Talk:UVB-76/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Lock Request

Can I request that the article be reverted to what it was on November and then locked until the Wikipedia staff can make a fair investigation? Seems fair enough to me!

Voyager78906 (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Why should the article be reverted to as it was in November and what needs to be investigated? Adambro (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The article seems to be under "attack" by some editors who are not playing to the spirit of the rules of wikipedia. Reliable sources are only needed where the article is likely to be challenged. Now we have a number of sources such as a well known and respected listening group (Enigma 2000) and other people who listen in and record each message as we hear them - I am such a person. From what I have seen and been told, some editors here are saying that the messages are not confirmed, even though there are hundreds of people listening and recording. I seems to me that the only fair solution is to revert back to how the page was in November and then to lock it out pending an investigation by wiki staff as to the sources used. As I say, the wikipedia rules state that reliable content must be present when the content is likely to be challenged. This just seems to be the most fair option at the moment.

Voyager78906 (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Who do you mean by "wiki staff"? There is the staff of the Wikimedia Foundation but they won't get involved in issues such as this.

As for "Reliable sources are only needed where the article is likely to be challenged", Wikipedia:Verifiability says reliable sources are needed for "any material challenged or likely to be challenged". It is too late now, after material has been removed and myself and others have suggested there should be proper sources for content to say it doesn't need a reliable source on the basis of whether content is likely to be challenged. It already has been challenged.

As is explained at WP:BURDEN, the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". It is now for anyone who wants to add the disputed content to find the reliable sources to support it. If that isn't possible then it shouldn't be added to the article.

On the issue of reverting the article to the version as of sometime in November and then protecting it, I fully support efforts to improve the article in keeping with our guidelines and policies but I struggle to see how that would help achieve that. Adambro (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)