content, unsupported rumors and gossip, defamatory material,undue weight given to minor incidents or to matters irrelevant to the subject's notability, and unwarranted violations of personal privacy. There is widespread agreement in the Wikipedia community regarding the importance of the BLP policy, which was adopted and since its inception has repeatedly been strengthened by the community. In addition, this Committee has reaffirmed the values expressed through the BLP policy in a series of decisions and motions, and fundamental norms concerning biographical articles have been emphasized in aresolution of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. -2012-07

Articles relating to living individuals continue to be among the most sensitive content on Wikipedia. As the English Wikipedia remains one of the most prominent and visited websites in the world, a Wikipedia article about an individual will often be among the highest-ranking results in any search for information about that individual. The contents of these articles may directly affect their subjects' lives, reputations, and well-being. Therefore, whileall Wikipedia articles should be factually accurate, be based uponreliable sources, and be written from aneutral point of view, it is especially important that content relating to living persons must adhere to these standards. -2011-09,2014-04

Wikipedia articles that present material aboutliving people can affect their subjects' lives. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention toverifiability,neutrality andavoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious. -2018-07

Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. Adding unreliable, unsourced, or unduly weighted negative material or vandalising these pages displays particularly poor conduct. -2009-10

Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking, and only do so when no other alternative would prove as effective. When placed, blocks should be intended to prevent disruption to the project and not simply to punish a user for their (mis)conduct. -2012-02

The purpose ofblocking accounts andbanning editors is to address the disruptive or otherwise inappropriate behaviour of the specific editor, not to silence a perspective. Without additional supportive evidence (such as identical wording as used by a banned editor), editors new to a topic who seek to include information proposed in the past by a now-blocked or -banned editor should be treated withgood faith. An editor who brings forward the same or similar view as a blocked or banned user should not automatically be assumed to be asockpuppet ormeatpuppet in the absence of other evidence. -2010-10

Blocking is the method by which administrators technically prevent users from editing Wikipedia. Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. They are meted out not as retribution but to protect the project and other users from disruption and inappropriate conduct, and to deter any future possible repetitions of inappropriate conduct.While warnings are not a necessary prerequisite for blocking, before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate users about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behavior conflicts with these. -2014-12

In formal discussions, less is usually more. Editors who choose to ignore this advice by replying to a large number of comments canbludgeon the discussion. Bludgeoning exhausts other editors, dissuades further participation, wastes time, and makes discussions less effective. Editors should avoid repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion. Editors should particularly avoid trying to convince specific other people that they are right and the other person is wrong, and should instead focus on presenting their own ideas as clearly and concisely as possible. -2022-08

According to thebot policy, approved bots should:

• be harmless
• be useful
• not consume resources unnecessarily
• perform only tasks for which there isconsensus
• carefully adhere to relevantpolicies and guidelines
• use informative messages, appropriately worded, in any edit summaries or messages left for users. -2017-03

For the purpose of dispute resolution, it isirrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that involve errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may be sanctioned. However, merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time, is not by itself disruptive. -2017-09

Wikipedia relies on aconsensus model. Finding common ground is essential when editors disagree, and editors should be willing and able to actively do so. Editors' participation in discussions should not simply be reiterating their own positions. Editors' own positions should be represented concisely to allow room in the discussion for consensus to develop. -2023-12

WikiProjects have no special status in developing consensus on matters of content, policy or procedures. Any Wikipedia editor may participate in developing a consensus on any matter that interests them. -2014-01,2022-04

Where a dispute exists at an article between editors who are or were customers of a business (that is described by that article), and editors are unable to edit in anunbiased manner due to their prior experiences of the products and services of that business, then attempts should be made to obtainthird party opinions, and to encourage editing of the article by editors with no prior knowledge of the company or the disputes. -2009-09

Excessive cross-posting, campaigning, votestacking, stealth canvassing, and forum shopping are inappropriate forms ofcanvassing. Signs of biased canvassing include urging new editors to take a specific position in a conflict and only contacting one side of a dispute. To protect against rigged decisions, editors participating due to questionable canvassing may be discounted when evaluating consensus. -2009-06

While it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion may be considered disruptive. In particular, messages to fora mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience — especially when not public — are consideredcanvassing and disrupt the consensus building process by making participation lopsided. -2009-12

While it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion may be considered disruptive. -2015-12

It is unacceptable for an editor to repeatedly make false or unsupported accusations against others. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users concerned, should be brought up in theappropriate forums with evidence, if at all. -2010-03

It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users involved, should be brought up in theappropriate forums with evidence, if at all. -2010-10

It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. Concerns should be brought up in theappropriate forums with evidence, if at all. -2013-06,2015-07

Editors must not accuse others of misconduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in theappropriate forums. -2015-12

It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause. Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page. Although broad leeway is granted to allow editors to express themselves in their interactions with one another, particularly in dispute resolution, a consistent pattern of making objectively unsupported or exaggerated claims of misconduct can necessitate sanctions or restrictions even if the editor subjectively believes that they are true. -2009-07

It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse others of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users concerned, should be brought up in theappropriate forums with evidence, if at all. -2009-12

An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in theappropriate forums. -2013-08,2013-10

An editor should not make accusations, such as that another group of editors is biased or habitually violate site policies or norms, without evidence. A persistent pattern of false or unsupported accusations is particularly damaging to the collaborative editing environment. Significant concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users concerned, should be addressed through theappropriate dispute resolution procedures. -2013-12,2023-12

An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, at appropriate forums such as the user talk page, WP:COIN, or other appropriate places per WP:COI. Editors are however reminded that Wikipedia places importance on the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously. When investigating COI editing, thepolicy against harassment takes precedence; it requires that Wikipedians must take care not toreveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Instead, examineeditors' behavior and refer toWikipedia:Checkuser. -2015-12

Inthe spirit of building the encyclopedia we aim topreserve facts or ideas that belong in an encyclopedia and areverifiable, and encourage editors tofind sources when required. When faced with potentialmultiple unhelpful edits, the onus is on the reverter toassume good faith andcheck if the edits are actually unhelpful before reverting. -2019-02

The Arbitration Committee has the primary responsibility for approving and removing access to the CheckUser and Oversight tools on the English Wikipedia. SeeWikipedia:Arbitration/Policy. –2022-11

The Checkuser tool allows its users to determine from Wikipedia's servers the IP addresses used by a Wikipedia user account, as well as other technical data stored by the server about a user account or IP address. Access to this tool is restricted to members of thecheckuser group. It is sometimes necessary to block editors based on evidence obtained using the Checkuser tool. Such a block should be designated by the blocking checkuser as a "checkuser block." Blocks not based on checkuser evidence are not to be labeled as checkuser blocks, even if the blocking administrator is a checkuser. Accordingly, administrators who do not have access to checkuser data must not reverse blocks labelled as checkuser blocks without having first consulted the checkuser team or the Arbitration Committee. -2020-02

Editors are expected to show reasonable courtesy to one another, even during contentious situations and disagreements. SeeWikipedia:Civility andWikipedia:No personal attacks. -2019-09

Civility is one of thefive pillars. Editors are expected to be reasonablycooperative, to refrain from makingpersonal attacks, to work within the scope ofpolicies, and to be responsive togood-faith questions. Fellow editors should be treated as respected colleagues who are collaborating on an important project.New users who contribute constructively should be welcomed and treated with patience, but non-constructive newcomers should be politely discouraged or, where appropriate, counseled as to how to make more constructive contributions. -2020-04

Editors are expected to showreasonable courtesy to one another, even during contentious situations and disagreements, and not resort topersonal attacks. -2021-02,2021-09

Thecivility policy permits blocking for "major" incivility, which includes incivility rising to the level ofdisruption,personal attacks,harassment, orouting. -2012-02

Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. In most cases, consensus is an implicit process, where undisputed edits—either in article or project space—areassumed to have consensus. In cases where consensus is unclear,extra care must be taken to avoid stirring up unnecessary conflict. From both a broad behavioral and content standpoint, there exist situations on Wikipedia where it preferable to becautious and seek consensusprior to an edit instead of editingboldly as is common in uncontroversial areas of the project. -2020-06,2022-08

It is potentially harmful to Wikipedia when editorial debates become strongly associated with real-world polarizations and when they become dominated by groups of editors lined up along philosophical lines due to shared beliefs or personal backgrounds. This is particularly harmful when such editors act in concert to systematically advocate editorial decisions considered favorable to their shared views in a manner that contravenes the application of Wikipedia policy or obstructsconsensus-building. Defending editorial positions that support philosophical preferences typical of a particular group is notipso facto evidence of bad-faith editing. At the same time, mere strength of numbers is not sufficient to contravene Wikipedia policy, and an apparent consensus of editors is not sufficient to overrule thefive pillars of Wikipedia. -2010-10

Wikipedia is a serious educational and scholarly project founded on the principles of collaboration and consensus. All participants are expected to conduct themselves according to the standards of collegiality and professionalism appropriate to such a setting.

The standards of collegiality expected of all contributors to Wikimedia projects are set forth in the Wikimedia Foundation Resolution on Openness, which urges editors to "promote openness and collaboration", "treat new editors with patience, kindness, and respect", "work with colleagues to reduce contention and promote a friendlier, more collaborative culture", and "work with colleagues to [...] discourage disruptive and hostile behavior".

The Wikipedia community has outlined similar standards in the "fourth pillar" of community policy, which asks that editors "interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner", "be polite to [...] fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree", and "be open and welcoming". -2011-09

Wikipedia is a serious educational and scholarly project founded on the principles of collaboration and consensus. All participants are expected to conduct themselves according to the standards of collegiality and professionalism appropriate to such a setting.

The standards of collegiality expected of all contributors to Wikimedia projects are set forth in theWikimedia Foundation Resolution on Openness, which urges editors to "promote openness and collaboration", "treat new editors with patience, kindness, and respect", "work with colleagues to reduce contention and promote a friendlier, more collaborative culture", and "work with colleagues to [...] discourage disruptive and hostile behavior".

The Wikipedia community has outlined similar standards in the "fourth pillar" of community policy, which asks that editors "interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner", "be polite to [...] fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree", and "be open and welcoming". -2011-08

Wikipedia is a project founded on the principles of collaboration and consensus. Even when an editor holds a reasonable belief that an edit or set of edits has consensus, it is collegial to pause when presented with reasonable objections, to take critical feedback into consideration, and to make reasonable efforts to avoid repeatedly making the same mistake. This behavior is particularly important when editing at high volume, whether in an automated or semi-automated fashion. Likewise, in a large collaborative project it is inevitable that some types of edits that irritate or inconvenience some editors will nevertheless gain consensus; it is collegial to accept this inevitability and avoid repeatedly making the same objections. -2017-03

Wikipedia's core behavioral policies outline certain minimal standards for acceptable user conduct by explicitly prohibiting a number of disruptive activities, such aspersonal attacks andedit-warring. The expectation of collegiality among participants goes beyond compliance with these minimal standards. The fact that a particular activity or attitude is not explicitly prohibited does not make it appropriate in a collaborative environment or conducive to maintaining a welcoming atmosphere. -2011-08

Editors are human. They will sometimes make mistakes and suffer occasional lapses of judgment. However, editing in a collaborative project comes with the high expectation that they will do their utmost to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with others. Accordingly, inappropriate conduct, such aspersonal attacks,incivility,assumptions of bad faith,trolling,harassment,disruptive point-making, andgaming the system, is prohibited, as is the use of the site to pursue feuds and quarrels.Editors who repeatedly or seriously violate these basic standards of conduct may be sanctioned. Editors who have already been sanctioned may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated violations. -2015-07

Editors are expected to comment on the substance of other's edits, and not attempt to use editors' affiliations in anad hominem method to attempt to discredit their views. Attempts to do so may be considered aPersonal Attack. -2012-07

Editors are expected to comment on the substance of others' edits. Attempts to discredit people's views based on personal traits such as race, creed, nationality or sexual preference are in most casesPersonal Attacks. Accusations of bias in article text can be resolved through normal editing procedures, however editors should not lightly accuse other editors of bias. Such accusations, if not backed up with evidence of such bias, could be considered a personal attack. -2012-07

Editors are expected to comment on the substance of others' edits, and not attempt to use editors' affiliations in anad hominem method to attempt to discredit their views. Attempts to do so may be considered apersonal attack. -2015-07

The Arbitration Committee is responsible for investigating the conduct of its members when serious concerns are raised about their ability to meetdefined expectations. However, arbitrators who behave poorly while engaging in routine editing or administrative tasks unrelated to their arbitration duties should be treated like any other community member. It is not necessary to escalate routine disputes to the Committee simply because an arbitrator's conduct is involved. -2016-06

In enforcing arbitration decisions, administrators are expected to use their common sense. Except for the cases when the Arbitration Committee has predetermined the set of escalating sanctions to be imposed for violations of a final decision, the severity of the sanction imposed should be commensurate with all circumstances of the case at hand, including the seriousness of the violation and the possible recidivism of the editor in question. Administrators may also close a report with no action when no actual violation occurred or the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that exceptional circumstances are present, which would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate; in these cases, they may also warn or advise the editor being reported, in order to avoid further breaches.Administrators wishing to dismiss an enforcement request are reminded that they should act cautiously and be especially mindful that their actions do not give the impression that they are second-guessing the Arbitration Committee or obstructing the enforcement of their decisions. Administrators are also reminded they are still expected to comply with the expectations set out inWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Expectations of administrators. Violating these expectations may lead to sanctions. -2015-08

Due to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, proper communication is extremely important. All editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner and to constructively discuss controversial issues. This is especially true for administrators in regard to administrative actions. Such expected communication includes: giving appropriate (as guided by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) warnings prior to, and notification messages following, their actions; using accurate and descriptive edit and administrative action summaries; and responding promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about their administrative actions. -2019-05

Editors should use their best efforts to communicate with one another, particularly when disputes arise. When an editor's input is consistently unclear or difficult to follow, the merits of his or her position may not be fully understood by those reading the communication. An editor's failure to communicate concerns with sufficient clarity, conciseness and succinctness, or with insufficient attention to detail, or failure to focus on the topic being discussed, can impede both collaborative editing and dispute resolution. Editors should recognise when this is the case and take steps to address the problems, either on their own or, where necessary, by seeking assistance. -2016-10

Editors should use their best efforts to communicate with one another, particularly when disputes arise. When an editor's input is consistently unclear or difficult to follow, the merits of his or her position may not be fully understood by those reading the communication. An editor's failure to respond to concerns with sufficient clarity, conciseness and detail, or failure to focus on the topic being discussed, can impede both collaborative editing and dispute resolution. It is acondition of operating a bot that the operator communicates cordially, promptly, and appropriately. -2017-09

Although the Arbitration Committee is the only body capable of removing administrator permissions, the community retains the authority to use measures for addressing misconduct of administrators, including admonishments and reminders as well as topic bans, interaction bans, and other restrictions. Accordingly, discussions about improper conduct by an administrator should not be preemptively or prematurely closed in favor of Arbitration if a less severe sanction than removal of administrator permissions is a plausible outcome of the discussion. –2021-03

The community has the authority to impose sanctions (such as editing restrictions or bans) on any user whose edits are a detriment to the encyclopedia. -2012-02

Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. -2011-11,2012-02

All editors are expected to adhere toWikipedia's code of conduct. Editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly or uncollaborative conduct, such aspersonal attacks, disrespect toward other editors,uncivil commments,harassment, unjustified failure toassume good faith,using Wikipedia as a battleground, or comments containing unnecessary ethnic or national references concerning editors, all are inconsistent with Wikipedia etiquette. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of another editor, if they cannot be resolved directly with the editors, should be addressed in theappropriate forums. -2010-05

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users, and to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Editors are expected to be reasonably courteous to one another, even during disputes. Unseemly or confrontational conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, and unwarranted assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited. -2011-03

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users, and to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Unseemly conduct, such aspersonal attacks,incivility, and unwarrantedassumptions of bad faith, is prohibited. -2011-04

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users, and to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook. -2013-12

Policy states: "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". 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. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehavior must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behavior during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand. -2014-04,2015-01,2015-06,2015-07,2015-12

Thearbitration policy states that "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". 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. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand. -2021-02

Policy states: "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". 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. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand. –2023-07

All Wikipedia editors, regardless of the length of their service or any positions they may hold, are expected to abide by at least our basic standards for user conduct. Administrators are expected to adhere, at a minimum, to at least the same standards of behavior that they are responsible for enforcing. In the same vein, editors who see part of their role here as making constructive criticism of other users must strive to live up to the same standards to which they would hold others. Double standards, actual or perceived, can be seriously demoralizing. -2012-07

Administrators are trusted members of the community who are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship, as administrators are not expected to be perfect, but consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. -2011-08

Administrators and bureaucrats are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. Their conduct is held to a high standard as a result of this trust. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this and they are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of adminship and/or bureaucratship. -2024-04

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. -2009-09,2010-10,2013-08,2013-10,2013-11,2016-06,2016-10,2017-10

TheAdministrator policy states: "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. [...] administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, [...] consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another." -2013-11

Editors with aconflict of interest are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly. While most conflicts of interest relate to the potential for unduly positive editing, the conflict of interest guideline also applies to conflicts that could cause unduly negative editing. Editors should avoid editing in areas where they have a negative conflict of interest, as it undermines public confidence in the project. -2018-07

An editor has a conflict of interest when their interests in editing Wikipedia conflict or potentially conflict with the interests of the Wikipedia project in producing a neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia. An editor will have a conflict of interest if, for example, they have a significant financial interest in the subject or they are involved with the subject in a significant capacity, or if the article is about them or about a business or organisation that they represent. Editors are expected to comply with both the purpose and intent of the applicable policies, as well as their literal wording. -2024-04

An editor has a conflict of interest when their interests in editing Wikipedia, or the interests of those they represent, conflict or potentially conflict with the interests of the Wikipedia project in producing a neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia. An editor will have a conflict of interest with respect to an article if, for example, they have a significant financial interest in the subject, they are involved with the subject of the article in a significant capacity, or if the article is about them or about a business or organisation that they represent. -2009-10

Editors are considered to have a conflict of interest if they contribute to Wikipedia in order to promote their own interests, or those of other individuals or groups, and if advancing those interests is more important to them than advancing the aims of Wikipedia.Editors do not have a conflict of interest merely because they have personal or professional interest or expertise in a topic, nor because they are members of or affiliated with a group of individuals with personal or professional interest or expertise in a topic. -2011-02

According toWikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline, "a Wikipediaconflict of interest is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce aneutral,reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.... Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." While editing with a conflict of interest is not prohibited, the guideline reflects best practice for editors having conflicting interests, intended to maximize the chance that all edits will reflect the required neutral point of view. Editors whose contributions are persistently or seriously non-neutral may, after appropriate warnings and guidance, be subject to editing restrictions or other appropriate sanctions; this applies whether the lack of neutrality results from a conflict of interest or not. -2011-09

Editors are considered to have a conflict of interest if they contribute to Wikipedia in order to promote their own interests, or those of other individuals or groups, and if advancing those interests is more important to them than advancing the aims of Wikipedia. Editors do not have a conflict of interest merely because they have personal or professional interest or expertise in a topic, nor because they are members of or affiliated with a group of individuals with personal or professional interest or expertise in a topic.

Editors with a conflict of interest are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly. While most conflicts of interest relate to the potential for unduly positive editing, the conflict of interest guideline also applies to conflicts that could cause unduly negative editing. Editors should avoid editing in areas where they have a negative conflict of interest, as it undermines public confidence in the project. -2022-03

Wikipedia relies onconsensus as its fundamental editorial process. Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. To ensure transparency, consensus cannot be formed except on Wikipedia discussion pages. "Off-wiki" discussions, such as those taking place on other websites, on web forums or on IRC, are not taken into account when determining consensus. -2009-12 (using a shortcut link to WP:Consensus),2022-04

Wikipedia relies on aconsensus model. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process, in lieu ofsoapboxing,edit warring, or other inappropriate behavior.Abuse of the consensus model and process, such as misrepresenting consensus or poisoning the well, is disruptive. Specific forums, such asArticles for deletion for deletion discussions and theReliable sources noticeboard for source-reliability discussions, have been created to seek and where possible attain consensus on specific types of content disagreements. -2010-02

Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. This applies to any and all pages on Wikipedia, from articles to templates to project space. -2011-11

Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth between competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes. -2014-07,2015-06,2019-07,2020-03

Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simplyedit-warring back-and-forth to competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes. -2010-05

As reflected in the policy pageWikipedia:Consensus, determining when consensus has been reached is not always an exact science. Editors should endeavor in good faith to work toward consensus when content disputes arise. Editors are not, in striving for consensus, required to abandon their beliefs about historical or other facts, or to simulate agreement with article content with which they continue to disagree; advocating forcefully, but civilly, for one's view is part of the process that has built some of our strongest articles. However, there comes a point when the existence of consensus becomes clear, so that disagreeing editors must accept that consensus is against them and cease editing against it,at least for a reasonable period of time. -2011-04

Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of dispute resolution and polite discussion, with a shared receptiveness to compromise—and involving the wider community, if necessary. Individual editors have a responsibility to help debate succeed and move forward by discussing their differences rationally. This applies to all pages on Wikipedia, but especially to articles and article discussion pages. -2012-02

Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of dispute resolution and polite discussion, with a shared receptiveness to compromise—and involving the wider community, if necessary. Individual editors have a responsibility to help debate succeed and move forward by discussing their differences rationally. Editors must accept any reasonable decision arrived at by consensus, on all pages on Wikipedia but especially in relation to articles and article discussion pages. -2012-06

Wikipedia works by buildingconsensus through the use of polite discussion. Thedispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes. -2013-09

In resolving disagreements, editors have a responsibility to help debate succeed and move forward by discussing their differences rationally, and being willing to compromise where appropriate. Editors must accept any reasonable decision arrived at by consensus, on all pages on Wikipedia but especially in relation to articles and article discussion pages. -2013-12

Wikipedia relies on aconsensus model. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process in lieu ofsoapboxing,edit warring, or other inappropriate behavior.Abuse of the consensus model and process, such as misrepresenting consensus or poisoning the well, is disruptive. -2015-06

Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of dispute resolution and polite discussion, with a shared receptiveness to compromise. This may involve the wider community, if necessary, through dispute resolution mechanisms like noticeboards and Requests for Comment. Individual editors have a responsibility to help debate succeed and move forward by discussing their differences rationally and by respecting the outcomes of reached after dispute resolution. -2021-09

Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion, involving the wider community if necessary. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simplyedit-warring back-and-forth to competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes. -2013-06

Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and particularly the community as a whole to change its mind. Long-held consensus cannot be used as an excuse against achange that follows Wikipedia's policies. However, the idea that consensus can change does not allow for the same point being brought up repeatedly over a short period of time and/or in multiple venues in an attempt to shift consensus. -2018-03

Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and particularly the community as a whole to change its mind. Long-held consensus cannot be used as an excuse against achange that follows Wikipedia's policies. However, the idea that consensus can change does not allow for the same point being brought up repeatedly over the course of months or years in an attempt to shift consensus. -2020-01

According to thebot policy, "Cosmetic changes (such as many of theAWB general fixes) should be applied only when there is a substantive change to make at the same time." According to the AWBRules of Use, AWB users are instructed not to "make insignificant or inconsequential edits", defined as "An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit. If in doubt, or if other editors object to edits on the basis of this rule, seek consensus at an appropriate venue before making further similar edits." -2017-03

Processes internal to the functioning of the Wikipedia project also rely on consensus. Given the more decisive nature of the discussions, and the greater likelihood of harm, it is important that discussion leading to a decision be as representative as possible. In particular, discussion on thedeletion boards,arbitration enforcement, andnoticeboards are especially vulnerable to biased or partisan participation. -2009-12

When deciding what evidence to consider, the severity of the behavior is an important factor. If evidence is old or, in this exceptional case, not allowed to be examined in its entirety or discussed with the accused party, it should be considered only if it demonstrates severe abusive behavior. Conversely, if the behavior in question is not severe abusive behavior, evidence from long ago should be disregarded or given lesser weight unless it is as background to a pattern of misbehavior that has continued recently, and evidence that cannot be examined in full or shared with the accused party should be disregarded. -2019-09

The Arbitration Committee is sensitive to the serious concerns created when communications originally meant to be kept private are brought to its attention. Such concerns exist for ethical and privacy reasons, and also for practical ones, such as how to ensure that an alleged communication is authentic, complete, and presented in its full context. -2009-12

As more persons become parties to a communication, for example, a limited-distribution mailing list, the line between a purely private communication and a semi-public one may become less clear. At the same time, the number of members of a mailing list may make it difficult to determine, at a later time, whether a disclosure of information on the list has been made by a member of the list for an appropriate reason, by a member of the list for an inappropriate reason, or by a third party who has obtained access to the list via unauthorized means. -2009-12

The Arbitration Committee generally does not encourage forwarding of private communications to it without, at a minimum, the consent of either the sender or the recipient, and in ordinary circumstances, may choose to disregard such evidence. However, the committee may consider such a communication where there is reason to believe that it relates to a situation seriously endangering the well-being of the project or the community, such as harassment of editors, attempting to drive editors from the project, coordinated manipulation of article content, or misuse of adminship or other advanced permissions. -2009-12

Where private communications may need to be considered as evidence in an arbitration matter, appropriate steps must be taken by every person connected with the case to ensure that dissemination of the communications and especially of material whose publication could cause harm, such as personal identifying information, is as limited as possible. -2009-12

The dilemmas created by presentation of the contents of an off-wiki mailing list to the Arbitration Committee are complex ones that cannot be resolved for all cases through a generic policy pronouncement. There may be circumstances where refusing to consider such evidence could be highly unfair to a party wronged by conduct on the list. We can neither announce that our doors are open to the routine forwarding of intercepted communications, nor declare that we will blind ourselves to evidence even if a threat to the well-being of the wiki or the community is disclosed. In sum, situations like these must be addressed by the committee on a case-by-case basis. We can only hope that in light of the principles set forth in this decision, and the widespread recognition that off-wiki activities such as those addressed in this decision are damaging to the project and its community, future instances in which this dilemma must be faced by ourselves and our successors will be nonexistent or rare. -2009-12

Contentious Topic page protections are put in place to "intervene in topic areas that have proved problematic". Page protections are not typically implemented automatically in a contentious topic area. -2025-01

Wikipedia articles should be based onreliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, orsynthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than tooriginal analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. -2010-08

Changes are typically consideredsubstantive if they affect something visible to readers and consumers of Wikipedia in any medium (subject tocertain exceptions), while changes that do not are typically consideredcosmetic.Minor edits are not usually considered cosmetic but still need consensus to be done by bots. Bots should not make edits which are purely cosmetic; however, when making an approved substantive change, bots may simultaneously make edits that would otherwise be considered cosmetic. Exceptions for bots to make a purely cosmetic edit must be approved by consensus. WhileWP:COSMETICBOT applies only to bots, human editors may also wish to follow this guidance, especially ifmaking such changes on large scales.

AWBgeneral fixes (genfixes) are a package of common fixes which can be enabled in bulk in AWB by the user/bot operator. Some general fixes are substantive, while others are cosmetic. It is the responsibility of the bot operator or editor using AWB to ensure that their editing falls within policy, including thebot policy andBRFA (if applicable). -2017-09

An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalised, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriatedispute resolution forums. -2013-11,2014-12,2015-12,2018-03,2018-08,2020-03,2020-06

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such aspersonal attacks,incivility andassumptions of bad faith, is prohibited. -2009-07

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct from all sides of a dispute, such aspersonal attacks,incivility,assumptions of bad faith,trolling,harassment,disruptive point-making, andgaming the system, is prohibited. -2009-09

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such aspersonal attacks,incivility,assumptions of bad faith,harassment, ordisruptive point-making, is prohibited. -2009-09,2010-08

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such aspersonal attacks,incivility,assumptions of bad faith,trolling,harassment,disruptive point-making, andgaming the system, is prohibited. -2011-02,2013-06,2020-03

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. In content disputes, editors should comment on the content and not the contributor. Personalising content disputes disrupts theconsensus-building process on which Wikipedia depends. Unseemly conduct, such aspersonal attacks,incivility andassumptions of bad faith, is prohibited. -2013-11

Administrators are expected to behave respectfully and civilly in their interactions with others. This requirement is not lessened by perceived or actual shortcomings in the conduct of others. Administrators who egregiously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or administrators who lose the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their access removed. -2014-12

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable. -2015-01

Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other editors, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus,disrupting Wikipedia to make a point,offensive comments,trolling,harassment,gaming the system, and failure toassume good faith—is inconsistent with Wikipedia. Editors should not respond to such behaviour in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other editors should be brought up in theappropriate forums. -2016-06

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, edit-warring,personal attacks, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus,disrupting Wikipedia to make a point,trolling,harassment,gaming the system, and failure toassume good faith are all inconsistent with civility on Wikipedia. -2018-03

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such aspersonal attacks,incivility,assumptions of bad faith,harassment,disruptive point-making, andgaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable. -2013-09,2020-01

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such aspersonal attacks,incivility,assumptions of bad faith,harassment,disruptive point-making, andgaming the system, is prohibited. -2020-02,2021-03,2022-12

Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in all interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such aspersonal attacks,incivility andassumptions of bad faith, is prohibited. –2023-07

The core definition of "paid editing" includes an edit made, or an on-wiki action taken, by an editor in return for payment to or for the benefit of that editor. -2018-01

Administrators have the ability to delete articles and other Wikipedia pages from general view, and to undelete pages that were previously deleted. These powers are exercised in accordance withestablished policies andguidelines, and community consensus.

Under certain limited conditions, a page may be deleted by an administrator without waiting for any discussion. These limited conditions are explained in depth atWikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages except in the most obvious cases. -2020-02

In deciding what sanctions to impose against an editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioural history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehaviour or questionable judgement in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed. -2018-03

The core purpose of the Wikipedia project is to create a high-quality free encyclopedia. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from making them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith. -2010-10

Wikipedia discussions are aboutforming a consensus, not convincingeveryone to agree. Discussion is an important part of how consensus is reached on Wikipedia and everyone should have the opportunity to express their views, withinreasonable limits. It may be taken asdisruptive to attemptstalling out the consensus-building process by repeatedly stating an opinion or withrepeated demands for re-explanation of that which has already been clearly explained. -2021-09

It is essential that Wikipedians be able to discuss issues affecting the project, including those that may arise from societal issues, in an intelligent, calm, and mature fashion. Editors may come to a given discussion with different views concerning what problem (if any) exists and what steps (if any) should be taken to try to address it. However, editors are expected to participate in such discussions in a collegial and constructive frame of mind. Those who fail to do so may be asked to step away from further participation. -2014-12

Dismissing an enforcement request is an exercise of judgment and therefore constitutes an enforcement action. As such, once a request has been dismissed by an uninvolved administrator, it may not be reopened.In these cases, any interested users may, after discussion with the administrator in question, appeal the dismissal to the Arbitration Committee atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, but care should be taken that this only be done when appropriate. Petitioners whoforum shop by resubmitting denied enforcement requests without good reason may find themselves cautioned or sanctioned in return. -2015-08

Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked, or when discussion has broken down. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process through discussion, collaboration and consideration, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth to competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict and using the dispute resolution processes to game the system is not an appropriate way of resolving conduct disputes. -2011-11

Wikipedia contributors are expected to pursuedispute resolution if internal discussion alone does not yield consensus on a matter of content. -2012-02

An editor who is involved in a controversy or dispute with another individual, either on Wikipedia or off, should generally refrain from creating or editing the biographical article on that individual. -2014-12

Editors may be blocked for disruptive behaviour, which can include repeated or extensive violations of the civility policy, refusal to work toward consensus, or repeatedly ignoring community feedback. -2012-02

Because of their position of trust in the community, administrators are held to a higher standard of behavior than non-administrators. Sustained disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator. Administrators who repeatedly and aggressively engage in inappropriate activity may be desysopped by the Arbitration Committee. -2009-06

Sustained disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator. Administrators who repeatedly and aggressively engage in inappropriate activity may be faced with sanctions by the Arbitration Committee, including the removal of administrator status. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions. -2012-07

Thepoint guideline says "if you disagree with a proposal, practice, or policy in Wikipedia, disruptively applying it is probably the least effective way of discrediting it – and such behavior may get you blocked". -2010-02

Contributors who engage intendentious or disruptive editing, such as by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing or repeatedly misusing sources to favor a particular view, may be banned from the articles in question or from the site. -2011-04

Disruptive editing, which can include persistent vandalism, edit-warring, sockpuppetry, and repeated insertion of unsourced or poorly sourced controversial content, is cause for blocking an account. Repeated violations of Wikipedia behavioural and editing policies may lead to indefinite blocks which becomede facto bans when no administrator will consider unblocking, particularly if the editor usesmultiple accounts to behave disruptively. -2010-10

Contributors who engage intendentious or disruptive editing of articles, such as by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing or editing against consensus, may be banned from the articles in question or from the site. -2013-12

Editors are expected to useedit summaries to make it easy for other editors to see what is being done with an article. Leaving the edit summary field blank is undesirable, and using it to mislead as to the substance of one's edits is prohibited. -2010-04

Edit-warring, whether byreversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, withvery limited exceptions. Thethree-revert rule does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. -2009-06,2009-10

Edit warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with very limited exceptions. The three-revert rule does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. -2011-11

Edit warring is not desirable as it disrupts articles and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach thethree revert rule are still edit warring. -2014-07,2019-07

Edit warring is undesirable as it disrupts the editing process and inflames rather than resolves content disputes. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach thethree revert rule are still edit warring. -2015-03

Edit warring is detrimental to the editing environment as it disrupts articles and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach thethree revert rule are still edit warring. -2015-06,2015-12

Edit warring is disruptive and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach thethree revert rule are still edit warring. -2015-12,2023-03

Edit warring is unconstructive as it causes ill-will between editors and makes it harder to reach consensus. Editors who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than engage in edit warring. -2016-06

Edit warring is not an acceptable editing practice, whether thethree-revert rule is broken or not. Editors are expected to engage in calm discussion and if necessarydispute resolution rather than making repeated reverts of disputed content. -2014-12

Edit warring is not acceptable behaviour as it disrupts articles and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Editors are expected to engage in calm discussion and, if necessary,dispute resolution rather than making repeated reverts of disputed content. -2015-08

Edit warring is disruptive. An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war. While reverting vandalism is not edit warring, only reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism—is considered an exception. Edits from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism. –2023-07

In the case of edits which fall afoul of thebiographies of living persons policy, exemptions from the edit-warring policy are made for removing BLP violations. Restoring what is perceived to be a BLP violation, instead of discussing whether it is a BLP violation or not, can lead to sanctions. -2016-06

Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this includes slow-moving disputes that would not ordinarily fall under thethree-revert rule. -2010-04

Edit-warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique. -2009-07, [Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118#Edit warring|2009-09]]

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such aspersonal attacks,incivility,assumptions of bad faith,harassment,disruptive point-making, andgaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable. -2014-12,2023-12

Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such aspersonal attacks,incivility,assumptions of bad faith,disruptive point-making, andgaming the system, is prohibited. -2009-06,2016-10,2017-10,2018-12,2022-03

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Unseemly conduct, such aspersonal attacks,incivility,assumptions of bad faith, anddisruptive point-making, is prohibited. -2009-07

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. In content disputes, editors should comment on the content and not the contributor. Personalising content disputes disrupts the consensus-building process on which Wikipedia depends. Unseemly conduct, such aspersonal attacks,incivility, andassumptions of bad faith, is prohibited. -2010-04

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Unseemly conduct from all sides of a dispute, such aspersonal attacks,incivility,assumptions of bad faith, anddisruptive point-making, is prohibited. -2012-07

Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such aspersonal attacks,incivility,assumptions of bad faith,harassment,disruptive point-making, andgaming the system, is prohibited. -2013-03,2014-07,2015-06,2019-07

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and editors are welcome to edit without disclosing their identity. Revealing private information about an editor that they have not disclosed on Wikipedia themselvesis prohibited. Although editors arestrongly encouraged to disclose any conflicts of interest they may have with topic areas in which they edit, and arerequired to disclose if they are being paid for their edits, knowledge or suspicion that an editor has a COI or is editing for pay does not excuse revealing that editor's personal information. If necessary,these concerns can be handled privately. -2020-04,2024-04

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such aspersonal attacks,incivility,assumptions of bad faith,trolling,harassment,disruptive point-making, andgaming the system, is prohibited. Concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in theappropriate forums. -2009-10

The principle that "Wikipedia is not censored" is properly invoked in resisting attempts to control the content of Wikipedia articles based on factors other than our editors' informed and mature collective editorial judgments. In controversial instances, reminding fellow editors that "Wikipedia is not censored" will often be the beginning, not the end, of a well-informed analysis regarding inclusion or exclusion of content. In particular, if an element (a statement or an image) does not otherwise belong in an article, the fact that people want it excluded is a poor argument for including it. A consensus for inclusion or exclusion should be sought based on the community's collective editorial judgment, well-informed by knowledge of the relevant subject matter and, where applicable, by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -2012-02

Wikipedia works by buildingconsensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—anddispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into anedit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. This applies to any and all pages on Wikipedia, from Articles to Templates to Project space. -2009-06

Wikipedia works by buildingconsensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—anddispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes. -2010-04

Wikipedia works by buildingconsensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—anddispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into anedit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether byreversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a fewexceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique. -2011-02,2012-03,2013-09,2014-10,2018-03

Wikipedia works by buildingconsensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—anddispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. No oneowns an article. -2009-12

Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—anddispute resolution, rather than through adversarial or tendentious editing. Sustained editorial conflict or edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes. -2011-03

Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through adversarial editing. Sustained editorial conflict or edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes. -2011-03

Wikipedia works by buildingconsensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—anddispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Sustained editorial conflict oredit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes. -2011-04

Editors are expected to be truthful and accurate in statements and evidence presented to the Arbitration Committee. -2012-07,2022-12

Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought, while also recognizing significant alternate viewpoints. -2010-10

The Arbitration Committee relies on the community to enforce its decisions. Administrators do not have to get involved in enforcement, if they do not wish to; however, they are expected to refrain from hindering the enforcement of arbitration decisions.Administrators whose actions have the effect of interfering with the enforcement of the Arbitration Committee's decisions may have their administrative status revoked. -2015-12

Despite the core values underlying the BLP policy, disagreements frequently arise regarding how the policy applies in specific instances. Some such disagreements arise from clear violations of the policy that must be corrected immediately, but others arise from good-faith editorial disagreements concerning the reliability of sources, the desirability of addressing a particular topic and with what weight, and in some cases whether a particular individual should be the subject of an article at all. Adedicated noticeboard has been established to bring disputes about the content of BLPs to community attention for discussion and, where warranted, appropriate action. Disputes concerning alleged BLP violations are also subject to Wikipedia's established methods ofdispute resolution, culminating inmediation and where other dispute-resolution methods are insufficient,arbitration before this Committee. -2011-09

When all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be compelled to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia and to the community. -2010-10

When the community's extensive and reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may, as a last resort, be compelled to adopt robust measures to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia, disruption to the editing environment and to the community. -2015-01

Wikipedia editors and readers are culturally diverse by virtue of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender or sexual orientation. Comments that demean fellow editors, an article subject, or any other person, on the basis of any of these characteristics are offensive and damage the editing environment for everyone. Such comments, particularly when extreme or repeated after a warning, are grounds for blocking or other sanctions. Harassment of other editors for any reason will not be tolerated and is also grounds for blocking or other sanctions. -2015-12

Wikipedia editors and readers come from a diverse range of backgrounds, including with respect to their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex or gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression. Comments that demean fellow editors, an article subject, or any other person, on the basis of any of these characteristics are offensive and damage the editing environment for everyone. Such comments, particularly when extreme or repeated after a warning, are grounds for blocking or other sanctions. -2013-10

Editors are not expected to be perfect. It is completely understandable that a contributor may occasionally make a mistake, such as construing a source in a fashion that other editors ascertain is incorrect, or making an edit that too clearly reflects a partisan point of view. However, when an editor's contributions reflect a consistent pattern of errors such as slanted edits or mis-cited sources and violations of policies and guidelines, the situation is far more serious. This is especially so when the tendency of the errors and violations is uniformly in the direction of a particular point of view. -2011-04

While wider community participation in dispute resolution can help resolve disputes, participating editors are expected to remain civil and to assume good faith to avoid further inflaming the dispute. -2012-07

Wikipedia's code of conduct is one of thefive pillars of Wikipedia that all editors should adhere to. Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, edit-warring,personal attacks, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus,disrupting Wikipedia to make a point,offensive language (including rude, offensive, derogatory, and insulting terms—whether in English, a language other than English, or using invented terms),trolling,harassment,gaming the system, and failure toassume good faith are all inconsistent with Wikipedia etiquette. Editors should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be addressed in theappropriate forums. -2012-02

Wikipedia's code of conduct is one of thefive pillars of Wikipedia that all editors should adhere to. Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. -2015-12

Wikipedia's code of conduct is one of thefive pillars of Wikipedia that all editors must adhere to. Editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, edit-warring, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus,disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and failure toassume good faith—are all incompatible with Wikipedia's standards of etiquette. Concerns regarding the actions of other users should be addressed in theappropriate forums. -2012-06

Wikipedia's code of conduct is one of thefive pillars of Wikipedia that all editors should adhere to. Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to,personal attacks, lack of respect for other editors,disrupting Wikipedia to make a point,offensive language,trolling andharassment, are all inconsistent with Wikipedia etiquette. Editors should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be addressed in theappropriate forums. -2013-08

Wikipedia's code of conduct is one of thefive pillars of Wikipedia that all editors must adhere to. Editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, edit-warring, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, and failure toassume good faith—are all incompatible with Wikipedia's standards of etiquette. -2013-12

An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse bad behavior or misconduct in another aspect of participation. An editor's misconduct also is not excused because another editor or editors may also have engaged in such conduct. Such factors may nonetheless be considered in mitigation of any sanction to be imposed, or for other relevant purposes such as an inferring a user's overall intent toward the project. -2009-07,2019-07

While the Arbitration Committee may link to sections of evidence presented, the Committee does not necessarily endorse the evidence presented as completely true and factual. Some sections of the evidence may be factual, and is what the Committee is attempting to highlight in their decision. The views presented in evidence are solely those of the person presenting the evidence and do not directly represent the views of the Arbitration Committee. -2015-11

Longstanding consensus atMiscellany for Deletion is that editors may work up drafts in their userspace for the sole purpose of submitting the material as evidence in arbitration cases. However, after the case closes, the sub-pages should be courtesy-blanked or deleted as they are often perceived asattack pages and serve only to memorialise and perpetuate the dispute. Evidence should properly be submitted only on arbitration pages as it is impossible to ensure that all the parties are aware of all the sub-pages that might have a bearing on them. -2010-10

The Wikipedia policyWhat Wikipedia is not includes, "an article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention [...] Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product from different vendors." The policy on pricing has existed in almost its exact wording for a decade.[1] -2020-06

Expert editors with published resources are welcome on Wikipedia, and are free to include references to their own published works, if they meet the standards ofreliable sources. However, the guidelines concerningconflicts of interest must be observed, and where there is a dispute as to the use or interpretation of such sources, consensus must be gained for their inclusion. -2011-03

From time to time, users, including admins, may need to express concerns in clear, firm terms about another user's decisions or actions. However, all users are expected tonot personally attack other Wikipedians. This applies equally to all: it is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of complaints against them, as it is to attack any other. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit, damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia. –2023-07

In drafting articles and especially in discussing disputed article content, editors should take appropriate care to distinguish reasonably agreed-upon facts from statements of opinion or partisan views. When the accuracy of a statement cannot reasonably be contested, it is inappropriate in discussing article content to deny that the statement is true, although it may still be entirely appropriate to question whether the fact is relevant to a particular article or has been givenundue weight in that articleWhen a statement is a matter of opinion, however, the article should make clear who or what side of a dispute holds that opinion and

ensure that competing opinions with a reasonable degree of support are also represented. -2010-05

Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision-making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in adignified fashion, and by policies that prohibit behavior such aspersonal attacks andlegal threats. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves ofdispute resolution mechanisms rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums. -2010-03

Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in adignified fashion, and by policies which prohibit behavior such aspersonal attacks andlegal threats. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to use thedispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums. -2012-02

Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in adignified fashion, with evidence and without resorting topersonal attacks. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the most appropriatedispute resolution mechanism. -2016-06,2023-05

Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in adignified fashion, and by policies which prohibit behavior such aspersonal attacks andlegal threats. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of thedispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums. -2009-12

Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even facts and opinions demonstrating the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision-making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in adignified fashion, and by policies that prohibit behavior such aspersonal attacks. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of thedispute resolution mechanisms rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums. -2014-12

Wikipedia is a reference work, not abattlefield. Each and every user is expected to interact with otherscivilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Open discussion is encouraged in every area of the encyclopedia as it is only by discussion that cooperation is possible. However, certain types of discourse – in particular, personal attacks – are not only discouraged but forbidden because they create a toxic atmosphere and thwart the building of consensus. For this reason, editors are expected tocomment on the edits, not on the editor. Editors with concerns about other editors should use the community's dispute resolution processes calmly and civilly to resolve their differences rather than repeatedly engaging in strident personalised criticism in multiple forums. Editors who are unable to resolve their differences should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them and, in extreme cases, may be directed to do so. -2011-09,2011-11,2014-12

Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. -2011-02

Editors who make many similar edits, contrary to clear advice that these edits are controversial or incorrect, must pursue discussion and dispute resolution. Repetitive or voluminous edit patterns—which present opponents with afait accompli and exhaust their ability to contest the change, or defy a reasonable decision arrived at by consensus—are disruptive. -2012-06,2013-12

Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits. -2020-06

Featured articles are considered to be some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer. Featured articles can be edited in the same way as other Wikipedia articles, although this should be done with care. Featured articles that may no longer meet the criteria should be appropriately edited to maintain their quality, or may be proposed for improvement or removal atfeatured article review. -2018-08

Community attempts to resolve disputes calmly and expeditiously are thwarted when the processes are disrupted by inflammatory accusations and disparaging rhetoric as editors seemingly pursue long term feuds with each other. Users with a history of bad blood should take appropriate steps, includingdisengagement, to reduce rather than increase negative interpersonal contact. Serious or serial feuding can lead to blocks,interaction bans orsite bans to prevent the spread of disruption to the encyclopedia and the community. -2015-07

Many of Wikipedia's processes, includingarticles for deletion andarbitration enforcement, require significant time from uninvolved editors to work effectively. Flooding of these processes within a short period of time can disrupt their proper functioning, even when each individual action is not problematic. -2025-07

It is important to distinguish between an editor's reviewing and as appropriate correcting or commenting on the edits of a fellow editor whose contributions are problematic, which is acceptable and in some cases necessary, and the practice referred to as "wikihounding" or "wikistalking," which constitutes a form of harassment and is prohibited. SeeWikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding, an important policy that addresses these issues. While the line separating proper from improper behavior in this area may not always be sharply defined, relevant factors include whether the subject editor's contributions are actually viewed as problematic by multiple users or the community; whether the concerned editor raises concerns appropriately on talkpages or noticeboards and explains why the edits are problematic; and ultimately, whether the concerns raised reasonably appear to be motivated by good-faith, substantiated concerns about the quality of the encyclopedia, rather than personal animus against a particular editor. -2013-03

It is important, though it can sometimes be difficult, to distinguish between an editor's reviewing and, as appropriate, correcting or commenting on the edits of a fellow editor making problematic edits, which is acceptable and in some cases even necessary, and the practice referred to as "wikihounding" or "wikistalking," which constitutes a form of harassment and is prohibited. SeeWikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding. While the line separating proper from improper behavior in this area may not always be sharply defined, relevant factors include whether the subject editor's contributions are actually viewed as problematic by multiple users or the community; whether the concerned editor raises concerns appropriately on talkpages or noticeboards and explains why the edits are problematic; and ultimately, whether the concerns raised reasonably appear to be motivated by good-faith, substantiated concerns about the quality of the encyclopedia, rather than personal animus against a particular editor. -2019-09

"Forum shopping" is the raising of essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators, or any of these repetitively. It is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. -2015-12

Wikipedia contributors are expected to pursue dispute resolution if local discussion alone does not yield consensus on a matter of content. This is particularly so when a dispute becomes protracted or the subject of extensive or heated discussion. Insulating a content dispute from the views of uninvolved contributors for long periods can lead to the disputants' positions become entrenched. Therefore, unresolved questions of content should be referred at the first opportunity to the community at large—through aRequest for Comment,Third Opinion, or other suitable mechanism for inviting comment from a new perspective. -2013-03

Thefunction of WikiProjects is to facilitate and improve editing in a topic area. Popular WikiProjects like the military history WikiProject may have agroup of coordinators that have been selected byapproval vote of the project community. Their role is to maintain the internal structure and process of the project, and do not have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. -2018-08

Functionaries (users holding checkuser or oversight permissions) are held to a higher standard of behavior than non-functionaries, especially in issues related to their area of responsibility. Users who demonstrate a lack of judgment in an area related to their special access may have their status as functionaries revoked, whether or not an explicit abuse of their privileged access has occurred. SeeWikipedia:Functionaries. –2022-11

Using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship deliberately isgaming, and a disruptive abuse of process. Activities such as coordinating around policy such asthe revert rules, or any other attempt to subvert the spirit of any policy or process in order to further a dispute is disruptive. -2009-12

Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel or excessively strict view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community is an example ofgaming the system and should be avoided. Users who do so should consider their subsequent approach carefully if they find they are the only ones arguing when the community clearly has reached a different view, and should balance their own wishes and views with the reality of any widespread disagreement. -2009-12

Subject to community approval, general sanctions are imposed on certain contentious and strife-torn topics to create an acceptable and collaborative editing environment. Such sanctionsoften follow the model of discretionary sanctions as imposed by the Arbitration Committee, which allows administrators to impose a variety of reasonable measures on users or articles that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. -2021-02

Community-authorized general sanctions are imposed on certain contentious and strife-torn topics to create an acceptable and collaborative editing environment. Such sanctionsoften follow the model of discretionary sanctions as imposed by the Arbitration Committee, which allows administrators to impose a variety of reasonable measures on users or articles that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. -2021-09

Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive. -2009-06,2011-03,2016-10,2018-03,2018-03,2020-01

Disruptive behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive. -2012-02

Behavior that violates Wikipedia's policies, even if driven by good intentions, is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive. -2012-03

Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Users acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive. -2009-09

Inappropriate behaviour driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive or otherwise violate policy. -2018-01

While good intentions do not justify misconduct, they may serve as a mitigating factor when sanctions are considered. A violation of policy committed in an honest—if misguided—attempt to advance Wikipedia's goals is more easily forgiven than an identical violation committed as part of an attempt to undermine the project. -2011-02

The occurrence of protracted, apparently insoluble disputes—whether they involve conduct, content, or policy—is contrary to the purposes of the project and damaging to its health. The chief purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to protect the project from the disruption caused by such disputes, and it has the authority to issue binding resolutions in keeping with that purpose.The Committee has traditionally concentrated its attention on conduct disputes, and has avoided issuing binding rulings that would directly resolve matters of content or policy, leaving those questions to the community at large. However, in cases where the community has proven unable to resolve those questions using the methods normally available to it, and where the lack of resolution results in unacceptable disruption to the project, the Committee may impose an exceptional method for reaching a decision. -2011-11

It is prohibited by policy to disrupt an editor's participation on Wikipedia bymaking threats, making repeated unwanted contacts, making repeat personal attacks, engaging in intimidation, or posting personal information. -2013-11

Harassment is a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting one or more targeted persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating them. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for targeted persons, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely. -2015-01,2015-07

Editors must notharass other editors either on or off Wikipedia. Although some types of misconduct will clearly constitute harassment and warrant sanctions, in other cases whether harassment has occurred may be more borderline or subjective. The views and feelings of editors who believe in good faith that they are being or have been harassed are to be respected and fully considered, whether or not it is ultimately concluded that harassment actually occurred. Because the word "harassment" spans a wide variety of types of behavior, and because this word as used off-wiki can carry serious legal and human-resources overtones, at times it may be better to describe allegedly problematic on-wiki behavior such as "wikihounding" with more specific terminology. -2019-09

Wikipedia is created online. Editors are not required to engage in any way other than open on-wiki communication. Editors who welcome private communication typically post their preferred contact information on Wikipedia, sometimes enabling email through the Wikipedia interface; while email availability is encouraged, it is not mandatory. Contacting an editor using any other contact information, without first obtaining explicit permission, should be assumed to be uninvited and, depending on the context, may constituteharassment. Unexpected contact using personal information as described inPosting of personal information may be perceived as a threat to the safety and well-being of the person being contacted. -2020-04

Conflict is unavoidable and an inherent part of processes like thebold, revert, discuss cycle and deletion discussions. These processes work effectively when editors engage inhealthy conflict by debating ideas, openly providing information, and seeking mutual understanding of an issue. Sniping criticism,ad hominem arguments, and incivility are harmful to other editors and the proper functioning of the encyclopedia. While healthy conflict is essential to building an encyclopedia, editors who engage in unhealthy conflict may be sanctioned. -2022-08,2023-05

For the purposes of dispute resolution, whether an editor is engaging in "high-speed editing" (that is, the number of edits per minute) is irrelevant. Where editors have made a number of similar edits in a short time space and other editors have raised concerns about those edits, the editor is to stop making the edits and engage in discussion. -2017-09

"Hounding" is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor.

An editor's contribution history is public, and there are various legitimate reasons for following an editor's contributions, such as for the purposes ofrecent changes patrol,WikiProject tagging, or for dispute resolution purposes. Under certain circumstances, these activities can easily be confused with hounding.

Editors should at all times remember toassume good faith before concluding that hounding is taking place, although editors following another editor's contributions should endeavor to be transparent and explain their actions wherever necessary in order to avoid mistaken assumptions being drawn as to their intentions. -2015-12

"Hounding" is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor.An editor's contribution history is public, and there are various legitimate reasons for following an editor's contributions, such as for the purposes ofrecent changes patrol,WikiProject tagging, or for dispute resolution purposes. Under certain circumstances, these activities can easily be confused with hounding.Editors should at all times remember toassume good faith before concluding that hounding is taking place, although editors following another editor's contributions should endeavour to be transparent and explain their actions wherever necessary in order to avoid mistaken assumptions being drawn as to their intentions. -2015-07

Creating accounts ("sockpuppetry") or otherwiseevading bans through editing whilst logged out is prohibited. New or anonymous editors whose only edits demonstrate very similar behaviours to a banned user, especially one with a history of evading their ban, are indistinguishable from the banned user. Depending on the behaviours demonstrated, asockpuppet investigation may not be required to identify the banned user. -2014-10

From the earliest days of Wikipedia, one of the project's central tenets has been "Ignore all rules: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Because "IAR" actions are, by definition, taken outside the ordinary policies and guidelines, it is impossible to state in advance when they will be appropriate. However, ignoring all rules is most likely to be warranted when dealing with an unanticipated or emergency situation. Conversely, taking an action based on IAR is less likely to be warranted when there has been a consensus that that sort of action should not be allowed. -2018-12

There is widespread agreement in the Wikipedia community regarding the importance of thebiographies of living persons policy. The policy has been adopted and since its inception repeatedly expanded and strengthened by the community. In addition, the Arbitration Committee has previouslyreaffirmed the values expressed through that policy. Fundamental values and practices concerning biographical content has been emphasised in aresolution of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees and were alsoexpanded and strengthened. If an editor wishes to restore content removed in good faith under the policy,the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. Restoring the original content without significant change requires consensus. -2016-06

Interaction bans are intended to stop conflicts between two or more editors that cannot beotherwise resolved from getting out of hand and disrupting the work of others. Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way (aside from thestandard exceptions). This includes making reference to the other editor (directly or indirectly), and undoing edits by the other user (whether by use of the revert function or by other means). -2015-12

Wikipedia is a collaborative project that depends on volunteers located around the world. While English is the language of this wiki, there are many national and regional dialects of English. Editors should be aware that their local colloquialisms may be interpreted in an entirely different way by the majority of the project. Particularly in community discussions, a less colloquial "universal English" is key to fostering a collaborative environment. -2012-02

Wikipedia is not a forum for the creation or furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions, and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus on substantive content issues. Inflammatory accusations often perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than use of legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable. See alsoWikipedia is not a battleground. -2014-04

Administrator tools are not to be used in connection with disputes in which the administrator is involved. In circumstances where an administrator is involved, the administrator should not take administrative action but should instead report the issue to a relevant noticeboard, perhaps with a suggestion for appropriate action, to be dealt with by another administrator. In limited circumstances, such as blatant vandalism or bad-faith harassment, an involved administrator may act, but such exceptions are likely to be rare. -2016-06

Administrators are expected not to take administrator actions arising from disputes in which they themselves are involved. SeeWikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins. As a specific and clear application of this rule, an administrator who is a party to a pending arbitration case may not block another editor who is a party to the same case, particularly when the case arose in large measure from disputes between the two of them. -2011-08

The Arbitration Committee hasjurisdiction only over the behavior of editors on the English Wikipedia. -2018-07

While the Arbitration Committee may take note of off-wiki behavior for the purposes of settling on-wiki disputes, restricting the behavior of users off-wiki is not within its remit. -2018-07

The Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction only over the behavior of editors on the English Wikipedia. While the Arbitration Committee may take note of off-wiki behavior for the purposes of settling on-wiki disputes and in its remedies, restricting the off-wiki behavior of users is not within its remit.-2022-03,2022-04

Perthe Arbitration Policy, the Arbitration Committee has no jurisdiction outside the English Wikipedia. However, the Committee may take notice of conduct outside its jurisdiction when making decisions about conduct on the English Wikipedia, if such outside conduct impacts or has the potential to impact adversely upon the English Wikipedia or its editors. -2013-11

The Committeeretains jurisdiction over prior cases, in this instance, theAmerican Politics case. -2015-06

The Committeeretains jurisdiction over prior cases, in this instance, thePalestine-Israel articles case. -2015-11

The Committeeretains jurisdiction over prior cases, in this instance, the three previous cases related to Palestine-Israel articles:Palestine-Israel articles,West Bank - Judea and Samaria, andPalestine-Israel articles 3. -2019-12

The Arbitration Committeehas jurisdiction over conduct on the English Wikipedia and retains jurisdiction over all matters previously heard, including associated enforcement processes. While the Arbitration Committee may take notice of behavior outside of the English Wikipedia, we cannot restrict behavior which occurs outside of the English Wikipedia. –2023-03

Administrators are generally expected to know policy and to keep abreast of its developments.Occasional errors or deviation from community expectations in the interpretation or application of policy are to be expected, and are not incompatible with adminship provided that the admin is willing to accept community feedback when the situation arises, and modify his or her conduct accordingly. However, serious or repeated breaches or an unwillingness to accept feedback from the community may be grounds for the removal of administrative tools. -2014-01

In accordance withWP:LEAD, the opening paragraphs of a Wikipedia article should be an "introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects", "able to stand alone as a concise overview", and "written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article." While the lead of an article, or its first sentence in particular, is an important facet of an article to improve, improvements to the lead of an article should fundamentally flow from the content of the article, itself compliant with Wikipedia content policies, and not from efforts to advance any particular point of view. -2011-11

Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. While such an ideal applies to interactions with all editors, it is particularly relevant to interactions with newer and inexperienced users, as in those cases, administrators provide a public face to both the broader administrative corps and to Wikipedia as a whole. -2020-02,2020-02,2021-03,2022-12

Administrators are expected tolead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators provide a public face to both the broader administrative corps and to Wikipedia as a whole. –2023-07

Administrators are expected to learn from experience. When an administrator's action is overturned by the community, the administrator whose action was overturned is expected to consider why others disagreed with the action, and take this into account in future decision-making. Administrators should avoid taking personal offense to their action being overturned, or to feedback given to them regarding their action(s); over time, every active administrator working anywhere on the project can expect to have some of his or her administrator actions disagreed with or overturned, just as every arbitrator sometimes finds himself or herself in the minority on an issue voted on by the Committee. -2012-07

Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. However, on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account. -2013-09

Where there is a globalconsensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by alocal consensus. Local consensus cannot override site policy. However, on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account. -2014-01

Local consensus among a limited group of editors, such as through a Wikiproject or talk page discussion,does not override wider community consensus. Advice pages that have not been accepted as a policy or guideline should be treated asessays. -2020-06

Despite superficial similarities, Wikipedia Arbitration is not, and does not purport to be, a legal system comparable to courts or regulatory agencies. While the Committee strives for fairness, the system has limitations. Evidence is generally limited to what can be found and presented online. The disclosure of information cannot be compelled and witnesses cannot becross-examined. Furthermore, only issues directly affecting the English Wikipedia can be considered and resolved. Arbitration decisions should be read with these limitations in mind and should not be used, or misused, by any side in connection with any off-wiki controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding. -2015-01

Despite employing more formal procedures than other aspects of Wikipedia, Wikipedia Arbitration is not and does not purport to be a legal system comparable to courts or regulatory agencies. The Arbitration Committee strives for fairness in every case. However, the evidence is generally limited to what can be located and presented online, safeguards such as mandatory disclosure of information and cross-examination of witnesses are not available, and only issues directly affecting Wikipedia are considered and resolved. Arbitration decisions should be read with these limitations in mind and should not be taken out of context or misused by any side in connection with any off-wiki controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding. -2018-07

Despite employing more formal procedures than other aspects of Wikipedia, Wikipedia Arbitration is not and does not purport to be a legal system comparable to courts or regulatory agencies. The Arbitration Committee strives for fairness in every case. However, the evidence is generally limited to what can be located and presented online, safeguards such as mandatory disclosure of information and cross-examination of witnesses are not available, and only issues directly affecting Wikipedia and with-in the scope of the case are considered and resolved. Arbitration decisions should be read with these limitations in mind and should not be taken out of context or misused by any side in connection with any off-wiki controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding. -2023-05

CheckUser is a technical tool that displays details about the edits or other logged actions made recently by an account, IP address, or IP address range. Although the tool can reveal information about the accounts and computers a person is using to edit, it is beyond the capability of CheckUser to determine with certainty what person is operating an account. –2022-12

An editor alleging misconduct by another editor is responsible for providing clear evidence of the alleged misconduct. An editor who is unable or unwilling to support such an accusation should refrain from making it at all. A claim of misconduct should be raised directly with the other user himself or herself in the first instance, unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so. If direct discussion does not resolve the issue, it should be raised in the appropriate forum for reporting or discussing such conduct, and should not generally be spread across multiple forums. Claims of misconduct should be made with the goal of resolving the problem, not of impugning another editor's reputation. -2014-04,2014-04,2014-12

An editor alleging misconduct by another editor is responsible for providing clear evidence of the alleged misconduct. An editor who is unable or unwilling to support such an accusation should refrain from making it at all. A claim of misconduct should be raised directly with the other user in the first instance, unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so. If direct discussion does not resolve the issue, it should be raised in the appropriate forum for reporting or discussing such conduct, and should not generally be spread across multiple forums. Claims of misconduct should be made with the goal of resolving the problem, not of impugning another editor's reputation. -2015-06

An editor who alleges misconduct by another editor is responsible for providing clear evidence of that misconduct. An editor who is unable or unwilling to support such an accusation should refrain from making the accusation at all. A claim of misconduct should initially be raised directly with the other user, unless there are very compelling reasons for not doing so. If direct discussion does not resolve the issue, it should be raised inthe appropriate forum for reporting or discussing misconduct. Claims of misconduct should be made with the goal of resolving the problem, not ofimpugning another editor's reputation. Such allegations should not be raised repeatedly across multiple forums as this breaches the policy onforum shopping. -2015-07

It is an extremely serious abuse of Wikipedia to utilize editorial and structural features of the site—such as internal links, external links, and templates—in an attempt to inequitably or artificially manipulate search engine results. This is particularly so where the purpose is to disparage a living person. -2011-09

If editors disagree on how to express a problem and/or solution in mathematics, citations to reliable published sources that both are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material as presented must be supplied by the editor(s) who wishes to include the material. Novel derivations, applications or conclusions that cannot be supported by sources are likely to constituteoriginal research within the definition used by the English Wikipedia. -2011-03

Requesting that another editor perform an action that, if one would have done it oneself, would have been clearly against policy ismeatpuppetry and is a form ofgaming the system. While it is possible that more than one editor would have independently chosen to act the same way, attempts to coordinate such behavior is improperon its own as it seeks to subvert the normal consensus building processes. -2009-12

Mediation — whetherformal orinformal — is a voluntary process to help editors who are having a dispute. While it serves the valuable function of facilitating agreement between good faith participants, it cannot make binding decisions on contents or sanction users. -2010-08

Editors whose conduct is repeatedly problematic may enter into a mentorship arrangement with one or more experienced editors. The purpose of such an arrangement is to allow the protégé to improve their behaviour by advice and guidance. Editors who accept mentorship are expected to be receptive to the reasonable advice of their mentor, and failure to do so may be taken to mean that the associated conduct problems cannot be resolved by voluntary measures. -2012-06

In certain limited circumstances, formalmentorship and similar voluntary and involuntary arrangements, may be suitable to provide advice and support to people involved in disputes, or needing advice on how to work collaboratively on Wikipedia. The long-term aim of such arrangements should be for those involved to improve their conduct and work collaboratively without the need, or with a reduced need, for such advice. Such mentorships or similar arrangements may be agreed to as an alternative to more serious remedies, such as bans or paroles, or they may be an end result of the dispute resolution process itself. Users may voluntarily place themselves under such arrangements, or be placed under such arrangements by the community, or by a ruling of the Arbitration Committee. Any such formal arrangements should be recorded and documented in an appropriate place. -2009-07

Wikipedia's mission is to build anencyclopedia that can be modified and distributed freely. To facilitate access to this information, we should provide as few barriers to its use and dissemination as possible. Additional information, such asmetadata, aligns with the goals of the encyclopedia where it is notdetrimental to our content or our scope. -2013-09

Misuse of sourcing guidelines by editors in a field is highly problematic. This is so not least because it can throw all past contributions to the area into question. Reviewing past contributions for compliance with sourcing guidelines can be extremely time-consuming and is hence a considerable drain on editor time and resources. -2011-11

Several of Wikipedia's most bitter disputes have revolved around national or ethnic conflicts such as rival national claims to disputed territories or areas. Editors working on articles on these topics may frequently have strong viewpoints, often originating in their own national or other backgrounds. Such editors may be the most knowledgeable people interested in creating Wikipedia content about the area or the dispute, and are permitted and encouraged to contribute if they can do so consistent with Wikipedia's fundamental policies. However, they should bear in mind while editing that they may consciously or unconsciously be expressing their views rather than editing neutrally. They should take this natural tendency into account while they are editing and participating in talkpage discussions. -2010-05

Several of Wikipedia's most bitter disputes have revolved around national or ethnic conflicts such as rival national claims to disputed territories or areas. Editors working on articles on these topics may frequently have strong viewpoints, often originating in their own national or other backgrounds. Such editors may be the most knowledgeable people interested in creating Wikipedia content about the area or the dispute, and are permitted and encouraged to contribute if they can do so consistent with Wikipedia's fundamental policies. However, conduct that furthers a preexisting dispute on Wikipedia should receive special attention from the community, up to and including sanctions. It is perfectly possible to present a balanced, accurate, and verifiable encyclopedia article about contentious issues or preexisting disputes. -2021-09,2023-03 (as "National and territorial disputes")

Wikipedia content must be presented from aneutral viewpoint. -2012-02

All Wikipedia articles must be written from aneutral point of view; that is, they must fairly portray all significant points of view on a subject in accordance with their prevalence. Wikipedia is a mirror for human knowledge: it seeks to reflect, and not distort, the current state of thought on a subject. -2009-07

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is also contrary to this principle. -2011-11

All Wikipedia articles must be written from aneutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article.Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic.Original research andsynthesized claims are prohibited. Use of a Wikipedia article foradvocacy or promotion, either in favor of or against an individual, institution, or idea that is the subject of the article, is prohibited. -2014-04,2014-04,2015-01,2022-03

Article content must be presented from aneutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not giveundue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars. -2011-04,2015-03

Because Wikipedia is intended to be written from a neutral point of view, it is necessary thatconflicts of interest are properly disclosed, and articles or edits by conflicted editors are reasonably available for review by others. Editors are expected to comply with both the purpose and intent of the applicable policies, as well as their literal wording. -2018-01

All Wikipedia articles must be written from aneutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article.Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic.Original research andsynthesized claims are prohibited. A neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant historical interpretations. This refers to legitimate differences in interpretation of the historical record, as opposed to views considered fringe, outdated, or significantly biased or inaccurate by the substantial consensus of reliable sources. -2018-08,2019-09,2021-02

Wikipedia adopts aneutral point of view, andadvocacy for any particular viewpoint is prohibited. NPOV is anon-negotiable, fundamental policy, and requires that editors strive to (a) ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources and (b) ensure that viewpoints are not givenundue weight, and are kept in proportion with the weight of the source. -2009-10

Article content must be presented from aneutral point of view. Where different viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content, fairly representing the weight of authority for each view. -2010-05

Article content must be presented from aneutral point of view. Editors should ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or giveundue weight to a particular view. -2011-03

Article content must be presented from aneutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not giveundue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars. Similarly, undue weight should not be given to a particular aspect of a topic, to the detriment of a fair and balanced treatment of the topic as a whole. -2011-04

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all significant viewpoints that have been published in reliable sources fairly represented in proportion to prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. While reasonable editors may, in good faith, disagree about the weight of particular viewpoints in reliable sources, it is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle such good-faith content disputes among editors. However, editors may not assign to a viewpoint a weight that is either so high or so low as to be outside the bounds of reasonableness; such actions violate the neutral point of view policy. -2013-06

The requirement of the neutral point of view that points of view be represented fairly and accurately, and Wikipedia's nature as an encyclopaedia, demand that articles should always use thebest and most reputable sources. A neutral point of view cannot be synthesised merely by presenting a plurality of opposing viewpoints, each derived from a polarised source. -2009-07

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on synthesized claims, poor sources, or other "original research", is also contrary to this principle. -2011-09,2014-12

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on synthesized claims, poor sources, including opinion pieces, or original research is also contrary to this principle. -2021-09

Wikipedia adopts aneutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. In particular, Wikipedia'sconflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests." Neutrality is non-negotiable and requires that, whatever their personal feelings or interests, all editors must strive to ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published byreliable sources and give prominence to such viewpoints inproportion to the weight of the source. Editors may contribute to Wikipedia only if they comply with Wikipedia's key policies. -2010-10

Wikipedia adopts aneutral point of view, andadvocacy for any particular view is prohibited. In particular, Wikipedia'sconflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests." Neutrality is non-negotiable and requires that, whatever their personal feelings, all editors must strive to ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source. Editors may contribute to Wikipedia only if they comply with Wikipedia'skey policies. -2020-06

All Wikipedia articles must be written from aneutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should alwaysverifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence inreliable sources determiningproper weight. Relying onsynthesized claims, or other"original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is theguiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, andis not optional. -2015-06,2019-12

All Wikipedia articles must be written from aneutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should alwaysverifiably use the best and most reputable sources available, with prevalence inreliable sources determiningproper weight. Relying onsynthesized claims, or other"original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is theguiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, andis not optional. -2015-11

Material about living persons must beneutral with regards to the treatment of that person inreliable sources. It is expected that all content be duly weighted and scrupulously sourced. -2018-07

While editors are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and practices to the best of their abilities, they are not expected to be perfect. However, they are expected to listen to feedback from others and, where appropriate, learn from it. Repeated and serious editing errors can be disruptive as they create unnecessary work for others. -2013-03

Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors, is considered apersonal attack. –2023-07

The Wikimedia Foundationnon-discrimination policy prohibits discrimination against users on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics. -2014-12

An editor may have views or outside interests that affect his or her neutrality in editing in a given topic-area. These may include views creating a bias either in favor of or against persons, institutions, or ideas associated with the topic-area. Whether or not such views or outside interests rise to the level of aconflict of interest, non-neutral or tendentious editing often results where an article is edited primarily by editors who are either affiliated with a controversial person or idea, or by editors who are avowed rivals or enemies of the subject, are involved in off-wiki disputes with the subject, or are otherwise disdainful of the subject. Thus, editors who have a strongly negative view regarding the subject of an article, just like editors with a strongly positive view of the subject, should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally if they choose to edit it at all. -2014-04

Wikipedia isnot a battleground. It is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. In particular, making list of "opponents" or coordinating actions in order to drive off or punish perceived "adversaries" goes counter to the necessary collegiate atmosphere required to write an encyclopedia. -2009-12

Wikipedia is not abattleground. -2015-12

While discussion of Wikipedia and editing in channels outside of Wikipedia itself (such as IRC, mailing lists, or web forums) is unavoidable and generally appropriate, using external channels for coordination of activities that, on-wiki, would be inappropriate is also improper. That such conversations can be, or are, done in secret makes it more difficult to detect but does not reduce the impropriety of holding them. -2009-12,2022-04

While discussion of Wikipedia and editing in channels outside of Wikipedia itself (such as email, messaging apps, or web forums) is unavoidable and generally appropriate, using external channels for coordination of activities that would be inappropriate on-wiki is also improper. -2025-07

A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia, including participation in websites or mailing lists in which Wikipedia or its contributors are discussed, is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions, except in extraordinary circumstances such as those involving grave acts of overt and persistent harassment or threats or other serious misconduct. The factors to be evaluated in deciding whether off-wiki conduct may be sanctioned on-wiki include whether the off-wiki conduct was intended to, and did, have a direct and foreseeable damaging effect on the encyclopedia or on members of the community. -2009-12

The Committee may take notice of conduct outside its jurisdiction when making decisions about conduct on the English Wikipedia if such outside conduct impacts or has the potential to impact adversely upon the English Wikipedia or its editors. -2018-07

The harassment policy states: "Harassment of other Wikipedians in forums not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation creates doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. Off-wiki harassment will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases. In some cases, the evidence will be submitted by private email. As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely."

In dealing with any incident of off-wiki harassment, there are at least two separate questions that must be answered: first, was there off-wiki harassment warranting an on-wiki consequence, and second, can the identity of the harasser be linked with sufficient certainty to a specific Wikipedia editor. There may be instances in which off-wiki harassment warranting an on-wiki sanction has unquestionably occurred, but the harassment cannot be linked, or cannot be linked with sufficient certainty, to a specific Wikipedia account. The fact that no on-wiki action is taken in such circumstances should not be interpreted as diminishing the community's or the Committee's disgust at acts of harassment or their commitment to combatting it. -2015-07

An editor who is involved in an off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual should generally refrain from editing articles related to that individual due to a potential conflict of interest. -2018-07

Repeated use of sarcasm, wordplay formulated to mock another user, casting aspersions on an identifiable group, or use of language that can reasonably be anticipated to offend a significant segment of the community is disruptive, particularly when it distracts from the focus of an ongoing discussion on communal pages such as those in the Wikipedia namespace. -2012-02

Repeated use of sarcasm, wordplay formulated to mock another user, casting aspersions on fellow editors, or use of language that can reasonably be anticipated to offend is disruptive, particularly when it distracts from the focus of an ongoing discussion. -2013-08

Behaviour of editors on-wiki and off-wiki are not subject to the same standards. Conduct which may be considered acceptable in the open and transparent atmosphere of Wikipedia (i.e., on-wiki) may be controversial and even unacceptable if made off wiki, due to the lack of transparency. In a similar vein, off-wiki disclosure of personal information does not allow, or excuse, a third party to post it on-wiki. -2022-03,2023-05

In virtually all cases, the Arbitration Committee opens a full-fledged arbitration case only where a request for a case is presented onWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests and arbitrators vote to open the case after considering comments from interested editors. In extraordinary situations, the Arbitration Committee may vote, by majority vote of the total number of active arbitrators, to open a case on its own motion without awaiting a formal request. This step will be taken only in serious situations where a dispute has come to the committee's attention through other means, it is apparent that no other means ofdispute resolution will be sufficient to resolve it, it appears inevitable that a request for arbitration would be presented in the normal course, and the value of obtaining input from a request for arbitration is outweighed by factors such as avoiding delay or unnecessary hostility at the request stage. Instances in which the Arbitration Committee will open a case without a formal on-wiki request will be rare. -2009-12

Wikipedia defines "original research" as"facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles. -2010-08

Wikipedia does not publishoriginal thought. Articles may not contain any original synthesis, that is, a combination or analysis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly stated by the sources. -2011-03

Oversight, also known as suppression, provides a means to delete particularly sensitive revisions such that even ordinary administrators cannot see them. The ability to suppress, unsuppress, and view suppressed revisions is restricted to members of theoversight user group. From time to time, it is necessary to block editors who have posted suppressible information. These blocks are labeled as "oversight blocks" and administrators who are neither oversighters nor arbitrators must not reverse them without having first consulted the Oversighter team or the Arbitration Committee.

Material that has been suppressed is always considered private or sensitive and referencing it on wiki should be avoided. Queries about the action should be raised by email to a member of the Oversight team, or to the Arbitration Committee, and certainly not at high profile noticeboards. -2020-02

Oversight, also known as suppression, provides a means to delete particularly sensitive revisions such that even ordinary administrators cannot see them. The ability to suppress, unsuppress, and view suppressed revisions is restricted to members of the oversight user group. Use of this tool is considered a first resort, in order to reduce the harm from such information. From time to time, it is necessary to oversight block editors who have repeatedly posted suppressible information. Oversighters are expected to consult with the oversight team for all oversight blocks of registered editors and for any other suppressions when acting under the principle of first resort. -2024-04

Wikipedia pages do not have owners who control edits to them. Instead, they are the property of the community at large and governed bycommunity consensus. -2014-01,2014-07,2019-07,2020-03

Wikipedia pages and topic areasdo not have owners that control content or edits to them, inclusive of both individual editors and groups of enthusiasts about a topic. Instead, content is determined by the community at-large and governed bycommunity consensus. -2024-09

Full page protection is specifically designed to address edit wars, content disputes, and disruption. During such protection, parties to any dispute about the page that is protected are encouraged to discuss the dispute on the talkpage. When protection expires or is reduced parties are expected to maintain discussion until consensus is reached on the talkpage. -2015-11

Paid editing, particularly commercial paid editing, on English Wikipedia has historically been controversial. TheWikimedia Foundation Terms of Use require that editors making contributions in return for payment must make certain disclosures on-wiki. Paid editors must comply with both the WMF Terms of Use as well as any more specific requirements contained in the relevantEnglish Wikipedia policy. -2018-01

Paid editing, which involves editing Wikipedia in exchange for money or inducements,requires proper disclosure of employer, client, and affiliation. Users who are paid by an entity for publicity are considered paid editors, regardless of whether the payment was specifically for editing Wikipedia. Not all conflict of interest editing falls under paid editing. -2024-04

Apaid editor has a potential conflict of interest with any article or subject that their firm has been retained to edit, even if they were not directly paid to take action in relation to that specific article or subject. -2018-01

The determination of proper consensus is vulnerable to unrepresentative participation from the community. Because of the generally limited number of editors likely to participate in any given discussion, an influx of biased or partisan editors is likely to generate an improper illusion of a consensus where none (or a different one) would exist in a wider population. -2009-12

Policy states: "All editors are required to act reasonably, civilly, and with decorum on arbitration case pages, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so." 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. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand. -2023-05

A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia, including participation in websites or forums critical of Wikipedia or its contributors, is in most cases not subject to Wikipedia's norms and policies, except in extraordinary circumstances such as those involving acts of overt and persistent harassment or threats. Where such circumstances do exist, however, appropriate action including sanctions can be undertaken by either the community or by the Arbitration Committee. -2012-07

Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more severely if they thereafter repeat the same or similar behavior. -2014-04

In content disputes, editors must always comment on the content and not the contributor. Personalising content disputes disrupts theconsensus-building process on which Wikipedia depends, and should be avoided. -2009-07

In content disputes, editors must always comment on the content and not the contributor. Personalising content disputes disrupts the consensus-building process on which Wikipedia depends. -2021-02,2021-09

Wikipedia articles must beneutral,verifiable and must not containoriginal research. Those founding principles (thePillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists. -2010-08

A higher standard for participation and consensus exists for changes to policies and guidelines, as stated inWikipedia:Consensus#Level of consensus. -2012-03

Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are meant to codify existing best practices. While edits to policy pages are often prompted by specific editing experiences, it is inappropriate to alter policy pages to further one's position in a specific dispute. -2011-11

Issues that are contentiousin real life are likely to be so on Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia does not permit the animosity arising from disputed issues to affect the neutrality of encyclopedia articles or the standards of behavior expected from contributors. Conduct that furthers a preexisting dispute on Wikipedia should receive special attention from the community, up to and including sanctions. It is perfectly possible to present a balanced, accurate, and verifiable encyclopedia article about contentious issues or preexisting disputes. -2021-02

When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in the same discussions to support the same point of view — especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in the underlying dispute — it is reasonable to presume that they could be coordinating their actions. Evaluation of consensus in particularly divisive or controversial cases need to carefully weigh the possibility and avoid ascribing too much weight to thenumber of participants in a discussion — especially when policy enforcement or sanctions are considered. -2009-12,2022-04 (without italics onnumber)

For the purpose of applying the special rules against modifying or overturning an enforcement action (seeWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications), all enforcement actions are presumed valid and proper until an appeal is successful. -2015-08

The "principle of least astonishment" articulated by the Wikimedia Foundationin this resolution is one relevant principle that editors should take into account in deciding what images are appropriate for inclusion in a given article. -2012-02

Thearbitration policy allows people to submit evidence privately in an arbitration case when there are compelling reasons for it not to be submitted publicly. When the Arbitration Committee admits privately-submitted evidence, existing policy requires aprivate hearing, where parties are "notified of the private hearing and be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about them before a decision is made." -2019-09

The Arbitration Committee is sensitive to the serious concerns created when private matters are brought to its attention. Such concerns exist for ethical and privacy reasons, and also for practical ones, such as how to ensure that an alleged communication is authentic, complete, and presented in its full context. Thearbitration policy allows people to submit evidence privately in an arbitration case when there are compelling reasons for it not to be submitted publicly. –2022-12

Contributors whose actions over a period of time are detrimental to the goal of creating a high-quality encyclopedia may be asked to refrain from those actions, when other efforts to address the issue have failed, even when their actions are undertaken in good faith. -2013-03

Contributors whose actions over a period of time are detrimental to the goal of creating a high-quality encyclopedia may be prohibited from taking those actions in future, even when their actions are undertaken in good faith. -2013-12

Wikipedia project pages and processes may acquire associated procedures and bureaucracy to aid co-ordination, but they do not have owners who control changes to them. Instead, they are the property of the community at large and governed bycommunity consensus. -2014-01

No matter who is the sanctioning authority, any sanctions imposed on an editor or administrator for misconduct should be proportionate to the nature and severity of the conduct. Relevant factors to consider may also include how recently the misconduct took place, how clear it is that the behavior constituted misconduct, whether the editor has expressed or carried out an intent to improve their conduct, and whether lesser sanctions have been employed without success in trying to resolve the problem. For example, a lengthy site-ban will usually not be the appropriate sanction for on-wiki conduct by an experienced, good-faith contributor who has never previously been blocked at all. -2019-09

Proposed deletion (PROD) is a streamlined process for nominating an article for deletion. It should only be used for obvious and uncontroversial deletions where no opposition is expected. Proposed deletions are subject to thedeletion policy, which requires thatalternatives to deletion are considered before nomination.A prior search for more sources to establish notability is not required but considered good practice when the main concern is lack of notability or sources. -2020-02,2022-08

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site forother purposes, such asadvocacy or propaganda,furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promotingoriginal research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. -2009-12,2010-03,2011-03,2011-04

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among the contributors. -2010-10

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, the furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. -2011-11

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. -2012-02,2015-08,2015-12,2017-03,2017-09,2017-10,2019-05,2022-08

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, or furtherance of outside conflicts—is prohibited. -2012-07,2015-07

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors. -2013-03,2014-01,2014-07,2014-12,2019-07,2021-02,2021-09,2023-03,2023-12

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopaedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the 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 when disruptive, those contributors may 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. -2013-06

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site forother purposes, such asadvocacy or propaganda,furtherance of outside conflicts, or publishing or promotingoriginal research is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith. -2013-11,2014-04,2014-04

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site forother purposes, such asadvocacy or propaganda orfurtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith. -2014-10,2015-06,2015-06,2015-11,2018-01,2019-12

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site forother purposes, such asadvocacy or propaganda orfurtherance of outside conflicts, is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to the objectives of Wikipedia may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith. -2014-12,2015-01

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site forother purposes, such asadvocacy or propaganda,furtherance of outside conflicts, or publishing or promotingoriginal research is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith. -2015-03

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site forother purposes, such asadvocacy or propaganda orfurtherance of conflicts, is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith. -2015-05

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site forother purposes, such asadvocacy or propaganda orfurtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are are undertaken in good faith. -2015-08,2015-12

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the contributors. Anyone may edit, use, modify and distribute the content for any purpose and the re-use of the information should be facilitated, where it is not detrimental to the encyclopedia. -2018-03

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site forother purposes, such asadvocacy or propaganda,furtherance of outside conflicts, and promotion of political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them or placed under sanctions, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith. -2018-07

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 result in sanctions. -2018-12,2020-01,2020-04,2020-06

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; good-faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned. -2024-04

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among contributors. -2009-07

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site forother purposes, such assoapboxing, advocacy or propaganda,furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promotingoriginal research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. -2009-10

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. -2010-05

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the project for other purposes—such as advocacy, propaganda, and the furtherance of philosophical, ideological or religious disputes—is prohibited. -2011-02

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the encyclopedia to advancepersonal agendas—such asadvocacy or propaganda andphilosophical, ideological, religious or political dispute – or to publish or promoteoriginal research orfringe theories that have not gained widespread acceptance is prohibited. -2011-03

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site forother purposes, such asadvocacy or propaganda, thefurtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promotingoriginal research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. -2011-04

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. -2013-08,2018-03

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Anyone may edit, use, modify and distribute the content for any purpose and the re-use of the information should be facilitated, where it is not detrimental to the encyclopedia. -2013-09

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site forother purposes, such asadvocacy or propaganda orfurtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to the objectives of Wikipedia may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith. -2014-12

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, or publishing or promoting original research is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith. -2014-12

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the contributors. In particular, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to right great wrongs; Wikipedia can only record what sources conclude has been the result of social change, but it cannot catalyze that change. -2015-12

Thepurpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site forother purposes, such asadvocacy or propaganda orfurtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith. -2018-08,2023-05

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 subject to sanctions. -2020-03

Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. They are meted out not as retribution but to protect the project and other users from disruption and inappropriate conduct, and to deter any future possible repetitions of inappropriate conduct. Blocking is one of the most powerful tools that are entrusted to administrators, who should be familiar with the circumstances prior to intervening and are required to be able to justify any block that they issue. In general, once a matter has become "cold" and the risk of present disruption has clearly ended, reopening it by blocking retrospectively is usually not appropriate. -2019-05

Users are sanctioned to stop disruptive conduct, usually in the hope that they will adjust their behaviour in response and continue to contribute to the project. Sanctions may be lifted on appeal if the committee is satisfied that the disruptive conduct will not be repeated. Where a sanction removes the administrator right, the user may regain it after demonstrating that they again have the community's trust through a successfulrequest for adminship. In order for a user to adjust their behaviour, it must be clear what conduct led to the sanction. -2019-09

Wikipedia content generally rests upon reliablesecondary sources as these meet requisite standards for fact-checking, interpretation and context. More partisan sources may be useful for referencing individual or organisational viewpoints but are unlikely to be suitable for the sourcing of general statements in Wikipedia's "voice." Particular care is required when including partisan sources inthe Biographies of Living Persons policy on the coverage of public figures, in order to avoid a misrepresentations of accuracy, neutrality or context. Controversial sourcing usually requires editorial consensus either on the article talkpage or at theReliable Sources Noticeboard. -2015-05

Administrators areaccountable for their actions involving administrative tools. As such, they are expected to respond appropriately to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them where needed. Criticism of the merits of administrative actions are acceptable within the bounds ofavoiding personal attacks andcivility. -2016-06

Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrative tools. As such, they are expected to respond appropriately to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them where needed. Criticism of the merits of administrative actions are acceptable within the bounds ofavoiding personal attacks andcivility. -2012-07

The Wikipedia community conducts almost all of its activities online, where people may fail to observe norms of professionalism and civility. From time to time, users may need to express concerns in clear, firm terms about another user's decisions or actions. This need is particularly important when expressing concerns about an administrator. However, Wikipedia provides several methods of escalating concerns about user conduct or administrator decisions. Users should make efforts to escalate appropriately, in line with our policy oncivility; continually re-stating a concern is unlikely to produce an effective resolution. -2019-02

Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions. -2009-06,2009-12,2010-02,2010-04,2011-08,2012-02,2015-01

Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors. -2014-04,2014-10

Editors will sometimes make mistakes and suffer occasional lapses of judgement in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopaedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy. Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors. -2015-03

Editors sanctioned for disruptive behaviour are expected to improve their behaviour, should they continue to participate in the project. Sanctioned editors should be afforded assistance and reasonable time to improve (especially if they demonstrate the ability to engage positively with the community), but if their conduct does not improve they may be subject to increasingly severe sanctions. -2012-06,2023-03,2023-05

Editors will sometimes make mistakes and suffer occasional lapses of judgement from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy. Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors. -2014-12

Editors are expected to refrain from making unnecessary references to the actual or perceived racial, religious, or ethnic background of fellow editors. Such references should be made only if they clearly serve a legitimate purpose. In the context of a noticeboard discussion or dispute resolution, it will rarely serve a valid purpose to seek to classify the participants in the discussion on this basis. -2011-04

When another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision. (WP:WHEEL) -2012-07

The unilateral reinstatement of an enforcement action, which has been reversed out of process, does not constitutewheel warring, where the reversion has resulted in sanctions for the reversing administrator. -2015-12

Editors should always try to use the mostreliable sources available for any given topic, with the editorial oversight, fact-checking and bias within the source taken into consideration. Depending on the context,non-neutral or biased sources can be used if they are the best sourcing for information held on a subject.Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight and should not be used for citing contentious claims. Where the use of questionable or biased sources is agreed to be appropriate, information about their nature should be indicated so that readers can judge their value. -2018-08

Where an editor's contributions, over a significant period of time and after repeated expressions of concerns, are reasonably perceived by many users to reflect bias and prejudice against the members of a racial, religious, or ethnic group, appropriate remedies or restrictions should be imposed. This does not necessarily require a finding that the editor isactually biased and prejudiced against any group or that the editor consciously intended to edit inappropriately. -2011-04

Editors whose editing on an article or topic is persistently non-neutral may, after appropriate counseling or warnings, be banned from editing that article or on that topic. This is particularly, though by no means exclusively, appropriate where such non-neutral editing involves BLPs. -2014-04

As provided by thearbitration policy, the Arbitration Committee is empowered to handle requests for the removal of administrative tools. While such requests have usually been in relation to the administrator user rights, the Committee may hear requests for the removal of any advanced user right, which includes but is not limited to the bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversight user rights. -2024-04

Thepolicy on biographies of living persons requires that non-compliant material be removed if the non-compliance cannot readily be rectified. The policy does not impose any limitations on the nature of the material to be removed, provided that the material concerns a living person, and provided that the editor removing it is prepared to explain their rationale for doing so.

Once material about a living person has been removed on the basis of a good-faith assertion that such material is non-compliant, the policy requires that consensus be obtained prior to restoring the material. -2013-10

Editors who have been sanctioned or warned, whether by the Arbitration Committee or the community, for improper conduct are expected to avoid further conduct that is inconsistent with Wikipedia's expectations. Repeated failure to demonstrate appropriate conduct may result in the editor's being subject to increasingly severe sanctions. -2020-04

Editors who have been sanctioned or warned, whether by the Arbitration Committee or the community, for improper conduct are expected to avoid further conduct that is inconsistent with Wikipedia's expectations. Repeated failure to demonstrate appropriate conduct may result in the editors being subject to increasingly severe sanctions. -2022-08

Editors who have been sanctioned, whether by the Arbitration Committee or the community, for improper conduct are expected to avoid conduct which is below Wikipedia's expectations. Failure to demonstrate appropriate conduct may result in the editor being subject to increasingly severe sanctions. -2017-09

Editors who have been sanctioned or warned, whether by the Arbitration Committee or the community, for improper conduct are expected to avoid conduct which is inconsistent with Wikipedia's expectations. Repeated failure to demonstrate appropriate conduct may result in the editor being subject to increasingly severe sanctions. -2018-03

Subsequent attempts at discussion of a topic previously settled by community discussion are often initiated by those not initially achieving their desired outcome. Those satisfied with the previous outcome are less likely to re-engage in subsequent discussions, creating an inappropriate bias toward change in subsequent discussions of the topic. -2011-11

Users who have been sanctioned or legitimately criticized for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating that behavior in their continued participation in the project. Similarly, a user who has promised to discontinue a certain type of problematic behavior on-wiki must make every effort to avoid returning to that pattern of behavior. Failure or inability to do so may necessitate imposing further restrictions or sanctions, or in the most serious cases, loss of the privilege of participating in the project. -2009-07

Occasional errors or deviation from community expectations regarding standards of behaviour or in the interpretation or application of policy are to be expected, and are not incompatible with participation in the project provided that the editor is willing to accept community feedback when the situation arises, and modify their conduct accordingly. However, serious or repeated breaches or an unwillingness to accept feedback from the community (Wikipedia:I didn't hear that) may be grounds for sanction. In cases of serious or repeated misconduct by a user with advanced permissions, the tools may be removed, whether or not the misconduct involved direct abuse of the permissions. -2015-08

An editor who isharassed and attacked by others – or who genuinely perceives themselves to be harassed or attacked – whether on Wikipedia or off, should not see that harassment as an excuse for fighting back and attacking those who are criticising them. Editors should report on-wiki harassment to administrators and off-wiki harassment by email to the Arbitration Committee. Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with harassed editors who have themselves breached acceptable standards. -2018-12

An editor who is harassed and attacked by others – or who genuinely perceives himself or herself to have been harassed or attacked—whether on Wikipedia or off—should not see that harassment as an excuse for violating Wikipedia policy. Editors should report on-wiki harassment to administrators and off-wiki harassment by email to the Arbitration Committee and/or to the Wikimedia Foundation Office. Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with harassed editors who have themselves breached acceptable standards, especially where the harassment has been protracted or severe. -2015-07

An editor who is harassed and attacked by others, or who genuinely perceives themself to have been harassed or attacked—whether on Wikipedia or off—should not see that harassment as an excuse for violating Wikipedia policy. Editors should report on-wiki harassment to administrators and off-wiki harassment by email to the Arbitration Committee and/or to the Wikimedia Foundation Office. Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with harassed editors who have themselves breached acceptable standards, especially where the harassment has been protracted or severe. -2023-05

Users who give up their administrator (or other) permissions and later request the return of those permissions may have them restored upon request, provided they did not give them up under circumstances of controversy. Users who give up permissions under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels (such as a request for adminship) to regain them. Determining whether an administrator resigned under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, in the discretion of the bureaucrats. However, an administrator who requests desysopping while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against him or her will be deemed to have left under circumstances of controversy, unless the Arbitration Committee decides otherwise, for purposes of applying this rule. (RfAr:MZMcBride April 2009) -2010-02

Users who give up their administrator (or other) permissions and later return and request them back may have them returned 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. This is generally to be left up to bureaucrats' discretion, but an administrator who requests removal of permissions while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against him or her will generally be deemed to have resigned under controversial circumstances unless otherwise noted. -2012-07

Administrators are expected to have good judgment, and are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators. Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and, if the reversal is likely to be objected to, some kind of courtesy discussion. -2012-07

In a non-emergency situation, administrators are expected to refrain from undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute by means of discussion. -2018-12

As stated in§1.1 of the arbitration policy, the Arbitration Committee is responsible for "hear[ing] appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users", including users subject tosanctions imposed by the community.

In certain circumstances, the Committee may overturn or reduce a sanction imposed by the community. Such circumstances include, but are not limited to, cases where (1) some aspect of the community discussion was procedurally unfair, (2) the sanction imposed appears to be significantly excessive or overbroad, (3) circumstances have changed significantly since the community sanction was imposed, or (4) non-public information that should not be addressed on-wiki, such as personal information or checkuser data, is relevant to the decision. -2012-02

Reviewing the edits of an editor where there are concerns may be necessary, but if not carried out in the proper manner may be perceived as a form of harassment. Relevant factors include whether an editor's contributions are viewed as problematic by multiple other editors or the community at large; whether the concerns are raised appropriately and clearly on talk pages or noticeboards; and ultimately, whether the concerns raised reasonably appear to be motivated by good-faith, substantiated concerns about the quality of the encyclopedia, rather than personal animus against a particular editor. When an editor contributes only in a narrow topic area, it may not be possible to distinguish between a review of that topic area, and a review of that editor's contributions. -2013-11,2014-12

Auser-conduct request for comment ("RfC/U") represents a forum in which editors may raise concerns about the conduct of a fellow editor or administrator. Although this procedure can be misused, when utilized in good faith, it presents an editor with the opportunity to learn that concerns exist about his or her conduct, respond to the concerns, and if appropriate adjust his or her conduct. RfCs should not be used abusively, nor should the concerns raised in an RfC be ignored. -2012-07

Although administrators do not need explicit consensus to enforce arbitration decisions and can always act unilaterally, when the case is not clear-cut they are encouraged, before acting, to seek input from their colleagues at arbitration enforcement. In addition, when a consensus of uninvolved administrators is emerging in a discussion, administrators willing to overrule their colleagues should act with caution and must explain their reasons on request. Administrators overruling their colleagues without good cause may be directed to refrain from further participation in arbitration enforcement. -2015-08

It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors. -2009-07,2010-02,2010-10,2011-02,2011-11,2014-04,2014-04,2015-06,2015-11,2015-11,2018-08,2019-12,2020-01,2020-03,2020-06

The role of the committee is to act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve (§ Arbitration Policy). Content areas the committee has previously ruled on are often thereafter subject to ongoing special enforcement arrangements, such asdiscretionary sanctions. From time to time the committee may revisit these enforcement systems – in order to, for example, clarify ambiguities or to evaluate whether they remain necessary. -2015-08

The role of the committee is to act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. Content areas the committee has previously ruled on are often thereafter subject to ongoing special enforcement arrangements, such asdiscretionary sanctions. From time to time the committee may revisit these enforcement systems – in order to, for example, clarify ambiguities or to evaluate whether they remain necessary. -2015-12

It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors. However, an editor's continuing to edit or threaten to edit against a clear consensus—after appropriate discussion, warnings, and the use of applicable dispute resolution methods—may cross the line intodisruptive editing that constitutes a conduct (rather than exclusively content) issue and may be grounds for sanctions. -2011-04

It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to resolve good-faith editorial disputes among editors. The Committee's role does extend to evaluating allegedly improper user conduct, which in serious cases may include persistent non-neutral editing or BLP violations, or a pattern of making unsupported allegations and personal attacks. In general, the Committee requires that earlier methods of dispute resolution have been attempted before a dispute will be accepted for arbitration. -2011-09

Although the Arbitration Committee can be useful in disputes about content by clarifying the core issues and providing for a resolution, its role is not to adjudicate such disputes. -2012-02

It is not the Arbitration Committee's role to settle good-faith content disputes among editors. -2013-12

Wikipedia makes use of this committee to handle"removal of administrative tools" and"serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve" (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy § Scope and responsibilities). -2019-02

The role of the committee is to act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. Content areas the committee has previously ruled on are sometimes designated ascontentious topics or subject to ongoing special restrictions. As necessary, the Committee may revisit previous decisions and associated enforcement systems in order to review their effectiveness or necessity. –2023-03

The role of the committee is to act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve (§ Arbitration Policy). From time to time the committee may revisit previous cases to review new allegations of editor misconduct and to examine the effectiveness of enforcement systems. It is not the purpose of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes nor to adjudicate outside criticism. -2023-05

It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to rule on good-faith content disputes between editors. -2011-03

Standard rollback is a fast way of undoing problematic edits, but it has the disadvantage that only a generic edit summary is generated, with no explanation of the reason for the change. For this reason, it is considered inappropriate to use it in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected.One of the ways in which it may be correctly used is to revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear. Editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed. Since rollback is part of the core administrator tools, an admin could be stripped of their administrative privileges entirely to remove those tools. –2023-07

In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed. -2012-02,2013-11,2015-11,2016-10,2020-06

In deciding what sanctions to impose against a user, the Arbitration Committee will consider their overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of their participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but will be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed. -2015-12

In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioural history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehaviour or questionable judgement in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed. -2018-01

In deciding what sanctions to impose against an editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed. -2014-12

In deciding what sanctions to impose against an editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of their participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed. -2020-04

The role of the committee is to act as a final binding decision-maker for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. Content areas the committee has previously ruled on are sometimes designated ascontentious topics or subject to ongoing special restrictions. As necessary, the Committee may revisit previous decisions and associated enforcement systems in order to review their effectiveness or necessity. -2025-01

Improving an article on Wikipedia is always highly encouraged. The userspace exists so that users can work on an article that is not yet ready for publishing. Making large changes to current articles from the userspace without consensus, especially where the article is under a dispute or scrutiny, can be disruptive. -2015-11

Articles containing units of scientific measurement should generally use the units and notations that are used most often by contemporaryreliable sources within the field. Exceptions may be made for valid reasons, such as in historical contexts, or in articles concerning the units of measurement themselves. -2011-03

Thepolicy on biographies of living persons requires that all material concerning living persons in Wikipedia adhere strictly to Wikipedia's three core content policies (verifiability,neutrality, andavoidance of original research).

The policy is written in a deliberately broad fashion, and its application is not limited to unsourced or poorly sourced material. Any material about a living person that failsany of the three core content policies is non-compliant with the policy and is subject to removal as described therein. -2013-10

Apart from the standard exceptions to limited bans, all restrictions apply to every edit made to the English language Wikipedia, explicitly including the ones made to one's own talk page or to Jimbo Wales' talk page. -2015-12

It is within thescope of the Arbitration Committee to resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons. -2018-07

Editors who have publicly tied their Wikipedia usernames to other online or offline activities may become subject to on-wiki scrutiny of their off-wiki behavior that would impact adversely on the English Wikipedia. -2018-07

Should a content discussion reach an impasse, wider input from previously uninvolved editors should be sought. Requests for such input should be made with neutral wording and through the processes designed to solicit community feedback on content issues, which may include arequest for a third opinion,request for comment, or posting to thedispute resolution noticeboard. Input provided through one of these processes should be received appreciatively and given due consideration in the consensus-seeking process. -2014-04,2014-04

Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding article content apply to all pages of the encyclopedia. No topics are placed off limits, and "political correctness" is not required as a condition of editing. Nevertheless, certain subject-matters—such as articles discussing specific racial, religious, and ethnic groups, and the members of these groups identified as such—are by their nature more sensitive than others. It is especially important that editors working in these areas adhere to site policies and guidelines and to good encyclopedic practices. These include neutral editing as well as scrupulous sourcing, especially of controversial or disputed claims. -2011-04

Thepolicy on biographies of living persons requires that editors act with a high degree of sensitivity and consider the possibility of harm to the subject when adding information about a living person to any Wikipedia page. This requirement is consistent with theWikimedia Foundation's guidance that human dignity be taken into account when adding information about living persons to Wikimedia projects. -2013-10

Due to the risk of harming current or past contributors in real life, users must be careful when accusing other editors of potentially damaging behavior. For example, claims of stalking, sexual harassment, or racism could harm an editor's job prospects or personal life, especially when usernames are closely linked to an individual's real name. These types of comments are absolutelynever acceptable without indisputable evidence. "Serious accusations require serious evidence" such as "diffs and links presented on wiki." In the context of arbitration, such serious allegations should not be posted publicly in any case. Participants should instead useemail or off-wiki communication when discussing the [serious accusation] with the Arbitration Committee. -2010-02

Neither the community nor the committee is well-equipped to deal with threats to health and safety, whether made on- or off-wiki. On-wiki steps are usually limited to reverting, page protection, and blocking. Additionally, the Wikimedia Foundation have issuedguidelines for responding to threats of harm and there are links at"How to deal with harassment". Editors can also notify their local law enforcement. -2015-07

Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that theirfocus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project. -2009-09,2010-08

Single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project. -2011-11,2014-12

Single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda. In particular, they should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project. -2015-01

Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that theirfocus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is incompatible with the goals of this project. -2015-11,2015-11

Editors should contribute from a neutral point of view.Single-purpose accounts can create the impression that an editor is following their own agenda with a non-neutral focus on a single topic. Editors operating such an account should take care to ensure that their edits are compatible with the project's broader goal of writing an encyclopaedia. -2019-12

If a dispute becomes protracted or the subject of extensive or heated discussion, the views and comments of uninvolved contributors should be sought. Insulating a content dispute for long periods can lead to the disputants become entrenched, and so unresolvable questions of content should be referred at the first opportunity to the community at large—whether in aRequest for Comment,Third Opinion, or other suitable mechanism for inviting comment from a new perspective. -2012-02,2014-07,2019-07

Thegeneral rule is one editor, one account, though there are several legitimate uses of an alternate account. The creation or use of an additional account to conceal an editing history, to evade a block or a site ban, or to deceive the community, is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts that are not publicly disclosed are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. -2015-06,2015-11,2019-12

Thegeneral rule is one editor, one account. The creation or use of an additional account or IP address to conceal an editing history, to evade a block or a site ban, or to deceive the community, is prohibited. -2015-07

By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the material referenced to that source fairly and accurately reflects the intent of the original source. Failure to accurately reflect sources, whether by accident or design, is a serious matter as it undermines the integrity of the encyclopedia. An editor who repeatedly or intentionallyfails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research may be sanctioned. Merely because disruption involves sources does not make said disruption a "content issue" outside of administrative reach. -2023-05

Theverifiability policy is at the heart of one of thefive pillars of Wikipedia and must be adhered to, through the use ofreliable sources. Different types of sources (e.g. academic sources and news sources), as well as individual sources, need to be evaluated on their own merits. Differentiation between sources that meet the standard (e.g. different academic viewpoints, all of which are peer reviewed) is a matter for consensus among editors. When there is disagreement or uncertainty about the reliability of particular sources, editors are encouraged to use thereliable sources noticeboard to broaden the discussion. -2010-10

The verifiability policy is at the heart of one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and must be adhered to, through the use of reliable sources. Different types of sources (e.g. academic sources and news sources), as well as individual sources, need to be evaluated on their own merits. Differentiation between sources that meet the standard (e.g. different academic viewpoints, all of which are peer reviewed) is a matter for consensus among editors. When there is disagreement or uncertainty about the reliability of particular sources, editors are encouraged to seek broader input, for example by turning to thereliable sources noticeboard. -2013-06

Wikipedia articles rely mainly on reliable mainstreamsecondary sources as these provide the requisite analysis, interpretation and context. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most highly valued sources and are usually the most reliable.Self-published works, whether by an individual or an organisation, may only be used in limited circumstances and with extreme care. Primary sources may be used to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects of these primary sources. In the event of sourcing disputes, talk page discussion should be used to discuss the dispute and seek a resolution. If discussion there does not resolve the dispute, theReliable sources or Content Noticeboard should be used. -2009-10

Wikipedia articles rely mainly on reliable mainstreamsecondary sources as these provide the requisite analysis, interpretation and context. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most highly valued sources and are usually the most reliable.Self-published works, whether by an individual or an organisation, may only be used in limited circumstances and with extreme care. Primary sources may be used to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects of these primary sources. In the event of sourcing disputes, talk page discussion should be used to discuss the dispute and seek a resolution. If discussion there does not resolve the dispute, thereliable sources ordispute resolution noticeboards should be used. -2021-02

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (the "BLP policy") is a fundamental policy requiring, among other things, that all biographical articles must be kept free of unsourced negative or controversial content, unsupported rumors and gossip, defamatory material,undue weight given to minor incidents or to matters irrelevant to the subject's notability, and unwarranted violations of personal privacy. -2011-09,2014-04,2022-03

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users and to approach disputes in a constructive fashion, with the aim of reaching a good-faith solution. Personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, edit-warring and gaming the system, are prohibited, as is the use of the site to pursue feuds and quarrels. Editors should also avoid accusing others of misconduct when this is done repeatedly or without simultaneously providing evidence or for the purpose of gaining an advantage in a content dispute.Editors who repeatedly violate these standards of conduct may be sanctioned. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of thedispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism across multiple forums. -2015-03

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users and to approach disputes in a constructive fashion, with the aim of reaching a good-faith solution. Personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, edit-warring and gaming the system, are prohibited, as is the use of the site to pursue feuds and quarrels. Editors should also avoid accusing others of misconduct when this is done repeatedly or without simultaneously providing evidence or for the purpose of gaining an advantage in a content dispute.Editors who repeatedly violate these standards of conduct may be sanctioned. -2015-05

Editors will sometimes make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgement, andignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy. Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors. -2015-05

Editors will sometimes make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgment, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, positive contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy. Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors. -2015-12

Wikipedia:Administrators is the policy enumerating the rules that administrators ought to follow when using their tools. Among these are the following:

1. Accountability, under which administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.
2. Wheel war, under which administrators are expected not to repeat a reversed administrative action when they know that another administrator opposes it, unless a clear community consensus decision has subsequently overruled the other administrator's opposition.
3. Involved administrators, under which editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. -2013-10

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such aspersonal attacks,incivility,harassment,disruptive point-making, andgaming the system, is prohibited. Additionally, editors should presume that other editors, including those who disagree with them, are acting in good faith toward the betterment of the project, at least until strong evidence emerges to the contrary. Even when an editor becomes convinced that another editor is not acting in good faith, and has a reasonable basis for that belief, the editor should attempt to remedy the problem without resorting to inappropriate conduct of his or her own. -2014-04,2014-12,2015-12,2018-03 (as "Standards of editor behaviour"),2020-04,2023-03

Tag teams work in unison to push aparticular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view,verifiability, andno original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as thethree revert rule or to violate behavioural norms byedit warring; or to attempt to exertownership over articles; or otherwise to preventconsensus prevailing – is prohibited. -2010-08

The purpose of a Wikipediatalk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views orsoapboxing. -2009-09

The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject, nor for proposing unpublished solutions, forwarding original ideas, redefining terms, and so forth (seeWikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought). Although more general discussion may be permissible in some circumstances, it will not be tolerated when it becomes tendentious, overwhelms the page, impedes productive work, or is otherwise disruptive. -2011-11

The purpose of a talk page is to provide a location for editors to discuss changes to the associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Editors should aim to use talk pages effectively and must not misuse them through practices such as excessive repetition, monopolization, irrelevancy, advocacy, misrepresentation of others' comments, or personal attacks. -2013-06

Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained point-of-view editing may be banned from the affected articles, or in extreme cases from the site. -2013-06

Users whodisrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained attacks on other editors or inflammatory comments may be banned from the affected articles. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site. -2011-03

Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing and edit-warring may be banned from the affected articles, or in extreme cases from the site, either by community consensus or by the Arbitration Committee. -2015-11,2019-12

Users whodisrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive editing that frustrates proper editorial processes or discussions may be banned from the affected articles. In extreme cases, they may be banned from the site. -2020-06

Users whodisrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from editing these articles. In extreme cases, they may be banned from the site. -2021-02,2023-03,2023-12

Administrators areaccountable for their actions involving administrative tools. Discussion and criticism of the merits of administrative actions are acceptable within the bounds ofavoiding personal attacks andcivility. Such discussionscan be closed whenconsensus has been reached, and/or when "the discussion is stable" or "further contributions are unlikely to be helpful", but "not too soon" or "not too late". -2019-02

The Committee rules on conduct, not content. It does not dictate the content of any article. -2025-01

Thebiographies of living persons policy applies to all references to living persons throughout Wikipedia, including the titles of articles and pages and all other portions of any page. -2013-10

Style guides are used as a means of creating a consistent end result. They do not affect content, but rather how that content is presented. The English Wikipedia'sManual of Style (MoS) is aguideline, or a set of "best practices" supported by consensus. The MoS is not a collection of hard rules. -2012-03

Wikipedia works by buildingconsensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—anddispute resolution. Sustained editorial conflict oredit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes. -2013-12

Repeatedly encountering bludgeoning, battleground tactics, and a lack of support fromdispute resolution processes can lead to editors leaving the topic area or ceasing to productively engage in the consensus-building process, such as by adopting battleground tactics themselves or ceasing to file misconduct reports. -2023-05

While many articles deal solely with scientific content or with philosophical/religious content, many public policy topics, including abortion, involve both descriptions of scientifically observable facts and religious or philosophical reactions to those observable findings. In order for a topic to be covered in an encyclopedic fashion, each sort of source must be used appropriately in such an article. Care must be taken with weighting and appropriate use of sources, such as avoidingundue prominence in the lead section or elsewhere. -2011-11

Off-wiki training can help new editors by providing support and guidance to complement what's available onwiki. However, when training is incorrect or insufficient, it can bring those trained into conflict with the community by fostering false confidence, misplaced expectations, and misunderstandings of how Wikipedia works. -2022-03

Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, an importantguideline, reminds us that "Wikipedia articles are improved through the hard work of both regular editors and newcomers. Remember: all of us were new editors at Wikipedia once.... New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is very unlikely for a newcomer to be completely familiar with Wikipedia's markup language and its myriad of policies, guidelines, and community standards when they start editing...." -2019-02

Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, an importantguideline, reminds us that "Wikipedia articles are improved through the hard work of both regular editors and newcomers. Remember: all of us were new editors at Wikipedia once.... New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is very unlikely for a newcomer to be completely familiar with Wikipedia's markup language and its myriad of policies, guidelines, and community standards when they start editing...". -2020-02

Wikipedia articles are improved through the hard work of both regular editors and newcomers; every new editor is a potential long-term contributor. All editors should thereforeassume good faith when dealing with new editors and, if it is necessary to comment on problematic actions, do so in a clear and polite manner.Treating newcomers with hostility can alienate a potential contributor and is therefore detrimental to the project as a whole. -2020-02

Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought, while also recognizing significant alternate viewpoints. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudo-scientific or non-scientific viewpoints. -2011-02

Conflicts or outside interests that may affect an editor's neutrality may be either positive or negative toward the subject of an article. Historically, Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guideline has been invoked (and in some instances, has been overzealously orcounterproductively invoked) most often against positive conflicts of interest, such as where an article is edited by its subject or someone closely associated with the subject. However, it can be at least as damaging where an article is edited primarily by persons who are avowed rivals or enemies of the subject, or who are involved in disputes with the subject originating outside Wikipedia. Thus, editors who have a strongly negative view regarding the subject of an article, just like editors with a strongly positive view of the subject, should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally if they choose to edit it at all. -2011-09

In describingpoints of view on a subject, articles should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not accord themundue weight. Thus, views held by a relatively small proportion of commentators or scholars should not be overstated, but similarly, views held by a relatively large proportion thereof should not be understated. -2010-10

Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended. SeeWikipedia:Blocking policy. –2022-11

TheUniversal Code of Conduct (UCoC) defines a minimum set of guidelines of expected and unacceptable behaviour. The English Wikipedia has developed policies and guidelines (PAG) that add to this minimum that take account of local and cultural context, maintaining the UCoC criteria as a minimum standard and, in many PAGs, going beyond those minimums. Therefore, the Arbitration Committee, as an identified high-level decision making body under theUCoC enforcement guidelines, may choose to evaluate compliance with English Wikipedia PAG, while still respecting the UCoC. -2023-05

Administrative tools must not be used to further an administrator's own position in a content or interpersonal dispute. -2012-02

At the time of the events underlying this case, English Wikipedia policies governingadministrators did not expressly discuss whether administrators may utilize their administrator tools as part of a fully disclosed paid editing assignment. Arequest for comment is currently underway in which the community is discussing this issue. -2018-01

An administrator must not use his or her administrator tools to further the administrator’s position in a dispute. -2009-09

The purpose of a Wikipediatalk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject, nor for proposing unpublished solutions, forwarding original ideas, redefining terms, or so forth (seeWikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought). Although more general discussion may be permissible in some circumstances, it will not be tolerated when it becomestendentious, overwhelms the page, impedes productive work, or is otherwisedisruptive. -2011-03

The CheckUser tool must be used in ways which are, and appear to be, neutral and responsible. Use of the CheckUser tool in situations where there is an apparent conflict of interest or where the CheckUser is unable to provide adequate justification for checks they have carried out, do not meet these requirements. –2022-11

Wikipedia's code of conduct, which outlines some of Wikipedia's expected standards of behavior and decorum, is one of thefive pillars of Wikipedia that all editors are expected to follow. Even in difficult situations, Wikipedia editors are expected to adopt a constructive and collaborative outlook, behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors, and avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard.Uncivil, unseemly, or disruptive conduct, including but not limited to lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, offensive commentary (including rude, offensive, derogatory, and insulting terms in any language),personal attacks, unjustified failure toassume good faith,harassment,edit-warring,disruptive point-making, andgaming the system, are all unacceptable as they are inconsistent with Wikipedia's expected standards of behavior and decorum. Users should not respond to such misconduct in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in theappropriate forums. -2010-10

Wikipedia's code of conduct, which outlines some of Wikipedia's expected standards of behavior and decorum, is one of thefive pillars of Wikipedia that all editors should adhere to. Even in difficult situations, Wikipedia editors are expected to project a constructive and collaborative outlook, behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors, and avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard.Uncivil, unseemly or disruptive conduct, including, but not limited to, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, offensive commentary (including rude, offensive, derogatory, and insulting terms in any language),personal attacks, failure toassume good faith,harassment,edit-warring,disruptive point-making andgaming the system, are all prohibited as they are inconsistent with Wikipedia's expected standards of behavior and decorum. Users should not respond to such misconduct in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in theappropriate forums. -2010-03

Editors on the English Wikipedia are expected to abide by the site's policies and guidelines. When an editor seriously or repeatedly violates these expectations, sanctions may be imposed, in accordance with policy, by an uninvolved administrator, by community consensus after discussion on a noticeboard, or by the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are also expected to abide by the applicable policies and guidelines and to exercise good judgement, especially in connection with major administrator actions such as blocking a good-faith editor, and for failure to do so may be subject to sanctions including desysopping by the Committee. -2019-09

Wikipedia's code of conduct, which outlines some of Wikipedia's expected standards of behavior and decorum, is one of thefive pillars of Wikipedia that all editors should adhere to. Even in difficult situations, Wikipedia editors are expected to: project a constructive and collaborative outlook, behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors, and avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard.Uncivil, unseemly or disruptive conduct, including, but not limited to, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, offensive commentary (including rude, offensive, derogatory, and insulting terms in any language),personal attacks, failure toassume good faith,harassment,edit-warring,disruptive point-making andgaming the system, are all prohibited as they are inconsistent with Wikipedia's expected standards of behavior and decorum. Users should not respond to such misconduct in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in theappropriate forums. -2009-12

While it is acceptable and sometimes necessary for an editor to review, comment and correct appropriately on the contributions of another editor that are problematic, the practice known as "wikihounding" or "wikistalking" is considered as a form of harassment and is prohibited by policy. The line between legitimate and improper behavior in this area is not always clearly defined. Relevant factors include whether or not there was consensus from multiple editors on the concerns raised, and whether or not the editor have raised these concerns on talk pages, noticeboards or other appropriate venues. Most importantly, whether or not the editor was motivated by good faith concerns about the quality of the topic area, instead of being motivated by personal hostility toward one editor. -2018-08

Users are responsible and accountable for all their edits or actions, whether they are assisted byuser scripts or not. Users are expected to take appropriate additional care when contributing with the assistance of a user script. -2019-02

Considerable leeway is given to users on what they allow in their ownuser space, including their personal talk page. -2014-10

Policy definesVandalism as … " any addition, removal, or change of content made in adeliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". It further states: "Vandalism cannot andwill not be tolerated". Editors who facilitate vandalism may be sanctioned even if they do not directly engage in acts of vandalism. -2010-02

On Wikipedia,vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat theproject's purpose. Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Even factually correct material may not belong on Wikipedia, and removing such content when it is inconsistent withWikipedia's content policies is not vandalism. –2023-07

All material inWikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include aninline citation that directly supports the material. A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if that information isdirectly present in the source, so that using this source to support this material is not a violation ofWikipedia:No original research. -2019-07

All material added to Wikipedia articles must beverifiable, that is, it must be capable of being verified by reference to areliable source. Editors adding material are not generally required tocite sources, however they should do so when the material is controversial or likely to be challenged, andmust do so when the material has actually been challenged or when the material incorporates a direct quotation. Material that is not cited to a reliable source is liable to be challenged and ultimately removed by other editors, if they are unable to verify it.

Theciting sources guideline outlines Wikipedia best practice on citing sources. -2009-07

Claims on the English Wikipedia mustverifiably come from a reliable source, and the ability for editors to verify claims is important for resolving factual disputes. Citations tonon-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance. The use of foreign language sources should be done with care, especially in contentious topics, because it can significantly reduce the number of editors able to verify or help resolve disputes. -2023-05

Editors will sometimes make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgment, andignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy, not even from highly experienced, knowledgeable editors who produce quality content. All editors should work within Wikipedia's collaborative consensus environment and if a dispute arises, avoidpersonal attacks andassumptions of bad faith and recognize that Wikipedia is a communal endeavor, with communal routes to dispute resolution. -2009-12,2010-03

Editors will sometimes make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgement, andignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy. -2015-11

In a non-emergency situation, administrators are expected to refrain from undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute by means of discussion with the initiating administrator, even in the face of an ongoing community discussion. In a situation where there is an ongoing community discussion, administrators should refrain from undoing another administrator's actions until consensus has become clear. -2012-02,2022-11

Excessive formalistic and legalistic argument over policies andstonewalling, which ignores the spirit of those policies and serves to obstruct consensus-building processes or cover up an agenda of POV-pushing, is harmful to the project and may be met with sanctions. -2020-01

Files hosted on Wikipedia's sister-site,Wikimedia Commons and used on the English Language Wikipedia must still comply with all relevant policies, including that of copyright. Users must take care to properly license such files on Commons before adding them to the English language Wikipedia. Failure to do so can lead to community or Arbitration Committee sanctions. -2012-07

The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), sometimes referred to as the "Office," is the legal owner of the English Wikipedia website and infrastructure. Working through professional staff, many of whom also have experience as volunteer editors and community members, the Office plays an important and necessary role in administering the site. Historically, however, the Office has not intervened directly in day-to-day English Wikipedia project governance, and in particular has not handled user-conduct complaints involving on-wiki conduct, except in narrow circumstances that are unsuited for resolution by community volunteers. In the past, the Arbitration Committee has expressly asked that the Office handle certain narrow categories of misconduct complaints, but not that it take on a broader supervisory role regarding on-wiki day-to-day user or administrator conduct. -2019-09

Wikipedia isnot a battleground. Consequently, it is a not a venue for the furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. -2009-12,2010-03,2013-08

Wikipedia isnot a battleground. It is not acceptable to further off-wiki disputes on this project. -2010-10

Wikipedia isnot a place to hold grudges or insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Editors should approach issues intelligently and engage in polite discussion. Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other when they interact on Wikipedia, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimise the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them.Interaction bans may used to force editors to do so. -2016-06

Wikipedia isnot a place to hold grudges or insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Editors should approach issues intelligently and engage in polite discussion. Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other when they interact on Wikipedia, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimise the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them.Interaction bans may be used to force editors to do so. -2020-01,2020-06

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and its internal administrative and dispute-resolution processes are not a legal system. Although in most cases disruptive conduct will be in violation of one or more policies, it is not necessary for a specific policy to be violated in order for an editor's conduct to be disruptive or unconducive to the encyclopaedia. Policy is intended to be a description of practice rather than an exhaustive list of rules and as such therecannot (and in some casesshould not) be a policy against every form of disruptive editing. Administrators must use a combination of policy and common sense in order to effectively discharge their duties. -2015-06

Wikipedia isnot a general discussion forum or a debate club. -2025-01

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for propaganda or activist editing, including, but not limited to, creating articles to promote a particular point of view on a certain topic. -2009-10

A Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. A ban may be temporary and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially permanent. When enacting an editing restriction that includes a ban on an editor, administrators should take reasonable steps to ensure that the editor is notified of the particulars of the ban and its duration. Editors that are ‘‘page or’’ topic banned from a section of Wikipedia are expected to cease contributing to that area. User accountblocks may be used to enforce violation of ‘‘page or’’ topic bans. Any user can bring an administrator action up for review in the relevant noticeboard. The community can, among other things, lift the block/ban, endorse it or extend it in time and/or scope. -2009-09

• Wikipedia:Casting aspersions – findings of the Arbitration Committee as they relate to a particular sort ofcivility problem
• Wikipedia:Fait accompli – Arbitration Committee ruling against abusing a large number of edits to exhaust the ability of other editors to object to changes

• Wikipedia information pages
• Wikipedia arbitration

• Noindexed pages