User:DHeyward/Manning

WP:BLP requires removal of contentious material that is poorly sourced
1) Contentious material about living persons, poorly sourced, – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. WP:3RR does not apply to 'removal'.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is from BLP page. The first step in addressing content that is contentious and the sources are questionable, the firs step is removal and can include page blanking.  --DHeyward (talk) 06:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

WP:BLP policy applies to any living person, including but not limited to the subjects of the article
2) WP:BLP policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article. Living persons should be written about responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Straight from WP:BLP. Care must be taken such that reference to ALL living persons in articles and al other spaces are portrayed according to the same standards as subjects of  BLP articles.


 * Comment by others:

By necessity and design, removal of WP:BLP violating material is the only action covered by BLP policy
3) Remove and add operations (i.e. "changing") is a two-step process even if accomplished in a single edit. Removal of BLP violating material is an accepted, required, and protected activity.  Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.  Adding material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to the WP:BLP policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is important clarification when editors are likely to edit edit war and are claiming BLP reasons for maintaining a contentious or preferred version. Disputed material should be removed.  The decision to re-add either the original version or a modified version is separate that must also adhere to all content adding rules.  There should be no such thing as a BLP edit war between two versions.  If versions are contested, neither should be restored.  Blanking and deleting are protected broadly by BLP, adding or modifying are subject to BLP and content edit warring rules.


 * Comment by others:

By necessity and design, removal of WP:BLP violating material is the only editor actions protected by BLP policy
3) Remove and add operations (i.e. "changing") is a two-step process. Removal of BLP violating material is an accepted, required, and protected activity.  Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.  Adding material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is important clarification when editors are likely to edit war and are claiming BLP reasons for maintaining a contentious or preferred version over another. Material disputed on BLP grounds should be removed if there is a beliefe that the content is a violation.  The decision to re-add either the original version or a modified version is a separate act that must also adhere to all content.  There should be no such thing as a BLP edit war between two versions.  If versions are contested, neither should be restored.  Blanking and deleting are protected broadly by BLP, adding or modifying are subject to BLP.  This should be obvious.  "Joe is orange" vs. "Joe is purple".  If an editor believes that "Joe is orange" is a BLP violation, he can remove it and there is wide latitude in such good faith removals.  After removing, if he adds "Joe is purple" it has the same high bar of addition as any other BLP fact.  Even if it's done in a single edit, the removal portion is covered by 3RR protections of BLP, but not the addition.  A revert of that addition and a restoration back to "Joe is orange" should be a clue that the "Joe is ..." sentence should be removed, period, until it is resolved.  Editors that add it back (either version) are sanctionable actions until it's resolved..  Editors that war over the "correct" version are edit warring and not conforming with BLP practice as that requires deletion, not a particular version.
 * This is part of how Wikimedia operates as a host. No policy dictates a particular content.  Policy dictates what material will be removed.  Once policy becomes "Joe must be called Orange", WMF is now the content owner.  This is counter to the WMF stance of only being a host for material with a TOS that certain material will be removed.  I believe all WMF policies that deal with content start with "Content that violates policy X may be removed."  Not replaced.  Not changed to Y.  "may be removed" (not even "shall be removed" because of the duty that would impose.).  Extending policy beyond deleting the offending material misstates it and actually prolongs the problem.  This has been imposed beyond just BLP policy but to copyright as well.  Just like BLP, copyrighted images may be deleted at any time and there is no obligation that a "free" image of the same thing be available before it's deleted.


 * Comment by others:

Editors are protected when they remove material in good faith asserting WP:BLP authority
4) WP:3RR and other sanctions are not appropriate when an editor, in good faith, removes material in accordance with BLP policy. This is not the same as removing BLP violating material, only to replace it with a different, contested version.  Material should be removed or pages blanked if there is a content dispute that involves different views of WP:BLP. Blanked pages should be protected and WP:3RR along with blocks and sanctions if editors repeatedley add or restore material that is contested until consensus about compliance is reached.  WP:BLP is not a refuge to maintain or create a preferred version of an article.  Blanking and deleting, until consensus is reached, is the only proper course to take in order to protect living persons from harm as the community resolves the issue.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Blanking and deleting are protected broadly by BLP, adding or modifying are subject to BLP scrutiny but actions of adding, changing or restoring information that is contested his a high bar to meet. Until the community decides what should be the proper version, if any, or whether the issue is not a BLP issue, but a content dispute.  The editor that is blanking and deleting negative or contentious information is the only editor protected by no-3RR and the other protection provisions.  WP:BLP is never a reason to lock a page with contested information or a contested version.  It should be blanked it BLP is the reason for protect.


 * Comment by others:

Right is better than first for BLP articles
5) WP should strive to get BLP's right before they strive to be first. After one or two BLP page moves over move protection by admins, it should be obvious that the material is contentious and if one of the claims is that it is a BLP concern, it is preferred to blank the page or the section until the issue is resolved.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The power of BLP is vested in deletion and removal. Until a particular version or decision is made, no information is better than incorrect information, unnecessarily harmful information, partisan information or unreliable information.


 * Comment by others:

Page Title wars between Bradley Manning and Chelsea Manning were disruptive
1) After the invocation of WP:BLP and the first two reverts, the proper action would be to blank both pages, eliminate redirects and work the issue out through various forums to achieve WP:BLP compliant versions with compliant redirects and titles. Continuing to war over the title and keeping the article in a status that may possibly violate BLP was disruptive, harmful and unnecessary.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * BLP doesn't say we must have something. Blanking the page while the dispute was resolved would have been proper and sanctioned by WP:BLP policy.  Restoring disputed versions, regardless of which side believed was correct, was disruptive.  It put wikipedia at the front of the story instead of blanking which would have allowed sources to settle.  As it is, we have a version for 30 days that a number editors from both sides are unhappy with and claim there is frozen BLP violations.  This is untenable.  30 days of a blank page where editors can work behind the scenes to achieve consensus would have been better than what we have.


 * Comment by others:

Edit wars between two versions of an article are not shielded by 3RR protections of WP:BLP
2) Edit warring between two versions of the article, rather than between a deletion and an addition, it is by definition a content dispute. Editors did not realize that disputed information that is considered a BLP violation should be removed instead of changed to their disputed version   After realizing that they are content warring over a BLP issue, page blanking should have occurred.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is a routine remedy applied by neutral administrators in protracted content disputes. That shouldn't change because the persons doing the edit warring are admins and working through page protections to get their version.  Regular editors in content disputes are often subject to blanking and protection and that should be no different for this case.  The amount of information available to world on Chelsea Manning is not small and a blank article would have eliminated all of the negative publicity and given the impression of being thoughtful and deliberate as we wait for the sources to settle.  Instead, we gyrated constantly for a week and became the story.  Editors


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: