Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/18 September 2011/Pit maneuver

Request details
Removal Of How-To Sections.

Where is the dispute?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIT_maneuver#Procedure

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIT_maneuver#Avoidance_maneuvers

Who is involved?
The list of the users involved. For example:
 * User:Andering J. REDDSON
 * User:Exit2DOS2000 seems to care.

Acceptance of Mediation
Please place your signature here to indicate that you are aware of this mediation process and want to participate in it:
 * Andering J. REDDSON (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 07:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC) (I prolly would have noticed sooner if I had been informed on my Talk page instead of my User page. )

What is the dispute?
Besides that it is a “How-To” on how to perform the maneuver AND how to defeat it (which Wikipedia claims to want to avoid, the inclusion of a section detailing how to avoid a PIT Maneuver, irregardless the reasons for it to be included, would violate the law by any person to act on such information in an actual police pursuit, in exactly the same fashion detailing how to defeat body armor would in the event of a shootout with police, or detailing how to convert an AR-15 to am M-16. Here’s the thing: It’s not illegal to know how to do it, it’s not illegal to tell others how to do it, it’s not illegal to put it in print- But if someone actually does what you told them how to do, you can be held liable for their actions. In this case, as “Wikipedia” told people how to defeat a PIT Maneuver, Wikipedia would be held liable for whatever happens, up to and including potentially murder charges. It wouldn’t matter that Wikipedia is a group and one member of the group went off on their own agenda, they can not transfer blame for the action to the singular member beyond banning them. The argument about defeating PIT’s by carjackers, etc, is irrelevant; These are actions committed by definition by criminals, and therefore there will be nothing resembling proper conduct. They do not care if the passengers or innocent bystanders are killed, all they care about is getting the car. It may or may not be true that anti-PIT tactics are effective against them, but if they can’t PIT you they will bury you, and unless you want to develop tactics to defend against a running gun battle there’s in all practical sense nothing you can do. In the end, this is a real “Get Real” moment; It’s not appropriate to detail anti-PIT tactics any more than it’s appropriate to detail how to do a PIT here. That said, the entire Procedure section should be removed; If even ONE jackass tried doing a PIT based on seeing the “how to” here, it’s the same thing as how to avoid one. It would be one thing to present either or both sets of information in a theoretical sense, but the sections as written clearly are intended as a “how-to” manual, complete with pictures. I am not advocating specific censorship; I am saying if someone reads about how to do it here, then tries it in the “real world” Wikipedia can be held accountable. And do not mix apples and rocks; A traffic accident is still a traffic accident, it’s not a combat driving maneuver intended to disable vehicles. (These section was copied and pasted from the talk page, proof that I did try to resolve this.) A. J. REDDSON


 * the dispute is section blanking againt consensus. What if someone was to build a nuclear bomb after reading Nuclear weapon design ??? What if Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 08:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

What steps have you already taken to try and resolve the dispute?
I have attempted to resolve this on the talk page; The text of the discussion was copied and pasted above with the change of adding two words. See Here.


 * Talks with Mr.REDDSON have stalled. We await his awnser to clarify the issue. We (yes several) are not willing to re-ignight an edit war without a clear statement explaining exactly what laws are being broken. (pointing us to the Law would be helpful, but just saying "you cant let people know that" is not enough.) Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 07:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute
Those who want the information here are claiming that it’s needed to prevent carjackings and traffic accidents. Their defense is “consensus” but one 02 people appear to be defending it while at least that number of people want at least the “Defense” section removed.
 * Mr. REDDSON doen not (IMO) understand the basic concept behind WP:NOTCENSORED. By the logic he uses, we should also be deleting Nuclear weapon design. I am willing to accept constructive editing, but Blanking is not constructive or consensus. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 07:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

What can we do to help resolve this issue?
For me, removal of BOTH the how-to sections. Tehre are some who would settle for removal of just the Defense section.
 * explain WP:NOTCENSORED. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 08:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I do.
 * I have always been willing to compromise. Blanking does not seem to be a compromise though, especially when the current version seems to be the stabe version that brought an end to a editwar. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 08:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Administrative notes
Since the time this was originally filed, MedCab has added a prerequisite which requires cases to have been taken to some other form of dispute resolution before being brought to MedCab, so this request is no longer suitable for action here. Please seek help at Third Opinion (if only two editors are involved in the dispute), Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, or through a Request for Comments first. — 14:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC) (as clerk) TransporterMan  ( TALK )

Discussion
Closing: I do hope I did this correctly. I've only done it once before and it wasn't exactly done correctly. AJ REDDSON.
 * Not exactly, but im willing to try it if you feel its the path you want to go down. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 08:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)