User:GoRight/ArbitrationCommitteeRulings

This page is used to organize various rulings by the Arbitration Committee and to make them more accessible for reference while editing.

Cases of interest

 * 1) Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion
 * 2) Requests for arbitration/Fringe science
 * 3) Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience
 * 4) Requests for arbitration/Tango
 * 5) Requests for arbitration/Physchim62
 * 6) Requests_for_arbitration/Abd_and_JzG

Administrators
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 judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.

Questioning of administrative actions
Administrators are accountable to 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 is acceptable within the bounds of avoiding personal attacks and civility.

Use of administrative tools in a dispute
Administrators may not use their administrative tools to further their own position in a dispute.

Administrators not to act unless uninvolved
Administrators may not use their administrative tools in any situation unless they are uninvolved. An administrator will be involved, for the purposes of user-specific tools such as blocking, if they have a prior history of conflict with the affected user(s). An administrator will be involved, for the purposes of article-specific tools such as page protection, if they have previously substantively edited the content of the affected article(s).

Administrators should also refrain from action if there is doubt as to whether they are involved, or if they could reasonably be perceived as being involved.

Compliance
All editors are expected to comply with the rulings of the Arbitration Committee.

Ban due to disruption
Users who engage in activities which are extremely disruptive may be banned.

Decorum
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 as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Disruptive editing
Users who disrupt using aggressive biased editing may be banned from affected articles, in extreme cases from the site.

Edit warring is harmful
Edit warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Good intentions
Inappropriate conduct undertaken in the service of a noble cause is still inappropriate conduct.

Harassment is disruptive
Harassment is a very serious and disruptive activity and should be avoided on and off Wikipedia.

Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive
It is disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand.

Wikipedians are expected to observe dispute resolution guidelines
Dispute resolution, a policy, provides a series of steps for the resolution of disagreements or grievances Wikipedians may have with one another. Airing a dispute on project pages in violation of this policy is disruptive and is prohibited. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, a guideline, states that illustrating a point through parody or a breaching experiment is, generally, disruptive.

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

Alternative theoretical formulations
Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Compliance
All editors are expected to comply with the rulings of the Arbitration Committee