Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[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)

[edit] Requests from May-June 2007

[edit] Time for a topical ban in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti

Benjamin Gatti was placed on probation and general probation more than a year ago for edit warring and other disruptive, obsessive edits at Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act and other nuclear power-related articles. Eventually he was banned from four articles, and blocked multiple times for probation violations, after which he left for a year between late April 2006 and May 2007. Upon his return, now that the probation (and, presumably, the bans imposed under it,) are expired, he has resumed the exact same edits: obsessive, circular, filibustering on talk pages, which was accompanied by edits against consensus before. See the edits to Talk:Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, (he's moved to Talk:Nuclear power now too), the creation of the extraordinary nuclear occurrence as a WP:COATRACK for pushing an anti-PA Act POV [6], and recreation of his old neologism, Power laundering, (under a different hyphenation), deleted at AFD a year ago. As suggested by at least three other users as soon as they saw him return to active editing, [7] [8], [9], I'd like to ask for a topical ban on his editing nuclear power-related articles and (especially) talk pages. Dmcdevitยทt 22:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorsing this wholeheartedly. Ben is back to the exact same behavior. Dmc mentioned the circularness. It's similar to before. He's already put up 2 proposals. One outrageous and one more tempered. Basically, he puts an outrageous one up...people object...so then a nicer one goes up...and then people will start to agree with him...and then he'll go right back to the outrageous one. We've been through this over and over again. It's the behavior that caused his arbcom case in the first place. And as dmc's diff from me states, the Price-Anderson article (as well as nuclear power) had almost 0 edits until Ben returned. So the community is ok with the article. But Ben's obsessed with it. If you look at the archives, he's making the exact same arguments he's made before. I don't think he should be blocked totally. As I've always said, Ben is very bright. And I've always felt like he could be a good contributor to the encyclopedia if he was steered the right way. But he needs to be permanently banned from nuclear articles. And it needs to be made as general as possible, since as dmc pointed out, he's already back to introducing articles which essentially exist to prove his points on Price-Anderson. If he's banned just from P-A, he'll find a way around it. Wikilawyering is one of the findings of fact in his original case. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 23:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Make it so. Mackensen (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    I believe this can be imposed by any three uninvolved admins per the original ruling. Thatcher131 22:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    Correct; I second. James F. (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    yep. - David Gerard 23:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    Hell yes. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Enacted Banned for one year from articles related to nuclear power and their talk pages. [10] Please log blocks at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Thatcher131 00:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The Arbcom issued two separate probation's: The one with year long consequences is related to "Disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia" and requires a finding that the functioning of Wikipedia was disrupted. What you have complained of here are simple requests, not even edits, in favor of correcting the POV of certain articles, again not edits. If three admins will stake their reputation by signing a "finding of fact" that such constitutes a "disruption of the functioning of Wikipedia" then so be it. Otherwise, this ban is in violation of the terms of the Arbitration. Benjamin Gatti 04:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
As noted above, 6 admins have requested or concurred with banning you from nuclear power-related articles. Thatcher131 11:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
That's fine if its policy - but its not - three admins have to "find that Wikipedia was disrupted" ie see "don't disrupt to make a point". None of these examples, or anything like them occurred. Topic bans under the the Arbitration are limited to a week. You can argue that you're the bigger mob, but its not persuasive. This ban remains inconsistent with the language that arbcom voted on. if you want others to respect rules, you kind of have to demonstrate that respect. This looks to me like everyone doing want they want, and in short a state of nature. Where is the motivation to respect rules in a state of nature? Tell you what - you guys conflate week with year, I'll conflate year with week? is that fair? Benjamin Gatti 14:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Ben is Wikilawyering. Which. Is one of the things his arbcom case was based on. I would not recommend telling the Arbcom to do their jobs. What you were doing on P-A was disruptive. "Simple requests". No. As Dmc stated above, you attempted to link Price-Anderson act to extraordinary nuclear occurrence by having P-A under "See also" when it has nothing to do with the article. Not only that but you willingly reintroduced an article (power laundering) which was deleted over a year ago. And you put up a completely ridiculous proposal that was the beginning of the cycle you always put us through. All of those things are disruptive and they are exactly what you were doing before. And if you continue to do this, the Arbcom can very easily reimpose the other probation and any other remedies that they see fit. So I'd suggest that you stop. You hurt your arbcom case by excessively Wikilawyering (as mentioned in the original decision) and you are going to hurt your standing here if you continue to do that same thing. Honestly, I'd be for the arbcom archiving this entire discussion just so you don't get yourself into more hot water. You are a very smart man who could contribute alot to Wikipedia. I wish you'd do that instead of continually reeking havoc and debating endlessly. What the point is I never have figured out. THAT'S disruptive. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 15:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
There is simply nothing disruptive about adding Extraordinary nuclear occurrence. It is a technical term invented - not by me - but by the Congress, so I guess Congress is disrupting the English language by adding long words to it - or something - honestly, I don't see any disruption in providing a place for a technical term to be defined. If wikilawyering is the alternative to wiki-making-it-up-as-you-go-mob-rule, then I'm kinda okay with that. Words mean things. That's not lawyering, that's language. The Topic ban is in violation of the plain words written by the Arbcom - read it. That's all I'm saying. It isn't very persuasive when the admins violate the arbcom, or worse, torture decisions into a battering ram. Benjamin Gatti 15:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Arbcom members, please archive this. It's pointless. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 15:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Clerks, we're done with this. Archive as you see fit. Mackensen (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you guys. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 22:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appeal of Unwarranted Topic Ban of Benjamin Gatti

After a year long hiatus, fully respecting various impositions, I would like to participate on some of the articles. After listing valid issues (missing facts, POV etc...) and proposing alternatives, I have been accused of "Disrupting Wikipedia". This is so obviously over-stated as to be ridiculous. The proposals are well within the margin of error - for example well within the views of the Appellate Court and the Supreme Court (which are in conflict) They are certainly not outside an objective definition of mainstream. Add to that a number of subjective and trumped up complaints, like the addition of Extraordinary nuclear occurrence as being some kind of soapbox - when it's simply a technical term used by Congress to trigger certain compensations akin to declaring a "State of emergency" which triggers federal relief. I would ask the committee to review what passes for "Disrupting the operation of Wikipedia", and challenge the assertion below that anything even remotely of that sort has occurred. Benjamin Gatti 23:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see unwarranted criticism in Extraordinary nuclear occurrence
Unsourced POV article originally used to bolster user's arguments on Price-Anderson Act
Clearly the article stub is impossibly brief, 1. contains absolutely no point of view, 2. includes a government reference, and 3. doesn't bolster anything. It simply allows a technical term to be click-able, so as to be explained by clicking rather than redefined in an awkward parenthetical. Benjamin Gatti 00:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)