Be heartened people. The DNA article is a good article indeed. Its main author was a wikipedian named 168... 168... authored many good articles in the molecular biology field. Unfortunately, he met a user called Lir on the way. He tried to raise the discussion many times on her case. When he saw no reaction from the community whatsoever, he tried different options, which unfortunately, do not go along the rules. He did them in great part to raise attention. He was treated like a paria for doing this. He requested public trial. He had not. I should never had tried to help with mediation, I should have left him speak aloud. He requested arbitration, as he felt he was wronged. He was denied that right. I now know, that arbitration is an unfair process, because access to arbitration is only granted to a certain category of people. So, be heartened people, the DNA article is good article (thanks in great part to 168), and the DNA article is now secure from the outrageous attacks of a dedicated man, who gave so much hard work to the project, and who ended up being treated like a paria and a vandal. will be very happy and relieved that 168 is gone. I hope it will not be the general feeling at least. And that, in spite of 168 abusing sysop power, there will be a couple of person to just thank him for the hard work he gave to the project. Please, do not ALL OF YOU let him go just as you would do with a vandal. It was not winning a battle against 168 that occured. It was just forgetting that those who build the encyclopedia are human beings, and not perfect. ------- A copy of a comment from POM I went back and read through the archives. I think it is clear that Lir has achieved a stunning victory against all others by playing "let's you and him fight," and I can understand why 168 does not like to be in the position of dealing with his victory. I don't think anybody else should be happy with that victory either. If anything has emerged from these discussions its seems to be a consensus regarding Lir's edits. That consensus should not, IMHO, argue in favor of any of the other candidate passages. P0M 06:14, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com