Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
  • Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and one is inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Benjamin Gatti banned from edits which relate to nuclear power[edit]

1) Benjamin Gatti is banned from editing Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, nuclear power, and any other article which relates to nuclear power until this case is closed.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC) His activity is quite frenetic.[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 00:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutralitytalk 22:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Disruptive editors may be banned[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 02:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 14:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 22:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox[edit]

2) Wikipedia excludes advocacy and propaganda, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 02:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC) Better wording.[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 14:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 22:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Assume good faith[edit]

3) Wikipedia:Assume good faith contemplates good faith cooperation between users with different points of view, working together towards the common goal of creating quality articles.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 02:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 14:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 22:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Aggressive point of view editing by Benjamin Gatti[edit]

1) Benjamin_Gatti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aggressively edits from a strong anti-nuclear point of view affecting the articles Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act and Nuclear power. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti/Evidence#POV_pushing, and immense amount of evidence Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti/Evidence#Pattern_of_Biased_and_Disruptive_Editing_on_Nuclear_power.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 02:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 14:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 22:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Disruptive edits[edit]

2) Benjamin Gatti's edits, both in Price-Anderson Act and elsewhere often display such blatant bias inappropriate for articles that they transcend mere POV and constitute disruption. "How the law robs the poor and gives to the rich", "removes the protections victims deserve", [6], "[George Walker Bush] is a commited golfer who also takes time out to serve as the current President" (bordering on vandalism), presented by Katefan0, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti/Evidence#Biased_and_disruptive_editing_over_a_range_of_topics.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 02:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 14:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 22:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Failure to assume good faith[edit]

3) Benjamin Gatti fails to assume good faith towards those who oppose him. Examples: [7], [8], [9], [10].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 02:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 14:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 22:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Service to a greater good[edit]

4) Benjamin Gatti's edits with respect to nuclear power represent value which transcends the purpose and policy of Wikipedia [11] and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti/Workshop#Truth_is_more_important_than_consensus. "We remember Nero for fiddling while Rome burned. I had nothing to do with Bush's choice to put golf ahead of exercising the unlimited power of his office to protect and defend the people of New Orleans. Imagine if the President of Anker West Virginia Mining Co. spent today playing whiffle-ball. We don't choose priorities for the President, but we certainly have an obligation to report them - accurately. Bush deserves to be remembered primarily for playing golf while the gulf coast fell into the sea. Benjamin Gatti 03:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I don't understand what the quotation has to do with the finding ➥the Epopt 02:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It relates to [12] Fred Bauder 14:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This finding seems strange to me; I don't like the statement. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutralitytalk 22:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Not sure what this is trying to say. James F. (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jayjg (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 14:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawyering[edit]

5) Benjamin Gatti's comments, particularly in this arbitration case, and in dealing with article disputes, frequently appeal to technicalities or are frivolous motions to alter policy in the middle of the case, characteristic of Wikilawyering. [13], [14], and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti/Workshop#Motions_and_requests_by_the_parties.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 02:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 14:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 22:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Benjamin Gatti placed on probation[edit]

1) Benjamin Gatti is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. He may be banned from any article or talk page if he engages in disruptive editing. Bans shall be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. This remedy may be extended year by year by any three administrators for good cause shown.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 02:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 14:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 22:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Benjamin Gatti placed on general probation[edit]

2) Benjamin Gatti is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, it is found that he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Each restriction imposed shall be documented and explained at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 02:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 14:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 22:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) If Benjamin_Gatti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) violates any probation or parole remedy he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall be one year. Blocks and bans should be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 02:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 14:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutralitytalk 22:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. Close. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. Fred Bauder 16:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. Charles Matthews 16:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Close. Neutralitytalk 22:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close. Jayjg (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti/Proposed_decision&oldid=1037734456"