Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Boilerplates

2009 Updates
The following principles have been extracted from 2008 and 2009 cases, though they nearly all derive from earlier cases.

Administrator communications
Administrators are required to explain their actions. When an administrator takes an action that is likely to be controversial or to raise questions, he or she should explain the action in advance or at the time, in a location that the affected editors are likely to see, so that they will understand what has been done and why.~2009 ~

Administrator conduct
Administrators are expected to lead by example and follow Wikipedia policies. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. If an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct of his or her own. ~2009 ~

Administrator standards
Administrators are trusted members of the community, who are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and are held to a high standard of conduct. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.~2009 ~

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

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

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

Article sanctions
Articles may be placed on probation by the Arbitration Committee or the community. When an article is under probation, editors making disruptive edits may be subject to various administrative sanctions, depending on the terms of probation. ~2009 ~

At wit's end
In cases where all reasonable attempts to control disruption have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly Draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the project.

Attack pages
An attack page is a Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image that exists primarily to disparage its subject. If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of personal attacks against that subject and there is no good revision to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place. This is especially important if the page contains biographical material about a living person. ~2009 ~

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

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

Biographies of living people and real usernames
While the use of a real name as a username may enable contributions to be more easily traced to an individual, it may also be open to abuse, through impersonation. This is particularly so when the editor is contributing within a topic where article content exists for a living person of the same name. In these circumstances, the editor's user page should make it clear whether or not he or she is the same individual who is the subject of the article, and the editor may be asked to prove off-wiki that he or she is actually that individual. ~2009 ~

Biographies of living people
Editors must take particular care when adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all our content policies, especially: neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research. Articles must use high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately. ~2009 ~

Canvassing 1
Excessive cross-posting, campaigning, votestacking, stealth canvassing, and forum shopping are inappropriate forms of canvassing.~2009 ~

Canvassing 2
Excessive cross-posting, campaigning, votestacking, stealth canvassing, and forum shopping are inappropriate forms of canvassing. Signs of biased canvassing include urging new editors to take a specific position in a conflict and only contacting one side of a dispute. To protect against rigged decisions, editors participating due to questionable canvassing may be discounted when evaluating consensus.~2009 ~

Clean-up tags 1
In appropriate instances, it is permissible to place a clean-up maintenance tag on an article in order to call attention to problems with the article. ~2009 ~

Clean-up tags 2
Depending on the discretion of editors, it is permissible to place a clean-up maintenance tag on an article in order to call attention to problems with the article in instances where those editors are unable to fix them themselves. It is not, however, appropriate to place a tag on an article in order to further exacerbate a dispute. ~2009 ~

Collective behavior of blocs of editors
It is potentially harmful to Wikipedia when editorial debates become strongly associated with real-world political polarizations and when they become dominated by groups of editors lined up along political lines due to shared national backgrounds. This is particularly harmful when such editors act in concert to systematically advocate editorial decisions considered favorable to their shared political views that contravene the application of Wikipedia policy or obstruct consensus-building. Mere strength of numbers is not sufficient to contravene Wikipedia policy. Defending editorial positions that support political preferences typical of a particular national background is not ipso facto evidence of bad-faith editing.~2009 ~

Communication
Editors should use their best efforts to communicate with one another, particular when disputes arise. When an editor's input is consistently unclear or difficult to follow, the merits of his or her position may not be fully understood by those reading the communication. An editor's failure to communicate concerns with sufficient clarity, conciseness and succinctness, or with insufficient attention to detail, or failure to focus on the topic being discussed, can impede both collaborative editing and dispute resolution. Editors should recognise when this is the case and take steps to address the problems, either on their own or, where necessary, by seeking assistance. ~2009 ~

Conduct on arbitration pages
The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia. ~2009 ~

Consensus can change 1
Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and particularly the community as a whole to change its mind. Long-held consensus cannot be used as an excuse against a change that follows Wikipedia's policies. ~2009 ~

Consensus can change 2
Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and particularly the community as a whole to change its mind. Long-held consensus cannot be used as an excuse against a change that follows Wikipedia's policies. However, the idea that consensus can change does not allow for the same point being brought up repeatedly over the course of months or years in an attempt to shift consensus. ~2009 ~

Consensus
Wikipedia relies on a consensus model. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process, in lieu of soapboxing, edit warring, or other inappropriate behavior. Abuse of the consensus model and process, such as misrepresenting consensus or poisoning the well, is disruptive. ~2009 ~

Controversial page moves
Any page move that is or is likely to be controversial should be discussed beforehand on the page's talk page, and/or at any other pertinent location. The methods outlined at Requested moves represent a best practice approach for such circumstances.~2009 ~

Criticism articles
All criticism articles must follow the same guidelines as other articles and use reliable sources. They are not to be used as POV forks or attack pages. ~2009 ~

Decorum
Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable. ~2009 ~

Deletion process
The deletion process is the Wikipedia process involved in recording and executing the community's decisions to delete or keep a page. If an editor is unsatisfied with the decision made by the closing administrator in regards to a deletion discussion, it may be brought to deletion review. The DRV closer generally has the final word on the state of the article. ~2009 ~

Disambiguation
The purpose of disambiguation, as defined by Disambiguation (WP:DAB), is to resolve "conflicts in Wikipedia article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article." For primary topics, "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase ... then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article." The guideline goes on to state: "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)"." Disambiguation is not a means of promoting, endorsing or rejecting the point of view of any party or parties to a naming or other dispute.~2009 ~

Disengaging
Disengaging from a topic area and walking away due to a dispute can sometimes be the right decision. Unresolved content issues can be handled by other editors and this does not require the original parties to remain engaged with the issues. Conduct issues arising from the dispute may still need to be examined, in general terms related to other conduct, as well as specific conduct in the content dispute. ~2009 ~

Disruption by administrators
Sustained disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator. Administrators who repeatedly and aggressively engage in inappropriate activity may be desysopped by the Arbitration Committee.~2009 ~

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

Edit warring is harmful
Edit-warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique. ~2009 ~

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

Editor behavior and 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. Unseemly conduct from all sides of a dispute, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and disruptive point-making, is prohibited. ~2009 ~

Editor conduct
Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.~2009 ~

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

Etiquette
Wikipedia's code of conduct is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that all editors should adhere to. Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, edit-warring, personal attacks, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, offensive language (including rude, offensive, derogatory, and insulting terms&mdash;whether in English, a language other than English, or using invented terms), trolling, harassment, gaming the system, and failure to assume good faith are all inconsistent with Wikipedia etiquette. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums. ~2009 ~

External links in biographies of living people
The decision to include an external link in a biography of a living person must be motivated by the objective of preventing potential harm to the subject. While external links to an article can be helpful to the reader, they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. In particular, external links may not be used to introduce material which, if included within the body of the article, would fail to satisfy Wikipedia's policies of neutrality or verifiability. ~2009 ~

Fanning the flames
While wider community participation can help resolve disputes, participating editors are expected to remain civil and to assume good faith to avoid further inflaming the dispute. ~2009 ~

Feuds and quarrels
Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other whenever they interact on Wikipedia, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them. In extreme cases, they may be directed to do so. ~2009 ~

Good faith and disruption
Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.~2009 ~

Good-faith participation welcome
Contributors to Wikipedia may benefit the project by participating in a variety of ways. Good-faith participation is welcome whether it comes in the form of editorial contributions, tagging articles for clean-up, initiating or participating in community deletion discussions, or performing of administrative tasks. Editors making any or all of these types of contributions are welcome. The project and progress toward our goals are diminished if we drive away or demoralize a good-faith editor who contributes or has the potential to contribute, while complying with Wikipedia policies, in any or all of these areas. ~2009 ~

Involved administrators
In several recent instances, administrators involved in disputes have taken sysop actions relating to that dispute and then referred the actions typically to either the administrators' noticeboard or the incidents noticeboard for endorsement or review. This does not comply with policy. In such circumstances, the 'involved' administrator should not take the action but should instead report the issue to the noticeboard, perhaps with a suggestion for appropriate action, to be dealt with by an uninvolved administrator. In limited circumstances, such as blatant vandalism or bad-faith harassment, an involved administrator may act, but such exceptions are likely to be rare.~2009 ~

Meatpuppetry
The recruitment of editors for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged. ~2009 ~

Multiple editors with a single voice
It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors from the same IP or corporate server are sockpuppets, meat puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. The Arbitration Committee may determine that editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits be treated as a single editor. ~2009 ~

Naming Conventions
Naming conventions states: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize." Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a particular person, group or nation has the right to use a particular name, particularly the name it uses for itself (a self-identifying name). Articles should report the objective fact that such names are used; if another nation or group disputes the right to use that name, then information about that dispute (if it is notable) should also be given in the appropriate place. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. Naming conventions also deprecates the use of full formal names in article titles. ~2009 ~

Naming disputes
Protracted naming disputes are not a highly productive form of encyclopedia building and should be avoided if at all possible. Effort spent on actually improving articles as opposed to engaging in disputes over their names is highly encouraged. ~2009 ~

Neutral point of view
Neutral point of view states "Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources."~2009 ~

Neutral point of view 2
Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars.~2009 ~

Neutrality and conflicts of interest
Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. In particular, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests." Neutrality is non-negotiable and requires that, whatever their personal feelings, all editors must strive to ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and  give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source. Editors may contribute to Wikipedia only if they comply with Wikipedia's key policies. ~2009 ~

Neutrality and sources
All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional. ~2009 ~

Non-English-language sources
Wherever possible, English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that English-speaking readers can readily verify the content of the article and, if desired, can consult the source for more information. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available. Where editors translate a direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. There is no requirement that a translation of the source be required in other circumstances, although courtesy and good practice suggest that if a genuine concern arises concerning the content or reliability of the foreign-language source, providing a translation or paraphrase of the relevant portion of its content will help address the concern. ~2009 ~

Outing
Per WP:Outing, outing has not occurred if an editor has previously voluntarily self-identified his or her country, language, nationality, or other personal information. Subsequent posting of that information by other users does not constitute outing. If a user has redacted that information, their wishes should be respected. ~2009 ~

Purpose of Wikipedia 1
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among editors. ~2009 ~

Purpose of Wikipedia 2
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas – such as advocacy or propaganda and philosophical, ideological, religious or political dispute – or to publish or promote original research is prohibited. ~2009 ~

Purpose of Wikipedia 3
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited. ~2009 ~

Quality of sources
Wikipedia articles rely mainly on reliable mainstream secondary sources as these provide the requisite analysis, interpretation and context. For this reason, academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most highly valued sources and are usually the most reliable. In contrast, self-published works, whether by an individual or an organisation, may only be used in limited circumstances and with care. Primary sources may be used to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects of these primary sources. In the event of source disputes, policy requires editors to seek consensus on articles' talk pages; if this fails, the community's Reliable Sources Noticeboard is an appropriate forum for discussion and consensus-building. ~2009 ~

Recidivism
Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions. ~2009 ~

Reliability and verifiability of sources
Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the reliability and accuracy of our content is extremely important. Verifiability, a policy, requires that article content that is challenged or is likely to be challenged must be attributed to a published reliable source supporting the information presented. ~2009 ~

Removing talk page comments
Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. A user's removal of a warning on his or her talk page is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and anonymous users. ~2009 ~

Request for comment/User conduct
A user-conduct request for comment ("RfC/U") represents a forum in which editors may raise concerns about the conduct of a fellow editor or administrator. Although this procedure can be misused, when utilized in good faith, it presents an editor with the opportunity to learn that concerns exist about his or her conduct, respond to the concerns, and if appropriate adjust his or her conduct. Civility and decorum are especially important in the highly charged atmosphere of a user-conduct RfC. RfCs should not be used abusively, nor should the concerns raised in an RfC be ignored.~2009 ~

Responsibility of organizations
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. ~2009 ~

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

Role of the Arbitration Committee
It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors. ~2009 ~

Sanctions and circumstances
In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.~2009 ~

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

Talk page FAQs
The purpose of a FAQ for more active talk pages is to answer often-asked questions about the article, so as not to weigh down the talk page with answering the same questions repeatedly. ~2009 ~

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

Tendentious editing
Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from the affected articles. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site. ~2009 ~

The community has a forward-looking approach to interpersonal disputes
Editors are strongly encouraged - and often expected - to set aside past interpersonal disputes or find ways to move beyond them, and to choose their present Wikipedia conduct in a way which exemplifies this. Users who fail to do so may themselves give rise to disruption. ~2009 ~

Use of accounts
Creating accounts ("sockpuppetry") or coordinating accounts ("meatpuppetry") to manipulate the consensus process; to create alliances to reinforce a particular point of view, to engage in factional or tactical voting; to create "ownership" of articles; to evade topic bans or blocks; or to otherwise game the system, is prohibited. ~2009 ~

Use of administrator tools in a dispute
Administrator actions pertaining to enforcing Wikipedia's conduct policies, such as the sockpuppetry policy, the biographies of living persons policy, the vandalism policy, the civility policy, and WP:BATTLE, do not make an editor involved in a topic. Administrators are not empowered to enforce content policies such as the neutral point of view policy and the verifiability policy by using administrative tools. Administrator tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content dispute. Administrators who are unsure whether they should take an action should defer that action to an uninvolved administrator. ~2009 ~

Wikilawyering and stonewalling
Excessive formalistic and legalistic argument over policies and stonewalling, which ignores the spirit of those policies and serves to obstruct consensus-building processes or cover up an agenda of POV-pushing, is harmful to the project and may be met with sanctions. ~2009 ~

Wikipedia's content governance
Wikipedia content issues —including naming conventions— are governed by its internal editorial policies. Although the points of view of individual states, international organizations or groups, and their views or conventions supported by official sources may be taken into account, they should not constitute a basis for Wikipedia consensus themselves. ~2009 ~