Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:30, 13 May 2019

The Arbitration Committee has directed that discussion on this page must be sectioned. Unless you are an arbitrator or clerk, create a section for your comments and comment only in your own section. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Comment by CyrilleDunant

@DeltaQuad: a small request, as we are all, me included, possibly getting carried away: the various comments and remarks about the sources, their numbers and such of the undeleted article to be removed as being out of scope.CyrilleDunant (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Ah, but the scope was subsequently reduced. We cannot have a discussion on the article content, surely, as this is out of scope. The fact is that it seemed to Rama that the sources were good, and that it seemed to the others they weren't. There ends the scope, therefore, a mention that such and such source is faulty is out of scope. This then comes to the central question of whether Rama acted in good faith.CyrilleDunant (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: If Rama's assertions had any impact on the scope, then surely the scope would not have been decided against his apparent interest. More importantly, discussion of the nature of the references is absolutely a content dispute, and completely outside the purview of the arbcom.CyrilleDunant (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Icewhiz

@CyrilleDunant: Rama placed them in scope - 06:03, 2 May 2019 - as they justified their admin action in the case requests due to "An article with nearly 30 references by solid institutions (US Navy, Oak Ridge) being deleted in such a way is a very unusual occurrence (I have never seen this before) and I thought it was a unfortunate incident that needed a little nudge and would solve itself when the editors involved would be informed that they were making Misplaced Pages look like a haven for Gamergate-style bullying and misogny.". As they justified their admin action, under scrutiny here, by the number and quality of references - this is relevant (particularly given that this was addressed in the prior discussions Rama overturned). Icewhiz (talk) 10:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@CyrilleDunant: Rama justified their admin action on this basis - as their assertion was addressed and dismissed in several prior discussions on the topic - which they chose to reverse - this is relevant. Had Rama justified their actions on a different basis, then perhaps this would be out of scope, but they explicitly stated they used their admin tools to reverse a prior decision based on the number and quality of references in the article, clearly placing Rama's assertion in scope.Icewhiz (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• In regards to Rama's comments below - the ORNL PR/profiles links were discussed at length in the AFDs and DRV - PR or profiles on an employer's website clearly do not establish WP:SIGCOV. As for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Leslie Kolodziejski (in which I !voted Keep) took place on 1 May 2019, well after Rama's undeletion, and could not have affected their action. Kolodziejski was deemed notable per WP:NPROF - a very specific SNG that allows for non-independent sourcing for some of its criteria (and citations - passing mentions - for others). NPROF is the exception to the rule, and unless the specific NPROF criteria are met - is not relevant.Icewhiz (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Rama

Since references are apparently in scope again: the version I restored had several references from Oak Ridge Laboratories that mention Phelps, I will cite only a few of them:

• , a publication from ORNL (p.22)
• Clarice Phelps: Dedicated service to science and community, also ORNL
• This reference, page xi (p.13 of the PDF), a technical report of ORNL, documents Phelps implication in the Plutonium-238 Supply Program: "Experimentation and analysis for process development was performed by members of the Nuclear Security and Isotope Technology Division, including Jonathan Burns, Kevin Felker, Chris Jensen, Catherine Mattus, Kristian Myhre, Joanna McFarlane, Clarice Phelps, and Joseph Spahr. Inventory management support was provided by Jon Garrison, Laura Harvey, Riley Hunley, Tom Hylton, Robin Taylor, and Gary West." (emphasis added)
• Phelps' page at ORNL: "She has previously contributed to several notable research efforts to include the purification of the Bk-249 used to help discover Z=117, spectroscopic analysis of Pu-238/ Np-237 and their valance states for the Pu-238/ NASA project, and electrodeposition work with Cf-252 for the CARIBU (Californium Rare Isotope Breeder Upgrade) Project." (emphasis added)

ORNL is obviously a serious source of information. The sources are also numerous enough to establish notability by usual Misplaced Pages standards. The entire argumental edifice that Phelps is not notable rests on the foundations that even though solid ORNL references exist, we should do as if it was not the case because the ONRL employed Phelps; as I said in my evidence, when this argument was presented to a larger sample of Misplaced Pages editors in other Deletion Requests launched against articles written by Dr. Wade, User:GerardM and User:Andrew Davidson refuted it . The articles in question have attracted massive votes for keeping, and three of the DRs were closed not only as "Keep", but as "speedy Keep due to WP:SNOW".

Since I had not followed the debates on Phelps' article from the start, I was unaware of the somewhat idiosyncratic and ill-fated argument against employers' sources, and thought Phelps' biography sourced well beyond what is necessary to establish notability. I think it is therefore fair to say that it is not established that I was acting in bad faith in believing the references in Phelps' article could have been valid. Rama (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Cmt by Hodgdon's secret garden

Fwiw the draft admin DGG accepted but was quickly deleted (via wayback machine reposted by GenderDesk here) as repost includes mention of conference paper "Lessons Learned from Processing Mark-18a Targets at Oak Ridge National Laboratory" co-presented by Phelps July 2016 at Intitute of Nuclear Materials Management's 57th Annual Meeting, Atlanta and "Uv-visible Spectroscopic Process Monitor for Hot Cell Mixer-settler Separations at Ornl’s Radiochemical Engineering Development Center" presented by Jamie L Warburton, Clarice E Phelps et al July 2013 at the Institute for Nuclear Materials Management Conference, Palm Desert, CA. It also includes indie sourcing appended by DGG prior its so speedily ah ah ah re- deletion--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)