Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti/Evidence/Annotated

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Complainants engage in white-washing
The complaining parties have sought to white-wash fully sourced information related to the probability and potential magnitude of a catastrophic nuclear accident as contemplated by the Price Anderson Act and described by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.


 * (Right to state tort remedy, right to punitive awards, right to hold bad actors responsible)
 * Removing the relative safety of alternative energy sources from the article regarding the risk factors of Nuclear energy
 * white-washing of facts
 * Removal of unpopular facts from Price Anderson
 * Removal of long standing summary of critical views in the intro


 * Maintainance of falsehoods, TotallyDisputed tag without identifying disputed facts, and unhelpful reverts without meaningful comments.

This diff may represent the intractible differences (sequence)
 * 

Benjamin Gatti 05:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Complainants have removed language asserting the valid and cited concern that holding the industry harmless would provide an incentive to cheat on safety measures - and indeed, we have growing evidence that such is indeed the case.

''Other security concerns cited by the guards, who insisted on anonymity, included orders to save time by not searching incoming vehicles, widespread cheating on state security certification tests, and weapons violations in protected areas. Guards also say the company discourages them from reporting on-the-job injuries, resulting in security staff working at less than full physical capacity.''

 Benjamin Gatti 06:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Price Anderson Act is a better article today than it would have been without a lively debate
(And might not have existed in the first place - as the initial description of Price begins in Nuclear power by the respondent.

Benjamin Gatti 05:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 

If the real point is to build a free Encyclopedia, then the factual findings of the Supreme Court visa vi the potential risks of nuclear energy most definitely belong in the relevant articles. My efforts to source these facts, to summarize them, and to defend them against those who would without good reason, whitewash important facts provided by government sources in their original words and phrases (such as the list of medical conditions insured by taxpayers under Price Anderson - found in the Army medical manual for treating radiation exposure) contribute to that end. Benjamin Gatti 03:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Complainants are inserting factual errors in the Wikipedia

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

'' Its purpose is to protect the public in the event of a nuclear incident, while at the same time encouraging the greatest possibile private participation in the nuclear generating industry. It establishes an industry-funded insurance system (worth $10 billion in 2005), and promises immediate compensation by the federal government for larger claims. The act expressly reserves the right to pass on this expense to all participating companies in the nuclear generating industry, not simply the company where an accident took place. The act has been challenged in the supreme court, but was held to fairly treat all parties.'' Benjamin Gatti 22:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Inserts or reverts the following:
 * Where in fact:
 * 1) The "worth" of the insurance system established by Price Anderson is far in excess of 10 Billion - as high as 300 Billion by the governments own CRAC-II calculations.
 * 2) The act indemnifies the industry against the additional costs - thus it is entirely misleading to imply that it reserves the right to pass on the expense to the Industry - moreover the Supreme Court in analysing PAA specifically indentifies the source of additional funds as coming from the "federal government".
 * 3) The insurance is not even substantially "Industry-funded" except for the first 2% of the costs calculated by CRAC-II.

POV pushing/violating NPOV
My first assertion is the long history of POV pushing that Ben has performed. This is despite many, many warnings about NPOV and the consequences of him continuing his POV pushing practices. First I'm going to cover the warnings people have given him about NPOV and his responses, which tend to dismiss them with a "it's the truth" type of answer.

Nuclear power
zen-master warns him about calling Richard Nixon and his supporters as "criminals"-. Ben responds with
 * Zen, I wasn't aware that Nixins and Larouche's credentials as criminals was a matter of point of view.


 * Note: I never said Ben's labeling was inaccurate. I in no way "warned" Ben about anything. zen master T 19:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Dalf answers a question as to why protection was called for on Nuclear power (by Ben, btw) and
 * Ben's response is
 * An example of the problem - here one editor openly admits that the information is factually accurate - but objects to including the facts in the intro because the inclusion of unquestioned facts would result in the article promoting a Point of View. - just book-burnings..

Later that day, Dalf points out that POV is not NPOV. Ben's response is classic and typical Ben, where he likes to misquote the NPOV policy.
 * The example is quoted below in full - with the author affixed - in which you can read an unambiguous affirmation of the facts - followed by something to the effect that the facts aren't important when they are negative. That my friend, unless you missed several important decades in the last millenia, you will recognize is quinessential book-burning. Under NPOV Rules of engagement, editors do not endulge in the luxury of deciding which facts are important and which facts are uncomfortable and for that reason alone - "inappropriate." Under NPOV - all points of view and all facts are included in their factual form. As to relevence - if a fact is a fact and is considered "uncomfortable" - then by definition it is relevent. - For the record - I have consistently objected to Redneck redefinitions such as the one you describe. Specifically i object to power being redefined as energy. Power is to energy what hourly rate is to income.

Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act
On November 11th, we have me warning Ben that NPOV policy states that sides must be treated fairly and with balance.

Ben's response -
 * If the facts are largely negative, that is that. I have nothing against a fair showing, but I do object to the presupposition that the outcome should be predestinated to assume the Price is moral, promotes public safety, promotes competition in the energy market, is cheaper than alternatives, is safe enough to insure, or any thing else which is untrue.

Here, from November 25th, is Ben's response to my assertion that without him following NPOV, we are not going to get this resolved -
 * I would venture to guess then that this is the impasse, and I see no resolution. If the Act protects criminal acts which cause mass destruction to the general public, then that my gentle friends belongs in the Introduction. Agree with me, or ban me - I am not likely to bend on the need to inform the reader of such things.

Here, from July 4th, we have Ben misquoting NPOV policy once again.
 * "Paltry" is a direct quote of the source. NPOV states that controversial statements are NPOV as long as they are attributed - important relevent and factually substantiated are all other reasons to reject a foriegn quote - but the mere fact that the quote has a POV is not - when it is couched. please see NPOV 101.

POV pushing
Here I'm going to present cases of Ben's POV pushing. There are so many examples that I am just going to put the diffs in without further comment (with a couple of exceptions). The ones I include here are what I called "ridiculously POV edits". These are edits that are so POV that they cannot be defendable as NPOV and are impossible to modify to make NPOV.

Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act
I am going to comment on the first diff, which is possibly the most aggregious POV edit of all of the POV edits Ben has performed. It's from November 15th and it actually includes the phrase "the act robs the poor and gives to the rich". 

Other POV edits (note that most of these are from the last 3 weeks):, , , , , ,.

And we have one from today, December 24th. Not improving.

Comment on Above
Where the Pro-Nuclear party had begun to insert the names of prominent environmentalists in support of Nuclear, I felt it was balanced to insert the names of notable opponents - including Carter - as well as some proponents with dubious records - such as Nixon and Larouche, both of whom are on record as having committed crimes (whether or not they were pardoned). In the end - we all wisely agreed that name-dropping was probably less than germane to the issues and moved on. - There were no personal attacks of any kind - and Carter's views on Nuclear power - being the last well-educated President, and a nuclear physicist at that are more than notable.

The accusatory gerund appears to presume a bias against nuclear energy - in that any well-sourced statement questioning the safety of reactors in general, and the financial protection provided by PAA in particular, is beyond suspicious. Here complainants are asking the Arbcomm to defend their removal of third-party assessments by large organizations such as the Union of Concerned Scientists even when fully sourced and attributed in-line. That is beyond POV - that is Censorship.

The contribution highlighted at the end is wholly accurate so far as I know. I agree that "robs the poor" is a bit colloquial for an encyclopedia - regardless of its technical accuracy, and well-sourced foundation. There is recent news that Progress Energy in Raleigh is in fact making a larger profit for its investors (the richer) by willfully neglecting safety regulations and maintenance at its reactor sites, while the burden for the additional risk is in fact borne by the victims and the taxpayers (the poorer). I believe it is factual to characterize such as a Reverse Robinhood. Benjamin Gatti 16:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Second assertion
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.

Anti-nuclear position
Benjamin Gatti edits from a strong anti-nuclear point of view, as evidenced by some of his first edits on Wikipedia. This wouldn't be a problem, except he regularly inserts biased, essay-like screeds as fact into articles.


 * June 24, 01:31 "There is some question how an industry which is truly safe and does not harm the public has nonetheless spent a very large amount of money in radiation release incidents. Renewable energy technologies have never injured persons in a way which would cause $216 million dollars in insurable liabilities."
 * June 29, 21:36 "All fair minded individuals will agree that it is not fair to ask alternatives technologies which are safer to compete with nuclear when the rules are tilted so heavily in favor of one side"
 * June 29, 09:00  "It makes available a pool of taxpayer funds to compensate people who divert their investments from safe industries to nuclear power. The cost of the subsidy is not calculated in the cost of energy, it is not borne by the consumers, but instead it is imposed as a tax, which forces people to pay for a product they do not choose to consume."

Pattern of biased and disruptive editing over time
These behaviors continue even though Benjamin has been regularly editing Wikipedia since May and has been through multiple article RfCs and two separate mediators. At this point Benjamin is well aware of Wikipedia's mandates on NPOV, verifiability and source citation, yet continues to flout them.

Benjamin's editing practices on political and energy-related articles in general and Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act in specific are wholly disruptive and dealing with them wasted tremendous amounts of wikitime of at least four editors who have bent over backwards to collaborate with him. In particular Benjamin's tactics are to make blatantly biased edits and, after they’ve been rejected by multiple editors, either slowly reinstate his original ideas, recycling them ad infinitum over several weeks/months, or to use complex reverts to subtly modify sentences so as to essentially say the same things, often edit warring in the process. Follows are a lengthy series of biased edits to the Price Anderson article that follow this pattern, showing a long history of these types of edits dating from his earliest days until this month. None of these assertions of fact are sourced, making these the equivalent of opinion inserted as fact.


 * June 23, 09:40 "In the event that claims exceed the pool of funds, Congress is required to consider passing the excess cost onto taxpayers - including those who own windmills and generate their own safe clean renewable and responsible energy."
 * June 27, 00:07 "The Price-Anderson Act is evidence that nuclear power is too dangerous to be insured, even by a consortium of all the insurance companies in the entire world"
 * June 28, 08:44 "The Price-Anderson Act, addresses the uninsurable risks of nuclear energy and research by passing the costs and the risks of a nuclear accident from the owners of production to the labor class." And then edit warring to retain the same assertion after it's removed
 * June 28, 19:37 "The Price-Anderson Nuclear Insurance Relief Act, relieves nuclear plant operators of the ordinary burden to pay for their own mistakes."
 * June 28, 21:33 "The Price Anderson Act removes this incentive to be safe and instead encourages those who cut costs at the expense of safety."
 * June 28, 23:03 "Moreover it states that the original intent was to divert private investments from safer alternatives to the government's hand-picked winner in the energy race."
 * June 28, 23:24 "The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act is a form of wealthfare"
 * June 29, 02:04 "According to the DOE, the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act is a subsidy"
 * June 29, 09:00 "It makes available a pool of taxpayer funds to compensate people who divert their investments from safe industries to nuclear power. The cost of the subsidy is not calculated in the cost of energy, it is not borne by the consumers, but instead it is imposed as a tax, which forces people to pay for a product they do not choose to consume."
 * June 29, 23:25 "The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (1957) amends the Atomic Energy Act to hold nuclear contractors faultless and irresponsible for their actions."
 * June 30, 00:34 "The real effect has been to reduce the amount of investment capital available for alternative technologies while at the same time satisfying a market demand with a subsidized good which floods the market and lowers the return on investment for non-subsidized goods" 
 * June 30, 10:58 "The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (1957) amends the Atomic Energy Act to hold nuclear contractors blameless for their actions."
 * June 30, 12:45 adds "According to government propaganda" to facts he disliked (then adds a category "propaganda" to the article )
 * June 30 19:59  "but more properly called the Price Anderson amendment and in some cases referred to as the Price Anderson Bill, or the Price Anderson Liability Framework) is a Bill passed by both houses of our Bicameral Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States (more commonly called "The President" or Mr. President, unless its a women in which case it would be Mrs. President)"   (because he was annoyed at having the short form of Price Anderson mentioned)
 * June 30, 23:00  "It makes available an insufficient pool of funds to cover minor damages from a nuclear or radiological incident" (and again reverted back here )
 * July 1, 03:02 Here he has begun recycling some of his old ideas rejected over and over.
 * July 1, 4:54 "Price Anderson establishes only phantom insurance for the public, then provides a real bailout mechanism for the nuclear energy industry by reducing its need to pay for insurance, subsidizing the industry at the taxpayers' expense" (then edit warring to keep, saying it's all "cited" )
 * July 1, 19:32 Benjamin's edits having been reverted, he stuck a "more poetic" top on and recycled his old rejected edits, which he then restored slightly altered after having been again
 * July 1 21:04 "The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) limits liability for nuclear plant operators because they do not have enough faith in their own technology to take full responsibility for their own mishaps."
 * July 2, 05:36 "The Atomic Energy Act, which was enacted in 1954, three years before Price-Anderson, according to government officials whose actual motives have been questioned"
 * July 2 19:21 "The Price-Anderson Act, simply suspends liability laws for the most dangerous industry in the world."
 * August 3 20:00 After a month of making little progress on a moderated page everybody was editing, Benjamin declared mediation over, then went to the live page and did this, once again recycling all his old rejected edits.
 * August 15, 04:17 "In recognition of the continuing fact that even future nuclear power plants will be far too expensive and dangerous to afford liability insurance and still compete with safe and clean wind power, the Republican dominated House of Representatives extended the provisions of Price Anderson insurance subsidies in the Energy Policy Act of 2005."
 * September 24, 14:16 After another month of mediation, Benjamin goes back to the live article and does this. "The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) is a hand-out to rich energy companies which imposes the incalculable risk of a nuclear disaster on the American taxpayer. It does this by protecting nuclear plant operators from risk in ways which clean, safe energy providers are not equally protected"
 * October 27, 00:44 "The Congress has claimed the act is intended to "protect" the public, but in fact, the act encourages the construction of dangerous bomb-like power plants by the thousands rather than the construction of safe, clean, and far less expensive renewable energy systems"
 * October 29, 14:52 "In Price Anderson, the government has made it cheaper to operate a nuclear power plant, which has the potential to wipe out thousands of lives in a single explosion, than it is to operate a hospital with the potential to save thousands of lives. In short, Nuclear operators are shielded from the same liability laws which make health insurance rates unaffordable for most Americans"
 * October 29, 23:47 "The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act removes the protections victims deserve"
 * November 7, 23:57 Intro bloat. "The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) is an act suspending public protections against nuclear corporations which do them harm. The act was passed because the risk of a nuclear disaster is sufficiently great that neither the nuclear corporations nor the insurance industries are willing to be held responsible for a potential nuclear holocaust. The Act limits liability insurance obligations for non-military private and government nuclear facility operators. This means that children who experience Malformation, Death, Growth Retardation, Severe Mental Retardation, Intellectual deficit, or experience heritable changes in their reproductive organs which could impact their own children  could not expect to be reimbursed by the corporation which caused the harm, even if it were the result of criminal activity. This "Too bad" provision, or "limited liability" as lawyers call it,"
 * November 8, 01:31 "The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) is an act suspending public protections against nuclear corporations which do them harm"
 * November 20, 23:25 Creates a section called "How the law robs the poor and gives to the rich"
 * November 23, 01:08 "The Act replaces common liability laws with a fixed pool of funds which could be rationed out to victims, mostly children, who could suffer mental retardation, profound malformation and pass on genetic deformations to their child and their children"
 * November 23, 18:32 "The Price-Anderson Act gives security to the nuclear industry by taking the same amount of security from potential victims (mostly children)"
 * December 10, 15:02 (Now we’re back to PAA is Communism and other recycled ideas.) "The Act establishes common ownership of the risks of production while allowing private ownership of the profits; a rare mix of tenants from both [[communism] and capitalism in an energy policy which Senator John McCain described as the no-lobbyist left behind act."
 * December 10, 17:39 "The Act establishes common ownership of the risks of production while granting the profits to special interest groups."
 * December 20, 00:53 "By contrast, utility wind power generators, in 21 years of operation, has never has a liability claim, giving many objective evidence to support the claim that nuclear energy is several orders of magnitude more dangerous than safe, clean, renewable, wind power." (emphasis mine) "''

Comment on Above
This collection is an excellent primer on the Price Anderson and should be taught in schools (along with the Republican point of view of course). All of these assertions are well-sourced, largely by the Supreme Court description of the act and its effect, by the Army medical manual for nuclear events, and by scholarly organizations for equal protection, civil rights, safe, clean energy, and environmental protection - including the CATO institute, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Greenpeace, and government studies such as CRAC-II and the GAO. These are the facts the complainants are trying to whitewash - for example: This means that children who experience Malformation, Death, Growth Retardation, Severe Mental Retardation, Intellectual deficit, or experience heritable changes in their reproductive organs which could impact their own children could not expect to be reimbursed by the corporation which caused the harm, even if it were the result of criminal activity. Is sourced in-line, is quite notable, but has been whitewashed because the terms (supplied by the army manual) are thought to be pejorative to their cause celeb of a nuclear world. Benjamin Gatti 16:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Biased and disruptive editing over a range of topics
Benjamin has not only made biased and disruptive edits to Price-Anderson Act, though that is the article at which he has been the most disruptive for the longest, in my experience. (As I understand it, he was also quite disruptive at Nuclear power, however I’ve never edited there.) Other articles he has disrupted with biased edits:


 * June 25, 13:06 Nuclear Power 2010 Program "The program is a corporate welfare handout for rich corporations to identify sites for new and experimental nuclear power plants"
 * August 18, 01:07 Indentured servant "Military service can become involuntary Slavery when soldiers are compelled to continue their service beyond the term of agreement. Modern indentured servitude and military slavery are opposed by liberals. Supporters often include those who benefit most from this slavery, including big oil interests and the politicians they financially support."
 * August 20, 05:01 Nuclear power phase-out "Because the initial energy is often dirty fuels such as coal, which causes some 30,000 deaths a year, the effect is to move the pollution caused by the consumption of the rich and to dump it on the poor - an example of social injustice"
 * Auugst 25, 15:32 Pat Robertson Here adding "fatwa" to Pat Robertson.
 * September 4, 03:31 United States Department of Defense "It is headed by the Secretary of Defense, who is currently Donald Rumsfeld. The Dod recently has abadoned its duty and has instead engaged in unproved and undeclared wars of agression, while leaving the taxpayers to fend for themselves during one of the worst disasters in history."
 * September 5 02:23 United States Department of Homeland Security "The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is the hopelessless incompetatnt Cabinet department of the federal government of the United States that annoys people in airports, but does nothing in times of true crisis until days after, except pretend that "noone could have anticipated" the problem" (and )
 * September 5, 02:29 Michael Chertoff "Michael Chertoff (born November 28, 1953), is the current United States Secretary of Homeland Security and primarily responsible for the thousands of death which occured because of the fraudulent misrepresentation of his departments - specifically that it was prepared to help, when in fact it was only prepared to deny knowledge of the event. Having taken public money under the auspices of preparing for disaster, the Department denied other organizations which could have actually been prepared to enter a flooded city (hint: boats might be useful) the opportunity to to do so." (as well as and
 * September 5, 03:56 George W. Bush "George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is a commited golfer who also takes time out to serve as the current President" (and, which he also added here
 * September 9, 21:04 FEMA "* Response: Ponderously and confused actions taken to save white lives, property, the environment, and the rich"
 * September 26, 03:54 George W. Bush "He is the leading corporate socialist in the world, and has used politics as a means of diverting the hard-earned monies of the American people into massive profits for the various corporate interests which have contributed to his campaign, and which either himself or his vice-president continue to own and control."

Other types of disruption
Benjamin exults in edit warring, breaching experiments and general misbehavior in blatant violation of Wikipedia's policies. He is not afraid to break any rule as long as it furthers his goal of using Wikipedia as a soapbox for broadcasting his liberal ideologies, including and especially that nuclear power is evil.


 * August 5 03:01 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiblower_protection&diff=prev&oldid=20236275 Creates a page called "Wikiblower protection" defined as "Wikiblower protection is the suspension of the normal rules of Wikipedia when those rules would have the effect of sanctioning a contributer for agressive editing when such edits were made for the purpose of drawing attention to a greater problem."
 * When this page is nominated for deletion, Ben repeatedly tries to nominate for AFD the AFD page.      He ended up being blocked under 3RR for this episode.

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,, then began to edit war in an attempt to retain his edits , and posted an announcement on the protected article's talk page asking other editors to "drop in" to edit the redirect.

As I said in my initial statement, 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. 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.

Comment on Above
While the lock was secret - it was not proper - neither was it locked for any reason in published policy - and no reason was given. If we are going to make up policy as we go - then what the hell is the point of getting crabby when other people invent their own policies - and who is likely to respect Calvinball? Every effort was made to broadcast both the problem and the work-around. When the admin followed procedure, by publishing the lockout - it was respected (and soon overturned). Benjamin Gatti 19:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Pattern of Biased and Disruptive Editing on Nuclear power
Ben has been on an anti-nuclear/pro-renewables crusade since at least May 19th. I reviewed Nuclear power from his first edit onwards. I found 71 cases of POV-pushing beyond what might be termed normal content disputes. Of these 10 were absurd:          

The other 61 were:                                                             

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." and (in the Price-Anderson dicussions) "Truth is a battle". Ben once wrote "And as for drastic - if an article is NPOV - it deserves drastic - no apologies." 

Ben once unilaterally (after a proposal a half hour earlier) moved all or portions of Nuclear power to Nuclear debate. Users Ultramarine and Dalf recall this, and admin Woohookitty reconstructed the history of Nuclear debate showing Ben created it.

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". 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.

Personal attacks
One personal attack on me was to post a "Chernobyl liquidator's" award on my Talk page. I hold that award in even more disgust than Ben does (if that's possible). Ben also once referred to nuclear-involved engineers as "deadbeat engineers." Finally, Ben has repeatedly tried to tie me as financially dependent on the nuclear industry in an apparent attempt to discredit me  (I have no contact with or dependance on the nuclear industry, other than requesting information for Wikipedia).

Comment on Above
More well-sourced and fully accurate assertions. Simesa has in fact worked for the Industry, and does receive or expect to receive retirement based on his work in that sector; a point I made only in response to my involvement with renewable energy being made an issue. (I hold a patent and created a simulation of a wave energy device). As to the Medal - This award, which my wife translated, belongs to someone in our family. It is a honor - that comes with the price of nuclear exposure, it is also beautiful and interesting, and I think a fitting ribbing for Simesa, who has in my estimation, watered down the potential consequences of nuclear energy. - Dressing it up to the level of a personal attack is a bit spurious in my opinion, we each abide the opinions of others about our contributions on our talk pages with different degrees of tolerance. Benjamin Gatti 16:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Cyclopia
Evidence is current being gathered and will be presented in a few days. --Cyclopia 08:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Firebug
Benjamin continues POV editing, as seen here:. "Because voluntary investors would not choose nuclear energy over safe, clean alternative, many governments take money from their citizens by force and use it to choose winners in the otherwise competitive market for energy." Come on. This isn't even a close call - Benjamin's activities on nuclear-related articles are a continuous, gross violation of WP:NPOV. Aside from vandals and trolls that have been summarily blocked, Benjamin's edits as shown in the evidence summary are the worst I have seen yet in my time on Wikipedia. Firebug 06:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment on Above
The Supreme Court held that no one would invest in Nuclear without being able to pass on the financial risks of an accident to the taxpayer. Do they not take taxes by force? Is it not the sheriff who throws your stuff on the street when they for close your house in a tax-action? Who are we kidding - of course taxes are monies taken by force, and yes, it is being used to choose winners in a less-than-free market in which Nuclear energy is granted the lions share of subsidies (some 97%) by last count, of which Price Anderson is but a portion. And according to the CATO piece (cited), money is a limited resource which if exhausted on nuclear research, cannot be spent on alternatives. Benjamin Gatti 17:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

First assertion
Added this to nuclear power |1. Appears to be a personal aimed at Simesa. Lcolson 19:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Could I ask in what way this is a personal attack directed at Simesa? - This is a current event, Simesa is some 15 years out of the industry - but of course, being a witchhunt - don't let the facts get in the way. Benjamin Gatti 22:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Second assertion
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.

Benjamin Gatti's edits in the "Wikipedia talk" namespace are deleterious
Too many of Benjamin Gatti' edits to pages in the "Wikipedia talk" can be classified as either obfuscatory or antagonistic, causing him to appear unwilling or unable to engage in worthwhile discourse. He is particularly fond of blanket allegations of censorship and groupthink, lengthy paragraphs whose only discernable contents are accusations of inappropriate behavior (often resembling conspiracy theory) on the part of administrators and those editors with whom he disagrees, and appeal to authority directed at "the rule of law".

I give the following 35 diffs as evidence. I may be citing their times in the U.S. Central Time Zone, not UTC, and if so, I apologize. The Literate Engineer 19:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

From page Wikipedia talk:Wikiblower protection

 * 13:33, 4 Aug. 2005, rambling accusation
 * 13:45, 4 Aug. 2005, rambling & appeal to authority
 * 00:58, 5 Aug. 2005, conspiracy accusation
 * 02:53, 5 Aug. 2005, statement of support for breaching experiments & disruption on Wikipedia.
 * 22:46, 6 Aug. 2005, blanket accusation against those who disagree with him
 * 15:57, 7 Aug. 2005, obfuscation/appeal to inapplicable legal principles
 * 20:13, 12 Aug. 2005, accuses those who disagree with him of censorship
 * 20:35, 12 Aug. 2005, accuses those who disagree with him of censorship
 * 21:11, 12 Aug. 2005, accuses those who disagree with him of censorship; adds obfuscation & appeal to authority of vague legal principles
 * 16:27, 13 Aug. 2005, accuses those who disagree with him of censorship & groupthink
 * 23:13, 13 Aug. 2005, accuses those who disagree with him of censorship & groupthink
 * 13:03, 14 Aug. 2005, adds "overlords" to routine censorship accusation.
 * 18:25, 14 Aug. 2005, accusation of groupthink; also, appears to deny "make no change" is a legitimate opinion in policy discussions
 * 19:25, 14 Aug. 2005, accusation of censorship; obfuscation
 * 20:43, 14 Aug. 2005, obfuscation
 * 18:22, 16 Aug. 2005, obfuscation; I think that it includes a censorship/groupthink accusation.

Comment on Above
The reader can decide for themselves the merit of the listed dialogues on WP:Talk. I would just like to point out that the "Breaching Experiment" mentioned refers in the main to my real life - in which I have participated in litter collection of a controversial nature (the removal of illegal signs - Streetspam - on public property - which is presently before the Supreme Court of North Carolina) Whether or not the inclusion of facts upheld by the Supreme Court related to the risks of nuclear energy is itself a "Breaching Experiment" quite probably turns on the individual acuity of one's own vocabulary. Benjamin Gatti 03:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

From page Wikipedia talk:Miscellaneous deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiblower protection

 * 21:35, 4 Aug. 2005, Accusation
 * 13:00, 5 Aug. 2005, Appeal to authority/invocation of questionable source material in lieu of policy
 * 15:00, 5 Aug. 2005, Backhanded apology incorporates blanket personal attack ("simple for complex minds & complex for simple minds")
 * 15:06, 5 Aug. 2005, Obfuscation

From pages Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration
I assume the committee members are already familiar with the general tone of these diffs, so I present only these three examples:
 * 02:27, 9 Dec. 2005, Accusation of inappropriately persecuting him contains elements that may be read as hyperbole or obfuscation
 * 03:49, 9 Dec. 2005, appeals to U.S. law to claim immunity from arbitration process
 * 05:14, 11 Dec. 2005, blanket personal attack against all administrators as well as those who disagree with him.

From page Wikipedia talk:Resolving disputes
Over the course of 3 diffs, proposes a "policy" that constitutes an accusation of inappropriate behavior on the parts of administrators, those who disagree with him, and the arbitration committee:
 * 05:30, 19 Dec. 2005
 * 05:35, 19 Dec. 2005
 * 05:45, 19 Dec. 2005

From page Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not
I should note that these diffs are part of a disagreement with me regarding whether or not a substantive edit can be made to page WP:NOT without having been pre-affirmed on the talk page.
 * 05:34, 26 Dec. 2005, accusation of censorship
 * 06:54, 26 Dec. 2005, obfuscation
 * 16:31, 26 Dec. 2005, groupthink accusation

From page Wikipedia talk:User Bill of Rights

 * 02:57, 29 Dec. 2005, blanket indictment of Wikipedia users
 * 03:15, 29 Dec. 2005, accusation/personal attack against those who disagree with him.
 * 03:20, 29 Dec. 2005, obfuscation & invocation of legal principle
 * 06:30, 29 Dec. 2005, enhances blanket indictment of Wikipedia users to include more blatant blanket personal attack & obfuscatory hyperbole
 * 16:32, 29 Dec. 2005, personal attack embedded in short invocation of Animal Farm
 * 16:50, 29 Dec. 2005, censorship accusation
 * 16:59, 29 Dec. 2005, obfuscation & belligerence

Comment on Above
All of these are from talk space, none of them are uncivil or personal in any way, and most are well stated and exhibit excellent spelling. Benjamin Gatti 17:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

First assertion
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "Jimmy Wales engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show Jimmy Wales engaging in edit warring

Second assertion
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.