Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Withdrawn motion to dismiss without prejudice
1) Based on this edit, which I must assume was made in good faith, and the fact that DV8 2XL has this morning assisted in adding the sourced facts of uranyl oxide gas production to several articles, including Uranium, and because the other parties have not interfered with any of the involved articles since shortly after arbitration began, I move to dismiss the entire case without prejudice. --James S. 20:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC) This motion is temporarily withdrawn pending sanction of TDC for violations of his ArbCom parole. --James S. 18:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Thank you very much for the time and effort that you have all expended on this difficult and often confusing issue. --James S. 20:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with and support this motion. --DV8 2XL 20:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The only reason there has not been a raging edit war on any of the related articles is because most of the users, well actually, all but one, has extricated themselves from the debate pending the resolution of the arbitration. James behavior with respect to other users as well as mediators is absolutely completely beyond reproach. He does not listen to reason, consensus, or even the qualified input from users who have an expertise he lacks. This arbitration is the only way to achieve resolution on this issue, and it must be completed. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I deny these further personal attacks. The correctness of my position is proven by the fact that my former opponent DV8 2XL moved the crucial information about the toxicity of uranium combustion products, including uranium trioxide gas, into the Uranium article. TDC was in fact editing the articles frequently, and only stopped once he realized that he violated the conditions of his arbitration committee parole by reverting Depleted uranium twice in one day; in the process removing several statements supported from the peer-reviewed medical and scientific literature: Conditions of parole, first revert, second revert. Because TDC continues to flaunt the authority of the Arbitration Committee with false edits and personal attacks made during arbitration, showing a complete and utter lack of good faith, I temporarily withdraw this motion to dismiss and suggest further sanction of TDC. --James S. 18:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I am permanently withdrawing this motion based on DV8 2XL's attempt to decieve and hide continued bad faith, as shown in recent evidence. --James S. 22:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Withdrawn motion to remand for further mediation
2) Since the mediator has resumed mediation activities after bringing this case back to the ArbCom, and because arbitration questions depend on technical subjects of ongoing mediation, the defense has suggested the motion to remand for further mediation. As the mediator has opposed, the motion is withdrawn. --James S. 23:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Because the mediator is opposed to a remand, I withdraw my suggestion. --James S. 18:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This case is about the behavior of this user. He stands charged of violating the rule of the Project by claiming verifiability where there is not; failing to yield to consensus; and engaging in personal attacks. Only content issues can be addresses in mediation. --DV8 2XL 20:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I ask that these new charges of claiming verifiability where there is not be supported by specific diffs, because otherwise they are too vague to respond to. I also remain firm in my dissent against DV8 2XL's edits, because he or she has failed to support any of his or her assertions in mediation with a single citation to the scientific or medical literature. --James S. 21:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The crux of this issue is that James is misinterpreting the citations that he has presented. To demand that this be supported by any other references than the ones presented by him in the first place is ridiculous. This is a clear case of on editor hijacking the process of consensus; every other editor who has looked at these same references have agreed that James has drawn the wrong conclusions, yet he persists on insisting that they do. Am example of this sort of stonewalling is here: and here  and here:  here:  here: and here:  and finally this diff.:  here showing him editing my remarks on his own talkpage to create the illusion of an exchange that never occurred.--DV8 2XL 00:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * DV8 2XL's links clearly show that I have presented several peer-reviewed literature citations in support of the existence of uranium trioxide gas vapor, including at high temperatures and pressures, but DV8 2XL, Cadmium, TDC, and other parties are unable to cite a single source in support of their position. His links above miss the fact that I have also cited this one: Salbu, B.; Janssens, K.; Lind, O.C.; Proost, K.; Gijsels, L., and Danesic, P.R. (2005) "Oxidation states of uranium in depleted uranium particles from Kuwait." Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 78, 125–135:  http://www.bovik.org/du/Salbu-uranyl-detected.pdf  Abstract:  "Environmental or health impact assessments for ... DU munitions should ... take into account the presence of respiratory UO3...." DV8 2XL apparently can not decide whether the ArbCom should be hearing a content dispute in ongoing mediation, or whether this is about my behavior instead.  Although in an ideal world one might hope for consistent adversaries to obtain the truth more rapidly, it is certainly easier to oppose a plaintiff who can't figure out whether he or she wishes behavior or content issues to be arbitrated.  The longer the ArbCom delays ordering us all back into mediation, the more of this uncertain vacillation we may have to endure. --James S. 01:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have examined the paper which James cited above ("Oxidation states of uranium in depleted uranium particles from Kuwait." ) and I have found nothing within it to suggest that UO3 gas was formed. I am perfectly willing to admit that it is possible to form a UO3 gas at very high tempertures and low preasures, but at 1 Bar and 20 oC I think it is impossible to form such a gas, the vast majority of UO3 will be in the form of the solid. The paper which James cited does discuss uranium oxide which is in the form of a fine powder which can be inhaled (in the form of a solid). To me it appears that James is misinterpreting the references that he cites, it is not possible for me to tell if he does so by design (with bad faith) or innocently.Cadmium 22:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Which references concerning the high-pressure, high-temperature properties of the uranium-oxygen system has Cadmium examined, if any? I have examined multiple such references from the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and I am certain that Cadmium's analysis is incorrect. --James S. 06:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have yet to vacillate once on this matter. This is an examination of this editors behavior; ArbCom having stated on more than one occasion that it will not entertain content disputes. James' insistence that these citations support his contentions in the face of consensus on the part of every other editor that has looked at them is in fact on of the behaviors that brought us to this juncture.--DV8 2XL 01:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * How should people respond to someone who claims that he or she has not vacillated in his or her opinion that this matter is strictly about behavior and not content disputes, while claiming two paragraphs above, less than an hour earlier, about "misinterpreting the citations?" Should the ArbCom even entertain cases from those whose edits show such a poor command of the basic ability to represent the truth about one's own words written in plain sight? --James S. 01:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Violations of WP:NOR and WP:V as well as WP:CON are issues of behavior. The existance of UO3 gas (for example) is an issue of content. --DV8 2XL 01:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * DV8 2XL has alluded to violations of WP:NOR, but has been unable to substantiate any; apparently preferring to spend time, that he or she could be in the library doing research, by instead removing my peer-reviewed citations to the scientific literature showing the existence of uranium trioxide gas formation at high temperatures and pressures. DV8 2XL has been unable to substantiate any violations of WP:V, as his or her inability to answer any of the questions in open mediation shows.  DV8 2XL has been unable to show any hint of violations of WP:CON, knowing full well that several other editors support my additions of dozens of statements supported by citations to the medical and scientific peer-reviewed literature in Depleted uranium, Gulf War syndrome and related articles.  If there should be any remedies, they should be against the plaintiffs for their insistence on following their personal attacks against me with their repeated disinformation campaign against the articles involved, culminating in this frivolous request for arbitration in which the unsubstantiated personal attacks by DV8 2XL against me continue.  If this absurdity continues, I will not hesitate to present further evidence of much earlier personal attacks and suggest just such remedies. --James S. 02:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have presented my arguments supporting the charges and specifications that have been brought against this editor, and he has presented his rebuttals. Given the tone of the above entry, I chose not to extend an answer as it will not serve this process if this exchange devolves into a sterile ad hominem debate. Therefore I believe I will recess my arguments for the time being and permit the other named parties to make theirs.
 * I will conclude by reminding ArbCom that while it is not bound by the precedents it sets, its deliberations and decisions are viewed with great interest by the editing community at large, and its judgments on these issues may well have far-reaching effects beyond the settlement of this case. --DV8 2XL 03:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no prohibition on my asking for a standard on conduct from other parties that I have been asking for all along: That they do not challenge the assertions of the peer-reviewed medical and scientific literature without a reason to do so.  And if they can't even remember whether they are asking for content changes or behavior changes, then there is no prohibition on my asking for further restrictions on their conduct.  I would appreciate the one I've been asking for. --James S. 04:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that James continues to behave as if he is the wronged party in this dispute, and the fact that he will not recognise that that we have given reasons ad nauseam for why we feel he has misinterpreted the literature, is in fact a behavior issue. Demanding that he be granted a sweeping immunity to any challenge of his entries on Wikipedia is little short of delusional. --DV8 2XL 01:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The facts show that I am the wronged party. I have corrected the present tense of the proposed finding of fact to which DV8 2XL refers to past tense for the purposes of this arbitration. I hope that I will always be supporting my statements with reputable sources in all my contributions. --James S. 11:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I offered mediation on the understanding that ArbCom does not usually accept disputes as to content. I do not believe that ArbCom (or my mediation) should rule on the "scientific truth" (whatever that means) of the allegations of either side: Wikipedia is NOT the Spanish Inquisition. However Mr Salsman entered into mediation volontarily, and then continued to act both to prolong the conflict and to draw in parties who were not otherwise involved. His conduct makes attempts at mediation very difficult, and, IMHO, potentially dangerous to Wikipedia. I have continued activities related to mediation as there are still scientific points which have remained undiscussed: this was never meant to override the authority of ArbCom to examine points of conduct, which fall more into their jurisdiction rather than that of a simple, well-meaning admin. I ask the Arbitration Committee to reject this motion. Physchim62 (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * These new charges of acting "both to prolong the conflict and to draw in parties who were not otherwise involved" are vague and thus I can not respond to them. I ask that they be substantiated with specific diff(s). I note that the mediator opposes further mediation. --James S. 08:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Motion to close evidence
3) I ask that the evidence period be closed, please. --James S. 09:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * No problem. A week seems a reasonable time to me Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I think the case is sufficiently made, so I amend my earlier request for a longer extension. --James S. 18:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Replacing "a week" based on arbitrator comments above. --James S. 15:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm getting tired of being blamed for DV8 2XL and Dr U's apparent abandonment of Wikipedia -- after they have made so many personal attacks and factual errors while I've been civil and accurate. Please don't let this drag on any further, let's get it over with. --James S. 09:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Request for comparison of removed table of authorities
4) While the parties were still in active discussion here on the workshop page, a non-party and a clerk both removed a defendant's annotated table of plaintiff's cited authorities, which may now be seen at the evidence discussion page. The defense considers the annotations in the table crucial to the case.  Please acknolege that you have read the annotated table and the surrounding discussion which was taking place when they were removed from the workshop page, and that you have compared that table to the several peer-reviewed sources from the medical and scientific literature provided by the defense.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * 1) Ypu want the arbitrators to comment that they have read the evidence? If you place the evidence on the evidence page the AC will read it, there is no need for the arbitrators to individually acknowledge that we read the evidence page. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Thank you for also reading the evidence discussion page. --James S. 21:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
5)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

James S. enjoined from reversing any refactorings performed by a Clerk.
1) James S. has been repeatedly reversing any and all attempts by anyone to reduce the amount of sheer verbiage on the workshop page. This includes not only reversing other parties and non-party editors, but also repeatedly reversing User:johnleemk, acting in his capacity as clerk (See /Evidence#James S. disrupts the Workshop page).  While good faith disagreements may result in a little back-and-forth on a workshop page, the severity of goes beyond good faith disagreement into disruption.  This behavior makes it extremely difficult to make progress on the arbitration.  Henceforth, James S. is not to reverse any refactorings performed by any arbcom clerk acting in their official capacity.  Violation of this injunction shall result in a temporary block.  Repeated violations shall result in increasingly longer blocks.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I note that this proposed injunction is offered by Nandesuka who is not a party to this case, and whose edits have been strongly suggestive of edit waring against my contributions to this workshop for the past twelve hours at least. The table of authorites below, which Nandesuka initially removed and then asked a clerk to remove, is crucial to this case.  Because there is an active discussion surrounding it, it is absurd to move somewhere else.  The table of authorities needs to be seen, even if some people would prefer that it be hidden away.  Wikipedia is not paper. There is essentially no harm done by an extra ten kilobytes on an obscure arbitration workshop page. I asked that this injuntion be denied, and that the Committee grant my request that the clerks refrain from editing any section but the analysis of evidence section until the parties' discussions have subsided. --James S. 20:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Evidence is not supposed to be on the workshop. Johnleemk | Talk 14:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep I think there has been a misunderstanding here over the nature of the arbcom pages. Please put all evidence on the evidence subpage not on the workshop page. There certainly is harm down by having kilobytes of evidence/discussion on this page. Please keep evidence and comments short, sweet and to the point. You should also not revert clerks edits to this page. A clerks job is to assist us (The arbitrators) in coming to a full and fair decision by making sure that the evidence and proposals are clear, and not rambling. Cheers! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Well, I tried "get the Clerk to help out," and despite johnleemk's best efforts James shows no indication that he will be slowing down his rate of disruption. So let's take this to the next level.  I deliberately limited this request for injunction to edits made by Clerks in order to give James the benefit of the doubt with respect to edits made by any other editor.  But I think it's clear that repeatedly reversing the Clerk's attempts to make the page even vaguely readable is unreasonable behavior. Nandesuka 19:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that this page is unreadable, and that is a strange charge from an editor who spent so much time trying to slice up the discussion threads by "refactoring" them completely out of their contexts. --James S. 20:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Partial protection of Uranium trioxide requested (Withdrawn)
2) Because Uranium trioxide has recently been vandalized by new users removing source-supported information about the bond lengths, angles, the structural diagram, and the entire See also section, making personal attacks in edit summaries, not to mention removing a dispute tag while their dispute with the article still remained, I request partial protection of the article for one week. --James S. 18:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC) I withdraw this request. --James S. 09:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Thank you for your help. Diffs to follow if requested. --James S. 18:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A different new anonymous user exhibiting the same behavior. --James S. 19:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not so many anonymous IPs reverting things from Uranium trioxide in the past week -- and the article has improved very substantially -- so please disregard this request. --James S. 09:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Parties enjoined from making any further personal attacks
3) The continued personal attacks, as linked here ("... You are now simply just another pathetic crank.") and in past and recent evidence are an affront to our standards of civility, evidence of a behavior problem beyond the content dispute, and should be corrected. I had to revert three times simply to restore mention of uranyl oxide gas as a combustion product of uranium after DV8 2XL repeatedly removed it from Uranium trioxide over the past 12 hours. Please ask DV8 2XL to refrain from making personal attacks, and to refrain from editing the articles involved in this dispute. --James S. 22:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Based on recent settlement and improved interactions, I withdraw this request. I believe that DV8 2XL has been acting in good faith, but the magnitude of the issues involved led to emotional responses in some cases. I do not believe a factual dispute remains here, even though DV8 2XL have a different point of view, for example on whether uranium trioxide should have partial protection from the new anonymous editors who have been vandalizing it. --James S. 18:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC) I reinstate this request. --James S. 22:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Why just pick on me James. Why not ask for an injunction preventing everyone but you to edit the topics in question? You revert everyone else attempts at editing that article. And you have to get it through your mind that telling someone that they are wrong doesn't constitute a personal attack. And I did not "repeatedly removed it" unless you want to accuse the other editors of being my sock puppets again. --DV8 2XL 00:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe DV8 2XL is using "everyone" to refer to only two or three people. Removal by DV8 2XL; repeated removal. --James S. 00:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This request is withdrawn reinstated. --James S. 22:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

James put on 1-revert parole on uranium-related articles
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Since James continues his revert war on Uranium trioxide and, having just been blocked for the second time for violating the 3RR, represents his role in the dispute as "reverting blatant vandalism" that shouldn't count towards the 3RR I request that he be put on 1RR parole for articles related to uranium to give civil discourse a chance.
 * James may perform one revert every 24h on such articles, each of which must be accompanied with an explanation on the talk page. He may use talk pages freely to convince others of his stance. Dr Zak 13:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
5)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

=Proposed final decision=

Warnings of potential violations of law are not personal attacks or legal threats
1) Pointing out a potential violation of a law which could harm the Wikimedia Foundation is encouraged, and doing so may not be construed as a personal attack or a legal threat.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Wikilawyering and harassment violates Wikipedia policy. Fred Bauder 15:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I believe such warnings are not only allowed, but have been repeatedly encouraged by the highest Foundation officials, including in terms indicating that the Foundation legal staff approve of such warnings. I do not believe that such a warning amounts to a personal attack, especially against any user who declares a continuing desire to remain pseudonymous. There are jurisdictions where the medical disclaimer may not apply, e.g., any common law court where the jury is sufficiently swayed. Therefore, my behavior in this matter has been exemplary, and I should be commended for the extent to which I have added sources supporting Wikipedia in defense of the Foundation. --James S. 18:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The content and the tone of the exchange here is not framed as a warning of a potential violation of a law which could harm the Wikimedia Foundation. It is framed as an attack on User:Dr U. I quote a statement made by James:
 * "I am not surprised that you refuse to reveal your identity, because if you did, your attempt at disclaiming diagnostic activities would not keep the gross scientific, medical, and ethical misconduct apparent in your edits from reflecting directly on you and potentially endangering your professional standing. If you can not own up to your credentials, then you have no business claiming the benefit of them. There is no way to distinguish you from a pretender, and the slant of your edits suggests worse."
 * (Emphasis added by James S. 04:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC) to his quote re-submitted by DV8 2XL)
 * Attempting at this stage to claim that he only had the best interests of the Project in mind is transparently false. --DV8 2XL 20:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. The tone of the warning is commensurate with the potential for damage from misinformation. It is diffcult for me to see how DV8 2XL's opinion is reasonable. As another pseudonymous author who claims credentials but refuses to allow them to be verified or to take personal responsibility for his edits, he or she has repeatedly removed peer reviewed references from Uranium trioxide. --James S. 21:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There was no mention of the vulnerability of Wikimedia Foundations potential legal exposure anywhere in James tirade against Dr U.; an oversight that makes it difficult to support the contention that this was any part of the motivation behind this attack. Note too that above he brings up the issue of verifying an editors credentials, as he did on my talk page here: at the same time he was engaging with Dr U.. This demand cuts to the very core of Wikipedia's ideology and is not supported by any policy at all, and in and of itself can be construed as a personal attack. --DV8 2XL 01:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I see very few mentions of the Foundation in requests to correct copyright violations, either. Does DV8 2XL claim that such demands also cut to the very core of Wikipedia's ideology?  Personal responsibility to abide by society's laws, copyright, slander, libel, medical malpractice, or otherwise, is something that everyone should take seriously, but DV8 2XL repeatedly refuses to associate his or her name with his or her edits, so I see no evidence that he or she will ever take any personal responsibility for them. --James S. 01:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The above is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to deflect criticism and obscure the question at hand. Wikipedia does not require that editors present credentials or identify themselves at all, and no policy exists that requires that anyone answer to another editor when challenged. Also the charge of copyright infringement is a simple one to prove as a simple comparison of texts will determine if this is occurring; malpractice, or other forms of ethical misconduct are vastly more complex and cannot be judged that simply. A violation of copyright can be repaired by a simple delete; if that was done in error (if permission is found to use the material) a simple revert repairs the damage. Any attempt to compare the two is disingenuous at best. --DV8 2XL 01:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * DV8 2XL suggests that there are two classes of laws, those which should be obeyed while editing Wikipedia, and those which need not be. I contend that editors must strive to find the truth, and point out potential violations of law which might harm the Wikimedia Foundation, because the truth is an absolute defense against all tort claims based on the content of speech, including difficult cases of slander and libel with which the Foundation Office must contend regularly, and because without the Foundation, Wikipedia would be in danger. --James S. 01:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Again I ask why is this sudden concern for the legal vulnerability not a part of the attack on Dr U? Any unbiased reading of that passage clearly demonstrates that James was attempting to execute a thinly veiled threat against Dr U and was not concerned with Wikipedia, which may well have been drawn into litigation as a co-respondent had this been actioned. --DV8 2XL 02:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Asked and answered, above. We need not mention the Foundation every time we point out potential violations of law which may harm it.  I made no threat against Dr U; my request for information with which to verify his claimed medical doctorate is explained in full:  He signs "Dr U" and claims an M.D. on his user page, and any common law jury might reasonably draw an unfortunate inference if some future plaintiff against the Foundation were to argue that his edits were representative of his claimed professional standing. I have never made a legal threat, and it is easy to prove that I have read and understand the medical disclaimer because I have commented on it.  If Dr U felt genuinely threatened by my request to verify his M.D., then that can only be because he is ashamed of what he has written while claiming to be a medical authority.  Aren't physicians required to take an oath which specifically limits their use of poisons? --James S. 02:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have the right to free speech. That right did not disappear the day I graduated from medical school.  I am not rendering medical advice.  If I made a hypothetical statement like "I advise everyone to put depleted uranium on your cornflakes because it is healthy," then that might qualify as medical advice.  I haven't told anyone what they should or shouldn't do.  The most absurd part of this whole affair is that when User:Nrcprm2026 launched his tirade against me, it was because I reverted to a prior version created by User:TDC.  Before the change, the current version had at least 14 references to the toxicity of uranium.  After I reverted to TDC's version, the current version had at least 13 references to the toxicity of uranium.  He then accused me of saying that uranium wasn't toxic!  I am under no obligation to HIDE my background, just as I am under no obligation to SHARE it in its entirety.  I started out on wiki editing non-health related articles.  My user page and signature predate my involvement in this topic.  I would guestimate that 90% of my 3000+ edits have been on non-health related topics, so clearly it was not designed to give me any special standing or advantage on editing health-related topics.  Even if my user page is fake, and I am not an MD, but really a consoratorium of five 13 year olds with computers, that doesn't matter, as I am not giving medical advice.  Even a 13 year old is entitled to post an online essay on the "dangers of smoking", or "why guns are not as dangerous as critics claim."  Dr U 07:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I consider unreasonable that Dr U should be given a hard time becuase he refuses to reveal his entire background. I am a doctor (PhD) and like those who hold a MD I still have freedom of expression. I would state that if all editors were forced to reveal their legel names and all details of their background then many would be discourgaed from adding to the wikipedia.Cadmium 21:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * James' claim that he was acting in the Foundation's best interest is ludicrous on its face. This was transparently an attempt to leverage the spectre of legal sanction into an advantage in a content dispute; I have introduced his diffs into evidence and added findings of fact and remedies to address this misbehavior. Nandesuka 12:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that I have been editing in anything but support of the truth, and in support of the Wikipedia community. A wider glance at my contribution history will make that plainly clear to anyone who cares enough to check. Nandesuka's edits would lead one to believe that he or she has failed to assume good faith. --James S. 08:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate presentation of trend information
2) It is appropriate to display trend information on a graph when it represents the best known degrees-of-freedom-adjusted fit from a reasonably large set of fitted mathematical models, and is displayed with goodness-of-fit information and prediction confidence intervals.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The combination of DOF-adjusted R^2 and prediction confidence intervals properly addresses concerns about graphic extrapolation. --James S. 18:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Extrapolation of any data regardless of how it is presented violates both the the letter and the spirit of WP:NOR.It is by definition a synthesis and thus violates the terms of this section: "An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source."--DV8 2XL 20:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have made no syntheses without direct support from cited references; if there is a counter-example, I would like to see it. On the issue of the graphs, I selected from the three different versions of the extreme weather costs graphs after the 2005 data point became available, and the second one, which I selected, was produced entitrely from suggestions and comments I received after posting the first. The graph produced from the suggestions of others was selected because it precisely matched the 2005 preliminary data. --James S. 22:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The absurdity of the argument against my edits is easily shown with an example readily at hand. We know that uranium is teratogenic, i.e., it causes congenital malformations or birth defects.  So are we prohibited from saying that uranium causes congenital malformations because some of them may be a future event?  Of course not.  Any reasonable person may reasonably extrapolate that a poison may cause harm if people are exposed to it in the future.  Such descriptions of future events are not the same as an extrapolation without prediction confidence intervals or goodness-of-fit statistics. Just as we should hold the graphs we choose to include to a high standard, we should not allow those who may wish to suppress information about dangerous substances from hiding that information just because it involves future events. --James S. 23:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The only question at hand is if these represent OR under the terms of the policy. Again I quote from the policy itself: "The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean the material is bad – Wikipedia is simply not the proper venue for it. We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia." That the extrapolation has predictive confidence is not germaine - the fact that is a synthesis is. --DV8 2XL 00:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What is DV8 2XL calling a synthesis? If reference A says men are mortal and reference B says that Socrates is a man, are we prohibited from writing "Socrates is mortal (A, B)" in an article? DV8 2XL's insistence on obfusticating this issue and his or her removal of several peer-reviewed articles in support of my position after having found none in support of his or hers has become tiresome. --James S. 00:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is original research to reach and present conclusions based on data. If the conclusion you are reaching is not a crackpot theory, it will be trivial to find a reputable source that presents it, rather than having to present the deduction yourself. Nandesuka 01:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, concluding "Socrates is mortal" is entirely supported by syllogism from existing sources A and B above, and is thus unlikely to be accepted as new or original research in any publication. Original research involves finding new data, not simply deducing facts from existing data:
 * "[R]esearch that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not 'original research'; it is 'source-based research,' and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." (emphasis added) --WP:NOR
 * If source A says x implies y, and source B says x, then the deduction y is a legitimate organization of the underlying facts through deduction. In fact, the root of the word "organizing" is the Latin organum, meaning tool or instrument, which was in turn taken from Aristotle's Organon, in which the first surviving princples of logical inference were written.  --James S. 01:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Beyond the fact that he is trying to compare apples with oranges here, any drawing of novel conclusions is synthesis NOT 'reorganizing' data. To the best of my knowledge Aristotle's Organon does not form part of Wikipedia policy. Invoking it in this context and claiming that synthesis via deduction is permitted because the title of this text finds its roots in a Latin term shared by a term in policy is an error in logic of the highest order. --DV8 2XL 02:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Does anyone seriously contend that Wikipedia editors are not allowed to organize facts by logical deduction? If we find a table of numbers in a reference book, may we deduce that the numbers in the columns below the headings pertain to their headings?  If we find a number in English units, may we deduce its metric equivalent?  May we deduce that a city on a map exists in a region within which it is drawn? A firm opposition to logic is all too apparent in the edits of DV8 2XL and those who have opposed the inclusion of trend information. --James S. 02:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

No original research
3) "No original research" is one of the three core content policies on Wikipedia. It is a key principle because it speaks directly to our reputability as an encyclopedia.  Material that synthesizes established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis itself to a reputable source, is original research.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * My research is not original: Uranium was a known teratogen in reputable publications as early as 1953, and the production of uranium trioxide gas at high temperatures and pressures was completely known and available in reputable publications in university libraries by 1962, before incindiary depleted uranium munitions had been proposed to Congress. Wilson, W.B. (1961) "High-Pressure High-Temperature Investigation of the Uranium-Oxygen System," Journal Of Inorganic and Nuclear Chemistry, 19, 212-222. My graphs involving trend information projected into the future properly summarize the available published data, because they include prediction confidence intervals as well as goodness-of-fit statistics. The disputed graph in the depleted uranium article does not display any trend, as it was drawn from raw data published by physicians from Basrah University Hospital. --James S. 22:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Since one of the core transactions in this case involves the creation of charts and graphs that, it is argued, synthesize established facts to make a case, we should summarize the NOR policy. I made it deliberately brief specifically to address the "synthesis" issue; if other aspects of WP:NOR are relevant here, we should consider a separate principle. Nandesuka 21:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Experts do not occupy a privileged position in Wikipedia
4) While Wikipedia welcomes experts, editors are prohibited from drawing on their personal and professional knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. Expert editors may draw on their knowledge of other published sources to enrich our articles. However, such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I note that the pseudonymous alleged experts editing in support of DU munitions have claimed credentials of proficiency including degrees, engineering licenses, and a medical doctorate, in some cases in each signature and on user pages, none of which have been presented in a verifiable manner. --James S. 22:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * At no time and in no place in any of the articles main space has anyone invoked expert status. No prohibition exists for such assertions in the discussion space. No evidence of any edit supported only by a claim of expert status can be found. --DV8 2XL 04:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you excluding edits without summaries? Becuase we've had some of those. --James S. 05:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That statement has no relevance to the question of expert opinion. --DV8 2XL 14:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, if someone sees nothing but "Dr U" in an edit summary, and clicks on the user name to find that the user claims a M.D., if they aren't familiar with the medical disclaimer, the user might very well think that editor was editing as a physician instead of as an ordinary editor who has made a decision to set aside standards of personal and professional conduct while editing. If "Dr U" wants to claim his M.D. so prominently, I don't see how he can escape the responsibility that goes with it. I suppose an oath can be just a bunch of words to some people, but those people, in my opinion, shouldn't put the Wikimedia Foundation at risk with their blatant disregard for that oath and the responsibilities that come with it. It's not ethical to make wide-ranging statements about the medical condition of thousands contrary to the overwhelming preponderance of the peer-reviewed medical literature. There is no guarantee that other editors can remove such unsourced assertions before they do harm. --James S. 17:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This line of reasoning presumes that it has been established that the edits of Dr U constitute medical advice. I submit that this has not been established, and the preceding represents an unwarranted attack on the editor known as Dr U. --DV8 2XL 04:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Relevant due to James S.'s insistence that another editor reveal his or her credentials. Text comes basically out of WP:NOR Nandesuka 21:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Reputable publications
5) Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications. Publications by individuals or organizations with an economic stake in the issue being discussed must be scrutinized for potential bias.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The first sentence is taken verbatim from WP:NOR. DU munitions supporters have cited references from Lockheed Martin-funded Sandia National Laboratories, and NATO, which all have a clear financial stake in the issue. It is telling that they are unable to claim any support in the peer-reviewed medical or scientific literature. Until the pseudonymous editors reveal their identities, we can not know the extent of their stake in the issues. --James S. 22:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Verifiability
6) Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. However, providing the reputable source in support of a contribution is not the same is verifying that source, which is the responsibility of the contributing editor as well as any editor seeking to remove the source-supported contribution.  Verifiability is the joint responsibility of the contributing editor and any editor who wishes to remove source-supported statements.  Source-based statements may not be removed without reason.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The first three sentences are verbatim from WP:V. Note that users are not required to place only verifiabile information on their user pages, but readers who browse edit histories may reasonably be expected to draw certain conclusions about, e.g., "Dr U" who claims a medical doctorate on his user page. --James S. 19:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Source-based research
7) Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing sources is strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * From WP:NOR with "primary and/or secondary" and "of course" elided; reproduced in full in the discussion of "Trends" above. --James S. 01:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Alternative (a) from WP:NLT
8a) Use dispute resolution rather than legal threats. This does not mean, of course, that claims of copyright infringement are not to be made; similarly, slander, libel, or defamation of character is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia. True instances of such writing, which might legitimately expose Wikipedia to legal sanction, should immediately be called to the attention of an administrator and/or the community at large.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * WP:NLT is official policy. Relevant to the intimidating statements made; see Evidence. Nandesuka 02:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Neither diff constitutes a legal threat, and text of the principle you proposed (e.g., "poisonous") appears nowhere on WP:NLT and is confusing when discussing actual, real-life poison. I am replacing the proposal with text from WP:NLT. --James S. 02:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The arbitrators are free to adopt whatever principles they choose, at their pleasure. Nothing limits them to the text of policy pages.  I have offered my stronger version below as an alternative. Nandesuka 03:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You believe that your version presenting one side of the issue only, is "stronger" than the version which includes the exeptions? Interesting.  I hope your other edits show less bias. --James S. 04:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Alternative (b) absolute
8b) Attempting to intimidate editors through threats or auguries of legal action, in addition to being incivil, has a chilling effect on editors participating in the encyclopedia. The use of legal threats to resolve content disputes is poisonous to the work of an encyclopedia, and is absolutely unacceptable.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The words "auguries" and "poisonous" do not appear on WP:NLT and are confusing here. This version fails to list the exeptions as described in Alternative (a), and therefore "absolutely" suggsts perhaps more "strength" than the policy implies. --James S. 04:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * WP:NLT is official policy. Relevant to the intimidating statements made; see Evidence. Nandesuka 03:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Exposure to legal sanction should be reported
9) Writing which might legitimately expose Wikipedia to legal sanction should immediately be called to the attention of an administrator and/or the community at large.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * From WP:NLT per above, in case proposed principle alternative 6a is not approved. I note that it is apparent in the statements I made which are alleged legal threats that I did not know at the time whether a legal case could be made: I said that Dr U's edits could potentially damage his professional standing, and I asked him if there was any reason why his edits would not run afoul of professional misconduct reguations.  So at that time prior to speaking with an attorney about common law, not only was I clearly not making legal threats, but I had no duty to report Dr U under this proposed principle because I clearly did not know then whether such a case could be made, yet. --James S. 03:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have edited this to list the precise violations that WP:NLT says should be reported. Given that no allegation of slander, libel, defamation, or copyright violation is at issue in this case, this does not look relevant to me. Nandesuka 03:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have replaced your proposal with mine; you perhaps should use your method of presenting alternatives, but I might remind you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's conventions on title case, and not intermix numbering with alphabetic enumeration. Or of course, we could just flatten and add more proposed principles. --James S. 03:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no need for me to provide an alternative. Instead, I'll just note that this principle, as presented,  grossly misstates what WP:NLT says, and in fact runs counter to its spirit.  It should not be adopted. Nandesuka 03:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * In what way do you claim that the proposed principle runs counter to the spirit of WP:NLT? There are torts involving speech based on both comission and omission.  Defending the Foundation against potential legal process is not limited to any particular class of torts.  I am not an attorney, but I have recently spoken with an attorney about speech tort claims in common law, and I recommend you do the same. --James S. 03:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
10) An individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create in the Wikipedia itself proof that the rule does not work. This does not mean that if proof exists in reputable sources that a current law or regulation is dangerous, that the elements of the proof should not be contributed to Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I hope I don't need to invoke this one. --James S. 05:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * An example of this sort of disruption can be seen here: where James unilaterally dumped the contents of the settlement article into Depleted uranium without discussion and without wikifiying the entry because he claimed the agreement had failed. No prior discussion with the principals and orphaning a section on history.
 * This move was clearly a case of disruptive editing designed to punish the other editors working on that page that had requested and received a lockdown from User:MONGO. James can find no evidence of disruptive editing on the part of any other principle in this case, his sly comment that "(He hopes) ...I don't need to invoke this one," is an pathetic attempt to insinuate that he is showing restraint.--DV8 2XL 15:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * After our first attempt at mediation, the voluntary compromise that the parties reached before a mediator even took the case was repeatedly edited by the plaintiffs, who removed and obscured several passages, including those supported by the peer-reviewed medical and scientific literature, in contravention of our explicit voluntary settlement agreement. Even if they hadn't, I would have been well within my rights to redirect the voluntary compromise settlement with the absurdly long name into the parent article after folding in its content, as I did, because the split violated the Content forking guideline. I have shown an abundance of restraint by not asking for any sanctions against the plaintiffs that I am not willing to be bound by myself.  I remind DV8 2XL of his or her multiple personal attacks on my scientific integrity and ability to understand the sources I cite, and remind him or her that I have every right to raise those issues if his or her groundless abuse of this process continues. --James S. 18:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * More revisionism. First James agreed to the split and defended it then, he replaced the text with the statement that the compromise had failed, and now he claims it was illegal fork. This capacity for making up new reasons after the fact can be seen in just about every one of his arguments here and make me wonder just how interested this person is in the truth, or indeed if he even knows at this point what it is. --DV8 2XL 20:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I defended the fork while the other parties were still abiding by our agreement to keep it consistent, and before I had read the Content forking guideline. The accusations calling my personal integrity and respect for the truth into question are plainly absurd attacks against me, not my edits, and represent further bad faith on the part of DV8 2XL. --James S. 20:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

No personal attacks
11) There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor. It is our responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Everyone makes mistakes, myself included. I've apologized for a number of things I've written in confusion or haste which could be construed as personal attacks.  But the attacks against me continue despite my best efforts to participate in dispute resolution in good faith, and are especially inappropriate here. --James S. 20:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Priority of edits to arbitration workshop
12) In arbitration, arbitrators have priority over the parties, and the parties have priority over non-parties, when making edits to the arbitration workshop project page. It is not rude or incivil for an arbitrator or a party to ignore a non-party's Inuse tag if the non-party is warned that it will be ignored on their talk page first.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I have been accused of incivility and disruption by Hipocrite because, after warning on User talk:Nandesuka, I decided to ignore his or her Inuse tag with an unspecified time for a "major edit" that he or she was using to elide sections of the workshop page unfavorable to his or her point of view. Nandesuka had already removed large sections unfavorable to his or her point of view from the workshop, so I created a sub-page for him or her; there have been no complaints on my talk page since.  The charge of "filling the workshop page with irrelevancies" is too vague to address.  I can find no guideline or policy saying that parties should yield to non-parties on arbitration workshop pages.  Therefore, I respectfully ask that this principle be confirmed. --James S. 16:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Discussion is allowed in arbitration workshop
13) Workshop project pages created in arbitration encourage comments by arbitrators, parties, and others, and therefore encourage threaded discussion as is expected on talk pages. Removing or reordering threaded discussion out of context is disruptive.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I tried to fix this, and then I was accused of being disruptive. Such is arbitration, I suppose. --James S. 16:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Teratogenicity is notable
14) Those interested in incendiary DU munitions would benefit by knowing that, according to the peer-reviewed medical and scientific literature, uranium combustion products are teratogenic.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This content dispute was the subject of ongoing mediation. But it doesn't seem to be in dispute, given the plaintiffs' inability to present any more reputable sources against it. --James S. 18:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Issues of content are not relevant to this case and should not be addresses here. --DV8 2XL 20:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Slow poison of civilians is notable
15) Those interested in weapons would benefit by knowing which of them, according to the peer-reviewed medical and scientific literature, poison civilians off of the battlefield after the battle is over.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Moved from a request; not in dispute as far as I know. Common sense. --James S. 18:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Issues of content are not relevant to this case and should not be addresses here. --DV8 2XL 20:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Editors by consensus determine if the terms of WP:V have been met
16) Self explanatory. Since no arbitration mechanisms exists for determining content, this task must fall on the editors acting in concert acting under the terms of policy.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Relevant to the charges that the accused by his behaviour is violating the spirit and letter of WP:CON and WP:V --DV8 2XL 17:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. If an overwhelming majority of editors are unable to verify because they can not be bothered to do library research, that does not give them the right to removed source-based statements. --James S. 21:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Discussing chemistry with James is as productive as arguing with a fence post. Any argument, every single one disappears down /dev/null. And getting blindy reverted by a fence post or telegraph pole is extremely off-putting. Dr Zak 15:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Dr Zak's characterization -- and present he has taken issue with Salbu, B. et al. (2005) "Oxidation states of uranium in depleted uranium particles from Kuwait," Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 78, 125–135. Which states in both its abstract and conclusions that health impact assessments for DU munitions should take into account the presence of respiratory uranium trioxide. However, Dr Zak believes that the data presented in the peer-reviewed paper is not consistent with that conclusion.  I have repeatedly explained that the criteria for inclusion is verifiability, but Dr Zak continues to revert the summary of that paper, along with other source-supported research, while making personal attacks in edit summaries by calling me a "crank".  I believe that accusing me of "blindly" reverting, as if "by a fence post or telegraph pole" is also blatant personal attack which is completely uncalled for in arbitration. --James S. 17:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Alternative (a) best to judge by quality alone
15a) Anonymous and pseudonymous editing are permitted by fiat on Wikipedia. Editors are under no obligation to reveal more about their identity than they choose to.  The best way to judge an editor's contributions is by their quality.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Relevant to the charge that the accused has been engaging in personal attacks. --DV8 2XL 17:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have edited this principle to a version with which I can agree; if you don't like my version, please make a set of alternatives. --James S. 19:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you reverted without creating an alternative, I will. --James S. 21:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No. You may not edit my submissions then demand that I make a set of alternatives if I don't like it. You cannot arrogate yourself the authority to make arbitrary demands of this nature. --DV8 2XL 21:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As you have plainly seen, even non-editors may edit the workshop pages. If you won't make a set of alternatives for proposals upon which we do not agree, then I will. --James S. 21:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This is close, but needs some work. I would simply change the title to "Anonymous and pseudonymous editing is permitted on Wikipedia".  Likewise, editors are free to "demand" whatever they want.  The keys are twofold:  first, that one is under no obligation to comply with such demands, and second, that the status of a wikipedia editor &mdash; anonymous, pseudonymous, or clearly identified &mdash; has absolutely no bearing on the strength of her or his argument.  Since Wikipedia policies forbid original research, and since experts cannot use their own personal experience as the basis of an article, a properly written article stands or falls on the basis of what it contains, not on the basis of who wrote it.
 * In other words, I think you've written this a little too defensively. Revise it to be a little more bold. I took a crack at it -- hope you don't mind. Nandesuka 18:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at all, thank-you --DV8 2XL 18:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Alternative (b) best to judge by quality and context
15b) Anonymous and pseudonymous editing are permitted on Wikipedia. Editors are under no obligation to reveal more about their identity than they choose to.  Readers may judge an editor's contributions by their content, the editor's claimed credentials, whether the editor allows his or her name to be associated with his or her edits, the identity of the editor, if known, and other factors.  The best way to judge a contribution will depend on the particular statement, sources, context and background of the contribution and its contributor.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Alternative (a) is plainly absurd. Who are the plaintiffs to pretend that they can tell readers the best way to judge contributions? --James S. 21:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Readers are free to do whatever they want; thus, this alternative is somewhat pointless. That doesn't change the fact that anonyous and pseudonymous editing is permitted and encouraged on Wikipedia, and trying to turn pseudonymity into something blame-worthy is anti-Wiki. Nandesuka 21:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, taking personal responsibility for one's words is important even on a wiki, and especially on Wikipedia. --James S. 21:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's consensus practice does not require unanimous agreement
16) Nether the wording or the spirit of this policy contemplates that unanimous agreement among editors will be achieved in all cases, or that it must to establish the existence of a consensus.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Pursuant to the charge that the accused is violating the terms of WP:CON. --DV8 2XL 20:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely no evidence, because there can be no evidence, that there has ever been a consensus surrounding this case's very controversial involved articles. Any attempt to claim that there ever was even close to a consensus is absurd.  Several editors disagree with DV8 2XL's position, not just me, and they have shown it with their edits. --James S. 20:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Behavior in online communities is not above reproach
17) Participation in an online community, even anonymously or pseudonomously, does not change the standards of conduct to which we are expected to adhere.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * In support of admonishment. --James S. 17:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Disruption
18) Users may be banned or otherwise restricted for editing in a way that constitutes clear and intentional disruption.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Obvious. Nandesuka 21:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox
19) Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view, but articles are in inappropriate place to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * My views are not arbitrary; they are carefully researched through hundreds of hours in the library, supported with ample sources from the peer-reviewed and scholarly medical and scientific literature. My opponents, however, have produced not a single shred of evidence from the scholarly literature or otherwise that, for example, uranium does not burn to form uranium trioxide gas.  I have produced both peer-reviewed sources and scholarly expositions supporting that fact.  My opponents have even produced thermodynamic data showing that UO3(g) is the most likely combustion product recombining from plasma, very parsimoniously explaining the fact that U3O8 (which forms from UO3(g) condensation) comprises 75% of the particulate combustion product. Therefore, if anyone is trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox, it is those who constantly attempt to scrub any mention of uranium trioxide gas, engaging in several instances of plain and simple vandalism per each sweeping revert in the process. --James S. 10:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Self-evident. Dr Zak 20:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * A number of editors have claimed that James S. is using the Uranium articles generally as a soapbox for his views. I tend to agree (since the rejoinder to so many of the criticisms of his behavior seem to be some variant of "It's OK for me to violate policies, because I am right."  James' comment to this proposed principle is a great example of this.  Nandesuka 23:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Reverting obvious vandalism doesn't apply to the 3RR rule. If people want to delete vast passages of source-supported research because it makes them uncomfortable, that is vandalism, and it may be reverted without violating 3RR.
 * Even though Nandesuka has had a personal dispute with me about whether, for example, this very Workshop page should be "refactored" out of chronoligical order, he still decided to block me for allegedly violating 3RR: He used the word "egregious" in the block sumary and in his subsequent description of the block posted to the administrators' noticeboard, even though he plainly admits that he does not care to take the time to understand the issues involved.  This proves that Nandesuka lacks the maturity and prudence to retain his administrator status. --James S. 10:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith
21) Unless there is evidence to the contrary, Wikipedia editors should assume that people who are working on articles are trying to improve them


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Wikipedia would be doomed without this principle. Dr Zak 15:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Editing by professionals
22) A user with a professional education or credentials is welcome to edit on Wikipedia. They may do so anonymously and may set forth their education and professional experience and status if they chose without fully disclosing their identity or offering proof. Ordinary editing, discussion of policy or administrative actions do not constitute practice of their profession or call into play the professional responsibility code of their profession from the perspective of Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * A professional who choses to edit Wikipedia is not entitled to deference, but, but like all users, is entitled to courtesy and the assumption of good faith. Fred Bauder 15:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
21) Suggested principle


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
21) Suggested principle


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
21) Suggested principle


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
21) Suggested principle


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
21) Suggested principle


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
21) Suggested principle


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
21) Suggested principle


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
21) Suggested principle


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Content dispute mediation
1) The mediator has resumed mediation activities after bringing this case back to the ArbCom.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * In support of my withdrwan motion to remand. --James S. 23:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Dependency on findings of fact in ongoing mediation
2) Questions in arbitration depend on the the answers to open questions in ongoing mediation. For example, to what extent does uranium combustion produce poison gas?  Such technical questions have real-world legal and financial implications, for all of us, not just the Foundation.  Some questions of whether certain behavior surrounding a substance is appropriate very clearly depend on the extent to which that substance is a poison, and the affects it has caused.  Therefore, certain questions of behavior can not be decided until the subject of the investigation is better understood.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * In support of my withdrawn suggestion of a motion to remand --James S. 18:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Alternative (a) has made
3a) Nrcprm2026 has, in the course of debate, attempted to intimidate and browbeat fellow editors through the threat of legal sanctions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * On the contrary, the evidence shows that the alleged legal threats I have been accused of making are not threats, and they aren't even statements of legal opinion. My wording makes it clear that I was uncertain whether Dr U's edits might damage his professional standing were he to associate his name with them ("potentially"), and that I did not know, at that time, whether his statements about the medical condition of thousands would run afoul of professional misconduct regulations.  I asked him why they wouldn't, if he believes that they wouldn't, and he has still not answered the question.  The fact that he felt threatened by my question exposes the fact that he was worried, on reflection, that his writing might potentially expose him and/or the Wikimedia Foundation to potential legal action.  The course of events surrounding these so-called threats, including the indignation of the aggrieved, vindicates both my warning and my question.
 * There is a difference between a threat and a warning, in that a threat involves the use of extortion, and a warning does not. I never attempted to keep my warnings secret or offer to not act on them in return for anything of value.  I have made it abundantly clear that my understanding of the medical disclaimer bars me from acting on them, even if I did want to, which I do not.  This attempt to further the plaintiffs' misinformation campaign against the readers of the articles involved by making personal attacks accusing me of making legal threats is ethically and morally wrong, and Wikipedia would be well-served to firmly put a stop to it. --James S. 18:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Follows from proposed principles 6a or 6b, and the evidence. Although he has claimed, in various places, that either his behavior did not constitute a legal threat, or that if it did it was only for the good of the Wikimedia foundation, you cannot put a pig in a prom dress and then call it a princess.   Such antics can have a chilling effect on editors, and should not be tolerated. Nandesuka 03:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree for the reasons stated above. --James S. 03:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no way these comments can be interpreted as a legal threat at all. They aren't even a statement of legal advice or opinion. I would be disappointed if it was found that James S. made legal threats. DarthVader 09:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Alternative (b) has not made
3b) Nrcprm2026 has advocated in favor of Dispute resolution, and although he has pointed out potential violations of law with serious consequences, he has not made prohibited threats to take legal action. --James S. 08:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I admitted early that I have read and understand the medical disclaimer, at least weeks ago, and I might have even commented on it in January (I have no idea whether I was logged in at the time.) Therefore, I could take no legal action on this matter even if I wanted to. The thought of me going out and suing Wikipedia editors is absurd, but if they keep demanding arbitration, they may give me nothing but practice at it. There is a difference between a warning and a threat. A threat involves the use of extortion. I have made no effort to keep my warnings private or to demand anything in return for not acting on them; indeed, again, I personally can not act on them even if some day I did want to. --James S. 08:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Plaintiffs have removed sourced statements and peer-reviewed sources
4) Plaintiffs have removed statements supported by the peer-reviewed and medical literature from articles, and some have removed citations to the peer-reviewed medical and scientific literature, often without stating any reasons for doing so at all.

Example (a) DV8 2XL has been source-scrubbing Depleted uranium/Temp
4a) While mediation and arbitration has been ongoing, DV8 2XL has been source-scrubbing a version of Depleted uranium. Please see the diffs here. --James S. 15:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * So what, it's a work page --DV8 2XL 17:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Example (b) DV8 2XL has been source-scrubbing Uranium trioxide
4b) Recently, DV8 2XL commented out several peer-reviewed references showing the formation of Uranium trioxide gas vapor. Please see the Diffs here. --James S. 05:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * In as much as the section on this alleged gas had been removed from the article, there seemed no reason to keep the citations that had been misinterpreted to justify the inclusion of this species in the first place. --DV8 2XL 09:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * After having read some of James's sources which he cites, I am unable to find any evidence for a long lasting uranium trioxide gas. Please would james be so kind as to list the journal articles which he considers to give evidence that a long lived (lifetime > 30 seconds) UO3 gas exists, with details of how has interpreted these sources of data. In this way the process by which James has arrived at the idea of the UO3 gas (which is central to his thesis) can be subject to a peer review by the other editors on wikipedia (which could include the chemistry and physics communitys here).Cadmium 11:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This non-party demands a content dispute here? So be it.  There is no evidence that UO3 gas decomposes.  In order to do so, it would need to split into UO + O2, which is easy for neighboring UO3 molecules in solid form to do at high enough temperatures, because as a semiconducting ceramic the uranium oxides can share oxygen in solid form. But decomposition would require energies implying temperatures above the burning temperature of uranium to occur in a single gas molecule.  Wilson, W.B. (1961) "High-Pressure High-Temperature Investigation of the Uranium-Oxygen System," Journal Of Inorganic and Nuclear Chemistry, 19, 212-222.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Too vague to be useful; basically asking for a finding of fact that others have acted as editors. Nandesuka 21:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Example (c) TDC violated his ArbCom parole by reverting source-based research from Depleted uranium
4c) TDC violated the conditions of his arbitration committee parole by reverting Depleted uranium twice in one day, and in the process removing several statements supported from the peer-reviewed medical and scientific literature: Conditions of parole, first revert, second revert. --James S. 05:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Example (d) Dr U admits reverting to TDC's source-scrubbed versions
4d) Dr U has admitted to removing several statements supported by the peer-reviewed medical and scientific literature, and citations thereto, from depleted uranium and related articles by reverting to the source-scrubbed editions of parolee TDC.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Diff here. More diffs to follow if this example is challenged. --James S. 06:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

James S's graphs display trend information properly
5) Nrcprm2026's graphs that include trend information have selected the best fit from a very large set of fitted mathematical models, and display appropriate goodness-of-fit information adjusted for the number of degrees of freedom, and include prediction confidence intervals.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The evidence for this is at the top of my talk page. --James S. 06:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I don't think this is an appropriate "finding of fact"; "best fit" is subjective. What the arbitration committee can rule on is user conduct, behaviour, and editing processes which must be taken, whether the source is verified, and whether the actions were reasonable. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 23:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, "best fit" has a precise mathematical meaning, that the square of Pearson's degrees-of-freedom-adjusted &rho; correlation coefficient is greater than that of any other model. My graphs include the source code and links to the downloadable software used to create them, so anyone who can run that software can verify that I selected the mathematical best fit. --James S. 09:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This finding of fact should be withdrawn as inappropriate. Nandesuka 02:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue was raised by others commenting on the arbitration before it was opened, so this is a legitimate matter of fact. --James S. 09:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a content issue and therefor lies outside the scope of this case. --DV8 2XL 22:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

James S's sources have supported his statements
6) Nrcprm2026's sources he has used to support the statements he has made thus far in Depleted uranium and related articles do in fact support those statements.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * If other editors have counterexamples, then I would like to read them. --James S. 07:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the crux of this part of the charges. If a consensus of other editors do not believe that a source supports what is being asserted then the onus is on the editor that posted it to show that it does. This is the point where WP:CON and WP:V meet, and this is central to the good working order of Wikipedia. A decision was made at the beginning of this project to rely on consensus and not the opinion of experts to monitor the contents of articles. This being the case then the opinion of the consensus must carry weight in disputes of this sort. In other words if the opinion of a lone expert, regardless if he is identified and recognised as such, carries no special weight, then the opinion of a lone non-expert cannot. This is reinforced by the fact that ArbCom will not entertain disputes on content, nor should it. The only other option to settling issues of content would be to impanel a group of experts in each and every topical field covered by Wikipedia and implementing a mechanism to guarantee that they would offer neutral opinions on content disputes. this of course is likely to be an impossible task, even in the hard sciences where things are often black or white: in other fields finding two experts that agree on anything is unlikely, let alone a panel. --DV8 2XL 23:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I can find no policy or guideline suggesting that the responsibility for Verifiability is ever the responsibility of only one editor. If an editor adds a statement supported by the peer-reviewed medical or scientific literature, and another editor wants to challenge the veracity of the source, then it is the responsibility of the challenging editor to verify the source, not the original contributor.  To assume otherwise would imply that anyone may challenge and remove as unsupported any source-supported statement without doing any research at all.  Since that would be absurd, the responsibility to verify any source-supported statment must belong to the challenger as well as the original contributor, who may choose prove the verification as a courtesy, but there is no "onus" on the original contributor to verify source-supported statements. --James S. 10:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I said a 'consensus of other editors' in the above passage not 'only one editor' --DV8 2XL 13:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously suggesting that a consensus surrounding the issues in Depleted uranium and Uranium trioxide exists? I note that you have not answered my mediation questions about the facts that sublimation is a surface effect, the surface area of a particle varies as the inverse of the cube of its diameter, and that increased partial pressure of oxygen ions in combustion increases the likelihood of uranyl oxide formation over sublimation. --James S. 13:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * In the case before us, the disagreement centers on a mater of interpreting the contents of several scientific papers. James asserts they say one thing; we assert they do not. Reasons have been provided and the error of his interpretation have been pointed out here:: here; and here: . James simply will not accept that he is just plain wrong. He is wrong because he is ignoring or is ignorant of the basic tenets of physical chemistry. Attempts to explain to him where he is wrong are met by stonewalling or non sequiturs. If the editors are to do their jobs under the terms of WP:CON and WP:V then this sort of behaviour must not be permitted to hijack the process. --DV8 2XL 23:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The links given show that DV8 2XL is mistaken, and has once again raised a content dispute which belongs properly with the mediator to the ArbCom. Let us ask this as a question: Is it my responsibility to again verify that uranium trioxide gas as a combustion product of uranium in air with Wilson, W.B. (1961) "High-Pressure High-Temperature Investigation of the Uranium-Oxygen System," Journal Of Inorganic and Nuclear Chemistry, 19, 212-222, or is that now the responsibility of the challenging editor? --James S. 10:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, since every other editor believes you have misinterpreted this citation. --DV8 2XL 13:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you refering to "every other editor," or are you merely referring to your co-plaintiffs? Who else?  Are you trying to mislead the ArbCom? --James S. 13:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The above statement "James S's sources support his statements" cannot form part of the final decision of ArbCom as it will licence this user to publish anything he wants and use any citations he wants without any need to justify them to the community at large. --DV8 2XL 23:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have changed the verb case of this proposed finding of fact to address these concerns. --James S. 10:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is asking Arbcom to rule on content. 82.41.26.244 13:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Dr U edited controversial medical topics as a medical doctor
7) Dr U has made a number of edits, including the removal of statements directly supported by the peer-reviewed medical literature, without providing explanation or countering with sources of equal or greater repute, while claiming a medical doctorate on the first line of his user page.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Agree with Nandesuka. This would never pass. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * For what reason do you claim that the facts do not support this proposed finding? --James S. 17:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As he has pointed out, Dr. U was not providing medical care. Fred Bauder 14:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Diffs to follow. --James S. 17:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This cannot be a finding of fact, and can only be see as a continued attempt to leverage a threat of legal exposure to restrict or eliminate the further participation of Dr U in these proceedings. --DV8 2XL 22:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do the plaintiffs allege that this fact is unknowable? It has been plain on the face of the text of User:Dr U for some time. --James S. 05:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This finding is irrelevant, prejudicial, and incoherent. Nandesuka 00:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I recommend getting a second opinion from an attorney. The relevance is to the jeopardy in which Dr U places the Foundation. That Nandesuka feels prejudiced by this fact shows how important it is to the rules involved with this case. Why does Nandesuka judge relevancy while admitting that he or she can not see the coherence of this fact? --James S. 10:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Plaintiffs have scant reputable sources in their support
8) During ongoing mediation, the parties were asked to place evidence in support of their positions here. The instant plaintiffs have, after more than two weeks, included scarecely any peer-reviewed articles from the scientific literature, no scholarly publications from respected academic presses or commercial publishing houses, and several economically conflicted sources such as NATO and Lockheed Martin-funded Sandia National Laboratories (Lockheed Martin produces 30mm depleted uranium gunnery systems, including for the Apache helicopter and the A-10 attack plane, and NATO is the largest consumer of DU weapons.)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This claim is false; plaintiffs have provided significant references which are relevant to the issues raised, see, for example, this excellent source. Fred Bauder 14:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The "excellent source" Fred cites is an unreviewed preprint which doesn't consider the chemical toxicity of uranium at all, only the radioactivity, which is slight. The several peer-reviewed medical and scientific publications which support my position include this one which shows that the chemical genotoxicity of uranium is about a million times worse than its radioactivity.  Please use the longstanding principles of what is and isn't a reputable source when considering the quality of the citations provided by each side. My sources have been almost entirely from the peer-reviewed literature. --James S. 16:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * To clarify, here is the explanation from the U.S. Office of the Secretary of Defense's FAQ on depleted uranium, which is at present the first Google hit listed from a search on "depleted uranium":
 *  Q. What makes depleted uranium a potential hazard? 
 * A. Depleted uranium is a heavy metal that is also slightly radioactive. Heavy metals (uranium, lead, tungsten, etc.) have chemical toxicity.... A common misconception is that radiation is depleted uranium's primary hazard. This is not the case under most battlefield exposure scenarios.... While natural and depleted uranium are considered chemically toxic, they are not considered a radiation hazard.
 * Thus, the unreviewed preprint which Fred refers to as an "excellent source" is seriously misleading because it discusses radioactivity alone without any discussion of the chemical toxicity of uranium. Sadly, this mistake is quite frequent in the pro-DU litrature, and is a source of much confusion.  If the ArbCom were to consider such sources which ignore the chemical toxicity as authoratative, I am certain that my behavior would not stand a chance of being seen as responsible.  Please be careful here; I have tried to be careful, and I know how difficult it is.  Using Wikipedia's longstanding principles of which sources are considered reputable, favoring the recent peer-reviewed literature, is very helpful. --James S. 15:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The relevant comparisons would be to the chemical toxicity of lead or tungsten. I doubt the comparisons would be favorable. Fred Bauder 18:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, lead isn't a very strong teratogen (reproductive toxin), although it is a potent developmental toxin. Tungsten is a powerful carcinogen but not a teratogen at all, whereas uranium is not a very powerful carcinogen compared to its teratogenicity.  All of the heavy metals have different toxicologies, but there is no shortage of secondary sources which claim or imply that they are all the same -- nobody can be faulted for repeating that line of thought, since it appears so often. I would like to suggest these two recent peer-reviewed reviews of uranium's reproductive chemical toxicity in particular.  The first is from a U.S. military toxicology laboratory, and the second more recent is from independent researchers:
 * Arfsten, D.P. et al. (2001) "A review of the effects of uranium and depleted uranium exposure on reproduction and fetal development," Toxicology and Industrial Health, vol. 17, pp. 180-191. Summary:  "A number of studies have shown that natural uranium is a reproductive toxicant...."
 * Hindin, R. et al. (2005) "Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective," Environmental Health, vol. 4, pp. 17. Conclusion: "In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."
 * --James S. 19:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * The discussion here has been summarised by clerk below. The complete discussion including the defendant's Table of plaintiff's authorities has been moved to the evidence discussion page. --James S. 16:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * A discussion by the parties has been removed and summarised here instead, as the workshop is not for extensive discussion. James S. argues that the sources presented by Dr U are not credible and violate NOR because they are not peer reviewed, published by a scholarly publishing house or are biased due to conflicts of interest. Others disagree. For the full discussion, see the talk. Johnleemk | Talk 16:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The discussion was returned here because it is still ongoing, and the table of authorities properly belongs here in the workshop with the discussion surrounding it and the other text referencing it. Moreover, the summary is inaccurate because I never claimed the sources "violate NOR because they are not peer reviewed." --James S. 21:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * An ongoing discussion does not need to be carried out on the workshop. The discussion in question is a long drawn out dispute of points of evidence, which belongs on the page for discussing evidence, not the page for discussing findings of fact. Arbitrators have summarised and moved such discussions before, and as a clerk it is my job to do the same whenever it might be necessary to avoid inconveniencing the arbitrators. Also, if you could explain to me how "None of Dr U's references are reputable as the term is defined in Wikipedia:No original research; to wit, here is a table of his thirteen external references:" is not claiming that the sources Dr U gave violate WP:NOR (unless you are implying that NOR does not prohibit using "disreputable" sources), I would most appreciate it. Johnleemk | Talk 15:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think you mean the first paragraph from WP:RS which appears in WP:NOR, not WP:NOR as a whole. --James S. 16:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Responsibility to verify
9) Should an editor wish to remove existing statements in articles based on sources such as those cited in Wilson, W.B. (1961) "High-Pressure High-Temperature Investigation of the Uranium-Oxygen System," Journal Of Inorganic and Nuclear Chemistry, 19, 212-222, or the text of those citations, which were recently added to Uranium trioxide, then it is the responsibility of the editor to verify those statements with that source first.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Please see the second page, p. 213, the equations from which I have recently added to Uranium trioxide after DV8 2XL attempted to revert away the link to the text of the citation and blanking the article's talk page except for a personal comment. --James S. 21:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is asking Arbcom to rule on content. 82.41.26.244 13:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

James S. properly supported statements about the increase of global mean wind speeds
10) Regarding W. Connolley's evidence, the reference http://www.ssmi.com/papers/ocean_surface.pdf shows that global wind speeds are approximately constant in aggregate. Other sources from MIT already in Effects of global warming show that hurricane storm strength is increasing.  Therefore, in the absence of any suggestion that any component of global wind speed is decreasing, the fact of the matter is that global mean wind speed is increasing.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This in an example of the use of logical deduction from two sources to support an addition in summary of both, as a legitimate organization of fact. --James S. 15:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

James S. has made personal attacks
11) Wm. Connolley is correct that the following exchange on Vsmith's talk page is an example of bad faith on the part of James S.:


 * Your opinion on the storm cost extrapolation graph


 * So that I might better understand your opposition to my graph, I want to ask you:


 * * Does increased carbon dioxide lead to increased atmospheric energy resulting in increased temperature?


 * * Does increased temperature result in increased evaportation and transpiration?


 * * Does increased evaporated water result in greater precipitation?


 * * Does increased precipitation result in greater atmospheric laminar and turbulent flow?


 * * Does such increased atmospheric energy, then, manifest itself as greater average windspeed and greater precipitation?


 * * Does the recent historical record confirm that precipitation and windspeed are both increasing as greenhouse gas concentration has been?


 * Thank you for helping me understand your point of view. &mdash;James S. 05:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with the graph(s) is, as I have clearly stated, simply that it is an extrapolation or interpretation from existing data and as such is original research. My feelings on the points listed above are irrelevant to that simple fact. If the graph and extrapolations are published in some peer reviewed format then simply provide the reference and it should be OK. Vsmith 05:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me get this straight. You don't have the integrity to take a stand on the basic science on which you are making editing decisions?  Instead, you hide behind borderline problems, excluding anything which is too original for your delicate sensibilities after your years of proud service to the number one fossil fuel-burning organization in the world, but not original enough to make into a peer-reviewed climate journal. You are just like so many overconsumers in denial.  How's your SUV?  Does it feel good giving all that money to Osama's folks every time you squeeze your gas pump? &mdash;James S. 06:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow! Chill out mate, where did that diatribe come from? Good day. Vsmith 06:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I just expected that a science teacher would be interested in actually discussing science instead of weaselism and buck-passing. I guess not here in the USA -- we've evolved past that. Let me tell you something.  I was born on an Army base right next to where the Nuremberg trials were held, and I know a thing or two about how the military conducts its business. Our pathetic squabbles for the remaining oil supply is a waste of time and money. But people like you don't want to talk about the science, you just want to squabble over arcane rule distinctions. What a classic load of buck-passing bs. &mdash;James S. 06:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I admit that "You are just like so many overconsumers in denial" and "But people like you don't want to talk about the science, you just want to squabble over arcane rule distinctions" are personal attacks that I should not have made, and I have apologized for them. I had forgot I had made them until I reviewed Wm. Connolley's comments. The rest of my comments above are not personal attacks, and I stand by them as appropriate given the importance of the issues involved. At that point, I had been editing for less than a month. Please note that this finding would allow for me to be bound by my proposed mutual restriction on removing unsourced statements below. --James S. 15:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * The comments of James S. in this 'conversation' were pretty rude, but I think he hasn't engaged in making personal attacks. Perhaps someone can categorise which sort of personal attack this is using the personal attack policy page. DarthVader 09:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Incivility by James S.
12) James S. has been incivil in his interactions with other editors, engaging in behavior including baseless accusations of sockpuppetry (see evidence), demanding editors reveal personal information about themselves and intimating professional misconduct when no evidence of such exists (see evidence), and in his interactions with other editors (see evidence).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * My suspicions of socpuppetry were also based on the history of DV8 2XL's user page in relation to the creation date of Smokefoot's account and initial burst of editing activity. I have not made legal threats, personal attacks (for which I have not already apologized, that I know about), or insinuations for the purposes of extortion.  My warnings of legal risk were civil, and should be commended for their protective nature in support of the Foundation and potential co-defendants.  Such warnings are encouraged.  Verifiability should apply to user's claimed credentials, just like it applies to references in article space.  I note for the record my objection to these accusations as personal attacks in and of themselves. --James S. 22:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * The evidence in the case of incivility is, quite frankly, massive. In my belief, this failure to respect the opinions of other editors underlies all of James S.'s other bad behaviors. Nandesuka 22:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how this case of incivility is massive. You have only one piece of evidence in this heading in your section of the evidence, and I would not consider it evidence showing James S. being incivil anyway. Your evidence is and the thread here was clearly removed by James S. because it was no longer relevant to the discussion on that article talk page. It was a simple mistake and had no relevance; James S. was in no way wrong to remove that long thread. James S.'s "personal attacks" in my opinion aren't really personal attacks at all. Refer to this page about what personal attacks are. I don't think that there is any case for James S. being incivil and I hope that the arbitration committee sees it the same way as I do. DarthVader 09:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Disruption by James S.
13) James S. has disrupted Wikipedia through revert warring in the face of massive consensus of fellow editors against his edits (see evidence here and here), through specious and bad-faith accusations of sockpuppetry (see evidence), by assuming bad faith on the part of his mediator (see evidence), and through excessive wikilawyering and attempting to game the arbitration process, (see evidence here and here.)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The attempt to claim "massive consensus" is a sad and pathetic attempt to mislead the arbitration committee. I have faithfully represented the peer-reviewed medical and scientific literature and scholarly publications within Wikipedia, for the good of the community. My detractors have been utterly unable to match my sources with any of even the same class of quality. The suggestion that they would be able to use my own sources against me because of some unspecified misunderstanding turned out to be grasping at straws, and fruitless for them. At least the articles involved have been improved. The charges of disruption are false. --James S. 22:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Nandesuka, see the evidence. James accusing editors of being involved in a conspiracy ("You might not like it because of the political implications ... but the facts are verifiable.") and refusing to engage in meaningful discussion about the interpretation of his sources is extremely grating. Dr Zak 16:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Suggesting that facts are uncomfortable because of their political implications is not the same thing as accusing editors of conspiracy, and there is no evidence that I have ever refused to engage in meaningful discussion about interpretation of the sources. A glance at any of the talk pages for any of the involved articles will show that I have been very active in discussion of almost every major change made by myself and others, at each step along the way.  In contrast, Dr Zak just started editing the articles recently, after this arbitration case opened; before last week he apparently wasn't even a registered user.  I find it odd that such a person would accuse me of failing to discuss my changes. --James S. 18:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I would propose that James S.'s behaviors go beyond mere disagreement into the realm of disruption. Nandesuka 22:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * James S. has not disrupted wikipedia. He clearly has the better sources of peer-reviewed literature and therefore including this stuff is better for the community of wikipedia. I agree completely with James S. that this charge is false. DarthVader 09:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Plaintiffs continue incivility and other serious behavior problems
13) DV8 2XL and TDC have continued making further personal attacks after a motion to close evidence, and DV8 2XL and Cadmium have continued removing source-supported research from Uranium trioxide, even though they have no sources supporting their reversions, and without discussion on the talk page explaining their actions first. Physchim62 replaced "solubility (dog lung fluid)" in the Uranium trioxide infobox with "elimination (dog, inhaled)," which is a vastly different pharmokinetic distinction, without any sources or explanation, and directly contradicting the evidence in Morrow (1972), which has been scanned in and provided to him, so he should know better.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Please see recent evidence for details, and above. --James S. 22:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

James has assumed bad faith
14)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * From the evidence Dr Zak 15:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I admit to suspecting bad faith on the part of Dr Zak, but not as an assumption. Dr Zak only recently started editing, and has only edited the involved articles and arbitration pages, both as his username and IP 82.41.26.244, with one of his first edits claiming that, "there are no uranyl ions in uranium trioxide," which is absurd.  Since then, Dr Zak has recently claimed that I have not been discussing our factual content dispute.  Those assertions are easily falsified by glancing at Talk:Uranium trioxide, Talk:Uranium trioxide, and Talk:Uranium trioxide -- where I note Dr Zak has still refused to discuss his own opinion as to whether UO3(g) is a combustion product of uranium. --James S. 16:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My editing pattern does look suspicious, doesn't it? To explain this I must reply that I recently moved house and still haven't got an internet connection in the new place. When editing from 129.215/something I remember editing articles such as 10base5 and Sharpless epoxidation. Currently I'm contributing to Wikipedia from the public library on a very slow laptop and have restricted myself to Uranium trioxide as the problems with that articles are the most pressing and need my restricted time most urgently. This will hopefully change next week with DSL in the new place. Dr Zak 16:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Wikilawyering and harassment by James S.
15) James S. has harassed and attempted to intimidate Dr. U based on his claimed status as an MD, see Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium, and Proof #1 Proof #2 Proof #3.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Harassment without a basis in terms of medical responsibility or ethics. Fred Bauder 15:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I have honestly been trying to keep unsupported propaganda downplaying the risk of DU from Wikipedia. My comments cited above were not attacks against Dr U -- they were challenges to justify his edits, complaints that the edits were not responsible, and questions about how they could possibly be responsible. I still do not see how someone claiming to be a medical doctor can make such statements without ill effect. To say that those edits constitute harassment is unfair there are no policies about what does and does not constitute harassment -- if I have violated an unwritten rule, can the rule at least be written now so that others will know to avoid "harassment"? --James S. 17:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
15)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
15)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
15)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
15)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
15)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Prohibition on unreasonable attacks against reputable sources
1) The parties may not challenge, remove, obscure, or otherwise lower the visibility of any assertions supported by, or the text of, citations to the peer-reviewed medical or scientific literature, defined as those scholarly and applied peer-reviewed journals indexed by MEDLINE, the Science Citation Index, or the Social Science Citation Index, unless they first state reasons for doing so, based on sources of greater repute, on the talk pages of the articles to which they make such edits. If such sourced statements or citations appear on talk pages, then they may be stricken (with ... ; example ) after posting reasons based on sources of equal or greater repute, but not removed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This remedy is inappropriate in this case due to the focus of editing conflict on public perception of danger rather than actual danger. It is well known that depleted uranium is only slightly radioactive. Fred Bauder 14:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sadly, it is apparently not so well known that the chemical toxicity of uranium is far worse than its slight radioactivity. That is obvious from the reputable peer-reviewed literature, but not clear at all from the economically conflicted sources the plaintifs cite, which often ignore the chemical toxicity and teratogenicity of uranium. --James S. 17:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Thank you for your support of this proposal. Please note that I agree to be bound by it as well. --James S. 04:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Asserting that a statement made in an article is not, in fact, supported by a citation because the reference does not speak to the subject or does not contain information that it is claimed to does not require an other citation to prove it. A direct challenge of veracity must be answered by pointing out exactly where these alleged statements are made, and that they show equivalency to what is reported in the article. To find otherwise would permit the following absurd situation: An editor creates an article about a hitherto unknown new chemical element; he lists the first ten entries in this months Chemical Abstracts as reference; he then demands that others accept the contents of his article unless they can find sources that directly address the non-existence of this imaginary element. His then makes the argument that his citations are beyond reproach as they come from a recognised peer-reviewed publication and will not entertained any argument that his references do not support his ideas, because they are from unimpeachable sources. All reference and citations must be open to challenge here as they are in any other scientific arena; any restriction would render WP:V unworkable and toothless. --DV8 2XL 05:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree that this possibility is likely, and I ask that people refrain from attempting to prove the contrary by example. If an editor can not be troubled to verify cited sources, then that editor has no standing to challenge their veracity. --James S. 05:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Such a binding decision is again, inappropriate as a remedy. What do you mean the parties "may not challenge" a particular source? Remedies should never be made against certain forms of discussion, except in cases against disruption. Challenging a source is not disruption. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 23:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not an absolute restriction:
 * ... unless they first state reasons for doing so, based on sources of greater repute, on the talk pages of the articles to which they make such edits
 * So, we would have to find two peer-reviewed sources saying "x" before we could challenge a peer-reviewed source-supported statment "not x." This is specifically designed to prevent some of the problems I've experienced with the plaintiffs, which is now clear in evidence. It is based on the scientific method's principle of the confirmation and reproducibility of published results. --James S. 15:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ban from Depleted uranium, Gulf War syndrome, and Uranium trioxide
2) Users DV8 2XL, TDC, and Dr U are banned for one year from editing Depleted uranium, Gulf War syndrome, and Uranium trioxide.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * A ban of James S. is much more appropriate. Fred Bauder 14:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Because the mediator opposes additional mediation, attempts at further cooperation seem impractical. This remedy is based on Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier. --James S. 07:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This seems an unreasonable ban as it would exclude at least one of the few wikipedians (DV8 2XL) who is well versed in matters of radioactivity from the uranium trioxide page.Cadmium 17:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Dr U
3) User:Dr U is admonished (A) to seek legal advice on the status of the Medical disclaimer in relation to edits made on medical topics while claiming to hold a medical credential, including the standing of plaintiffs bringing suit in courts of common law concerning medical information they may have read on Wikipedia before having read and understood the medical disclaimer; (B) to report his findings back to the ArbCom, and (C) to make appropriate edits to claims of medical credentials which would serve to reduce the legal exposure of the Wikimedia Foundation to such suits.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Dr. U has not been providing medical treatment to any other user. If he has asserted authority, or been granted deference based on his status as a medical doctor, that is an issue outside questions of professional licensing or responsibility. Medical doctors have considerable scientific training and some of them do regularly engage in practical scientific research and investigation. Thus citing a medical degree or practice is relevant to, but not determinative of their likely ability to edit scientific subjects. Fred Bauder 14:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Given the tone of Dr U's contribution to this workshop indicating that he feels his right to free speech more important than his responsibility to professional standards of conduct, I believe this admonishment is necessary. I suggest that anyone who wants to make controversial edits concerning the medical condition of a notable number of people while claiming to hold an M.D. should at least include a very prominent link or inclusion of the medical disclaimer. If there is any question about this, I suggest that the Foundation legal staff be consulted. --James S. 17:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Arbs, please note that I never, at any time, indicated that I hold my personal liberties in more regard than my professional responsibility, and I find such insinuations insulting, revolting, and basically to be a personal attack. Editing a NPOV Encyclopedia, so that others can have balanced information about the world that they live in, is not in conflict with responsibilities in other spheres of my life.  I have, for some time, been in consultation with my attorney on these matters.  What is said between my attorney and I is confidential, and to suggest that I should have to share it with ArbCom is absurd.  Wikimedia Foundation has its own attornies to advise it.  Many Wikipedians have degrees or other life experiences listed on their user pages, many arbs included.  Should Wiki switch to a sterile and impersonal environment where everybody is forced to hide the things that make us unique?  Should we switch to a system where we post all of our person information, making us vulnerable to stalking, identity theft, or worse?  Or should we stay with the present system where people share what they feel comfortable sharing?  Anonymous free speech is a basic derivative of the First Amendment, and has been upheld as such by the U.S. Supreme Court.  My position is, and always has been, that I am not practicing medicine here.  Discussing a topic and giving advice on a topic are two different things. Dr U 13:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel that it is only right that I should agree in the strongest terms possible with the statement made by Dr U (1337 UTC 11 march 2006), the part of the statement which I agree with most is Discussing a topic and giving advice on a topic are two different things..


 * James is trying to reason that if a person has a professional qualification whose use is controled in law when they are earning money (or some other reward) then any thing which that person does in that field should be controlled by the same rules. This should not be true, the average driver might be legally entitled in the UK to drive but their legal entitlement might not include driving for hire or reward or anything over 7.5 tons. Should we then ban a former taxi or lorry driver from the road ? (or one who is off duty) as he once was a professional whose driving is regulated under a different scheme (stricter) to the normal car driver. I think that when the professional driver is not on duty he should be treated as a normal car driver. In the same way the off duty medic should be allowed to be treated as a normal person if he so needs to be so treated.


 * I think that this idea of on duty/off duty goes to the heart of what is going on here.


 * Also I feel that as part of the way we must strongly protect free speech, we must distingish between a person who provides others with information and the person who incites, encourages or provides moral support to an activity which we might consider morally objectionable.


 * I have been responsible for adding details of PUREX reprocessing chemistry (in terms of how it works and what can go wrong) to wilipedia. By the standard of the test being applied by James to Dr U I might be guilty of inciting others to go forth and reprocess, also an editor who writes about the production of ethanol by fermentation might be guilty of inciting others to get drunk on home made vodka and the person who writes about the monsanto process for acetic acid might be guilty of inciting someone to use monsanto process acetic acid for vinegar in a chip shop. While may have chosen some rather silly sounding examples, I think that they explain my point of view on this matter.Cadmium 15:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

James S.
4) Nrcprm2026 is admonished to seek consensus before making controversial changes to articles.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Ban is more appropriate. Fred Bauder 14:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * To quote WP:CON "Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith. With respect to good faith, no amount of emphasized assertions that you are editing according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of your activities." later we find the statement: "Those who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a large group of editors should at least consider that they may be mistaken." These are, in essence the points of conflict in this case. If it is established after both WP:RFC and WP:M indicates that consensus supports, or as in this case denies, a point verified, then it must be taken as so until such time as new information can be brought forward and held up for reanalysis and a new consensus forged. This is the fundamental process of Wikipedia. --DV8 2XL 02:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Who is more eccentric, an editor who supports his statements with reputable sources, or an editor who stubbornly refuses to provide any in support of his position, and can't even bother going to the library to look up the sources already in the articles? Wikipedia is not a democracy, and even if it were, DV8 2XL knows full well that plenty of other editors support my contributions to the articles in question. This attempt to claim consensus where there is none is a fraud targeted directly at the arbitration committee, and should be dealt with as such. --James S. 02:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there any way to know in advance what will or will not be controversial, and is there any way to know in advance where to draw such a line? This is a subjective proposal with no objective way to determine allowed behavior in advance, and thus must be rejected as too vague. --James S. 17:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with Nandesuka. 82.41.26.244 13:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Fairly straightforward, given the facts. Nandesuka 00:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

James S. on 1RR probation
5) Nrcprm2026 is prohibited from reverting any edit more than once in a 14 day period on articles relating to depleted uranium, including but not limited to Depleted Uranium, Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium, Uranium trioxide, Gulf War syndrome, and Uranium-238. Each reversal shall be accompanied by an explanation on the article's talk page.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Ban is more appropriate Fred Bauder 14:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I oppose this proposal. This kind of a restriction should specify a duration. --James S. 07:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This remedy is fairly tightly crafted to allow James to continue to edit Wikipedia, and even to participate in the topic at hand, while limiting the amount of disruption he can cause in the future. It in no way limits him from making arguments on the articles' talk pages, and thus persuading someone else to adopt his arguments.  Which is, really, what he should have been doing all along. Derives from principles 6a and 6b, and finding of fact 3a. Nandesuka 00:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

James S. on probation for one year
6) Nrcprm2026 is placed on Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban him from any page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. Nrcprm2026 must be notified on his talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. He may post suggestions on the talk page of any page from which he is banned from editing.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I would make this indefinite. Fred Bauder 14:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is unsupported by principles or facts. --James S. 23:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This is a slightly wider remedy that will allow administrators wider lattitude, than the 1RR remedy, to react when James S. acts disruptively. It is intended as an alternative to that remedy, appropriate given proposed principle 18 and finding of fact 13.   Nandesuka 21:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

James S. banned from uranium-related articles
7) James S. banned indefinitely from uranium-related articles


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I see no reasonable prospect for improvement. Fred Bauder 14:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Considering his past editing behavior and his username, there is little hope that he will consider Wikipedia anything else but a soapbox for his firmly held convicions. 129.215.194.206 13:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Is 129.215.194.206 a party? --James S. 10:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am seriously pissed with the style of engagement on uranium-related subject matter and would like to be considered a party. Dr Zak 16:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't object, but why? What is the point of adding parties who weren't even editing, let alone registered users, when the arbitration case opened?  What does Dr Zak hope to accomplish with joinder that couldn't be accomplished as a non-party? Perhaps Dr Zak wishes to be bound by any all-parties remedies which pass; who knows?  With DV8 2XL and Dr U both having sworn off Wikipedia in the past week, ostensibly because my source-supported editing has discouraged them, this just seems absurd. --James S. 18:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So you have used up Dr U's patience, too? Dr Zak 20:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, DV8 2XL and Dr U both took early positions in mediation claiming that UO3(g) "could not be" a combustion product of uranium, and that even if it was, its existence "could not be" part of the toxicology, without any sources supporting their position. Now, with authoratative sources such as Alexander (2005), helpfully provided by Stone, showing just how volatile UO3(g) is at temperatures nearing but still below combustion, it's clear to me that they are both pretty embarassed about their early positions, but still stubborn to the end -- perhaps if they can't have their way, against all evidence, then they will refuse to participate at all?  That's what it looks like to me. --James S. 21:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Given that my edits have been accurate and supported by sources, while I've recently been opposing those who have been trying to claim without any supporting sources that uranyl oxide gas is not a combustion product of uranium burning in air, I find this proposal inconsistent with facts, and entirely unsupported with principles. --James S. 10:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Despite James' insistence the conflict at Uranium trioxide and related pages is not if anyone's edits are verifiable (or in James' words, "source supported".) This runs deeper and is a conflict between editors with a chemistry background on one side, who would like the articles to conform to the precepts of the Wikiproject Chemistry (that is to report on structure, reactivity and uses of the compound) and James on the other side, who would like to give prominent place to the toxicity of uranium trioxide vapor produced by DU antitank ammunition.
 * The chemists have been engaging in dialogue with James - the pageTalk:Uranium trioxide bears witness to that, there are paragraphs and more paragraphs on whether UO3 is a gas and what exactly is produced during the combustion of uranium. James on the other hand insists on including material that consensus on the talk page has rejected many times over (either because it's unsuitable or James has misunderstood it) and even refuses to discuss what prominence the combustion products of uranium should be given.
 * I guess the assertion that there is uranium trioxide vapor that causes ill health in people has been debunked many times all over. Yet the vapor must be mentioned prominently throughout.
 * People are quietly furious. Several editors have abandoned uranium altogether as they find editing fruitless under the present circumstances. I for the time being refuse to leave the article in good faith as I have a deep love for chemistry. Dr Zak 15:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have never objected to including information about the structure, reactivity, or uses of any compound -- in fact I have contributed such information to the involved articles at length -- and I have never objected to anyone else adding such information. Wikiproject Chemistry specifically encourages inclusion of information about toxicity and related precautions.  There is ample evidence that the toxicity of uranium trioxide vapor produced by DU antitank ammunition is notable, including plenty of evidence here in arbitration that military and nuclear sympathizers have attempted to scrub any mention of it from the involved articles, and so I believe that it deserves a prominent place to counter such unencyclopedic censorship.
 * Dr Zak claims on one hand that, "chemists have been engaging in dialogue with James," but in the next sentence claims that I refuse to discuss the topic. Such contradictions are absurd.  I have never refrained from detailed discussion of each aspect of the controversy.
 * Dr Zak guesses that, "the assertion that there is uranium trioxide vapor that causes ill health in people has been debunked many times all over," yet he provides no sources, because he can provide no sources, because there are no sources debunking the assertion or otherwise suggesting that uranium trioxide gas vapor is not a combustion product of uranium. As recently as this year, the U.S. Army has admitted that they do not know whether the gas vapor is a combustion product, but that what matters concerning toxicity is the amount of the substance absorbed. That, in light of the fact that incendiary uranium munitions have been deployed and tested for thirty years, is notable in and of itself.  Can we step back and ask why the military has neglected to measure the gas condensates?
 * I disagree with Dr Zak's characterization of the situation. The only people who have stated that they have abandoned editing the involved articles are those who have, as shown in evidence, repeatedly attempted to remove peer-reviewed medical and scientific sources and the statements supported by those sources which they find embarrassing or uncomfortable.  Those people may indeed be furious, but they have only their own early apparently immutable positions against the verifiable facts to blame. --James S. 18:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * I agree with 129.215.194.206 that James is trying to employ Wikipedia as a soapbox for his deeply held views. I find it noteworthy that James concentrates on uranium only, if he had a genuine interest in actinide chemistry or radiochemistry then he would be likely to act as an editor for other elements such as radium, thorium, radon, plutonium etc. But James appeared to be offended at the mere suggestion that he should consider taking a little time away from the uranium pages to allow things to cool off, and that while away from uranium he might consider adding to pages on the enviromental issues associated with these other radioactive elements. Hence I view it to be case that James has an interest in uranium only which is more in keeping with the hypothesis that James is using Wikipedia as a soap box than the hypothesis that James is an enviromental radiochemist (or other related type of person) whose views are very extreme.


 * I consider it a fact of life that within any professional group that some members will have views which deviate strongly from the view held by the majority, all the reasonable members of a profession will take part in the debate which leads to a new view which is then the majority view point in the future. On Wikipedia we can have this on a smaller scale. James however has made the choice to "go to war" with many of the other editors who are writing about uranium rather than take part in a reasonable debate. One example would be the fact that he has been edit waring and has been banned under the 3RR rule, another example is that he has cited a paper on the mediation page (by Busby et. al.) which I suspect may not be trustworthy, I have asked James for some clarification on some matters associated with this literature source but so far James has failed to answer my questions suggesting that he does not want to allow anyone to question the sources which he cites.Cadmium 08:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone glancing at my edit history can see that I do not concentrate "on uranium only" -- I am also active in articles such as Wind power, Art.Net, Extreme weather, Shock and Awe, Cold fusion, Capital punishment, Modafinil, George W. Bush, C-SPAN, Wind farm, Public education, Speech recognition, and Oligarchy -- and those are just from my past 500 edits. I write about what I know, and I have spent hundreds of hours in Stanford and other libraries researching depleted uranium combustion and its relation to Gulf War syndrome.  I don't think my views are extreme; on the contrary, I think people who continiously claim that uranium trioxide gas is not a combustion product of uranium burning in air, without any sources supporting such edits, have far more extreme (and factually incorrect) views than I hold, and I believe that fact is fully verifiable. I resent being told that my attempts to maintain factual accuracy in these articles is "going to war."  What a deliciously absurd irony for somone who hates war as much as I do.  Is Cadmium so tied up in war metaphors that he can not help but describe my attempts to revert vandalistic removal of source-supported facts about serious problems with war as "going to war?"  Shame!  I did not deserve my recent block for 3RR, and I reserve judgement on Busby's paper until it is answered by a government official willing to allow his or her name to be associated with his or her comments. I welcome questions about the sources I cite, but I will not be rushed to an opinion about any before hearing both sides in the sunshine of taking personal responsibility for statements made to the press. --James S. 10:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * About James and radiochemistry, it seems odd that James only considers the enviromental radiochemistry of one element most people who read about the enviromental matters of any one element will also see material on other elements. James is not a chemist by training yet he has chosen to stirr up a hornets nest through the way in which he has interacted with the chemical community on wikipedia. At times it seems as if he has been playing football with a wasp's nest. After looking another time at James's user page it is clear that he states that he is a quaker, I am saddened if my choice of metaphor has upset him. I am sorry if I have upset him through the use of this metaphor.


 * What James has done is to read the chemical literature, and misunderstand it. When any of the chemists points out that he has made an error, James refuses to change his point of view or accept it when the majorty of the editors on a page come to a conclusion where his viewpoint is rejected. This behaviour has lead to some edit warring.


 * About Busby's work, I think that it is deeply flawed. I think that it is unreasonable to trust a article published in a journal just becuase the article is published in a thing which calls its self a journal.Cadmium 21:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no more evidence that I have misunderstood the chemical literature any more than other editors have; mistakes have been made on both sides, repeatedly, and editors on both sides have reached compromises. I agree with Cadmium that if a majority of editors disagree with my source-supported conclusions, I will defer to the authoratative sources, and not the other editors. --James S. 15:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Given that James has shown no self-reflection in this process, has shown no remorse for his bad behavior, has continuously wikilawyered, and is still revert warring on uranium-related articles, even violating 3RR on articles for which he has been banned before, I support this remedy. If one can't manage to avoid repeated 3RRs while under arbitration, then what is there to say?  I agree with Fred Bauder.  I see no prospect for improvement. Nandesuka 23:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * ...and just two days later, he was banned for 3RR again, this time for 48 hours. Nandesuka 04:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Template
7) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Alternative (a) up to one week per violation
1a) Any party violating any conditions imposed upon them by the ArbCom may be blocked by any administrator for up to one week.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * The standard remedy is to use brief blocks for enforcement, but escalate to lengthy blocks if brief blocks are ineffective. Fred Bauder 14:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Thank you for your support of this proposal. I hope it will also apply to the part(ies) who may have other conditions already imposed on them, because one of them recently violated an ArbCom-imposed restriction during mediation.  Evidence available on request, but I'm not out for vengance or anything like that, so I say let the first one slide. I wonder if he would be as kind to me. --James S. 05:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Alternative (b) up to one month per violation
1b) Any party violating any conditions imposed upon them by the ArbCom may be blocked by any administrator for up to one month.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * The standard remedy is to use brief blocks for enforcement, but escalate to lengthy blocks if brief blocks are ineffective. Fred Bauder 14:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Based on the personal attacks during arbitration, perhaps stronger terms of enforcement are required. --James S. 20:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Based on DV8 2XL's apparent change of heart and sudden support this morning for the uranium trioxide gas production facts, I ask to reduce the larger of the two proposed enforcement penalties. --James S. 14:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The change of heart was all a farce; see evidence. --James S. 22:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Enforcement by block
1) Should Nrcprm2026 violate the ban imposed on him he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses; after 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. Blocks to be recorded at Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Usual form. Fred Bauder 14:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: