Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Workshop

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: I accept your implicit apology despite its incivil phrasing. Nandesuka 17:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Non-party interference 

message: 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)
thread_title: Use of {{Tl|Inuse}} by Nandesuka

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Thank-you

message: Nandesuka made several selective deletions, some of which were moved here.  His or her version of the project and discussion page is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Workshop/Nandesuka. --James S. 15:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Nandesuka's heavily and selectivly elided version

message: :I moved the following here because the workshop is not for extensive discussion. Johnleemk | Talk 16:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: And I have restored it here because this is a talk page, not an archive. Johnleemk | Talk 17:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks to me like an attempt to supress important evidence. --James S. 17:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is evidence doing on the workshop, then? Johnleemk | Talk 17:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per this suggestion, I am moving the table and discussion to the Evidence page. --James S. 18:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RTFM (or read the fine manual/instructions). From Wikipedia: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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion from "Plaintiffs have scant reputable sources in their support"