Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Proposed decision

Which is the worst example of bias, editors who add citations to reputable sources and the statements supported by those sources in order to clarify a long-running and difficult controversy, or those who remove them to keep the details of the controversy out of the light? Please do not characterize my willingness to spend time on library research and summary of the peer-reviewed literature as obsessive or tendentious. Though if you must, wouldn't it be fair to also characterize those who have constantly removed such citations and statements as just as obsessive and tendentious, but worse because of the removal of source-supported research opposes the core tenets of Wikipedia?

It is true that I have a point of view -- everyone does. I would like to think that the reason my point of view is different than most is that I have spent the time to inform myself about the issues involved. But I haven't been objecting to other editors adding balance against my point of view from similarly reputable sources; nor have I been removing any such edits. My objections, and the root of this arbitration, is that I have tried to make sure that the more reputable sources and the statements they support stay in the involved articles, while other editors have been focused primarily on removing them. Please do not single me out for punishment because I have done a better job of source-supported research. --James S. 21:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

TDC placed on revert parole
Wasn't/isn't the intended aim of arbitration to discipline editors who don’t abide by courteous editing methods and who refuse to form a consensus as well as encourage them to do so? There was three month discussion partially initiated by myself to resolve the concerns of all parties involved in the article, My “edit warring” was nothing more than an attempt to avoid this entire arbitration and bring everyone back to the talk page. If you are going to punish me for that, at least admit that I acted with 100% good faith and in good spirit when trying to resolve all the issues amongst the various editors. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Singling out TDC is monumentally unfair. Despite any past sins that he might have been brought before ArbCom for, his comportment during this affair was, if anything, less assertive than the rest of us, not more. In fact I privately communicated with him on several occasions upset that he did not back me up with reverts when I thought they would be in order. More often than not it was he who was warning me to back down. His conduct in this dispute was probably more in line with Wikipedia policies than any other party involved. --DV8 2XL 02:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)