Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] The case against Benjamin Gatti in editing Looting

It's the first time I follow an arbitration in action. I want to know if an arbitration is related to the whole misbehaviour of an user (in this case, Benjamin Gatti) or only to the a specific quarry (in this case, the Price Anderson Act flame).

From Wikipedia:Arbitration policy and related pages is not clear what is the case.

Anyway, to anyone whom may concern, I'd like to point out the IMHO mostly disruptive behaviour that User:Benjamin Gatti had some week ago about the editing of Looting. The Talk:Looting and the history [1] can easily show that.

Summing up: Gatti has begun to edit Looting with IMHO disruptive and wildly POV statements (see for example [2]). Then a small edit war begun, followed by very long discussions on both the talk page and the Benjamin Gatti user page. After several painstaking efforts and endless discussion with me and a couple of other users, Benjamin Gatti agreed with us on the current form of the article. It must be said that the discussion process in the end produced a probably more correct article. However Gatti was all but constructive: he constantly tried to put highly political POV statements or references in articles (see [3] , [4] , [5] for examples) ,often almost out of context. On the talk page he almost always tried to impose his own sociopolitical POV as plain truth (often by stretching definitions and selective quotation), subtly accusing other WP editors of racism, and he constantly tried to slip examples (even if completely useless for understanding the article) that push his own political agenda (for example, this was his proposal for the meaning of "looting", still visible on Talk:Looting:

Looting is the opportunistic taking of goods in the absence of their owner.

  1. taking of goods following a war or other victory - ie President Bush looted FEMA 
     by taking the chief executive position for one of his campaign supporters.
  2. the use of positions of trust to take that which belongs to others. ie Cheny and 
     his friends at ENRON and Halliburton have been looting the American people and investors.
  3. scavenging for critical necessities such as water and food following a natural disaster. 
     ie, the good people of New Orleans were forced to loot underwater grocery store for water and food as Bush and 
     his incompetent cronies debated whether to hit the back nine, or facilitate a long promised rescue for the children, 
     sick, and elderly trapped for days during one of the longest presidential vacations in history. 

)

I'd like to know if it's useful to provide this information (in a more structured way and with a more evidence) for the arbitration case. --Cyclopia 21:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbcom cases that are taken are for user conduct. If you look at the statements, we do mention other articles that Ben has worked on. So yep. Feel free to add whatever you would like. Look at the evidence page and just follow the format they prescribe. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 21:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Response

When I first met "Looting" - the article was guilty of the same race-centric BS as was uncovered in the popular press. The (Copyvio image) was of starving Africans in an orderly line distributing food aid. The article failed to mention the first definition listed in most other dictionaries, as well as the metaphoric uses (such as looting political office for the perks). It is clearly a better article now than when I found it, and far closer to the goal of NPOV. Have a look at the full diff.

Although I note since my absence, it has devolved into gradeschool trite: i.e. "Looting during Hurricane Katrina was carried out by many individuals who were essestials for survivals as well as those who sought to get "free stuff" such as DVD players and alcohol. One young man was seen drunkenly attempting to break the window of a bank with a large pipe." Benjamin Gatti 17:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

______

This comment is a pure example of Benjamin Gatti's method of playing on WP. A couple "feel-guilty-you-all" political statement ("the article was guilty of the same race-centric BS" and "the (Copyvio image) was of starving Africans in an orderly line distributing food aid") that don't assume any good faith, are the first at least seriously questionable, since there was no reference to any kind of race, and the second a pure personal interpretation (do you have any proof backing you on the pic,Benji?). Then he repeats a statement (It is clearly a better article now than when I found it, and far closer to the goal of NPOV. Have a look at the full diff. ) that I already wrote above ("It must be said that the discussion process in the end produced a probably more correct article.") as if it is an answer, failing to quote any of the criticism that follows, that is focused on how this discussion was conducted. Benjamin Gatti looks like he can't but gaming the rules, both of WP and of argomentation. --Cyclopia 08:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The image has been pulled as a result of my RfD for copyvio. But the caption should still be available. Benjamin Gatti 17:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course. The problem is: what proof do you have the image is of an ordered distribution of food aid and not of true looting? But that's not the main problem here. And I'd prefer to discuss on the formal evidence page from now on, when I'll have collected it. --Cyclopia 17:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It was a very straight line, hardly the look of a Toy R Us at Christmas. It was quite "orderly" in appearance. Benjamin Gatti 18:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Any help you can give on the evidence page would be appreciated. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I must find the time to put all the material in a coherent form. Hope in less than a couple of days. Thanks. --Cyclopia 11:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not sure where this goes or what format but ...

Ben was pretty disruptive (in some of the same ways and some novel abuses of semantics) in editing Hubbert peak theory. He also was pretty disruptive/abusive in the talk page for Nuclear Power editing the comments of people who disagreed with him and "archiving" and "refactoring" the page to removed arguments he disagreed with but did not want to answer.

I can dig up the actual diffs if someone will point me to which section of which page they should be added to. It is possible that he has stopped some of the Talk page abuse as he as pretty new then and after fighting with him for a few weeks I just gave up and quit editing on those pages. Dalf | Talk 04:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is where it would go. Thanks. As for the format, this case is a good guide. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Response

Hubbert Peak Is a delightful and diversionary piece of fiction which uses the voice of wikipedia to predict the end of the world. Apparently, Hubris Peak and is to energy what Scientology is to health and happiness. Jim Jones could do no better. Quite deserving of attention. (Wait for the Diffs, they'll all be quite rational, well-informed, and properly qualified.) Benjamin Gatti 07:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Another energy article. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ben's actions in Hubbert Peak theory were decidedly unhelpful and he made no efforts to improve. He made sweeping, obviously POV changes to the article and was either unable or unwilling to provide reliable references to back up his edits. We challenged him many times to do so, but he would not. After being challenged to back up his POV he mostly resorted to arguing on the talk page with no positive gain to the article. Anyone wishing to compile evidence against Ben being a useful Wikipedia contributor could have a field day looking through his contributions to that article. I have no problem with people that disagree with me and I have no strong feeling about the Hubbert peak article except that it should reflect the facts. What I do have a big problem with is POV pushing by someone unwilling to back up their position, and that is all Ben did. If the position was or could have been backed up with reliable sources, the ridiculous number of wasted Kilobytes of sidetracked talk page conversations could have been avoided. It appears clear that Ben doesn't know a whole lot about what he is talking about in the Hubbert peak issue, and is unwilling or unable to do real research to find out, but he is more than happy to push uninformed POV's. It seems he enjoys arguing for the sake of it. We're not here for that, we are here to build an encyclopedia, and Ben isn't helping. - Taxman ^Talk 15:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That's Ben's MO. It's a circle. He's cooperative and then when you say hey maybe this will work out, he puts up a POV edit so ridiculous that it cannot be edited. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 17:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please act on the temp injunction request

Even if it's for rejection, I'd ask the arbcom to please act on the temp injunction request. Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I would have to agree here. Unless you're all ready to close the case, the proposed remedies all seem like a good idea. Why not act on the injunction request so we can stop the bleeding? - Taxman ^Talk 21:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)