Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency

Case Opened on 08:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

=Final decision= All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Civility/disruption/reasonableness
1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably in their dealings with other users and to observe the principles of assuming good faith, civility, and the writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.


 * Passed 8-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks
2) 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). Wikipedia editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy, and must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.


 * Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
3) Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, that is, they must represent views fairly and without bias.
 * Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring
4) Edit wars or revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration. When disagreements arise, users are expected to adhere to the three-revert rule and discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad nauseum. "Slow revert wars," where an editor persistently reverts an article but technically adheres to the three-revert rule are also strongly discouraged and are unlikely to constitute working properly with others.


 * Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point
5) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. This is considered editing in bad faith. State your point, but don't attempt to illustrate it experimentally.


 * Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Staying cool when the editing gets hot
6) 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.


 * Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soap box
7) Wikipedia is not a medium of advocacy or propaganda of any kind. Editors have an obligation to neutrally reflect on topics and issues, including those that are controversial, but should not demonstrate a pattern of editing that in effect causes an article to reflect a position of advocacy.


 * Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Avoid bias
8) Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Verifiability and No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three.  These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to better reflect practical explanation and application of these principles.


 * Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Identification of problems
11) It is commendable to identify and point out problems with bias in articles or sets of article. It is appropriate to bring these problems to the attention of a project which is concerned with that area and to the attention of individual editors which regularly edit in that area.


 * Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity and reliability
13) A sober discussion of the ethnic or religious background of a scholar might be useful in appropriate circumstances; blanket dismissal of scholars on the basis of their ethnicity is unacceptable.


 * Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Controversial subjects
14) Certain subject areas are controversial. Editing in such areas requires courtesy if the editing process is not to degenerate into unproductive conflict. Users who disrupt editing in controversial areas may be banned from editing in those areas.


 * Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Reliability does not trump NPOV
15) Fair representation of all significant points of view may require use of sources of variable reliability. So long as a source is reasonably reliable it may be used as the source of information that might not otherwise be presented.


 * Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith
17) It is helpful to assume that other users are attempting to build a useful information resource, Assume good faith. It is unhelpful to assume that the purpose of other users is to impose a point of view.


 * Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)