Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 03:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 18:09, 6 February 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
- 1.1 Complaining witnesses
- 1.2 Nominal defendants
2 Statement by Chazz, AMA Rep for Benjamin Gatti
3 Statement by Woohookitty
4 Statement by Katefan0
5 Statement by Ral315
6 Statement by Simesa
7 Statement by Benjamin Gatti
- 7.1 Background
8 Preliminary decisions
- 8.1 Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)
- 8.2 Temporary injunction (none)
9 Final decision

[edit] Involved parties

[edit] Complaining witnesses

[edit] Nominal defendants

Benjamin Gatti (talk • contribs)
Zen-master (talk • contribs)

[edit] Statement by Chazz, AMA Rep for Benjamin Gatti

As the AMA Rep for Benjamin Gatti I will also be making a statement on Ben's behalf. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC) AMA Representative for Benjamin Gatti

[edit] Edit warring

[edit] It takes more than one

Woohookitty (talk • contribs), Katefan0 (talk • contribs) and Simesa (talk • contribs) all try to accuse Benjamin Gatti of edit warring. However, what they fail to point out to the ArbCom is that, to have an edit war, more than one party is required. The other parties to this supposed "edit war" includes: Woohookitty (talk • contribs), Katefan0 (talk • contribs) and Simesa (talk • contribs). However, what the complainants want the ArbCom to do is to punish solely Ben and Zen although all are involved in what the complainants claim to be an "edit war". I would suggest that any punishment for Edit Warring passed upon Ben is passed to the complainants as well. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC) AMA Representative for Benjamin Gatti

[edit] Assume Good Faith

It is Wikipedia policy to: "When you disagree with someone, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project. Consider using talk pages to explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do the same." Wikipedia's Assume Good Faith policy --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC) AMA Representative for Benjamin Gatti

A lot of the evidence put forward by the complainants involves events that occured several months ago (i.e. June). Ben had only been on Wikipedia for one month at this point and, although some of Ben's earlier posts were completely way off, his use of articles for POV push (as claimed by Woohookitty (talk • contribs)) has rescinded. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC) AMA Representative for Benjamin Gatti

[edit] Arbitration is a last resort

Well it says this clearly on the request for arbitration page however it appears that complainants have decided to ignore this rule. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC) AMA Representative for Benjamin Gatti

[edit] Ongoing Mediation

It would perhaps be beneficial for the ArbCom to know that this case is still in Mediation. Therefore, it is clear that the Mediation process should be allowed to finish before pursuing the lengthy Arbitration procedure. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC) AMA Representative for Benjamin Gatti

[edit] Other forms of dispute resolution not pursued yet

It should be noted by the ArbCom that Benjamin Gatti has not been offered, mentorship or informal mediation through the mediation cabal. It should also be note that no RfC was carried out specifically in relation to Ben prior to the RfArb. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC) AMA Representative for Benjamin Gatti

[edit] Conclusion

I respectfully disagree with the ArbComs decision to hear this case. However, I understand that this decision was probably made because they were not presented with all the facts. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC) AMA Representative for Benjamin Gatti

Nevertheless, now presented with all the facts I would respectfully submit that the case be suspended while alternative methods of dispute resolution are carried out. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC) AMA Representative for Benjamin Gatti

[edit] Counter Claims

[edit] Complainants have ignored facts

It is somewhat clear from the facts of this case that the Complainants don't deny that more often than not Ben has been correct in his assertions. It is possible to argue that Ben was, in the summer, disruptive in nature. However this was merely to ensure that the Price-Anderson and Nuclear Power articles were factually correct. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC) AMA Representative for Benjamin Gatti

[edit] Complainants wish for the Price-Anderson and Nuclear Power Articles to be factually incorrect

The complainants are correct in that Ben prefers alternatives to Nuclear Power. However it would appear that they wish for the Nuclear Power and Price-Anderson articles to be of a pro-Nuclear Power view. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 20:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This is why the complainants were so keen from an early stage to ensure that this Case only focused upon the Bens conduct: they couldn't possibly win a case based upon the content of the articles in question. Therefore they hoped to get Benjamin banned from editing the articles so that he wouldn't be allowed to edit the articles and attempt to ensure that they didn't become a pro-nuclear POV. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 20:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I am going to ask the ArbCom to consider therefore going to ask the ArbCom to consider the counter-claim based upon the Content Dispute. It is important for the ArbCom to realise that regarldess of the conduct dispute the content dispute needs to be resolved otherwise we will have another ArbCom case in a few months between the same parties but a slightly different issue. Therefore it would be better for the ArbCom to resolve the content dispute just now. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 20:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complainants are Prejudiced against the Defendant

Woohookitty freely admits to being bias against Benjamin Gatti [1].

It would appear, that although they haven't admitted it. So are the other complainants. Therefore I would ask the ArbCom to take their evidence with a pinch of salt and most certainly don't assume that the complainants have presented a balance and complete complement of evidence. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Remedy

Although I feel Benjamin is partly at fault here I would feel a Ban of any kind to be far too draconian. Although, the complainants present a good prima facie case they are somewhat selective in the use of facts and evidence.

It would appear that the best solution here, with regard to Benjamin Gatti, is for him to be appointed a Wiki-Mentor. This is preferable to a ban or lengthy probation for two reasons.

Firstly, it is somewhat self-evident that Ben generally means well although his strong anti-nuclear POV sometimes clouds this and corrupts. A wiki-mentor will probably cause him to change his ways and help convert what is being described as a "strong POV pusher" into knowledgeable and valuable editor. I would additionally note that the Mediator, Ral, in Ben's Mediation case, noted that Ben generally meant well and was an overall well-intentioned editor: probably a really nice guy, especially in real life.

Secondly, this is Ben's first ArbCom case. The complainants and others have made averments like: "he won't change" and "I've seen nothing that indicates to me that he will change". However, there is no evidence to back this up. In actual fact, in writing this part of my statement I looked at the recent edits in the Price-Anderson article and note that Ben hasn't made ANY changes to this article since 25 December 2005. Thats TWO WEEKS as of writing this article. Surely he can't be that much of a "risk" in the future when he hasn't edited the article in two weeks. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 21:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Woohookitty

First of all, this request is not related to Ben's request involving the most recent protection of the Price-Anderson Act (I'll use the short form of the act just for briefness). This is a request that has been brewing for several months, but that we've held off on because we've made several attempts to resolve the situation, but we've been unsuccessful.

Anyways, honestly, it's hard to narrow down the policies/guidelines that Ben has broken or tried to get around. Most (but not all) of the violations have involved the Price-Anderson Act. He has also been disruptive at Looting, nuclear power and other articles. Ben is a master at Gaming the system and has done absolutely everything to game the system, including violating other policies/guidelines to do so. Here is an example of Ben violating No Personal Attacks (by crying "censorship", which he does alot), but then accusing others of violating No Personal Attacks. He's also been good at doing things such as quoting the neutral point of view policy, but not quoting the entire policy. In this case, he was claiming that "NPOV states that controversial statements are NPOV as long as they are attributed", while completely omitting the principle that NPOV statements also need to be fair and balanced by other statements. Other things he does to game the system is to be cooperative one day and then when he gets his way and we decide to give him a point, completely turns around and submits a ridiculous POV edit that no one can even start to edit.

We also have his constant POV pushing. His POV is that nuclear power is bad and that we must make the P-A and nuclear power articles into a push for renewable energy. Here is an example of this. This POV pushing has extended to other articles, such as nuclear power, where he's often submitted POV edits like this one and also POV edits at Looting and also Criminalization of politics.

And we also have violations of No personal attacks such as listing anything that's against his view as similar to enslavement or the Holocaust by basically saying that those of us who say that the consensus is for a certain way puts us in the same "dark moral ground" as the Holocaust and enslavement.

And finally, we have disruption. We actually just had a great example of it with his ridiculous request on this page. Even after being told that this wasn't the place for discussing undoing a protection, he added to his arguments anyway. And he's very good at mocking processes with adding sections like "Prayer". When I briefly had a practice RfC for him on my userspace (which is within policy), he mocked it by saying that the opposite parties were him and "God". --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the main thing he's guilty of, which is excessive edit warring. He does this edit warring despite any talking with anyone else. he's done it despite mediation, protection (when he'll just transfer it to the talk page), threats of RfArs or anything else.

I'd like to urge that the Arbcom take this case. Just so you know beforehand, it might be an ugly one given Ben's purchance to disrupt...which is why I plan on asking for a temp. injunction against him once we get started. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Addendum. This is in response to Ben's statement here. Again. This has nothing to do with the protection dispute going on. The personal stuff is not "noise". It's the entire case, Ben. Your actions here are the case. You violated 5 major policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and you still are. The arbcom should note that a couple of the diffs up above are from the last 3 weeks. It's not as if Ben is getting better. And to me, this whole protection dispute shows that he refuses to fully learn and follow the rules. The arbcom does not take content disputes. I've told you this on P-A several times (as has katefan0) and we've told you on here and yet you keep plugging away on content. This ArbCom case I am starting is not a content dispute. It's not about the issues in Price-Anderson and what should and shouldn't be in the article. It's about your unceasing edit warring and general misconduct. Ben, we could literally use half of your edits in this case against you. The problem is that you have an anything goes/slash and burn style. As long as you win your point, you don't think it matters how you do it. It's "noise". Well it isn't. And you're going to learn that the hard way through this arbcom case. And if you notice Ben, I've yet to mention a single issue in the Price-Anderson Act article. Not a one. You're the issue here. Not Price-Anderson. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Addendum II. Ben, my statements about zen have no place here. The case is not about zen. It's about you. It's not about Price-Anderson. it's about you. ArbCom, I'd appreciate it in your votes here that you make it clear that this is not a content dispute and that you are not accepting this on that basis. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 00:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Katefan0

I first encountered Benjamin Gatti when I responded to an RFC filed on the article Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act. I quickly realized that Benjamin edited from a strong anti-nuclear/pro-renewable energy viewpoint. [2] [3] [4] This would not be a problem, except that Benjamin was not properly sourcing contributions, and often inserted essay-like, blatantly biased opinion as fact. I chalked this up to inexperience and tried to show him Wikipedia’s policies, taking pains to demonstrate how to properly source criticisms, and how to attribute assertions of opinion to groups. (Which he responded in one instance by suggesting I was trying to censor him [5]). While Benjamin has been most disruptive for the longest period of time on energy-related articles, he has made disruptive edits across numerous unrelated articles.

Benjamin continued this pattern of very disruptive editing, even after he was well aware of Wikipedia's policies and their applications. Here he has begun using in-line links to references, but instead of characterizing them as the opinion of those groups, he simply states those opinions as fact. [6], [7], [8]. In response to admonishments on this point, Benjamin here makes it clear that he views his purpose as above such suggestions "i am not bound by courtesy, wikicourtesy or otherwise".

Benjamin has at times been rather uncivil, but has generally refrained from making serious personal attacks, with the exception of a rather unsavory incident involving Simesa, with whom he has been squaring off the longest. Simesa is a retired nuclear engineer, and as such has been the target of Benjamin's unfounded ire on several occasions. Here casting aspersions on Simesa's motives [9], [10]. But perhaps the most offensive action in this regard was when Benjamin awarded Simesa the "Chernobyl medal," stating Simesa is awarded the "Liquidator of Consequences" award for his work in scubbing the wikipedia clean of the consequences of nuclear radiation. Benjamin finally relented when Simesa, in defending himself, revealed that part of the reason he is a former nuclear engineer is because he was a whistleblower.

It's clear to me that Benjamin is a crusader more interested in using Wikipedia to spread the "truth" about the evils of nuclear power and other political causes rather than presenting a subject neutrally, particularly as it regards energy or political topics. He has regularly conducted what amount to breaching experiments and blatantly bad faith edits, and is not afraid of violating policies, disrupting Wikipedia, edit warring and any other tactic if it furthers the dissemination of what he considers the "truth." For instance, when Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act was protected because of the ongoing edit war, Benjamin went to the Price-Anderson Act redirect page, pasted in his preferred version of the article and continued to edit there. When challenged he justified his action by suggesting it was all right because the protecting admin did not list it on WP:PP, [11] [12], then began to edit war in an attempt to retain his edits [13], and posted an announcement on the protected article's talk page asking other editors to "drop in" to edit the redirect [14].

His heavily biased edits have not only been to nuclear-related topics. He has also inserted blatantly biased opinion at Indentured servant, Pat Robertson, Looting, United States Department of Defense, George W. Bush, and others. In my opinion, there is no other way to view these kinds of additions except as disruption bordering on vandalism.

I believe Benjamin is only concerned about Wikipedia insofar as he can use it as a platform for broadcasting his liberal ideologies. (Here saying "I'm not here to make friends, I'm here to make a difference") [15], (Here creating a page called "Wikiblower protection") [16], (Here announcing his willingness to edit war to protect "the truth") [17]

I regretfully join this arbitration — regretful because Benjamin is clearly intelligent and has the capacity to contribute usefully if he could only abide by WP:NPOV and related policies. However, the idea that he could begin complying with these directives seems increasingly unlikely to me, as he has been given months of chances to demonstrate that he has any interest in neutrality and has failed each time. I believe that like most crusaders Benjamin is well-intentioned insofar as he feels he's doing the right thing "for the good of all mankind," but his passion to spread "the truth" without following Wikipedia's policies has wreaked havoc across every article I've ever seen him edit. I feel that this disruptive editing has reached a point where it can't be allowed to continue in this fashion. He continues this editing pattern even up to today Edit dated Nov. 7; Edit dated Dec. 10.

[edit] Statement by Ral315

As mediator in this case, I'd prefer not to make a statement at this point. If the arbitration case is accepted, I will help in any way that I can, but as I'm still mediating this dispute, it would be a conflict of interest to divulge anything. Ral315 (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Simesa

I am a former nuclear engineer who is no longer in the industry, probably at least partially because I became a "whistleblower". (Other than to write to the Nuclear Energy Institute and to American Nuclear Insurers for information for Wikipedia, and a noncopyrighted picture, I have had no contact with the industry for a decade.) I have been involved with Nuclear power and Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act since June 22nd (I authored the latter). I filed the first RfP and first RfC (which brought in Katefan0 and Woohookitty).

There has been horrendous edit-warring in both articles since Ben first edited Nuclear power on May 19th (nearly ceasing in Nuclear power since September 1st - 215 edits by him in that period). (Ben has made 196 edits to Price-Anderson Act.) Ben views Wikipedia as a confrontational battlefield for his views. He has said, "Yes - like any respectable conflict, both sides claim God, NPOV, and common sense are on their side. In that respect at least, this is a proper pitched battle." [18] and (in the Price-Anderson dicussions) "Truth is a battle" [19]. Ben once wrote "And as for drastic - if an article is NPOV - it deserves drastic - no apologies." [20]

Ben once unilaterally moved all or portions of Nuclear power to a different article, which I believe was Nuclear debate [21]. user:Ultramarine and user:Dalf recall this, Ultramarine had it reverted, and they may give evidence later.

Ben has made no bones about his intending to fight Price-Anderson and nuclear power. His history comment on the first edit he made to Price-Anderson was "without the Act = no plants" [22] [23]. In addition to his wife having been in Kiev at the time of the Chernobyl accident, Ben sees himself as a competitor to nuclear power, as evidenced by his website [24].

One personal attack on me was to post a "Chernobyl liquidator's" award on my Talk page [25]. I hold that award in even more disgust than Ben does (if that's possible), as being a nuclear engineer I know about Chernobyl, the aftermath and the cleanup (where the Soviets had cleanup crews picking up radioactive fuel fragments with just their hands). Ben also once referred to nuclear-involved engineers as "deadbeat engineers." [26] Finally, Ben has repeatedly tried to tie me as financially dependent on the nuclear industry in an apparent attempt to discredit me [27] [28] (as stated above, I have no contact with or dependance on the nuclear industry).

[edit] Statement by Benjamin Gatti

This case is a test to determine whether or not Wikipedia will at the highest level, condone the manifest bias against renewable energy which permeates the articles related to nuclear energy. I have endeavored to illustrate the bias and worked effectively and cooperatively with six editors to remedy the systemic bias. In a final desperate attempt - after having failed to convince two mediators of the merits of their preferred and biased language, they have concocted a ruse: attack the messenger with hyperbole and blatant falsehoods. You will find in the evidence many items advertised as "person attacks" which are clearly neither personal nor attacks, You will find many edits which are true and sourced to the best of my knowledge. And you will find a few oddities - which are nonetheless equally true, though perhaps unencyclopedic. You will not find evidence of persistent editing against consensus - though I have no particular use for "What most people think" as if the alchemy of popular consent were the only cauldron of truth.

My earnest hope is that the talented observer will see through the fog and noise and be able to focus on what counts: The factual accuracy and neutral presentation of facts - in this case related to renewable energy vs. nuclear.

[edit] Background

We must begin with Simesa, because his RfC on Price Anderson Act brought in the others.

Simesa prefers to understate the risks of nuclear energy and the impact of the industry's personal legal loop-hole, the PAA:

[29] (Right to state tort remedy, right to punitive awards, right to hold bad actors responsible)
[30] (Results of government's own study)

"To participator of the liquidation of consequence of accident on Chernobyl Nuclear Electric Station"

I presented Simesa the tongue-in-cheek award for "liquidator of consequences" (literal translation) - as much because I enjoy his company and expertise on this article as because I felt he had earned a bit of a ribbing on account of his manifest bias. (As is my own.).

Kate came in, and to be honest, supported and sourced much of the material I wanted to add over Simesa's objections; unfortunately, there were a few remaining points on which we could not agree. Specifically, the GAO reported that congress intended to protect the public by passing Price-Anderson, and I insisted that such clairvoyance must be fully attributed, while Kate held out for the unqualified assertion. (Price-Anderson slimes the public by preventing them from suing the nuclear Industry if they get slimed, and it slimes the states by removing local control over life-threatening industry). There is a legitimate (and sourced) controversy over the purpose and effect of PAA. We have sourced arguments on both sides, and I feel that we should not presume to resolve the conflict in the unqualified voice.

Michael also contributed (I forget the details).

(We mediated this question on my initiation with Ed Poor - which ended unexpectedly)

It's not clear that mediation has resolved the question posed; Ed agreed with me that all contested assertions should be fully attributed, but that didn't fully satisfy the others.

Lately, Sandpiper and Zen-master have participated, and Ral has picked up as mediator where Ed left off.

Zen master tends to concur with my edits, while Sandpiper, though moderate, tends to support the presumption of safety without evidence.

Tempers have been fairly even throughout, with some better able to disagree peaceably than others. There have been few outbursts, but this one is memorable: [31].

In the most recent page protection (pseudo-editwar), all six of us had made edits, no one had reverted more than thrice, and someone blew a fuse. Bearing in mind that the PAA Provisions were just amended by Congress last month, (which restarted the nuclear movement in this country) this is a very current issue, an important matter of much debate, and quite likely to be hotly contested for several years as each milestone to the first reactor since the 1970's is passed.

Diffs

[32]

Compare and decide

The original article completely omits that state's rights are suspended, that Industry is shielded from liability (Federal indemnification) - even for criminally negligent acts, and the name omits the words "Nuclear Industry Indemnification". Simply compare [33] the POV of the initial article to the end result, decide if lively debate has not produced a more excellent article, and then decide if wikipedia is a welcoming place for people who care more about facts than a popularity contest - and let us know how you decide.

Benjamin Gatti 05:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Preliminary decisions

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

Accept. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC) (and let's title this one "Benjamin Gatti" if and when we do open it)
Accept Fred Bauder 19:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Accept ➥the Epopt 20:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Accept (and concur on naming with Kelly). James F. (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Accept Charles Matthews 14:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction (none)

[edit] Final decision

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

[edit] Principles

[edit] Disruptive editors may be banned

1) A user who edits a set of articles in an aggressive point of view way may be banned from editing those articles.