User talk:Chazz88/Benjamin Gatti
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Introduction
This page is for all comments for me regarding the Benjamin Gatti Arbitration Case. --Chazz88 16:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Prior Mediation / RfC
First - "We" Generally means the group of 5 editors working on the Price-Anderson Act - Simesa, Myself, Katefan0, Mike (screen name WoohooKitty) and Zen-Master. Sandpiper edits but has not joined the RfArb. "We" in that sense, have participated in Mediation for a particular issue - which was whether or not the General Accounting office asserting the "intent" of Congress establishes an unqualified fact, or merely a qualified assertion. Ed Poor was an excellent Mediator, but the ship went down with the captain. Recently Ral has tried to pick up where Ed left off, but his participation by contrast has been scant and directionless.
There is no RfC on the personal witch hunt this has become. The RfC/RfM is only for the content of the named article. We haven't had significant issues with incivility, just intractable differences of opinion, on which the mediators have always agreed with our position - which is that assertions - even of government officials - should be qualified like everyone else - and that all verifiable facts should be included - rather than whitewashed in order to paint a more serene, pastoral picture of nuclear energy. Benjamin Gatti 17:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Chazz, please read the evidence. All of it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Oh and I'd like to clarify something. This idea that the mediators have always agreed with Ben is not correct. In fact, Ral was about to put forward his opinion on Ben's actions, which I am pretty sure where going to be negative, but I didn't want to complicate his life since the mediation on P-A is still technically live. This case is about Ben's conduct and JUST Ben's conduct. Did we do a personal RfC on his behavior? No. But. The RfCs and RfM were essentially about his behavior. The thing is, if we hadn't used the proper channels, the arbcom wouldn't have taken the case. That's a huge point that Ben is either ignoring or not acknowledging. He kept trying to change the case from Benjamin Gatti to Price-Anderson and then to all of our individiual names. But. When it was taken, the arbcom changed the name to just Benjamin Gatti, so I think they knew what they were doing. The arbcom rejects cases every day. If they felt like this one was without merit or was incorrectly filed, they wouldn't have taken the case. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re
I believe my opinions are outlined pretty thoroughly on the arbitration page. Best ยท Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 05:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Wikilawyering"
I think I've used the term 3 times in the last few days, but that's it. The workshop section on it was created by dmcdevit, not I. Besides Chazz, it's the arbcom that makes the decisions. If they feel like the term is incorrect, they will ignore it or remove the comments. Workshop is meant for people to make motions, put up findings of fact, etc. I don't see anything that says "you may not post xxxx". You may not like that I am using that term, but I don't see anything where it says it's incorrect or wrong to. We even have an article on it at Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. The example used there is from your very client if that's the correct word. And again, it doesn't say the term cannot be used. In fact, it makes it clear that the arbcom is one of the main users of the term (in fact, Fred Bauder is the one that posted te diff with Ben's comments as the example). If the arbcom feels like the term is being overused, they will ignore it or remove it. And again, it's not as if I've been using this term for 6 months, Chazz. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] It's Time
If they do not withdraw from the mudbath tonight and focus on the issue (the exclusion of real facts on the basis of original research), then I will permit the introduction of the evidence about which we spoke on my behalf. Mike and Kate are aware. Benjamin Gatti 23:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC) [1]
- Yeah. Against your will. Like I said, I'll include my sincere apology too then. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti/Workshop#Blackmail_and_threats_are_not_permissible. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Final Appeal to Fred to put Style over Substance
[2] I have asked Fred to address the substantive issues in this dispute. Please wait on above until he responds (max 12 hours). Benjamin Gatti 03:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The eMails
I suggest we wait further on the emails as Mike has admitted them voluntarily - perhaps we needn't pile on. I believe hypocrisy really is the hard wall against which whichhunts invariably find their sad end and this one has reached that point. For my own part - I would like to stop the hemorrhaging by just allowing the hate to clot on it's own. If you agree that this is a useful approach, perhaps you would help clarify the Hypocrisy principles, FoF, and Proposed remedy.
Thanks always,
Benjamin
[edit] In Closing
Thanks for your assistance in this manner. Sadly, the Arbcom have jumbled together a kludge of a decision which only begs the question what were they thinking (to be specific, they endorsed a probation of one year, and a probation with an indefinite term (apparently the term oxymoron is lost on our fearless leaders) one cannot rail against the wind. Best Regards, Benjamin Gatti 01:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's because it is 2 different probations, Ben. General probation is to stop general disruptive edits. So if there is a pattern of edits across several articles that 3 admins say are disruptive, you can be banned for short periods. The other one is less severe. It only blocks you from any particular article that you are being disruptive at. So there are 2 different probations. If the pattern used for zen is any indication, the blocks from articles typically last for a week or two, though that can vary. The general bans usually start at 24 hours. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
