User:Seddon/Scientology/Condensed Workship

Administrators

 * Proposed principle : Administrators are expected to understand and enforce the requirements of the biographies of living persons policy. Administrators who engage in serious violations of this policy may be desysopped.


 * Proposed principle : Administrators are expected to act with reasonable discretion and to disclose prior involvement in disputes when it is appropriate to do so.


 * Proposed principle : Administrators should set the example of responsible editing. They are considered experienced editors and often are seen as opinion leaders, i.e. less knowledgeable editors might follow their lead out of trust and respect. Edit-warring, poor sourcing, POV-pushing, and BLP violations are all unbecoming of an administrator. This type of behavior demonstrates lack of familiarity with or lack of respect for policy and the inability or unwillingness to put the project ahead of personal concerns. Such behavior is a violation of the trust and respect that an administrator commands. Administrators are held to a higher standard in that they are expected to show a deep knowledge and respect for policy and an ability to put the project ahead of personal concerns that might not be expected of a less-experienced editor.


 * Proposed principle : Admins who are heavily involved in a RFAR and resign their adminship under questionable circumstances, are deemed to have resigned "under a cloud" and must regain adminship through RFA.

WP:BLP

 * Proposed principle : WP:BLP violations by OTRS members are considered to be especially egregious misconduct, since many users will presume the correctness of WP:BLP actions by editors who display the OTRS userbox, even when no OTRS ticket number is cited in the edits. While the removal of OTRS membership is outside the remit of the Arbitration Committee, the Committee can revoke OTRS members' editing privileges to prevent them from exercising an air of OTRS authority on the English Wikipedia.


 * Proposed principle : Edits to a biography are visible immediately, and may, to the extent that they are poorly sourced and potentially false, cause harm to the subject of an article from the moment of their implementation.


 * Proposed principle : 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. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm."

Content Policies

 * Proposed principle : Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view; that is, they must portray all significant points of view in a fairly and accurately manner, and Wikipedia's nature as an encyclopaedia demand that articles should always use the best and most reputable sources. A neutral point of view cannot be synthesized merely by presenting a plurality of opposing viewpoints, each derived from a polarized source.


 * Proposed principle : "Neutral point of view", "Verifiability" and "No original research" are the three core content policies of Wikipedia. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and thus they should not be interpreted or applied in isolation from one another, or one at the expense of another.


 * Proposed principle : Biographies of living persons should accurately reflect coverage in the most reliable published sources. Private third-party websites that host otherwise unpublished writing or copies of primary sources (such as court documents, affidavits etc.) are not reliable sources for BLP purposes.


 * Proposed principle : Certain content-related policies — Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view — are considered by the community to be fundamental to the maintenance and construction of Wikipedia. These policies establish editorial standards by which all content on Wikipedia must conform. When editors fail to abide by these cornerstones of Wikipedia policy, they create unacceptable disruptions within both the community of editors and the body of content.


 * Proposed principle : In the Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy, the community outlines what is considered a reliable source. Primary sources are permissible on Wikipedia, but must be used with caution in order to avoid original research or the synthesis of novel conclusions. Thus, editors should rely upon reliable secondary and tertiary sources over primary sources when writing articles.


 * Proposed principle : Editors should not make significant changes to policies and guidelines that are relevant to any disputes in which they are engaged. Proposals for policy changes that are inspired by active or former disputes should disclose those disputes.

Arbitration

 * Proposed principle 1 : The Arbitration process is not to be used for revenge, payback, or similar political purposes. Such use is considered disruptive, unhelpful, and sanctionable by the Arbitration Committee.


 * Proposed principle 2 : The Arbitration Committee's purpose is to resolve differences between editors so that all may productively contribute towards Wikipedia. Attempts by editors to game the process by using arbitration mechanisms against other editors for personal and political means are malicious and gross expressions of bad faith. As such, attempts to do so will be met with extremely displeasure by the Arbitration Committee and the community, possibly leading to sanctions against offending editors.


 * Proposed principle 3 : Arbitration enforcement and Requests for arbitration may not be used as opportunities to retaliate against content opponents by raising frivolous claims.


 * Proposed principle 4 : The Committee encourages community participation at all stages of an arbitration proceeding, and a number of pages are provided where members of the community—including parties both involved and uninvolved in the matter being considered—may comment, make proposals, and otherwise take an active part in arbitration. This openness is coupled with the expectation that editors who choose to participate will maintain proper decorum and work towards constructively resolving the dispute, rather than attempting to further it through inflammatory rhetoric, senseless proposals, or attempts to pursue unrelated conflicts.


 * Proposed principle : Remedies imposed by the arbitration committee are intended to be commensurate with the culpability of the editors against whom they are imposed. Disproportionately harsh or severe remedies are not implemented against editors for punitive purposes or to "make an example out of them", as such action is demoralizing to a volunteer project. A few isolated instances of policy violations will not ordinarily result in any remedies against an editor at all. This principle is especially relevant to the enforcement of essential policies such as WP:BLP: though edits to a biography are visible immediately, and may, to the extent that they are poorly sourced and potentially false, cause harm to the subject of an article from the moment of their implementation, these facts do not imply that we should rush to block/ban an editor or desysop an administrator the moment they violate the policy even once or twice.

Conflict of interest

 * Proposed principle : Users who edit from the IP addresses of a given organization are irrebuttably presumed to have a conflict of interest with respect to the editing of articles concerning or reasonably related to said organization. While editors under such a presumption are free to perform uncontroversial edits such as the reversion of obvious vandalism, libel, or WP:BLP violations, making controversial content edits may be improper, or at the very least give rise to the appearance of impropriety. For this reason, should users editing from a given organization make considerable controversial edits reasonably related to it, they may be prophylacticly banned from content concerning it without any specific findings of wrongdoing. Should a regular pattern of controversial presumptively conflict-of-interest editing emerge, all editors from relevant organization may be topic banned.


 * Proposed principle : Editors who have duties, allegiances, or beliefs that prevent them from making a genuine, good-faith effort to edit from a neutral point of view in certain subject areas are expected to refrain from editing in those subject areas. Instead, they may make suggestions or propose content on the talk pages of affected articles. Editors who work in subject areas where a perception may arise that they have duties or allegiances that could prevent them from writing neutrally and objectively are encouraged to disclose the nature and extent of any such duties or allegiances.


 * Proposed principle : Editors who access Wikipedia through an organization's IP address and who edit Wikipedia articles which relate to that organization have a presumptive conflict of interest. Regardless of these editors' specific relationship to that organization or function within it, the organization itself bears a responsibility for appropriate use of its servers and equipment. If an organization fails to manage that responsibility, Wikipedia may address persistent violations of fundamental site policies through blocks or bans.


 * Proposed principle : Although Shutterbug and others make the claim that non-staff Scientologists might access the internet through Church of Scientology proxies, that cannot be readily verified. Editing Scientology articles from Church-owned IPs creates the appearance of a a conflict of interest whether one exists in fact or not. Editors that edit Wikipedia from Church-owned IPs are presumed to fall under the constraints of the Wikipedia conflict of interest policy so long as they are logged on from such an IP.


 * Proposed principle : An implicit conflict of interest is to be assumed for any employee or staff member of an organization. The staff member or employee of a legal organization in question must not compromise his own good standing by making edits from an internet connection owned by the organization itself. It is not always possible or practical to treat editors behind such organizations as individuals when they make edits directly from the property of said organization.

Purpose of Wikipedia

 * Proposed principle : 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, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Conduct and decorum

 * Proposed principle : 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, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.


 * Proposed principle : 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. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic.


 * Proposed principle : An old custom used to avoid discussing religion and politics because the conversation is apt to end in a quarrel, yet Wikipedia covers these subjects. In the spirit of WP:NOT#Not a battleground, the site asks editors of differing personal beliefs to collaborate toward the shared goal of building an encyclopedia.


 * Proposed principle : Editors may not follow others around for the purpose of driving them off or undoing their legitimate actions. Such actions may constitute harassment if persistent.


 * Proposed principle : It may sometimes be difficult to behave rationally when an editor submits information that is disagreed with. However, it critical that all parties involved stay calm when interacting with other users, and to assume good faith in tough circumstances. All editors are encouraged to state their case logically and explain their edits with verbosity so that confusion and unnecessary confrontation may be avoided.


 * Proposed principle : The adherents of a religion are not to be prohibited from making edits on the basis of their beliefs. Instead, any scrutiny made will be based on their behavior, in accordance with the established guidelines and policy herein, just as they apply to any other editor on Wikipedia.


 * Proposed principle : No editor, no matter how prolific or experienced, owns any given article or series of articles. No editor should routinely defend his preferred version against reasonable good-faith edits by others, whether those edits be by registered users or no. Repeated and consistent "defense" of specific articles is indicative of taking an unacceptable degree of "ownership". See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.

IP Proxies

 * Proposed principle : Although new users must be given the benefit of the doubt, using proxies is disruptive to transparency and accountability. When using a proxy, it becomes difficult to ascertain whether the editor is in fact a separate person, or whether they are sockpuppets controlled by another editor.


 * Proposed principle : The use of shared corporate IP addresses to edit articles obscures the identity of individual editors, making it difficult to determine whether multiple accounts operating from the same corporate IP address are genuinely different people.