Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-04-22/Arbitration report


 * As expected, we see ArbCom being used to the benefits of angry cabals and special interest groups on the encyclopedia, as opposed to protecting valuable content builders from having their work eroded by POV warriors. Wer900 • talk 22:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So, wait, we're going to prohibit a noted subject-matter expert -- one notable enough to have her own WP article -- from editing within her topic area of expertise? This seems very ill-considered.  Powers T 16:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems very well-considered by me. Experts are often able to act in a way that exhibits the only true marker of adulthood, the ability to disagree without being disagreeable. But "often" isn't "always". Academia has its own, imperfect, way of dealing with the cases where experts are in conflict. And we have ours. Where an expert or experts turn wikipedia into a new battleground for his, her or their off-wiki disagreements, the benefit to the project of their expertise is outweighed by the disruption they cause. Here, ArbCom is asked to fashion a remedy for what no sane person could dispute is disruptive behavior by at least one expert. I can't help with that. They have a thankless job. I CAN help with that. Yo, ArbCom: Thanks. David in DC (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Except they only took action against one half of the problem, thereby for all practical purposes officially endorsing the actions of the other. It is deeply troubling that Cantor is not being topic banned as well, considering his obvious bias and self-promotional activities. It seems like he's getting a pass because the opinion he is pushing is more socially acceptable, despite it not having the academic backing he pretends it does. DreamGuy (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)