Content deleted Content added
Line 909: Forgive me if this is not the appropriate forum to ask such questions, but I couldn't find the appropriate place. I'm currently in a dispute with some other contributors. They have made a controversial edit, and have not provided any citation to back up their edit. I believe the edit needs to be removed until they cite their sources and a consensus is reached on the talk page. They seem to believe that I must prove my case, and until I do the edit should remain. Who has the burden of proof? Can I remove the edit, even violate the 3 revert rule if necessary, until they make their case on the talk page?--[[Special:Contributions/115.94.64.219|115.94.64.219]] ([[User talk:115.94.64.219|talk]]) 08:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC) :You can see [[WP:3RRNO|3RR exemptions]]; this is not among them. Generally, the proof is on those adding content, but that doesn't mean that you can remove it over consensus. If the material clearly doesn't belong, but (especially) multiple editors are restoring it, you can [[Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles|add a tag]] to note that it is disputed and start [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] processes on the talk page or the relevant noticeboards. If the material is inappropriate, consensus of a couple of editors is not likely to outweigh policy requirements for verifiability once the broader community is involved. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 11:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC) == Elen of the Roads/Mo ainm == In light of [[User:Elen of the Roads]] failure to be re-elected as an arbitrator, I'm hoping that what she's been doing regarding [[User:Mo ainm]] can now be investigated. For many months she has blocked, reverted and even checkusered anyone who so much as mentions that Mo ainm is a failed [[WP:CLEANSTART]] - his previous account is not publicly linked from his new one, yet he continues to act in the same way and in the same areas that got him blocked many times under his old identity. If it wasn't for this, Mo ainm's full history would be known to the community, and he would have long ago either been reformed away from being a textbook [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] / [[WP:CPUSH]] editor into a productive and collaborative one, or he would otherwise by now have fully retired or been banned in the same way as other unreformed editors in this topic area, such as [[User:Domer48]]. Elen's explanations for this have always been deficient in terms of evidence, policy or indeed basic fact, with people apparently expected to just trust her. Perhaps this was acceptable when she was an arbitrator, but now that she's failed to be re-elected because what she sometimes thought was right for Wikipedia was not necessarily what the community had trusted her to do or what policy said, a re-examination is in order. In the interests of full accountability, the community need to see an explanation from Elen for this suppression of Mo ainm's full history that is examinable against policy using some actual verifiable evidence, not just her word. If she fails to provide such evidence, I'd expect someone to publicly link Mo ainm to his past account, as policy has always demanded. [[User:MaosTheory|MaosTheory]] ([[User talk:MaosTheory|talk]]) 14:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||