Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Please act on the temp injunction request 2 Just a suggestion 3 Wikilawyering 4 Service to a greater good

[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)} 20:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Just a suggestion

I'd also like to see some sort of block on Ben. A symbolic block of a day or week or whatever. The problem I have with just probation here is that Ben is completely unrepentent. In this case, just probation would be a threat. It wouldn't be punishment for past acts that would tell Ben that his actions are not ok. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Woohookitty -- although I am aware that the ArbComm is seriously concerned about this situation, I don't think Ben sees how seriously. Simesa 17:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilawyering

I think this finding sets an awful precedent and have commented on it in the Workshop. Gazpacho 22:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Service to a greater good

This is the first and I hope last time I'll comment on ArbCom. But I can't believe this enormously POV (not to mention irrelevant) proposal is getting even one support vote. In fact, I'm a little queasy that it's getting three abstains. I'll disclaim right now that I voted for Bush, but I'd be just as upset with a proposed ArbCom finding that included these words: "Clinton deserves to be remembered primarily for chasing interns while Osama bin Laden plotted the destruction of the World Trade Center." I can only hope that, if this obviously inappropriate proposal appears in the final verdict, it will be unanimously opposed. Otherwise, serious doubts about the neutrality of ArbCom and its support of NPOV will arise in the minds of many Wikipedians. Casey Abell 01:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Er, no you read that wrong. It's a statement of Ben Gatti's beliefs, not ArbCom's. We're not in the business of content disputes, anyway. Dmcdevit·t 03:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Gatti has added material which in his view takes a principled position. Such material, whatever its value, exceeds the mission of Wikipedia Fred Bauder 04:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I realize it's a statement of Ben Gatti's beliefs. But what is an uncontradicted, non-disclaimed statement of Gatti's political opinions doing under a heading of "Service to a greater good" in an ArbCom proposal? If this proposal continues in any form - which would not be wise if ArbCom wants to maintain its reputation for upholding NPOV - Gatti's enormously POV statement should be removed from it. At the very least, Gatti's statement should be accompanied by a disclaimer that his opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of ArbCom. Even infomercials carry such a disclaimer. The current proposal (with its one support vote and three abstains) plays all too much into the perception that Wikipedia has a political slant. I agree with Mindspillage. The proposal seems strange to me and I don't like it. Once again, if an uncontradicted, non-disclaimed, strongly anti-Clinton statement appeared in an ArbCom proposal called "Service to a greater good," and if that proposal received one support vote and three abstains from ArbCom, I'd be just as upset. Casey Abell 10:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Calm down. It's going to be rejected, which means it won't be in the final decision. it does say "proposed" after all. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It's no skin off my nose which way ArbCom votes on the issue. But this idea should never have made the proposed stage in the first place. ArbCom shouldn't even be voting on whether an editor is doing "service" to some undefined "greater good" beyond Wikipedia. And there's no way an undisclaimed, extremely POV statement by an editor under arbitration should be allowed in the wording of an ArbCom vote proposal. Now I'll shut up and let the proposal get voted down. Casey Abell 15:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have thought a bit about your objection and feel it is probably my fault. I do share Ben Gatti's opinion about Clinton. I resigned as precinct chairman in the Democratic Party when it seemed inevitable that he would be nominated. I had information from television cameramen who worked in Little Rock regarding his aggressive sexual overtures and felt I could not support him for political office. So I kind of liked that example of Benjamin Gatti's over-reaching POV proclamations and included it in the proposal. It is however, an example of him violating Wikipedia policy. I believe the proposal itself is well founded. Wikipedia does not provide for the kind of prophetic activity Benjamin Gatti is engaging in. Wikipedia is a compilation of generally accepted knowledge, not a forum for incisive political commentary, or prophetic warnings of the dangers of nuclear power. Whether it is considered value added or value detracted it is value which transcends Wikipedia's mission. Fred Bauder 15:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I just think that it wasn't worded very well. I knew what you meant, Fred, but I think it lost some people. But as I said, I'm not sure it matters at this point. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)