User:Tompw/sandbox4
Trains
[edit]Railways in Birmingham |
|---|
Fatal train collisions in the UK not preventable by ATP
[edit]List of British rail accidents - All done back to 1970
| What | When | Deaths | Cause |
|---|---|---|---|
| Selby / Great Heck | 28 February 2001 | 10 killed, 80+ injured | Land Rover ran down embankment, derailing passenger train into path of frieght train |
| Stafford rail crash (1996) | 8 March 1996 | 1 killed, 35 injured | Siezed bearing on tanker derails it into path of train coming other way |
| Ais Gill rail crash (1995) | 31 January 1995 | 1 killed, 30 injured | Landslide derails train into path of oncoming train |
| Morpeth (1992) | 13 November 1992 | 1 killed | Light engine's driver misunderstands a signalman during degraded working and hits train in rear |
| Clapham Junction | 12 December 1988 | 35 killed, 100+ injured | Faulty installation of signalling causes rear-end collision. Another train thne runs into wreckage |
| Colwich | 19 September 1986 | 1 killed, 60 injured | Collision at crossing: driver confused by recent change in meaning of some signals |
| Seer Green | 11 December 1981 | 4 killed, 5 injured | Signalman erroronously gives permission for train past to procede past red light, causing rear-end collision |
ArbCom table
[edit]| # | Title | Date | Number | Heading | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lir | 23-Aug-04 | 1 | Creation of user accounts | A Wikipedia user may create an account under an alias. A few additional accounts may also be created. |
| 2 | Lir | 23-Aug-04 | 2 | Policy proposals | Any Wikipedia user may create a page such as Wikipedia:Sysop Accountability Policy proposing a change in Wikipedia policy requesting discussion and feedback from other users. |
| 3 | Lir | 23-Aug-04 | 3 | Editing disputes | The Wiki software and Wikipedia policy anticipates that disputes may arise regarding the wording and content of Wikipedia articles. Should disputes arise editors are expected to engage in research, discussion with other users, and make reasonable compromises regarding the wording and content of Wikipedia articles. |
| 4 | Lir | 23-Aug-04 | 4 | Multiple accounts | Creation by a Wikipedia user of more than a few accounts is not acceptable and may be grounds for negative sanctions. See Mailing list comment by Jimbo Wales |
| 5 | Lir | 23-Aug-04 | 5 | Personal attacks | Making personal attacks on other users is not permitted. |
| 6 | Lir | 23-Aug-04 | 6 | Acting as another user | A Wikipedia user is not permitted to portray themselves as another user in editing any page, especially not during a vote. |
| 7 | Lir | 23-Aug-04 | 7 | Three revert rule | A Wikipedia user may revert an article a maximum of 3 times during any 24 hour period |
| 8 | Lir | 23-Aug-04 | 8 | Use of sockpuppets to evade the three revert rule | While a user may have more than one account and edit without logging in they may not use a combination of their accounts to evade the three revert rule. |
| 9 | Lir | 23-Aug-04 | 9 | No ""trolling"" or disruptive behaviour | The community has made it abundantly clear, over the course of many discussions that they do not feel it is appropriate to ""troll"" on Wikipedia, or to engage in disruptive behaviour. While there is some dissent over method of enforcement, and over whether individual Wikipedians are or are not engaging in ""trolling"", there is little or no dissent over this underlying principle. |
| 10 | Mr-Natural-Health | 27-Aug-04 | 1 | Wikiquette | Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile working environment. All users are instructed to refrain from this activity. Admins are instructed to use good judgement while enforcing this policy. All users are encouraged to remove personal attacks on sight. |
| 11 | User:Guanaco versus User:Lir | 30-Aug-04 | 1 | Administrators | Wikipedia administrators are Wikipedia users who on the basis of trustworthiness have been granted the power to execute certain commands which ordinary users can not execute. This includes the power to block other users or IP addresses provided that Wikipedia:Blocking policy is followed. Wikipedia:Administrators |
| 12 | User:Guanaco versus User:Lir | 30-Aug-04 | 2 | Blocking policy | Wikipedia:Blocking policy provides that users may be blocked for repeated vandalism but not under current policy for disruptive editing although such a policy is proposed. Nor may users be blocked for unpopular opinions. Editing under multiple accounts when their ""main"" account is not blocked is not grounds for blocking. |
| 13 | Lyndon LaRouche | 13-Sep-04 | 1 | No original research | Wikipedia does not provide a forum for original research, see Wikipedia:No original research |
| 14 | Lyndon LaRouche | 13-Sep-04 | 2 | What Wikipedia is not | Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy or propaganda, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which states that Wikipedia articles are not to used for ""Propaganda or advocacy of any kind"". |
| 15 | Lyndon LaRouche | 13-Sep-04 | 3 | Personal attacks | Wikipedia does not allow personal attacks. |
| 16 | Lyndon LaRouche | 13-Sep-04 | 4 | Personal attacks (arbitration) | Personal attacks which occur during the course of arbitration either on the arbitration pages or on the talk pages of the arbitrators fall within the jurisdiction of the arbitrators. |
| 17 | Lyndon LaRouche | 13-Sep-04 | 5 | Personal attacks (truth) | Personal attacks are not excused or justified by offers of demonstration of their truth. |
| 18 | Kenneth Alan | 01-Oct-04 | 1 | No personal attacks | Wikipedia does not allow personal attacks. (See Wikipedia:No personal attacks.) |
| 19 | Kenneth Alan | 01-Oct-04 | 2 | NPOV | All contributions should be written from the NPOV. (See Wikipedia:NPOV.) |
| 20 | Kenneth Alan | 01-Oct-04 | 3 | Civility | Users are expected to work with other Wikipedians in a mature fashion. (See Wikipedia:Civility.) |
| 21 | Kenneth Alan | 01-Oct-04 | 4 | No original research | Wikipedia is not a vehicle for original research. (See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, expounded in Wikipedia:No original research.) |
| 22 | Kenneth Alan | 01-Oct-04 | 5 | Banning | Wikipedia users who demonstrate over a period of time that they are unable or unwilling to conform to Wikipedia policy may be banned. |
| 23 | RK | 08-Oct-04 | 1 | No personal attacks | Wikipedia does not allow personal attacks. (See Wikipedia:No personal attacks.) |
| 24 | RK | 08-Oct-04 | 2 | NPOV | All contributions should be written from the NPOV. (See Wikipedia:NPOV.) |
| 25 | RK | 08-Oct-04 | 3 | Political advocacy and propaganda | Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy or propaganda, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which states that Wikipedia articles are not to used for ""Propaganda or advocacy of any kind"". |
| 26 | RK | 08-Oct-04 | 4 | Civility | Users are expected to work with other Wikipedians in a mature fashion. (See Wikipedia:Civility.) |
| 27 | RK | 08-Oct-04 | 5 | No legal threats | Legal threats are anti-social, and may be grounds for banning. (See Wikipedia:No legal threats.) |
| 28 | Jimmyvanthach | 12-Nov-04 | 1 | Political advocacy and propaganda | Wikipedia is not a vehicle for Propaganda or advocacy of any kind, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not |
| 29 | Avala | 17-Nov-04 | 1 | Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point | Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. See Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point |
| 30 | Avala | 17-Nov-04 | 2 | International participation | The English language Wikipedia site is an international site which welcomes and expects participation by editors from all countries. |
| 31 | Avala | 17-Nov-04 | 3 | NPOV | Editors with a national background, in this case, Serbian, are encouraged to edit from a Neutral Point of View, presenting the point of view they have knowledge of through their experience and culture without aggressively pushing their particular nationalist point of view by emphasizing it or minimizing or excluding other points of view. |
| 32 | Avala | 17-Nov-04 | 4 | NPOV - allviewpoints | Neutral point of view as defined on Wikipedia contemplates inclusion of all significant perspectives regarding a subject. While majority perspectives may be favored by more detailed coverage, minority perspectives should also receive sufficient coverage. No perspective is to be presented as the ""truth""; all perpectives are to be attributed to their advocates. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view |
| 33 | Avala | 17-Nov-04 | 5 | Wikiquette | Although negotiation is not explicitly mentioned in Wikipedia:dispute resolution it is contemplated under the initial steps of Wikipedia's dispute resolution policies under language which suggests users who are in conflict talk to one another on their respective talk pages and on the talk page of any article in dispute. Effective negotiation often requires courtesy and respect for the other party and their point of view, see Wikipedia:Wikiquette. |
| 34 | Cantus vs. Guanaco | 24-Nov-04 | 1 | Administrator behaviour | Administrators are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this: administators are not expected to be perfect. Consistently poor judgement may result in removal (temporary or otherwise) of admin status. |
| 35 | Cantus vs. Guanaco | 24-Nov-04 | 2 | Error in blocking | Those who believe they have been blocked in error are instructed on MediaWiki:Blockedtext to resolve the issue by emailing an admin(s), or by posting to wikien-l. |
| 36 | Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily | 22-Dec-04 | 1 | Wikipedia policies | Contributors are expected to obey Wikipedia policies, including the three revert rule. |
| 37 | Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily | 22-Dec-04 | 2 | Revert war | When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. |
| 38 | Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily | 22-Dec-04 | 3 | Edit summaries | When reverting, users are expected to give their reasons in the edit summaries. |
| 39 | Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily | 22-Dec-04 | 4 | Wikiquette | When disputing the accuracy or neutrality of an article, users are always expected to give a reason on the article's talk page. |
| 40 | Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily | 22-Dec-04 | 5 | Assume good faith | Editors are expected to be cooperative with other users and to assume good faith on the part of others. |
| 41 | Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily | 22-Dec-04 | 6 | Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a poin | Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. |
| 42 | Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily | 22-Dec-04 | 7 | Compromise | Although discussion is always encouraged, the Arbitration Committee does not expect users to compromise in all circumtances; doing so would serve only to support cranks and POV pushers. |
| 43 | Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily | 22-Dec-04 | 8 | Dispute resolution | In cases where compromise cannot be reached, users are expected to follow the Dispute resolution process. |
| 44 | Snowspinner vs. Lir | 01-Jan-05 | 1 | ArbCom rulings | Wikipedia users are expected to abide by rulings made by the Arbitration Committee. |
| 45 | Snowspinner vs. Lir | 01-Jan-05 | 2 | Wikiquette | Editing in a manner so as to intentionally provoke other editors is a violation of Wiki-etiquette. |
| 46 | Snowspinner vs. Lir | 01-Jan-05 | 3 | Anonymous voting | In general, anonymous IP addresses are not allowed to vote on Wikipedia. |
| 47 | Gene Poole vs. Samboy | 01-Jan-05 | 1 | Wikipedia is not a link repository | Wikipedia is not a link repository See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not |
| 48 | Gene Poole vs. Samboy | 01-Jan-05 | 2 | Advertising | Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising and self-promotion. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not |
| 49 | Gene Poole vs. Samboy | 01-Jan-05 | 3 | Ownership of articles | No person or group has the right to control content of Wikipedia articles, See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. |
| 50 | Gene Poole vs. Samboy | 01-Jan-05 | 4 | Propaganda | Wikipedia is not a platform for Propaganda or advocacy of any kind, See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not |
| 51 | User:66.20.28.21 and other accounts | 06-Jan-05 | 1 | Advocacy or propaganda | Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda or advocacy. |
| 52 | User:66.20.28.21 and other accounts | 06-Jan-05 | 2 | No original research | Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing of otherwise unpublished original research. |
| 53 | User:66.20.28.21 and other accounts | 06-Jan-05 | 3 | Discussion of controversial edits | When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. |
| 54 | User:66.20.28.21 and other accounts | 06-Jan-05 | 4 | NPOV includes only significant published viewpoints | Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy contemplates including only significant published viewpoints regarding a subject. It does not extend to novel viewpoints developed by Wikipedia editors which have not been independently published in other venues. |
| 55 | Alberuni | 10-Jan-05 | 1 | Three-revert rule | Users must follow the three-revert rule; Articles may not be reverted more than three times in a 24 hours period except for simple vandalism. |
| 56 | Alberuni | 10-Jan-05 | 2 | Courtesy | Users are expected to be courteous to other users. The prinicples of wikietiquette should followed. |
| 57 | Alberuni | 10-Jan-05 | 3 | No personal attacks | Users are expected to avoid using personal attacks. |
| 58 | Ciz | 10-Jan-05 | 1 | No personal attacks | No personal attacks. |
| 59 | Ciz | 10-Jan-05 | 2 | Disruption | Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. |
| 60 | Ciz | 10-Jan-05 | 3 | Controversial changes | Wikipedia users are usually expected to discuss changes which are controversial; while this does not necessarily mean discussing the edit before making it, if an edit is reverted a user should make an attempt at discussion before changing it back. |
| 61 | Ciz | 10-Jan-05 | 4 | Second accounts | Creating a second account for a given class of edits does not itself constitute sockpuppet abuse. However, it does not give an editor free rein to use that account abusively. |
| 62 | CheeseDreams | 12-Jan-05 | 1 | Customary practices | Certain customary practices used on Wikipedia are not written down, but can be ascertained by communication with other users. |
| 63 | CheeseDreams | 12-Jan-05 | 2 | Archiving of talk pages | It is the practice on Wikipedia when a talk page becomes too long for convenient editing to move older material to archives linked from the main page. |
| 64 | CheeseDreams | 12-Jan-05 | 3 | Refactoring talk pages | Talk pages may be refactored in order to improve their usability, brief, unbiased summaries of past discussion may be useful, especially for new editors, see Wikipedia:Refactoring. |
| 65 | CheeseDreams | 12-Jan-05 | 4 | Avoiding personal attacks | Wikipedia users are required to avoid personal attacks. |
| 66 | CheeseDreams | 12-Jan-05 | 5 | Three revert rule | Wikipedia editors may not revert an article more than three times in a 24 hour period. This rule is based on individual users, not on a group of users who are reverting the same material (CheeseDream's ""tag team"" concept). |
| 67 | CheeseDreams | 12-Jan-05 | 6 | Modification of other user's edits of Arbitration page | Users who modify other user's edits of arbitration pages, inserting peripheral material, and especially deleting them or portions of them will be heavily penalized. |
| 68 | CheeseDreams | 12-Jan-05 | 7 | Disruption | Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. |
| 69 | HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg | 16-Jan-05 | 1 | Personal attacks | No personal attacks. |
| 70 | HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg | 16-Jan-05 | 2 | NPOV | Wikipedia editors are expected to edit from a neutral point of view. |
| 71 | HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg | 16-Jan-05 | 3 | NPOV policy and situations where there is serious conflict | The Wikipedia policy of editing from a neutral point of view, a central and non-negotiable principle of Wikipedia, applies to situations where there are conflicting viewpoints and contemplates that significant viewpoints regarding such situations all be included in as fair a manner as possible. |
| 72 | HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg | 16-Jan-05 | 4 | Wikiquette | Wikipedia editors are required to maintain a minimum level of courtesy toward one another, see Wikiquette, Civility and Wikipedia:Writers rules of engagement. |
| 73 | HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg | 16-Jan-05 | 5 | Content of articles | While the content of articles is the province of Wikipedia editors, a number of Wikipedia policies relate to content in peripheral ways, for example, it is desirable to limit reversions and to provide adequate references for material included in articles. See Reversions, Wikipedia:Edit war, Wikipedia:Three revert rule, Wikipedia:Check your facts, Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability |
| 74 | HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg | 16-Jan-05 | 6 | Original work and neologisms | Wikipedia is not the place for publishing original work or development of Neologisms, Wikipedia:No original research. |
| 75 | HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg | 16-Jan-05 | 7 | Three revert rule | Contributors are expected to obey Wikipedia policies, including the three revert rule. |
| 76 | HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg | 16-Jan-05 | 8 | What is a revert | The term ""revert"" as used in Wikipedia policy is intended to include both absolute reverts (that is, where versions differ not at all) as well as edits to versions that are only very slightly different). |
| 77 | HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg | 16-Jan-05 | 9 | Attempting to avoid claims of reversion | Attempting to avoid being accused of reversion by making very minor edits that are then edited out again, whilst not expressly forbidden, is in bad faith and against the spirit of policy, and a violation of Wikiquette. |
| 78 | HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg | 16-Jan-05 | 10 | Ownership of articles | No person or group has the right to control content of Wikipedia articles. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. |
| 79 | HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg | 16-Jan-05 | 11 | Usability of evidence presented in arbitration cases | In order for the arbitrators to be able to decide a case based on evidence, the evidence to be presented by the parties must be brief and well organized, focusing on the principle issues involved with adequate references to examples of the behavior complained of. |
| 80 | HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg | 16-Jan-05 | 12 | Staying cool when the editing gets hot | When editing on highly conflicted topics, editors should not allow themselves to be goaded into ill-considered edits and policy violations. Administrators in particular have a responsibility to set an example by staying cool when the editing gets hot. |
| 81 | IZAK | 18-Jan-05 | 1 | No personal attacks | No personal attacks. |
| 82 | IZAK | 18-Jan-05 | 2 | Propaganda or advocacy | Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda or advocacy of any kind. |
| 83 | IZAK | 18-Jan-05 | 3 | Communication | Wikipedia provides a variety of forums, including article and user talk pages, for communication by Wikipedia users regarding content of articles and Wikipedia policies and decisions which Wikipedia users are encouraged to use in furtherance of Wikipedia policies and goals. |
| 84 | IZAK | 18-Jan-05 | 4 | Aggressive mobilisation of support | Aggressive use of Wikipedia forums to mobilize support for point of view editing results in exacerbation of conflict. |
| 85 | IZAK | 18-Jan-05 | 5 | Arbitration Committee use of policy | The Arbitration Committee may consider current community norms and practice, regardless of whether the community have got as far as writing up an ""official"" policy on the matter, in making its decisions. This is an Arbitration Committee, not a court of law, and the community has empowered us to make such judgements by ratifying the Arbitration policy. By the same policy, we are to apply such judgements with common sense, discretion, and an eye to the expectations of the community. |
| 86 | IZAK | 18-Jan-05 | 6 | Cross-posting | The occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice. Excessive cross-posting goes against current Wikipedia community norms. In a broader context, it is ""unwiki. Wikipedia editors make use of a variety of methods to avoid excessive cross-posting. |
| 87 | IZAK | 18-Jan-05 | 7 | Aggressive point-of-view editing | Aggressive point-of-view editing can produce widespread reactions as editors attempt to combat an outbreak of it, mobilizing others to join the fray. While this creates the appearance of disorder, it is better seen as an attempt to deal with a refractory problem. |
| 88 | 168.209.97.34 | 22-Jan-05 | 1 | Discourtesy and personal attacks | Wikipedia editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy and avoid personal attacks. |
| 89 | 168.209.97.35 | 22-Jan-05 | 2 | Edit warring and the three revert rule | Editors are expected to avoid edit wars and to respect the three revert rule consulting with one another on talk pages in a courteous manner regarding the content of articles. |
| 90 | 168.209.97.36 | 22-Jan-05 | 3 | Proxy servers | In our decisions we should avoid requiring permanently blocking Proxy/caching servers that belong to an ISP if possible. (See User:202.72.131.230.) |
| 91 | Everyking | 24-Jan-05 | 1 | Ownership of articles | No individual or selected group of people is entitled the right to control the content of an article. (See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.) |
| 92 | Everyking | 24-Jan-05 | 3 | Status of administrators | Administrators of Wikipedia are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. (See Wikipedia:Administrators.) |
| 93 | Libertas | 27-Jan-05 | 1 | Following official policy | Contributors are expected to follow Wikipedia official policy, particularly the three-revert rule, prohibition against personal attacks, and neutral point of view policy. POV pushing, revert warring, and personal attacks will not be tolerated. |
| 94 | Libertas | 27-Jan-05 | 2 | Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point | Users should not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point; that is, users should not act in bad faith. |
| 95 | Libertas | 27-Jan-05 | 3 | Pointless RfCs/RfAs | Requests for comment and requests for arbitration should be used appropriately within the guidelines on that page. They should not be used for frivolous or pointless disputes and should not be used as a forum for personal attacks, harassment, and abuse. |
| 96 | Libertas | 27-Jan-05 | 4 | Sockpuppets | The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks and bans, make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize, is strictly forbidden. |
| 97 | Libertas | 27-Jan-05 | 5 | Changing others' comments | A user may not edit another user's comments except to make insubstantial changes (such as archiving/moving, formatting, or correcting typos) or with express permission from the other user. (This does not apply to simple vandalism or spam.) |
| 98 | Libertas | 27-Jan-05 | 6 | Userpages | A user may say whatever he/she wants on his/her user page within reason (e.g. Wikipedia:No personal attacks). Generally, you should avoid any substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:User page.) |
| 99 | Rienzo | 28-Jan-05 | 1 | Sockpuppet abuse | The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts is strictly forbidden. |
| 100 | Rienzo | 28-Jan-05 | 2 | No personal attacks | No personal attacks. |
| 101 | Rienzo | 28-Jan-05 | 3 | IP blocks | Admins may, at their judgement, block IP addresses that vandalise Wikipedia for up to one month at a time (Wikipedia:Blocking policy) |
| 102 | Antifinnugor | 01-Feb-05 | 1 | Cite sources | Cite sources. |
| 103 | Antifinnugor | 01-Feb-05 | 2 | No original research | No original research. |
| 104 | Antifinnugor | 01-Feb-05 | 3 | No personal attacks | No personal attacks. |
| 105 | Antifinnugor | 01-Feb-05 | 4.4 | Consensus | As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. |
| 106 | Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute | 04-Feb-05 | 1 | Consensus | As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. |
| 107 | Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute | 04-Feb-05 | 2 | No personal attacks | No personal attacks. |
| 108 | Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute | 04-Feb-05 | 3 | Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point | Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. |
| 109 | Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute | 04-Feb-05 | 4 | 3RR is not an entitlement | The three revert rule is an electric fence, not an entitlement. The 3RR is intended as a means to stop sterile edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every twenty-four hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others. |
| 110 | Chuck F | 06-Feb-05 | 1 | Following official policy | Contributors are expected to follow Wikipedia official policy, particularly the three-revert rule, prohibition against personal attacks, and neutral point of view policy. |
| 111 | Chuck F | 06-Feb-05 | 2 | Neutral point-of-view | Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion. |
| 112 | Chuck F | 06-Feb-05 | 3 | Removal of Arbitration evidence | Removing evidence from an Arbitration page is unacceptable. |
| 113 | Chuck F | 06-Feb-05 | 4 | Unexplained deletions on controversial articles | Unexplained deletions of portions of controversial articles are unacceptable. |
| 114 | Chuck F | 06-Feb-05 | 5 | Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point | Editors should not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. |
| 115 | Chuck F | 06-Feb-05 | 6 | Changing of votes | Changing the votes of other people in a Wikipedia poll such as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion is a serious offense. |
| 116 | Gzornenplatz | 07-Feb-05 | 1 | Sockpuppets | The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks and bans, make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize, is strictly forbidden. |
| 117 | Gzornenplatz | 07-Feb-05 | 2 | Redemption | All banned editors are theoretically redeemable. The canonical example is Michael, who was hard-banned as a persistent vandal but has since reformed and become a good editor. |
| 118 | Lyndon LaRouche 2 | 17-Feb-05 | 1 | Sockpuppets | The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks and bans, make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize, is strictly forbidden. |
| 119 | Lyndon LaRouche 2 | 17-Feb-05 | 2 | Wikipedia is not a soapbox | Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda advocacy or advertising. (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not) |
| 120 | Lyndon LaRouche 2 | 17-Feb-05 | 3 | Revert wars considered harmful | Revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Users are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration. |
| 121 | Lyndon LaRouche 2 | 17-Feb-05 | 4 | No personal attacks | No personal attacks. |
| 122 | Lyndon LaRouche 2 | 17-Feb-05 | 5 | One user or several? | For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar behavior they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets. |
| 123 | Lyndon LaRouche 2 | 17-Feb-05 | 6 | Holding a strong POV does not necessarily imply POV-pushing edits | A strong point of view expressed elsewhere on a subject does not necessarily mean POV-pushing editing on Wikipedia; that can only be determined by the edits to Wikipedia. |
| 124 | Robert the Bruce | 18-Feb-05 | 1 | Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point | Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. |
| 125 | Robert the Bruce | 18-Feb-05 | 2 | No personal attacks | No personal attacks. |
| 126 | Robert the Bruce | 18-Feb-05 | 3 | Neutral point-of-view | Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion. |
| 127 | Robert the Bruce | 18-Feb-05 | 4 | Advocacy and propaganda | Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advocacy or propaganda. |
| 128 | Robert the Bruce | 18-Feb-05 | 5 | Citing sources | It is highly desirable that editors cite the sources of the information in their edits, especially on controversial articles. |
| 129 | Robert the Bruce | 18-Feb-05 | 6 | Do not remove references from articles | Removal of references from articles is generally inappropriate. |
| 130 | Robert the Bruce | 18-Feb-05 | 8 | Removal of relevant information | It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view. |
| 131 | Robert the Bruce | 18-Feb-05 | 9 | Etiquette | Wikipedia users are expected to conduct themselves in a courteous manner in their dealing with other editors. |
| 132 | Robert the Bruce | 18-Feb-05 | 10 | Holding a strong POV does not necessarily imply POV-pushing edits | A strong point of view expressed elsewhere on a subject does not necessarily mean POV-pushing editing on Wikipedia; that can only be determined by the edits to Wikipedia. |
| 133 | WikiUser | 26-Feb-05 | 1 | No personal attacks | No personal attacks. |
| 134 | WikiUser | 26-Feb-05 | 2 | Courtesy | Wikipedia users are required to be courteous in their dealings with other users. |
| 135 | WikiUser | 26-Feb-05 | 3 | Vandalism | Vandalism of Wikipedia will not be tolerated. |
| 136 | WikiUser | 26-Feb-05 | 4 | Edit warring / three-revert rule | Users are expected to avoid edit wars and to respect the three-revert rule. |
| 137 | WikiUser | 26-Feb-05 | 5 | Legal threats | No legal threats. |
| 138 | WikiUser | 26-Feb-05 | 5.5 | Editing Wikipedia during a legal dispute | It is best for both Wikipedia and its users that those who are in a legal dispute with it or its users discontinue editing until all legal disputes which they have initiated have been resolved. |
| 139 | WikiUser | 26-Feb-05 | 6 | Sockpuppetry | The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks and bans, make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize, is strictly forbidden. |
| 140 | WikiUser | 26-Feb-05 | 7.1 | Reasonableness and disruption | Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably with respect to editing and relating to other users. Editing practices that cause disruption to the normal functioning of Wikipedia will not be tolerated. |
| 141 | CheeseDreams 2 | 03-Mar-05 | 2 | Pointless RfCs/RfAs | Requests for comment and requests for arbitration should be used appropriately within the guidelines on that page. They should not be used for frivolous or pointless disputes and should not be used as a forum for personal attacks, harassment, and abuse. |
| 142 | CheeseDreams 2 | 03-Mar-05 | 3 | Sockpuppet abuse | The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks and bans, make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize, is strictly forbidden. |
| 143 | CheeseDreams 2 | 03-Mar-05 | 4 | One user or several? | For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets. |
| 144 | CheeseDreams 2 | 03-Mar-05 | 5 | Impersonation accounts | Accounts designed to impersonate other contributors are not permitted (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Impersonation). Accounts designed to impersonate may be immediately blocked indefinitely by any administrator. |
| 145 | CheeseDreams 2 | 03-Mar-05 | 6 | Security of accounts | Contributors are responsible for the security of their password. While accidental breaches are understandable and sometimes unavoidable, a contributor who deliberately releases their password should expect to be held responsible for any malicious edits made as a result. |
| 146 | CheeseDreams 2 | 03-Mar-05 | 7 | Arbitration rulings | Arbitration rulings on the English Wikipedia are binding on contributors to the project and violations will be regarded seriously. |
| 147 | CheeseDreams 2 | 03-Mar-05 | 8 | Proxy edits | Proxy edits on behalf of a banned user, or that assist a user in violating an arbitration injunction, are not permitted. |
| 148 | CheeseDreams 2 | 03-Mar-05 | 9 | Reasonableness and disruption | Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably with respect to editing and relating to other users. Editing practices that cause disruption to the normal functioning of Wikipedia will not be tolerated. |
| 149 | JonGwynne | 06-Mar-05 | 1 | No personal attacks | No personal attacks. |
| 150 | JonGwynne | 06-Mar-05 | 2 | Civility | Wikipedia users are expected to behave civilly and calmly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to utilise dispute resolution procedures instead of merely attacking each other. |
| 151 | JonGwynne | 06-Mar-05 | 3 | Consensus | As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. |
| 152 | JonGwynne | 06-Mar-05 | 4 | Neutral point of view | Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion. |
| 153 | Xed | 09-Mar-05 | 1 | No personal attacks | No personal attacks. |
| 154 | Xed | 09-Mar-05 | 2 | Civility | Wikipedia users are expected to behave civilly and calmly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to utilise dispute resolution procedures instead of merely attacking each other. |
| 155 | Xed | 09-Mar-05 | 4 | Provocation | When another user is having trouble due to editing conflicts or a dispute with another user it is inappropriate to provoke them as it is predictable that the situation will escalate. Provocation of a new or inexperienced user by an experienced and sophisticated user is especially inappropriate. |
| 156 | Xed | 09-Mar-05 | 5 | Good behaviour does not excuse bad behaviour | Good work on Wikipedia does not constitute an excuse for bad or abusive behaviour on Wikipedia. (Although many editors feel it has mitigatory value.) |
| 157 | Xed | 09-Mar-05 | 6 | Do not retaliate to personal attacks | Wikipedia editors must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked. |
| 158 | Xed | 09-Mar-05 | 7 | Assume good faith | Assume good faith. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points of view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment. |
| 159 | PSYCH | 12-Mar-05 | 1 | Avoid personal attacks | Wikipedia users are expected to avoid personal attacks on other users. |
| 160 | PSYCH | 12-Mar-05 | 2 | Editing from anonymous IPs | Wikipedia users are welcome to edit from anonymously, but are encouraged to register and edit under a username (see Why create a account?). When controversies arise this helps with accountability. |
| 161 | PSYCH | 12-Mar-05 | 3 | Proper use of article talk pages | Article talk pages on Wikipedia are for discussion of the article, what information might properly be included in the article, and sources of information regarding the subject; they are not forums for debate of the topic or issues related to the topic except where such debate has a potential impact on the content of the article. |
| 162 | PSYCH | 12-Mar-05 | 4 | Content of Wikipedia articles | Wikipedia articles should contain information regarding the subject of the article; they are not a platform for advocacy regarding one or another point of view regarding the topic. Sweeping generalizations which label the subject of an article as one thing or another are inappropriate and not a substitute for adequate research regarding details of actual positions and actions which can speak for themselves. |
| 163 | PSYCH | 12-Mar-05 | 5 | Personal viewpoints | Injection of personal viewpoints regarding the subject of an article is inappropriate and not to be resolved by debate among the editors of an article, but referenced from reputable outside resources. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. |
| 164 | PSYCH | 12-Mar-05 | 1 | Neutral point-of-view | Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion. |
| 165 | PSYCH | 12-Mar-05 | 2 | Advocacy and propaganda | Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advocacy or propaganda. |
| 166 | PSYCH | 12-Mar-05 | 3 | Citing sources | It is highly desirable that editors cite the sources of the information in their edits. This is especially important on controversial articles. |
| 167 | PSYCH | 12-Mar-05 | 4 | Do not remove references from articles | Removal of references from articles is generally considered inappropriate. |
| 168 | PSYCH | 12-Mar-05 | 5 | Removal of relevant information | It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view. |
| 169 | PSYCH | 12-Mar-05 | 6 | Arbitration rulings | Arbitration rulings are binding on editors; violations will be regarded seriously. |
| 170 | JarlaxleArtemis | 18-Mar-05 | 1 | No personal attacks | No personal attacks. |
| 171 | JarlaxleArtemis | 18-Mar-05 | 2 | Civility | Wikipedia users are expected to behave civilly and calmly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to utilise dispute resolution procedures instead of merely attacking each other. |
| 172 | JarlaxleArtemis | 18-Mar-05 | 3 | Consensus | As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. |
| 173 | JarlaxleArtemis | 18-Mar-05 | 4 | Edit summaries | Editors are generally expected to provide appropriate edit summaries for their edits; failing to provide edit summaries for potentially contentious edits, or providing misleading edit summaries, is considered incivil and bad wikiquette. |
| 174 | JarlaxleArtemis | 18-Mar-05 | 5 | Talk pages | Article talk pages on Wikipedia are for discussion of the article, what information might properly be included in the article, and sources of information regarding the subject; they are not forums for debate of the topic or issues related to the topic except where such debate has a potential impact on the content of the article. Adding large amounts of material to talk pages which does not relate to the article in the fashion above is considered inappropriate. |
| 175 | Anthony DiPierro 2 | 26-Mar-05 | 1 | Userpages | A user may say whatever he/she wants on his/her user page within reason (e.g. Wikipedia:No personal attacks). However, Wikipedia is not a hosting service, and you should generally avoid any substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:Userpage.) |
| 176 | Anthony DiPierro 2 | 26-Mar-05 | 2 | Deletion of content from userspace | Deleting content from the user namespace or adding deletion tags to content in the User namespace without the affected user's permission is discouraged. |
| 177 | Anthony DiPierro 2 | 26-Mar-05 | 3 | Speedy deletion of recreations of deleted articles | If content is recreated in the main Wikipedia namespaces after having been deleted (via votes for deletion or speedy deletion, it may be speedily deleted. (See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#General.) |
| 178 | Anthony DiPierro 2 | 26-Mar-05 | 4 | Civility | Wikipedia users are expected to behave civilly and calmly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to utilise dispute resolution procedures instead of merely attacking each other. |
| 179 | Anthony DiPierro 2 | 26-Mar-05 | 5 | Assume good faith | Assume good faith. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points-of-view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment. |
| 180 | Dr Zen | 27-Mar-05 | 1 | Consensus | As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. |
| 181 | Dr Zen | 27-Mar-05 | 2 | Civility | Wikipedia users are expected to behave calmly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of personal attacks. |
| 182 | Dr Zen | 27-Mar-05 | 3 | Revert warring | Edit wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Users are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration. |
| 183 | Dr Zen | 27-Mar-05 | 4 | Assume good faith | Assume good faith. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points of view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment. |
| 184 | Everyking 2 | 05-Apr-05 | 1 | Arbitration rulings | Arbitration rulings are binding on editors; violations will be regarded seriously. |
| 185 | Everyking 2 | 05-Apr-05 | 2 | Civility | Wikipedia users are expected to behave calmly, courteously, and civilly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks. |
| 186 | Everyking 2 | 05-Apr-05 | 3 | Revert wars considered harmful | Revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Users are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration. |
| 187 | RK 2 | 07-Apr-05 | 1 | Civility | Wikipedia users are expected to behave in a calm and mutally respective manner in their dealings with other users. When disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of merely attacking each other. |
| 188 | RK 2 | 07-Apr-05 | 2 | No personal attacks | No personal attacks. |
| 189 | RK 2 | 07-Apr-05 | 3 | Consensus | As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of policies and guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and requests for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. |
| 190 | Baku Ibne, et al. | 10-Apr-05 | 1 | No personal attacks | No personal attacks. |
| 191 | Baku Ibne, et al. | 10-Apr-05 | 2 | Sockpuppets | The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks and bans, make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize, is strictly forbidden. |
| 192 | Baku Ibne, et al. | 10-Apr-05 | 3 | Impersonation accounts | Accounts designed to impersonate other contributors are not permitted (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Impersonation). Accounts designed to impersonate may be immediately blocked indefinitely by any administrator. |
| 193 | Baku Ibne, et al. | 10-Apr-05 | 4 | Vandalism | Vandalism of Wikipedia will not be tolerated. |
| 194 | Baku Ibne, et al. | 10-Apr-05 | 4.5 | IP blocks | Admins may, at their judgement, block IP addresses that vandalise Wikipedia for periods of time ranging from 24 hours (to single violations) to one month (for repeat violations). (See Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Vandalism.) |
| 195 | Baku Ibne, et al. | 10-Apr-05 | 5 | Civility | Wikipedia users are expected to behave civilly and calmly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to utilise dispute resolution procedures instead of merely attacking each other. |
| 196 | Baku Ibne, et al. | 10-Apr-05 | 6 | Consensus | As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. |
| 197 | Baku Ibne, et al. | 10-Apr-05 | 7 | One user or several? | For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets. |
| 198 | Baku Ibne, et al. | 10-Apr-05 | 8 | Usability of evidence | In order for the arbitrators to be able to decide a case based on evidence, the evidence to be presented by the parties must be brief and well organized, focusing on the principle issues involved with adequate references to examples of the behavior complained of. |
| 199 | Grider | 10-Apr-05 | 1 | Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point | Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. |
| 200 | Grider | 10-Apr-05 | 2 | Consensus | As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. |
| 201 | Irate | 17-Apr-05 | 1 | No personal attacks | No personal attacks. |
| 202 | Rex071404 3 | 23-Apr-05 | 1 | Arbitration rulings | Arbitration rulings are binding on editors; violations will be regarded seriously. |
| 203 | Rex071404 3 | 23-Apr-05 | 2 | Revert wars considered harmful | Revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Users are encouraged to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration. |
| 204 | Rex071404 3 | 23-Apr-05 | 3 | Consensus | As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. |
| 205 | Rex071404 3 | 23-Apr-05 | 4 | Wikipedia is not a soapbox | Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda advocacy or advertising. |
| 206 | John Gohde | 30-Apr-05 | 1 | Manner in dealing with other editors | Wikipedia editors are expected to behave in a calm and mutally respective manner in their dealings with other users. When disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of merely attacking each other. |
| 207 | John Gohde | 30-Apr-05 | 2 | Personal attacks | Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile enviroment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encylopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion and encouraging a bunker mentality). |
| 208 | John Gohde | 30-Apr-05 | 3 | Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point | Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. State your point, but don't attempt to illustrate it experimentally. |
| 209 | John Gohde | 30-Apr-05 | 4 | Assume good faith in the absence of any evidence to the contrary | Wikipedia editors are strongly encouraged to assume good faith in the absence of any evidence to the contrary in keeping with our long-standing tradition of being open and welcoming. |
| 210 | John Gohde | 30-Apr-05 | 5 | Ownership of articles | Wikipedia pages do not have owners or custodians who control edits to them. Instead, they are ""owned"" by the community-at-large, and come to a consensus version by means of discussion, negotiation, and/or voting. This is a crucial part of Wikipedia as an open-content encylopedia. |
| 211 | Netoholic 2 | 04-May-05 | 1 | Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point | Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. |
| 212 | Netoholic 2 | 04-May-05 | 2 | Assume good faith | Assume good faith. Assumption of bad faith can lead to personal attacks and an unpleasant working atmosphere. This is particularly important in the Wikipedia: project page space, where policy is discussed and administered. |
| 213 | Netoholic 2 | 04-May-05 | 3 | Revert warring is bad | As per Wikipedia:Edit war, revert warring is considered harmful. |
| 214 | Netoholic 2 | 04-May-05 | 4 | Personal attacks | No personal attacks |
| 215 | Netoholic 2 | 04-May-05 | 5 | Wikipedia policy | In general, Wikipedia policies are formulated through wide discussion by Wikipedia users who attempt by a process of consenus to make policies which advance the basic goal of creating a free and neutral encyclopedia. Wikipedia policy is discussed in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and the associated articles Wikipedia:How to create policy, Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), See Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#How_are_policies_decided.3F and [[Category:Wikipedia policy thinktank]]. |
| 216 | Netoholic 2 | 04-May-05 | 5.1 | Wide discussion | In order for a proposed Wikipedia policy to be considered binding it is desirable that the proposal be widely publicized and discussed and Wikipedia:Consensus reached. |
| 217 | Netoholic 2 | 04-May-05 | 5.2 | Role of talk pages in policy determination | In determination of specialized areas of policy, discussion on the talk page of the relevant project page plays a central role. It is important that sufficient interest be generated in the discussion to formulate a valid consensus. |
| 218 | Netoholic 2 | 04-May-05 | 5.3 | Difficulty of determining what is policy | Discussions of proposed policy are sometimes inconclusive or involve only a small group of users, thus questions arise of whether a valid policy has been formulated. |
| 219 | Netoholic 2 | 04-May-05 | 5.4 | Provisional and ambiguous policies | In instances where policy is ambiguous the solution is more discussion, not struggle through revert wars, assumption of bad faith or personal attacks. |
| 220 | LevelCheck | 02-Jun-05 | 1 | Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point | Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. |
| 221 | LevelCheck | 02-Jun-05 | 2 | Sockpuppetry | The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks and bans, make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize, is strictly forbidden. |
| 222 | Internodeuser | 19-Jun-05 | 1 | Personal attacks | Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion and encouraging a bunker mentality). The community and the Arbitration Committee will sanction users who show a pattern of making personal attacks. |
| 223 | Internodeuser | 19-Jun-05 | 2 | Legal threats | Threats of legal action, whether overt or implied, are prohibited on Wikipedia. Users who make legal threats will be sanctioned. |
| 224 | Internodeuser | 19-Jun-05 | 4 | Disruption to illustrate a point | Disruption to illustrate a point will not be tolerated on Wikipedia. |
| 225 | Internodeuser | 19-Jun-05 | 5 | Userspace | Generally, Wikipedia has few restrictions on userspace content. However, userpages are not exempt from policy, especially as it regards to disruption or personal attacks. See Wikipedia:Userpage. |
| 226 | Internodeuser | 19-Jun-05 | 6 | Vandalism | Vandalism of Wikipedia will not be tolerated. Administrators may, at their discretion, block IP addresses that vandalize Wikipedia for up to one month at a time (Wikipedia:Blocking policy). |
| 227 | Skyring | 25-Jun-05 | 1 | Not a soapbox or forum | Wikipedia is not a soapbox or forum for discussion. |
| 228 | Skyring | 25-Jun-05 | 2 | Courtesy | Wikipedia editors are expected to exhibit courtesy toward other users. |
| 229 | Skyring | 25-Jun-05 | 3 | Limited bans on editing | Editors whose activities are troublesome and disruptive may be banned from areas which have been the focus of their activities. |
| 230 | Skyring | 25-Jun-05 | 4 | wiki-stalking | The term ""wiki-stalking"" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This is distinct from following a contributor in order to clear repeated errors. |
| 231 | Climate change dispute | 26-Jun-05 | 1 | Revert wars considered harmful | Revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Users are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration. |
| 232 | Climate change dispute | 26-Jun-05 | 2 | Neutral point of view | Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion. However, this does not imply that all competing points of view deserve equal consideration in an article. |
| 233 | Climate change dispute | 26-Jun-05 | 3 | Consensus | As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. |
| 234 | Climate change dispute | 26-Jun-05 | 4 | Provide adequate references | While the content of articles is the province of Wikipedia editors, a number of Wikipedia policies relate to content in peripheral ways, for example, it is desirable to limit reversions and to provide adequate references for material included in articles. See Wikipedia:Edit war, Wikipedia:Three revert rule, Wikipedia:Check your facts, Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability |
| 235 | Climate change dispute | 26-Jun-05 | 5 | Ownership of articles | No individual or selected group of people is entitled the right to control the content of an article. (See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.) |
| 236 | Climate change dispute | 26-Jun-05 | 6 | Wikipedia is an encyclopedia | The goal of this project is to build an neutral, comprehensive, and accurate encyclopedia. The authority of all policies and guidelines springs from a desire to regulate the behavior of the community in a way that will hopefully help us attain our goal. Therefore this fact must be kept in mind when those polices and guidelines are applied. The desire to apply rules for the sake of rules must be suppressed. |
| 237 | Climate change dispute | 26-Jun-05 | 8 | Relative value of references | Since the goal of Wikipedia is to provide accurate content, we cannot regard all references as equally valid and give them all equal weight. Editors should exercise care in the selection and use of references. The closer a reference is to current peer reviewed work, the better. Balance must also be attained by properly labeling and attributing significant dissenting views (where they exist). |
| 238 | Climate change dispute | 26-Jun-05 | 9 | Civility | Wikipedia editors are required to maintain a minimum level of courtesy toward one another, see Wikiquette, Civility and Wikipedia:Writers rules of engagement. |
| 239 | Njyoder | 30-Jun-05 | 1 | Purpose of Wikipedia | The purpose of Wikipedia is to collect and organize established knowledge in a usable form. |
| 240 | Njyoder | 30-Jun-05 | 2 | Role of Wikipedia editors | The role of a Wikipedia editor is to find knowledge in published references, including alternative versions, and include them in appropriate Wikipedia articles. |
| 241 | Njyoder | 30-Jun-05 | 3 | Governance | In addition to gathering information and editing articles Wikipedia editors participate in governance of Wikipedia selecting editors to serve as administrators who discharge routine duties involving editing and participation in Wikipedia. |
| 242 | Njyoder | 30-Jun-05 | 4 | The pursuit of truth | The establishment of truth is not one of the purposes of Wikipedia which merely attributes the knowledge it contains to published sources. |
| 243 | Njyoder | 30-Jun-05 | 5 | Editing of controversial articles | Wholesale changes to controversial articles are unproductive as the only likely response is reversion. It is much more desirable to make small changes and couple them with discussion on the talk page of the article. |
| 244 | Njyoder | 30-Jun-05 | 6 | Original research | Material which originates with a Wikipedia editor, however well crafted, may be removed from an article. |
| 245 | Njyoder | 30-Jun-05 | 7 | Cite your sources | Material which has no source associated with it may be removed from a Wikipedia article pending production of a source. |
| 246 | Njyoder | 30-Jun-05 | 8 | Disruption | It is unacceptable to disrupt either the editing or the governance of Wikipedia by making provocative edits or by persisting either through editing the article or by continued discussion on talk pages in ways which substantially diverge with the purposes of Wikipedia. |
| 247 | Njyoder | 30-Jun-05 | 9 | Relationship of IRC to Wikipedia for purposes of dispute resolution | Wikipedia users' activities on IRC channels are not considered relevant in the resolution of disputes between Wikipedia users. |
| 248 | Njyoder | 30-Jun-05 | 11 | Wikipedia policies | Wikipedia editors and administrators are expected to follow present Wikipedia policies. These policies are used as the basis of dispute resolution. |
| 249 | Njyoder | 30-Jun-05 | 11.1 | Change in policy | It is acceptable to comment on Wikipedia policies and to advocate change in policies. It is not acceptable to repeatedly insist that editors or administrator ignore or overturn established Wikipedia policies on the grounds that they are obviously wrong or irrational. Most Wikipedia policies are a work in progress and can be improved though a process of discussion and consensus. They are nevertheless, for the moment, the policies in place. |
| 250 | Njyoder | 30-Jun-05 | 12 | Subtle matter | As a compendium of all human knowledge, Wikipedia contains subject matter which is the provence of various subcultures (as applied to the instant case, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered (LGBT) communities.) |
| 251 | Njyoder | 30-Jun-05 | 12.1 | Competency | Editing specialized subject matter requires familiarity with those areas and the specialized language and information resources which concern them. The assertion that something ""makes no sense"" or is limited to a subculture (in the instant case "" 99% of those hits are from LGBT websites"") is not grounds for a subject's exclusion from Wikipedia. The solution is rather to study the matter until is familiar to you before you engage in extensive or aggressive editing or to edit in other areas |
| 252 | Jguk | 30-Jun-05 | 1 | Style guide | Wikipedia has established a Wikipedia:Manual of Style for the ""purpose of making things easy to read by following a consistent format,"" see [1]. The prescriptions of Wikipedia's manual of style are not binding, but it is suggested that with respect to eras that ""Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article."" [2]. |
| 253 | Jguk | 30-Jun-05 | 2 | Optional styles | When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable. |
| 254 | Jguk | 30-Jun-05 | 3 | Courtesy | Courtesy between Wikipedia editors is important, especially with respect to matters which are in dispute. |
| 255 | Jguk | 30-Jun-05 | 4 | Revert wars considered harmful | Revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Users are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration. |
| 256 | Jguk | 30-Jun-05 | 5 | Sincere disputes are unlikely to be resolved by forcing the issue | At times the proper implementation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy will be a matter of dispute between reasonable editors who sincerely wish to uphold the principle. In these cases, no attempts to dictate the proper solution, whether coming from the Arbitration Committee or from a mechanism such as a poll, will be helpful. All that can be done is to insist that the participants in the dispute remain civil and respectful. |
| 257 | KaintheScion et al. | 02-Jul-05 | 1 | Sockpuppets | While is is permissible for a person to have several user accounts on Wikipedia, such accounts may be misused in a variety of ways. When there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sock puppet |
| 258 | KaintheScion et al. | 02-Jul-05 | 1.1 | Template:Sockpuppet | While controversial and perhaps exacerbating conflict, it is acceptable to place Template:Sockpuppet on the user page of a suspected account together with links to supporting evidence, see Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Tagging_identified_sock_puppets. |
| 259 | KaintheScion et al. | 02-Jul-05 | 2 | No personal attacks | Personal attacks and disparaging remarks directed at other users are unacceptable, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks |
| 260 | KaintheScion et al. | 02-Jul-05 | 3 | Advocacy | Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. |
| 261 | KaintheScion et al. | 02-Jul-05 | 4 | Editing bans | Wikipedia editors may be banned from articles where their point of view advocacy has proven disruptive. |
| 262 | Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell | 21-Jul-05 | 1 | No personal attacks | No personal attacks. |
| 263 | Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell | 21-Jul-05 | 2 | Civility | Wikipedia users are expected to behave calmly, courteously, and civilly in their dealings with other users. |
| 264 | Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell | 21-Jul-05 | 3 | Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary | Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points of view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment. |
| 265 | Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell | 21-Jul-05 | 4 | No original research | No original research. |
| 266 | Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell | 21-Jul-05 | 5 | Cite sources | Cite sources. As per Wikipedia:Verifiability, ""Fact checking is time consuming, economically costly, and not particularly rewarding. It is unfair to make later editors dig for sources."" This particularly applies to controversial additions. |
| 267 | Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell | 21-Jul-05 | 6 | Neutral point of view | Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion. |
| 268 | Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell | 21-Jul-05 | 7 | Disruption | Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. |
| 269 | Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell | 21-Jul-05 | 8 | Sockpuppets | The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks and bans, make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize, is strictly forbidden. |
| 270 | Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell | 21-Jul-05 | 9 | Anonymous users are allowed to edit Wikipedia | While some Wikipedians consider anonymous editors less credible than logged-in editors, anonymous users have made valuable contributions to Wikipedia, and the community has consistently rejected all moves to block anonymous users from editing. See m:Foundation issues. |
| 271 | Cantus 3 | 08-Aug-05 | 2 | Sustained edit warring | Sustained edit warring is harmful to Wikipedia. |
| 272 | Cantus 3 | 08-Aug-05 | 3 | Use of Sockpuppets | The use of anonymous editing or sockpuppets to evade editing bans is prohibited. |
| 273 | Trey Stone and Davenbelle | 11-Aug-05 | 1 | Verifiability | For information to be included in Wikipedia, it must have been published elsewhere in reliable sources and those sources should be cited as references in Wikipedia articles (see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Cite sources). |
| 274 | Trey Stone and Davenbelle | 11-Aug-05 | 1.1 | Obscure topics and dubious sources | Sometimes, especially regarding topics which have not been the subject of extensive journalistic or scholarly inquiry, published information regarding a topic is limited or available only through sources which because of their editorial policies (strong point of view) are suspect (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious_sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Obscure_topics). |
| 275 | Trey Stone and Davenbelle | 11-Aug-05 | 2 | Consensus | As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. |
| 276 | Trey Stone and Davenbelle | 11-Aug-05 | 3 | Wikipedia is not a soapbox | Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advocacy. |
| 277 | Trey Stone and Davenbelle | 11-Aug-05 | 4 | Relationship of Wikipedia policies and controversial articles | Wikipedia policies regarding courtesy, assuming good faith, communicating about edits on the talk page of articles, producing appropriate references are especially relevant to articles which involve controversy. |
| 278 | Trey Stone and Davenbelle | 11-Aug-05 | 5 | Editing of controversial articles | Users who are unable or unwilling to follow the Wikipedia policies which relate to editing of controversial articles may be restricted with respect to editing in those areas. |
| 279 | Trey Stone and Davenbelle | 11-Aug-05 | 7 | NPOV | Wikipedia policy requires inclusion of all significant points of view regarding a subject. |
| 280 | Trey Stone and Davenbelle | 11-Aug-05 | 8 | Talk pages | Wikipedia policy requires discussion of the content of an article when disputes arise on the talk pages of the article. |
| 281 | Trey Stone and Davenbelle | 11-Aug-05 | 11 | Talk pages | Sustained edit warring is wasteful of resources and destructive to morale. |
| 282 | Skyring | 12-Aug-05 | 1 | Not a soapbox or forum | Wikipedia is not a soapbox or forum for discussion. |
| 283 | Skyring | 12-Aug-05 | 2 | Courtesy | Wikipedia editors are expected to exhibit courtesy toward other users. |
| 284 | Skyring | 12-Aug-05 | 3 | Limited bans on editing | Editors whose activities are troublesome and disruptive may be banned from areas which have been the focus of their activities. |
| 285 | Skyring | 12-Aug-05 | 4 | wiki-stalking | The term ""wiki-stalking"" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This is distinct from following a contributor in order to clear repeated errors. |
| 286 | Alfrem | 12-Aug-05 | 1 | Edit warring | Edit wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Users are required to respect the three-revert rule and to avoid edit-warrior behavior, and are encouraged to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as talk page discussion, negotiation, surveys, then requests for comment, mediation, or, finally, Arbitration. |
| 287 | Alfrem | 12-Aug-05 | 2 | Reasonableness and disruption/Ownership of articles | Editors are expected to behave reasonably with respect to editing and dealing to other users. Editing practices that cause disruption to the normal functioning of Wikipedia—such as the persistant removal of a phrase or sentence, and the reversion of its restoration—will not be tolerated. In addition Wikipedia articles, do not have 'owners' or 'custodians 'who control edits to them. Instead, they are ""owned"" by the community-at-large, and come to a consensus version by means of discussion, negotiation, and/or polling. |
| 288 | Alfrem | 12-Aug-05 | 3 | Removal of references, sources, and explanatory material | Removal of references, sources, and explanatory material from articles without a compelling reason, especially when other users object, is generally considered inappropriate. |
| 289 | Mlorrey | 15-Aug-05 | 1 | Advocacy | Wikipedia is not a forum for advocacy of a political cause, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. |
| 290 | Mlorrey | 15-Aug-05 | 2 | Legal dispute | Any user involved in a legal dispute with Wikipedia or another Wikipedia user may be banned until the dispute is resolved or settled. |
| 291 | Emico | 21-Aug-05 | 1 | No personal attacks | It is not acceptable to make personal attacks on other users, Wikipedia:No personal attacks |
| 292 | Emico | 21-Aug-05 | 2 | Original research | Information used in Wikipedia articles should have its source in a reputable reference, not personal experience, Wikipedia:Cite your sources and Wikipedia:Original research |
| 293 | Emico | 21-Aug-05 | 3 | NPOV | While consensus is important in making decisions with respect to editing, it does not trump Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, NPOV, see Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. In the instant case a vote which occurred several months ago among one group of editors does not continue to control indefinitely as the editors change, especially if it would result in exclusion of important information representing an important point of view. Repeated arguing about such a vote as a controlling precedent is an example of Wikilawyering. |
| 294 | Emico | 21-Aug-05 | 3.1 | Deletion of significant information | Removal of well-referenced relevant material from an article is not acceptable. |
| 295 | Argyrosargyrou | 21-Aug-05 | 1 | Advocacy | Wikipedia is not a forum for issue advocacy, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. |
| 296 | Argyrosargyrou | 21-Aug-05 | 2 | Sockpuppets | While a Wikipedia user may edit under more than one account, misuse of Sockpuppets is not allowed. |
| 297 | Argyrosargyrou | 21-Aug-05 | 3 | Disruptive users | Disruptive users may be banned for a limited period from Wikipedia. |