These barnstar clusters were awarded to science contributors that had few or no awards despite their consistently above average editing and contributions. They reflected a strength/interest of the awardee. With multiple barnstars being awarded, it seemed appropriate to have at least 2 users per barnstar endorsing the cluster.
Each cluster had gone through a process of discussion and multiple drafts before barnstars, layout, images and style was finalized.
On the Matter of the Award of a Barnstar to Serial Arsonist Journal of Wikipedia 20:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Abstract: Serial Arsonist has been shown to be richly deserving of barnstars. Introduction: Since September 15, 2004, SA has made substantial contributions to the Journal of Wikipedia. However, these contributions have not, to date, been recognised by the award of a Barnstar. We propose to test the null hypothesis that SA is not deserving of a Barnstar. Methods: SA's first 5,000 contributions were compared with those of other Wikipedia editors who had received the coveted award of a Barnstar. Each edit by SA and by a random sample of barnstar awardees was scored on a scale of 1-5, where 1 = "excellent" and 5 = "suckee". A two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate the null hypothesis. Results: SA's contributions were found to be significantly better than that of the average Barnstar awardee (p < 0.0001). Discussion: The null hypothesis was rejected; SA is richly deserving of a Barnstar. Based on this fact, we strongly recommend that he be awarded two. Authors: RoyBoy, KillerChihuahua, Parallel or Together?, Ec5618, dave souza, Dunc, Bill Jefferys, Guettarda, Jim62sch, WAS 4.250, Plumbago, Samsara
We, the children of the Earth, acknowledge BillMC to have written many words of wisdom, which will be heeded for generations to come. As such these Barnstars are for your continuing efforts for that which is good, fair and accurate in Wikipedia.
.jpg)
