Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Workshop

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration | Depleted uranium
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DV8 2XL (talk | contribs) at 02:31, 8 March 2006 (→Plaintiffs have no reputable sources in their support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Motions and requests by the parties

1) Is pointing out a potential violation of a law which could harm the Wikimedia Foundation allowed? Could doing so be construed as a personal attack or a legal threat?

Comment by Arbitrators:
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)[reply]
The content and the tone of the exchange here [1] 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. --James S. 04:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: [2] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [3] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comment by others:

2) When is it appropriate to display trend information on a graph?

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
If a trend is the best known available from a reasonably large set of fitted mathematical models, and is displayed with goodness-of-fit information and prediction confidence intervals, then that added information properly address concerns about graphic extrapolation. --James S. 18:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 would point out that 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(Nandesuka's comment moved below. --James S. 01:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Comment by others:
(moved from above) 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Mediation; motion to dismiss

3) Since the mediator has resumed mediation activities after bringing this case back to the ArbCom, should mediation of the various content disputes continue in parallel with this arbitration?

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I would prefer one at a time. If the ArbCom decides not to suspend or dismiss this case without prejudice, then I will make inquiries regarding advocacy. I suggest the motion to dismiss without prejudice. --James S. 18:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: [4] and here [5] and here: [6] here: [7] here:[8] and here: [9] and finally this diff.: [10] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comment by others:

Include teratogenicity?

4) Should those interested in incendiary DU munitions know that uranium combustion products are teratogenic?

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Yes. This content dispute is the subject of ongoing mediation. --James S. 18:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Issues of content are not relevant to this case and should not be addresses here. --DV8 2XL 20:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Include slow poison of civilians?

5) Should those interested in weapons know which of them poison civilians off of the battlefield, after the battle is over?

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Yes, especially if the evidence exists in easily available literature. --James S. 18:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Issues of content are not relevant to this case and should not be addresses here. --DV8 2XL 20:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Template

6)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

No original research

1) "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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Experts do not occupy a privileged position in Wikipedia

2) 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Are you excluding edits without summaries? Becuase we've had some of those. --James S. 05:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That statement has no relevance to the question of expert opinion. --DV8 2XL 14:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Reputable publications

3) 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)[reply]
Comment by others:

Verifiability

4) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
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. 22:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Source-based research

5) 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)[reply]
Comment by others:

Alternative (a)

6a) 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Alternative (b)

6b) 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)[reply]
Comment by others:
WP:NLT is official policy. Relevant to the intimidating statements made; see Evidence. Nandesuka 03:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7) 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)[reply]
Comment by others:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

8) 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)[reply]
An example of this sort of disruption can be seen here: [11] 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. [12]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]
More revisionism. First James agreed to the split and defended it [13] 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)[reply]
I defended the fork while the other parties were still abiding by our agreement to keep it consistent, and before I had read the Wikipedia: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)[reply]
Comment by others:

No personal attacks

9) 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)[reply]
Comment by others:

Template

10) {proposed principle goes here}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

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 motion to dismiss without prejudice. --James S. 23:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Dependency on findings of fact in ongoing mediation

2) Questions about whether the tone of certain warnings was appropriate depend on the subject(s) of ongoing mediation.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
In support of my motion to dismiss without prejudice. --James S. 23:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 clearly 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I respectfully disagree for the reasons stated above. --James S. 03:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative (b) has not made

3b) Nrcprm2026 has advocated in favor of Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Comment by others:

Removal of sourced statements and peer-reviewed sources

4) Some parties 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Evidence in various histories; diffs to follow. --James S. 05:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 other 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)[reply]
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.
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:[14]: here; [15] and here: [16]. 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.
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)[reply]
I have changed the verb case to address some of these concerns, and will respond to the rest shortly. --James S. 02:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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:
Comment by parties:
Diffs to follow. --James S. 17:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
This finding is irrelevant, prejudicial, and incoherent. Nandesuka 00:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plaintiffs have no 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 no peer-reviewed articles from the scientific literature, no scholarly publications from respected academic presses or commercial publishing houses, and several economically conflicted sources from NATO, and Lockheed Martin-funded Sandia National Laboratores (Lockheed Martin produces 30mm depleted uranium gunnery systems, including for the Apache helicopter and the A-10 attack plane.)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Diffs to follow, if there is any challenge to this assertion. --James S. 20:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again this whole line of reasoning hinges on the unreasonable demand that counter reference be found to support a charge of error in interpretation, and this editors belief that he can unilateraly dismiss sources if the do not agree with his views dispite consensus among the other editors that the citations are valid. --DV8 2XL 02:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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:
Reference Source Economically conflicted? Reputable per WP:NOR?
RAND Report RAND Corporation (private corp.) Questionable: RAND is paid by the U.S. government, and took an early position on the issue which they have been defending against evidence since No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house, but research for hire
International Atomic Energy Agency on depleted uranium IAEA Questionable: IAEA lobbies governments in favor of nuclear energy, and often fails to explain the full health hazards of nuclear byproducts and wastes No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house
Sandia (Marshall) Report Lockheed Martin-funded Sandia National Laboratories Yes, Lockheed makes DU guns No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house
World Health Organization - several reports WHO No: In fact, the WHO reports are some of the best non-peer reviewed references because they specifically caution that uranium in the environment should be assumed to be soluble unless otherwise known No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house
Background Material on Depleted Uranium (DU) NATO Yes, NATO is the largest consumer of DU weaponry No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house
Depleted Uranium: Opinion of the group of experts European commission No, but this 2001 report ignores the largest congenital malformation rate increase in Iraqi civilians and U.S. and U.K. troops which were first published in 2000-2002 No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house
European Parliament Directorate General for Research DU Health Effects European Parlament No, but old (2001) No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house
After the Dust Settles Bulletin of Atomic Scientists No No, this 1999 news article was not peer-reviewed
AC Laboratoriam Spiez report on Depleted Uranium NATO Yes No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house
Environmental Exposure Report Depleted Uranium in the Gulf US Dept. of Defense Yes No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house
Uranium Project World Information Service on Energy No, but this information is not about DU, it's about uranium in general No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house
Weapons with Depleted Uranium: Public Risks and Perceptions author's preprint Unknown No, not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house
Could Stress Be the Underlying Cause of the "Balkan Syndrome"? NATO and the Univ. of Zagreb Biology Dept. Yes No: no reputable sources at all in this list
In contrast, at least sixteen of the more than 20 references I provided, including those that I scanned in from library editions, and the serveral I provided links to PDFs for, are peer-reviewed from the medical and scientific literature, and are therefore reputable per WP:NOR. --James S. 01:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary:
"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." -- WP:NOR
Please do not remove the parties' work from the workshop page again. --James S. 02:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact tht DV8 2XL, Dr U, and TDC have removed my statements supported by, and the text of citations to, reputable sources, is a serious behavior issue on their part. The fact that they have done so while offering very few reputable publications on their own makes it even more serious. It must stop. --James S. 02:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
As near as I can tell from looking at the link provided by Ncprm2026, the crux of his argument is that Dr. U provided 16 references, but that Ncprm2026 thinks they are wrong, and therefore somehow shouldn't count. First off, this is irrelevant, since Arbcom is not here to decide on content disputes. More importantly: this finding of fact is phrased to mislead. To the extent that this phrasing is deliberate on the part of Ncprm2026 it serves as a precis of exactly why he has been brought before the Arbcom in the first place. Nandesuka 00:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This table would be very interesting if it reflected what is actually written in WP:NOR. Alas, it does not. Your willingness to reject reputable sources because they are "not peer-reviewed or a scholarly publishing house", once again, speaks volumes about why, exactly, this case was brought. While WP:NOR certainly includes peer-reviewed and scholarly publishing houses, the idea that you would try to argue that these are the only reputable sources, when the text is perfectly clear that many other things beside are reputable is nothing short of astonishing. Nandesuka 01:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the parties would refrain from filling the workshop page with huge, unreadable masses of verbiage, I would refrain from moving it to the talk page. But, I'm willing to let a Clerk do it instead. Nandesuka 02:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another attempt to turn this case into a dispute on content. --DV8 2XL 02:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

9) {text of proposed finding of fact}

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.

Remand, or dismissal without prejudice

1) The parties are to continue mediation.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Thank you for your support of this proposal. --James S. 04:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Prohibition on unreasonable attacks against reputable sources

2) 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 <s>...</s>; example) after posting reasons based on sources of equal or greater repute, but not removed.

Comment by Arbitrators:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Cooperation

3) The parties are directed to cooperate to work towards featured article status for Depleted uranium, Gulf War syndrome, Uranium trioxide, and related articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
This would be encouraging. --James S. 07:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Admonishment

4) The parties are admonished (A) to seek legal advice on the status of the Wikipedia: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 their 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:
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)[reply]
Comment by others:

Ncprm2026 Admonished

5) Nrcprm2026 is admonished to seek consensus before making controversial changes to articles.

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

Ncprm2026 On 1RR Probation

6) 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:
Comment by parties:
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. Nandesuka 00:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Blocking for violations

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:
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)[reply]
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 week.

Comment by Arbitrators:
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)[reply]
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:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium/Workshop&oldid=42744380"