Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Workshop

Non-party interference
Henceforth, I will move for joinder and injunction against any non-party who removes any party's work from the workshop page again. --James S. 02:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You are unclear on what a workshop page is and is for. But feel free to wiklawyer all you want.  I'm sure the arbcom will be suitably impressed. Nandesuka 02:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you accusing me of making inappropriate use of legal technicalities? If so, which ones and why? --James S. 11:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I withdraw my warning; Nandesuka's edits lead me to believe that he or she is an insufficiently skilled adversary, and if I ask for joinder, it will be on my own terms, not in response to provocation. --James S. 15:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I accept your implicit apology despite its incivil phrasing. Nandesuka 17:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Use of Inuse by Nandesuka
Nandesuka attempted to prevent parties from editing this project page by using the "inuse" tag. I left him or her a message about it on his or her talk page. --James S. 15:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you
I thank Nandesuka for the efforts made to introduce some order in these proceedings. Since James is clearly pursuing a tactic of attempting to bury the facts under an avalanche of verbiage and dissemination I will not add fuel to the fire by continuing to respond to his transparently ridiculous arguments. There is enough here to make our case against this editor. --DV8 2XL 16:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Accusing someone of using such tactics is an argument against the person, not an argument of facts or rules. I take exception to DV8 2XL's continued personal attacks against me. --James S. 19:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * DV8: The arbitrators have plenty of experience with verbose, querolous, wikilawyering, or just plain kooky participants in arbitrations.  The best thing to do is to state your case clearly, provide easy-to-read evidence in the form of diffs on the evidence page, and simply state the principles, findings of fact, and proposed remedies in simple, clear language.  The thing to not do is to get into a prolonged discussion or a point by point back-and-forth on the workshop page, or construct detailed justifications, spending 50 paragraphs explaining why black is white, and day is night.  Of  course, that's just my opinion. Nandesuka 19:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is welcome and will be heeded. My patience with this farce is quickly running out and I am seriously rethinking my participation in this decent into travesty. I will take a break for a few days at this point while I cool down, and will rejoin if some semblance of order is restored to these proceedings. --DV8 2XL 15:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Nandesuka's heavily and selectivly elided version
Nandesuka made several selective deletions, some of which were moved here. His or her version of the project and discussion page is at Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Workshop/Nandesuka. --James S. 15:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What James is trying to say is that I refactored the page for clarity and readability while preserving all the content, but he reverted all the changes. This page needs a clerk's help, badly. Nandesuka 15:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Workshop/Withdrawn
I have moved all but one of the things in the motions & requests section to the withdrawn subpage. Asking a question is not a motion, and the arbcom has no mandate to meddle in content disputes, so the last two questions cannot be answered by the arbcom. If you want matters of principle to be decided on, please present your preferred principle in the proposed principles section. I have left the motion to dismiss alone, as it is a motion and within the arbcom's jurisdiction. Johnleemk | Talk 16:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Asking a question is a request, in order in the section from which you removed it. I am reverting. --James S. 16:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it is not. You are asking the arbcom things like "Are warnings of violations of law personal attacks or legal threats?", which the arbcom will answer if you present it in the standard form of proposed principles, which is what the workshop is for. You propose a principle, people comment on it. Questions on matters of principle are not motions or requests. The arbcom won't answer your questions if you don't propose an answer. That's how the workshop works. Instead of asking, "Are warnings of violations of law personal attacks or legal threats?", put down in proposed principles, "Warnings of violations of law are not personal attacks or legal threats." Johnleemk | Talk 17:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What purpose does that serve? The effect is identical. --James S. 17:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't. Otherwise you'd just stuff all your evidence in the evidence page, and then throw a bunch of questions at the arbitrators. Discussion of what ought to be done would be spread out everywhere, and the arbs wouldn't have a concrete idea of what the parties want. The proposed principles section allows each proposed principle to be discussed (instead of asking "what should the principle on X be?" and then mucking your way through dozens of screenfuls of text, each related to a different proposed principle -- one person may support doing X, another may propose banning X, and another may propose compromise Y). I could've just told you "Stuff it, the arbs prefer things this way," but you were lucky this time. :) Johnleemk | Talk 17:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you please explain what you mean by "mucking" and "stuff" in the context you have used those words above? I don't understand. I have asked that the clerks edit the Analysis of evidence section and not remove active discussions while the parties are still participating in them on the workshop page.  --James S. 18:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * First instance of "stuff" = throw, put, place.
 * Second instance of "stuff" = Politer STFU
 * Mucking = tiredly reading. Johnleemk | Talk 18:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, this terminology is neither clear nor convincing. You might want to do a google search on "case questions" in law, or read about case questions in a litigation text. Presentation of evidence and questions is a perfectly legitimate way to make a case. --James S. 19:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * For their convenience, the arbitrators want the workshop laid out this way. Deviate from it and the only person who will lose out is you. Johnleemk | Talk 14:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So, you say that this is not a place to show off legal skills, but below you ask why a table of authorities should be included. In American courts, a table of authorities is almost always included in a legal brief, and usually before the argument.  I will leave things the way you want them, but I am adding a request to make sure that the table, which is crucial to my case, is not missed. --James S. 16:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (indent shift) Wikipedia is not a real court. My point above is that whatever experience you have with real judicial decision-making does not apply. The arbitration committee has its own way of administering "justice" on Wikipedia. Tables may be crucial in a legal brief, but they are rarely used in arbitration cases. I also asked you why it should be included on the workshop. Please confine evidence to the evidence page. Johnleemk | Talk 16:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion from "Plaintiffs have scant reputable sources in their support"

 * I moved the following here because the workshop is not for extensive discussion. Johnleemk | Talk 16:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)....


 * I replaced it because the subjects of discussion are still active. Please archive threaded discussions after their activity has subsided. --James S. 16:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And I have restored it here because this is a talk page, not an archive. Johnleemk | Talk 17:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This looks to me like an attempt to supress important evidence. --James S. 17:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What is evidence doing on the workshop, then? Johnleemk | Talk 17:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Per this suggestion, I am moving the table and discussion to the Evidence page. --James S. 18:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * RTFM (or read the fine manual/instructions). From Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Evidence: "This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page." I have moved the discussion of evidence to the talk page. You may restore relevant portions as evidence, but don't use whole discussions. It makes life difficult for the arbitrators. Johnleemk | Talk 18:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The section you removed included an annotated table of authorities which belongs on the workshop page, along with its discussion, because the discussion was ongoing when you removed it. I am returning the table and its discussion to the workshop page.  Please consider summarizing it after the discussion surrounding the table has subsided. --James S. 19:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You have not stated why the annotated table belongs on the workshop. The discussion belongs on a talk page. The annotated table, which constitutes evidence, is evidence, and belongs on the evidence page. The discussion can be continued on the talk as appropriate. It is not appropriate to carry on arguments for screenfuls on end on the workshop, and arbitrators have had to summarise these discussions themselves before (while moving the discussion elsewhere). As a clerk, it is my job to make the arbitrators' lives easier, and if you want to stand in the way of this goal, it will be your loss, not mine. Johnleemk | Talk 14:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I just want to back up what John is saying here. Evidence goes on the evidence page. Discussion goes on talk pages. We simply don't want vast discussions on the workshop page or the evidence page. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Attempts at finding an informal solution

 * Here is a copy of a discussion which has been going on in the recent past.Cadmium 12:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kat, I have been following the disputes which are on the subject of uranium. Please could you tell me when it is likely that the ArbCom will have decided what the outcome will me.

I have noticed that the debate has at times gone to dire depths with some mud slinging, I think that some parties (DV8 2XL and James S.) are unable to discuss things.

I do not know what the rules on it are, but during the arbitration I have entered into a informal discussion with James S (I hope that I have not broken any rules by doing so), while I have somethings which I strongly disagree with James about I think that me and him might be making some progress towards a solution which would be reasonable to both of us. Other than bans and the other punishments which have been proposed, do you have any things which are more positive.


 * One way to think about it is this, years ago I knew a preist who said that for lent you do not need to give up anything he said that you could take a positive action by taking up a new good habit. His reasoning is that giving something up can be a negative change (eg giving up eating mars bars), while a new habit (such as starting to go walking your disabled neighbour's dog) is a positive change.Cadmium 19:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have one suggestion as to what should be done, I think that the debate about the health effects of the inhalation of uranium powders has spilled over onto too many pages. I think that one solution which might appeal to James S., DV8 2XL and some of the others might be to create a series of pages on enviromental radiochemistry. We would move all the material on the health effects into one place which would leave the other pages free of it (this would mean that they would have less contraversal matter on them) so we would have fewer pages which would need police action. I think that pages on radon, thorium, uranium, plutonium and fission products in the enviroment/their relationship with humans would make a good series.


 * I do not know if you are able to make suggestions as well as/instead of sanctions such as bans. I think that James should leave uranium alone for a while so that things can cool off, I think that he should consider writing pages on radon, thorium and plutonium. I have already given James a leading reference on a release of Pu metal powder which has occured, which would start him off well if he does decide to write on the subject.Cadmium 23:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am strongly opposed to removing health and safety information on any subjects away from the articles on those subjects.  There is no precident for it, it violates the Content forking guideline, and it smacks of whitewashing. What if we removed all controversies to seperate articles? There are certainly plenty of congressmen who would love that.
 * I have no "reference on a release of Pu metal powder which has occured" from Cadmium or anyone else, and I can't imagine why he thinks that I would want to write about plutonium, radon, or thorium, which are not burned by the ton where people can breathe the fumes, as uranium is. I have provided a vast abundance of high-quality, peer-reviewed and scholarly references in support of my position, and those opposing me, including the mediator, have scarcely provided a single peer-reviewed reference in support of their position, and mostly economically conflicted sources. These late-stage attempts at "compromise" are little more than attempt to get my agreement to whitewash the serious health and safety risks from the articles where they embarass military and nuclear proponents.  I will not compromise my ethics, and I respectfully ask that you and the other arbitrators do not compromise yours. --James S. 02:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you please have these discussions on the talk page and the workshop page of the RfAr itself rather than my talk page? This really isn't the best place to put it if you would like all the arbitrators to see it. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear James,

My reasoning for suggesting the fork is this, I agree that fine powders of U oxides are not good for a person's health. But if we include everything on UOx on one page it will get too big. I would reason that a page on the gunsmith Smith and Wesson should not include details of the deeds of a bank robber who used a S&W. In the same way we should make a short section on the DU page about the enviromental issues and then have a second page devoted to the enviromental issues. This would allow the material on the density and crystal strucutre of U to be separated from the health and legality issues. It is not an attempt at a whitewash.

I would like to know what your motivation is. If you are is motivated by a normal interest in the area then I think the case will be different to that where have made up your mind about DU and is trying to use wikipedia as a soapbox for your views.

your wrote I can't imagine why he thinks that I would want to write about plutonium, radon, or thorium, which are not burned by the ton where people can breathe the fumes

I suggested that you might want to consider Rn, Th, Pu and other elements becuase these elements are important in enviromental radiochemistry and I thought that you had an interest in this area.

Rn is inhaled by many people (thought by some to be the second biggest cause of lung cancer). Not burned but somes out of the soil

Th, in india a large area of beach has thoria as sand. Some NGOs say it is not safe while the goverment of india say it is perfectly OK. Not burned but the locals walk on many tons of it in that part of india.

Pu, the article I gave you a link to is about the state of an island where french nuclear testing was done. This considers the isotopes left behind, this includes Pu metal and oxides from some experiments. This is related to the Du issue as the Pu on land can prevent the safe use of land for some uses. The form of the Pu could well be similar to the fragements of DU from a shell as the Pu was scattered by the action of a chemical explosive on the metal.

I fail to see why writing about other elements could compromise your ethics.

The big question. do you want to write about general enviromental radiochem, or do you want to write about DU only for some reason ? I think that the answer to this question will say a lot.

For your interest I write about actinides and nuclear/radio chem becuase I find it interesting.Cadmium 12:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)