User:Bastun/sandbox/Arbcom

Placeholder for Arbitration clarification request.

<!-- {{subst:Arbitration clarification request


 * case = Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2


 * admin    =  no

|P2 admin = no
 * party2   = Mandruss

|P3 admin = no
 * party3   = Jack Upland

|P3 admin = no
 * party4   =  J mareeswaran

|P3 admin = no
 * party5   = Soham321


 * statement = The Arbcom decision in this case states in part, under Principles: "Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth between competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes."

An unintended consequence of this - or, perhaps, a misunderstanding of the consensus-building process to be used - is that material that satisfies WP:V and WP:RS can be removed by any editor on the grounds that it didn't have consensus to be included (perhaps because they feel it violates some other policy or guideline such as WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BALASP or WP:RECENTISM, and the material can't be re-inserted until consensus to include is achieved. On contentious articles, this may not be easily possible.  An editor may also call an RfC on the inclusion or exclusion of material, which will normally prevent the inclusion of such material for up to thirty days.

Personally, I feel that this is not what was intended by the Arbcom case, as it lends itself to charges of censorhip - if I don't want material included that would be perceived as negative about my favoured political candidate, I can remove it, open a talk page section, and delay it's re-inclusion for some considerable time - from some days, up to over a month. Right now, that means excluding content until after the U.S. presidential election has concluded.

I am therefore seeking clarification on the proper process to use. Where verifiable, reliably-sourced content is disputed, should it or can it be removed from the article until it's clear there's a clear consensus to re-include it?; Or, should the content remain in the article unless there's a clear consensus to remove it?

Should context be required, please see, for example:
 * Talk:Donald_Trump, and
 * Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations (specifically Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations), where the fact that an RfC is taking place is having the effect of excluding coverage of an upcoming court hearing, despite the existence of verifiable, reliable sources covering the background to the allegations and the fact of the upcoming hearing.

-->