Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 19:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 16:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

1 Involved parties
2 Articles involved
3 Statement by Physchim62
4 Statement by James S.
5 Statement by David Gerard re sockpuppet checks
6 Statement by Dr U
7 Restatement by DV8 2XL
8 Statement by TDC/Ten Dead Chickens
9 Statement by William M. Connolley
10 Statement by BSbuster
11 Statement by Cadmium
12 Statement by anonymous user 129.215/16 a/k/a 82.41.26.244 a/k/a Dr Zak
13 Statement by Linas
14 Preliminary decisions
- 14.1 Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)
- 14.2 Temporary injunction (none)
15 Final decision

[edit] Involved parties

Physchim62 (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves), nominal lead plaintiff
TDC (talk • contribs) -- often signs as "Ten Dead Chickens," nominal plaintiff
Dr U (talk • contribs), nominal plaintiff
DV8 2XL (talk • contribs), nominal plaintiff
Nrcprm2026 (talk • contribs), signs as James S., and occasionally edits anonymously from 171.64.x.x. Real name: James Salsman, nominal defendant
129.215.*.*, 82.41.26.244, now editing as Dr Zak.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Mediation was offered after an earlier Request for Arbitration: it is the Mediator's opinion that further discussion would be detrimental to the project.

[edit] Articles involved

Depleted uranium (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (failed voluntary pre-mediation settlement page, now redirecting to Depleted uranium)
Uranium trioxide (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Gulf War syndrome (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Uranium-238 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Mediation pages

[edit] Statement by Physchim62

Mr Salsman has strongly held views that exposure to uranium is a cause of Gulf War syndrome, views which he wishes to give the highest possible exposure on Wikipedia. In doing so, he does not hesitate to use selective citation from his sources, invented citation (pretending that a reputable source says something which it does not) and ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with him. He has previous engaged in serious, for not to say libellous, attacks on other editors [1]. He has now accused a non-involved editor of sock-puppetry [2]. His lack of good faith dooms the mediation to failure and his hypocrisy prevents other editors from improving these articles. I am now of the opinion that a case can be made purely on the conduct of Mr Salsman: he will doubtless attempt to cloud the issue with the dispute over content, but this is ancilliary. Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox. Physchim62 (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Addendum

(since these seem to be in fashon around here)

"Invented citation" might be a bit harsh a term: I think that James honestly believes that his sources support him. Unfortunately they don't and, even if they did, it would not excuse his conduct. Physchim62 (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by James S.

My views on the relation between Depleted uranium and Gulf War syndrome are widely held because they are directly supported by several recent and longstanding peer reviewed sources from the medical and scientific literature, whereas the opposing side in mediation has been apparently unable to cite a single peer-reviewed or recent source in support of their position, and most of the sources they do cite are economically conflicted.

The charges of selective and invented citation and ad hominem attacks are unspecified, new (as far as "invented citation" go), and so vague that I can not address them fully until specific charges are made. I have raised serious issues about the content of some of the parties' statements, but have not made ad hominem attacks. I asked for guidance on this issue and I believe I have followed the consensus advice. I stand by my comment referred to above as a civil, reasonable, measured, and appropriate comment on the seriousness of the issues involved and correctly reflecting the facts. I have avoided making any legal threats, but another party has demanded that I be banned for alleged "libel" against them (a pseudonymous editor who refuses to allow their claimed medical doctorate to be verified.)

I deny any lack of good faith; depleted uranium and Gulf War syndrome are heated issues upon which reasonable people can reasonably disagree, and upon which there are documented instances of the production of misinformation on both sides of the issue. I am certainly not the only editor who has been supporting the truth in the articles in question, and the other parties to mediation are certainly not the only ones who have been removing carefully sourced facts from them.

My questions about sock-puppetry were so well-founded that mediator Physchim62 chose to run CheckUser to investigate them; this clearly shows my suspicions were reasonable.

I am sorry that the mediator has withdrawn. I thought we were making good progress when he explained the calculation of quantities of production of UO₃ gas vapor from U₃O₈ particles, but when I raised the issue of the ratio of surface area in micrometer-scale particles to those cooling from the plasma of a flame, he has not yet directly responded to the question. Moreover, I have provided dozens of pages of peer-reviewed primary source material at the request of the mediator, who has chosen to withdraw from mediation rather than discuss the relation between surface area and the total amount of uranium trioxide gas produced; indeed, the production of uranium trioxide has been admitted by the opposing parties. As the peer reviewed literature states, "health impact assessments for ... DU munitions should ... take into account the presence of respiratory UO3...." (Salbu et al. 2005.)

I have done nothing wrong. My hundreds of hours in the library working to bring verifiable, peer-reviewed sources to this controversial issue which the opposing parties would whitewash, as evidenced by their frequent attempts, should be commended.

I ask for joinder of the parties who originally brought this dispute to the ArbCom. --James S. 18:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addenda in response to Dr U's statement below

In response to Dr U's statement below, I have accused Dr U of false edits surrounding medical subjects on the topic of depleted uranium, and in many cases he has later agreed and later corrected his mistakes. The fact that he claims to be a medical professional means that his statements do rise to the level of professional misconduct from that perspective. I have never threatened legal action. I have said, "If you think you can make general diagnostic statements, expressing your opinion of the medical condition of tens if not hundreds of thousands contrary to peer-reviewed research, and not run afoul of professional misconduct regulations, then I would like to know why." Still to this day, I would like to know why -- the question remains unanswered. Dr U's assertion that he doesn't claim to edit based on his medical expertise is not consistent with his username and signatures; he claims his medical credentials on his user page. --James S. 19:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to ask Dr. Wilcock to participate

Apparently, the subject of the new "invented citation" claim against me concerns a limited-edition book by A. Ross Wilcock, M.D.:

Uranium in the wind / edited by A. Ross Wilcock.
  -- Woodstock, Ont. : Helical Publications, 2005.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 0-9736153-2-X : $25.00

1. Radioactive fallout--Physiological effect 
2. Uranium--Health aspects 
3. Uranium--Physiological effect 
4. Projectiles--Health aspects 
5. Projectiles-- Environmental aspects

I. Wilcock, A. Ross, 1940-

RA1231 U7 U72 2005     616.9'897     0501

I propose that we invite Dr. Wilcock to participate. He is familiar with the physical chemistry and epidemiology involved. --James S. 20:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to William M. Connolley's comment below

These false allegations are completely unrelated to depleted uranium. Clearly Wm. Conolley feels strongly about this issue, but not strongly enough to have tried alternative avenues of dispute resolution before contacting the ArbCom. I stand by my graphs as properly depicting trend information, and I stand by my edits to the global warming and related articles as properly sourced and consistent with the remainder of the articles to which they were made. I further deny allegations of bad faith; I am certain that Wm. Connolley is a fine man, but his edits are often representative of spineless apologism kow-towing to those who have been documented as being paid to argue against the scientific consensus on the issue.

It is not appropriate to join the depleted uranium issue to the global warming issue, and so I ask that the ArbCom remind Wm. Connolley to persue alternative avenues of dispute resolution before raising content disputes with the ArbCom. --James S. 19:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Return to mediation?

Although I am tempted to ask for joinder of Wm. Conolley and Cadmium, because I am certain that their accusations are groundless, I maintain that my behavior has been appropriate for the circumstances because my actions have served to protect the Wikimedia Foundation from potential legal actions in jurisdictions where the current medical disclaimer is invalid. Accusing someone who claims to be an M.D. of malpractice when they make unsupported claims about the medical condition of thousands is no different in principle than accusing someone of copyright violations. Both similarly protect the Foundation. Although there is no excuse for personal attacks (and how many "personal attacks" does advocacy of DU weaponry involve?), the truth is an absolute defense against malpractice claims in jusisdictions where the existing medical disclaimer is invalid.

Since the mediator has resumed mediation activities, I respectfully ask the ArbCom to dismiss this case without predjudice for further mediation. --James S. 18:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Since the mediator opposes this request, I withdraw it. --James S. 19:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by David Gerard re sockpuppet checks

James S.'s claim that "My questions about sock-puppetry were so well-founded that mediator Physchim62 chose to run CheckUser to investigate them; this clearly shows my suspicions were reasonable." is not in fact the case. I checked on all of James S., Smokefoot and DV8 2XL. None showed anything that looked like sockpuppetry at a glance. A checkuser check is in no way and has never been evidence there is bad behaviour; however, examples like this show why the checkuser log is not public and is not going to be public - David Gerard 00:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Dr U

User:Nrcprm2026 has repeatedly bashed me personally. He has accused me of professional misconduct for making wiki edits that don't support his point of view!!!!! Can you imagine the implications to Wikipedia in general if this type of behavior goes unchecked? Ever science teacher will be intimidated from posting anything related to science because they could be accused of "misconduct." Every engineer will be intimidated from posting about engineering. Every nurse. Every professional of every sort. The types of people wikipedia wants to attract as editors will go away.

He has accused me of lying. He badgered me on my user page despite repeated pleas that he stop, and he only stopped because an administrator told him to. He never apologized. He never retracted his statements. Here is the proof:

Proof #1 Proof #2 Proof #3 Proof #4

"Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." I should not have to defend myself against personal attacks because of my profession. Especially, since I never claimed my edits were better than anyone else's because of my profession. Acussing me of professional misconduct for a wikipedia edit made in good-faith borders dangerously close, if not crossing the line of conduct addressed on WP:Personal attacks: "Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time which may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery."

I ask that Arb:com make an example in this case, not so much for the sake of the article in dispute, but to prevent a chilling effect that will keep editors from all professions from posting on wikipedia because of these types of personal attacks. Dr U 19:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Adenda

Arbs, please note that this was my response to his questions. Also note that in his above adenda above once again accuses me of a "false edit." It also implies that I admitted to mistakes I didn't admit to. My user page and signiture predate my involvement in this topic. One again, there will be a SERIOUS chilling effect if I am allowed to be treated different than any other editor. "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme" is not allowed. Being a physician does not restrict my right to free speech. I am editing the same topics he is; and if my edits can be construed as giving medical advice, then he is doing the same, and without a license. Clearly making wiki edits is not practicing medicine. Dr U 20:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restatement by DV8 2XL

In light of James' request to return to mediation I have re-framed my statement.

This case has been brought before the Arbitration Committee on charges against the behavior of this user and not to settle a content dispute.

Two principles are under examination here: the applicability of WP:CON and WP:V

As part of it’s underlying philosophy Wikipedia has chosen not to give undue weight to the opinions of experts, (proven or self proclaimed) and while this has been the subject of much debate both here on the wiki and elsewhere it is I believe, a wise and prudent policy. Experts, as experts are not often free to extend opinions in public, (for among other reasons) because as is the case with physicians and lawyers they are constrained by professional ethics from doing so, or (as in my case) a condition of employment exists that requires all material for publication to be vetted before submission. While the last is not too onerous in the case of a paper to a journal it is obviously impossible in the dynamic environment of Wikipedia. Furthermore experts perforce, must have a narrow view on a subject and that in and of itself is in tension with WP:NPOV. Therefore the decision was made to rely on verifiability and consensus to improve the accuracy of articles.

This user stands accused of violating both WP:CON and WP:V, he is also accused of attempting to undermine the prohibitions of WP:NPA' in particular the injunctions against ‘Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views’ and ‘Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.’

The first by ignoring the general (and often universal consensus) that his edits are not, in fact verified by reference; and the other by demanding that dissenting editors present credentials as a condition of critiquing his assertions.

These charges are beyond the scope of mediation at this juncture, and it is on these points I urge the committee to open the case.

Other have presented evidence, but I will hold mine until and if the evidence stage has been opened.

The statement by User:William M. Connolley (below) is welcome and relevant, as this is not a content dispute but a charge based on the behavior of User:Nrcprm2026 --DV8 2XL 02:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by TDC/Ten Dead Chickens

The above plaintiffs have summed it up fairly nicely, but since my name is here I will elaborate. There was a tentative agreement hammered out by the parties that James scrapped, [3] [4] , [5], [6], [7][8]. This was done in bad faith, and ruined weeks of work by all the editors. James has attacked the credentials of all participants, and I hoped that Physchim62 could step in a settle this, as his credentials are well known and he is a very respected editor/admin. The arbitration committee should use this case to make it clear that Wikipedia can be a source for good current information on a subject, and not the stomping ground for junk science. Ten Dead Chickens 02:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by William M. Connolley

I have no opinions about Uranium, but I do have comments about Nrcprm2026, in relation to the climate related articles. Oddly, the problem this time is not about excess skeptic (as it was last time, but excess "alarmism". N's behaviour is disruptive and irritating but not worthy of arbcomm of itself, but since this case exists I'm going to mention it. If you'd rather not consider this as an unwelcome complication, remove it and we'll resolve it elsewhere.

N has been spamming an inappropriate graph into a pile of climate related articles: [9] shows him repeatedly re-inserting it against 3 editors; GW has an entire archive dedicated to this [10] and again, everyone disagrees with him. Unfortunately this behaviour continues [11] now. Everyone else agrees the graph is (a) original research and/or (b) unjustified extrapolation and/or (c) misleading, in attributing future damage to GW.

But there is more... probably best shown by Effects of global warming hist. N is basically making things up, based on nothing but his preconceptions, and adding them in: e.g. [12]. Sorry, this is going to get technical: N added (amongst other incorrect bits):

Wind produced from differences in barometric pressure has increased as radiative forcing increases the relative amount of daytime thermal expansion of air, and is also expected to continue to increase.

AFAIK, there is *no* evidence that winds (in general) have increased; nor any attribution of that to radiative forcing; nor any predictions of future increase. Note that edit includes a "reference" (I had previously reverted out that text, on the grounds that it was unref'd). However, that reference is completely beside the point; as the discussion on the talk page [13] shows. What the talk also makes clear is that N simply grabbed the first google hit to prop up his views.

In summary: N is editing things he doesn't understand, and grabbing irrelevant refs to prop up his preconceived notions: which notions are in general wrong, and totally ungrounded in the science.

William M. Connolley 18:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies: just one more bit: N's bad faith is shown in User_talk:Vsmith#Your_opinion_on_the_storm_cost_extrapolation_graph, in particular [14]. William M. Connolley 19:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by BSbuster

Connolley represents as a standard what he knows (AFAIK), misconstrues N's arguments and then launches a personal attack ("he doesn't understand"). N wrote nothing about winds in general. N refers to a widely discussed effect of radiative warming on Wind produced from differences in barometric pressure. A 2005 National Research Council report concluded regional variations in radiative forcing may have important regional and global climate implications that are not resolved by the concept of global mean radiative forcing. and Regional diabatic heating can cause atmospheric teleconnections that influence regional climate thousands of kilometers away from the point of forcing. If there is any debate, it is over the degree of wind increased caused by radiative forcing. Connolley perhaps should be the subject of a RFA instead, debating in bad faith by launching personal attacks against writers who cite literature instead of debating the content of the cited literature, then mischaracterizing the debate he refused to participate in. Connolley's sustained involvement in edit wars, RFAs and unresolved conflicts warrants investigation. BSbuster 02:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

BSb's contribs

[edit] Statement by Cadmium

I added some comments here, I have been advised that it was about content rather than the conduct of James. DV8 2XL has reminded me that issues of content should/will not be discussed here. So I have moved them to the mediation page.Cadmium

[edit] Statement by anonymous user 129.215/16 a/k/a 82.41.26.244 a/k/a Dr Zak

I have entered the fray by editing uranium trioxide and a few other uranium-related articles from IP addresses in the 129.215/16 range and wish to be added to the case. My experience with James can be summed up in few words: an utter unwillingness to engage with others in collaborative editing, which has led to at least one user turning his back on uranium-related articles. [15]

[edit] Statement by Linas

I've watched some of the debate at Talk:Uranium trioxide from a distance. I have generally found James S. to be polite and socially appropriate in his conversation and to be on firm footing in his scientific arguments. By contrast, his manifold opponents seem to be all at once insulting, inappropriate, dismissive and offensive. The few counter-argments I reviewed seemed to be faulty, and constructed on mis-understandings and mis-statements.

I have made three attempts to mediate the arguments, and each time I have been rather viciously attacked by parties standing against James S.

Whether or not there is scientific merit to James S. argments is hard to say. However, the opposing parties have not conducted themselves in a gentlmanly form, nor did thier efforts to debunk seem to be on a good rational footing. linas 00:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preliminary decisions

[edit] Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

Accept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Accept. Dmcdevit·t 20:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Accept. James F. (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Accept. Charles Matthews 19:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Accept. ➥the Epopt 15:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction (none)

[edit] Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)