Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Retitle to Price Anderson Act
1) Whereas there are no mediations nor RfCs under the rubric of this user name, and as all the prior cited resolutions are propely titled Price Anderson Act and whereas multiple parties are involved but only a single article is addressed, this action would be most consistent with policies if entitled Price Anderson Act. Benjamin Gatti 22:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Should be settled by normal wiki process, see Consensus Fred Bauder 17:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * 1) My Motion - It is simply premature to bring a user complaint to Arbcom as there is no RfC nor RfM by that name. Doing so would require rewriting the Arbcom policies (ex post facto). Note the scope of the proposed prelim. Decorating the complaint with unconnected facts doesn't change the scope of the underlying RfC and RfM. A cursory examination of the evidence reveals a content dispute largly on a single article which is the sole object of the RfC and the RfM. What we have here are reams of factually uncontested assertions. Benjamin Gatti 23:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) We're about to have evidence presented on Looting and Simesa is going to present evidence on Nuclear power. And um, single article addressed? In the original statements, Kate cites Indentured servant, Pat Robertson, Looting, United States Department of Defense, George W. Bush and as I mentioned before, nuclear power. I want the motion to be denied because it's simply incorrect. This is about user behavior. And it spans several articles. I plan on putting evidence up tonight that will consist of behavior on P-A, nuclear power, looting and other articles. It's not as if Ben has been nicer and less against policies on the other articles. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 22:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) The battling I saw was in Nuclear Power until I first wrote Price-Anderson Act - after that I saw it extensively in both.  And then there's the attack placed on my Discussion page  - Ben has just recently said it was in fun, but the fact is he holds that award in disgust (as I do).  Simesa 02:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Making the title one username when many editors are involved is obviously pejorative and prejudicial. It's ok for the scope of an arbcom to be greater than one article even if the case only has the title of one article. The fact that other articles are involved does not deny the fact the Price-Anderson Act is the most recently and most vigorously disputed. In my view this case is about a pattern of censorship, obfuscation and misstatement on articles relating to Price-Anderson Act by some of the other parties to this dispute. Benjamin Gatti is certainly passionate about the issues but I've seen nothing he's done that's risen to any sort of "disruptive" level. This attempt by Woohookitty et al. to exclusively categorize this issue as there being one "disruptive" editor, with no acknowledgement let alone justification for their apparent censorship and obfuscation, is yet another example of their subtle one sided framing of issues and encouragement of binary thinking that is increasingly plaguing some Wikipedia articles and society these days. Fortunately, their apparent disinformation techniques are becoming increasingly apparent to the same degree. I challenge Woohookitty to disprove each of Benjamin Gatti's edits with an argument presented using unambiguous and non-confusing language, you may disagree with his edit and argue they should be reworded for NPOV but by what basis and justification are you outright excluding that info from the article? If a Republican such as John McCain criticizes the Price-Anderson Act as the "no lobbyist left behind act" that should give a good sense of where the middle point of reporting should be and just how far we are from there. zen master T 18:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * (Note: the bill dubbed the "no lobbyist left behind act" was the 2003 energy bill, which did not pass.  The similar Energy Policy Act of 2005 did pass.) Simesa 19:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The Act as it was in 2003 and the Act as passed finally in 2005 represent a distinction without a difference. Benjamin Gatti 20:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That is further evidence this arbitration case is related to energy and energy policy with Price-Anderson Act being the best example. The "no lobbyist left behind act" does not exist in a vacuum but is instead an example of the pervasive double speak, binary thinking, elimination of constitutional rights, and vast corruption that seems to be plaguing the nuclear industry. zen master T 19:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Once again, this is not a content dispute nor is this the place to debate content. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We have never claimed this case was a content dispute, we merely cite examples of content exclusion. You claim this case is one of Ben being "disruptive" whereas I (and presumably Ben) claim this case is is one of editors, perhaps unwittingly, censoring content and mischaracterizing critical viewpoints and critical sources. I agree arbcom should never decide the particular contents of an article, but they can censure editors for, perhaps unwittingly, censoring content and mischaracterizing viewpoints. Going forward with the article I think we should utilize the Zero-revert rule which hopefully will encourage editors to give the benefit of the doubt i.e. instead of "reverting" other editor's additions include them with your own changes. In my interpretation, one goal of the policy is to eliminate the possibility any viewpoints or relevant content or sources could be censored from an article. The Wikipedia concept of "reverting" seems to have encouraged an us vs them mentality of one group's POV somehow "winning" out over another's, which is not the wiki way. A good Wikipedia article is one that is a superset of all viewpoints and sources. Ben's additions to the Price-Anderson Act article in some cases have needed cleaning up or re-wording but the underlying information is highly relevant, cited and sound. zen master T 22:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Motion to Avoid Witchhunts
2) The Scope of Inquiry shall be limited to the matters discussed in the related RfC and RfM. Benjamin Gatti


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * 1) Matters discussed in the RfM cannot be considered Fred Bauder 17:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Our opinions differ, I being the most liberal, but we will consider the issues raised in the Request for arbitration Fred Bauder 17:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * 1) Wikipedia has an opportunity to demonstrate that it can arbitrate disputes as good or better than deadtree alternatives. One risk and tendency of power is to indulge in witchhunts. The traditional witch-hunt begins with a suspicion, followed by the  cherry-picking of random details from a boundless and unrelated sea. To avoid the witchhunt, it is necessary to define a rational scope of inquiry. Stringing unrelated events together to tell a story is the business of witchhunts. I would gladly participate in a rehashing of every edit I have ever made, but it would set a horrible precedent; rather I suggest the scope of inquiry should be defined as those matters which have been the subject of the prior RfC and RfM, elsewise let the Witchhunt begin. Benjamin Gatti
 * 2) And here, arbcom, is Ben gaming the system, which he does more than anything else. He's been complaining that this is a content dispute and that we had no evidence that it wasn't. So we start to give evidence that it's a user conduct dispute and now suddenly, he wants the debate limited to just Price-Anderson. And he's using loaded words as he does alot. Words like "communist", "Holocaust", "censorship" and "witchhunt". Hey, we've been trying to work this out with him for 6 months. We've given him more opportunities than I can count to try to add to the consensus or to compromise and he's done neither. If this was really a witchhunt, we wouldn't have any real evidence of wrongdoing, but we had loads of it. I urge denial of the motion. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree with Ben that Woohookitty's and others', including at least 2 arbitration committee members (perhaps unwittingly), attempted one sided framing of this arbitration case around Ben's so-called "disruption" is accurately described as a witch hunt. It should be considered improper to exclusively label or classify a person a witch or "disruptive" as that can thwart or discourage a scientific and factual consideration of the person's viewpoint. Perhaps that is Woohookitty and others true goal? zen master T 20:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This arbitration is over egregious user conduct. Are you saying, as Ben has, that the ends justifies the means? Simesa 13:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That is what you believe this arbitration case is over. I interpret this case to be about, perhaps inadvertent, censorship and one sided framing of an article in direct violation of NPOV and other wikipedia policies and principles. zen master T 15:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:



Motion to proceed under the Provisions of the Act
2) Since the Complainants have all asserted that the Price Anderson provisions are fair and reasonable, I propose that we embrace them here as follows: Benjamin Gatti 06:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Jurisdiction is taken away from Arbcom (as "problematic" - to quote complainants) - and removed directly to the top - Jimbo Wales.
 * 2) Punitive measures are out - regardless of fault.
 * 3) Any non-punitive sanctions are imposed equally on all wikipedians.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * 1) Weird Wikilawyering Fred Bauder 17:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * 1) What better way to celebrate the absurdities of the Price Anderson Provisions than by embracing them in our daily lives. The purpose after all is to "protect the public", and they convey no special competative advantage on the industry which is fully Indemnified against all harm. Since that has become the standard by which these mine accusers measure fairness, I expect they are more than willing to grant me all the self-same benefits. Benjamin Gatti 06:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Wikilawyering at its finest. Or worst. Whichever way you want to look at it. And btw, I find it interesting that Ben (and zen) never discuss Ben's behavior on here. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) I think Ben is making a good analogy and I second this motion. The only thing I've been able to discern from Woohookitty's and other's statements in this case is they feel Ben is "disruptive" merely because he has a different point of view and wants omitted facts included. The article had been riddled with one sided and exclusively framed nuclear industry talking points, downplayed or elminated pertinent facts that the nuclear industry apparently didn't want you to know about, and gave the reader the very false impression a nuclear industries indemnity act somehow helped "protect the public". zen master T 07:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Follow up to Woohookitty's comment above, I don't discuss Ben's "behavior" because I've seen no evidence of any "disruption", the only thing I have seen is a one sided effort to portray this case as exclusively one of "disruption", which conveniently omits the censorship, the regurgitation of nuclear industry talking points, and neutrality violations in Price-Anderson Act. zen master T 07:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please read the evidence that katefan0 put up tonight. It documents a couple of clear cases of disruption. This is not a content dispute. If you look at the evidence, none of it is talking about content. Not one piece of evidence debates what side is right or wrong. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I read katefan0's "evidence" and saw no clear cases of "disruption". You are right this is not a content dispute, this is a case of one side censorsing and obfuscating. Instead of reverting Ben's changes you should give him and "his" content the benefit of the doubt and include it in addition to "your" content. Until you can find a bipartite version on the talk page, the article, to a certain extent, should be a superset of the competing versions to make sure nothing is censored, even inadvertently. Though, a related complaint with the article is the fact the nuclear industry marketing talking points aren't/weren't properly attributed, they should be. zen master T 17:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This is all very interesting, but what matters is what the arbitrators think. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 18:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Motion for postponment of proceedings
Since Chazz has only just been instructed in this case by Benjamin Gatti, I respectfully ask that these proceedings are postponed for 21 days to allow me to read the relevant info. I fail to see any reason why this motion could be objected to since it is in the interests of the ArbCom to reach a correct verdict --Chazz88 16:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * 1) Plenty of evidence in the record now; the time is at hand. As an advocate it is your responsibility to organize evidence and present argument in a timely and effective fashion Fred Bauder 17:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * 1) If you haven't noticed, the arbcom isn't hurrying. Not sure why we would need a delay when it's already taking some time. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) However the Arbcom will be pressing forward now the festive season is over. However, I was only instructed a matter of days ago. Moreover, Woohookitty has asked that I read all of the evidence that has been presented. I would direct the ArbComs attention to this diff here where Woohookitty made this request. Surely the Arbcom, and Woohookitty, must agree that I cannot read all of the evidence unless given time to do so. Therefore, I feel that this motion is absolutely neccesarry. --Chazz88 12:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Um. The arbcom has opened several cases since Christmas. You (or I) have no way of knowing when they are going to act on this. This case has been around since December 12th, well before Christmas. I just don't feel like it's necessary to put another motion forward. This feels alot like Wikilawyering to me. It will not take you 3 weeks to read the information. Trust me. It won't. It will probably take you less than 3-4 hours. Probably not even that, to read the evidence put forth. Yes you need time to read the material, but 3 weeks is just a bit much. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) I note that the complete Talk Pages for the Anderson Price article comprise of over 250 Word Document A4 pages. Therefore I feel that I will need more time to read evidence. It should be noted that this doesn't include the several hundred pieces of evidence put forward by the complaiants. And then there is the evidence put forward by Ben --Chazz88 23:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC) AMA Rep for Benjamin Gatti
 * 5) Respectfully, that you haven't had time to read the evidence doesn't seem to me to be a compelling case for postponing the proceedings. Arbitrators have accepted the case, and they are the ones who will decide it, not any of us.  If you'd like to add evidence, you can.  But unless I'm misunderstanding something basic about your role, I fail to see why it's necessary for this case to be postponed so you can evaluate the evidence presented. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 06:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) With all due respect I think that it would appear axiomatic why the case should be postponed considering I am Bens AMA rep. --Chazz88 11:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) I still don't see why it should be so. Arbitration cases are a marathon, not a sprint, and so far this one has been proceeding at a normal pace (which is to say, slowly).  &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 15:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) And you, to use your analogy, are wanting me to catch up half a marathon in a half an hour. THere are several hundred pages of evidence presented by just complainants. And this doesn't include the evidence that Ben and I have to consider for submission aswell. It is completely unreasonable to expect anyone to read the amount of "evidence" you have presented instantly. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 17:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, if you don't know the circumstances of this case, and need to be caught up, why are you defending Benjamin? Why would you think that he isn't disruptive when you have no familiarity with the case yet? And 3 weeks is preposterous. You are free to present evidence or comments here at any time, and arbitration can last a long time. But that's not to say that there is not good reason to get them resolved as quickly as possible (if there's a disruptive editor on the loose...) Dmcdevit·t 01:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Motion for delay in injunctions
It is further asked that no temporary injunctions are issued against Benjamin Gatti for 7 days. There doesn't appear to be any substanstive risk of Benjamin Gatti commiting actions which would be detrimental to wikipedia and/or its users. --Chazz88 16:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:
 * 1) I don't think there is an substantial risk of harm either, he is not editing that much, but am open to an emergency injunction if necessary Fred Bauder 17:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:
 * 1) Again, no reason for this request. We've had the temp. injunction request up for over 2 weeks now. It's obvious that the arbcom is probably not going to act on it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) I note that in the section above you request a 21 day extension, while there have been disruptive edits since this case was filed ( etc.). Simesa 14:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) I requested only 7 days in one of the motions because I understand the complainants at least have a Prima facie reason to justify any injunction being implemented early. --15:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Minor edit: Chazz88 15:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

===Motion to cease presenting findings of fact=== Order asked for: "No findings of fact are to be proposed until the principles in this case has been decided --- Responses to Chazz's talk page." Signed by Chazz @ 11:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It is unfair for Ben to have to defend himself when he doesn't know what principles he will have to be defending. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 11:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Chazz, I see no rule like that. If there was a rule like that, the arbcom would put a warning in the "Proposed findings of fact" section saying that only arbcom members could edit there. This is all proposed. It's up to the arbcom to make decisions here. We're here to propose. They make the decisions. Let's not make up new rules, ok? --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Horrible Wikilawyering nonsense. All aspects are developed together, but generally the findings of fact come first; because, after reading the request, the first thing to do is look at the evidence. Fred Bauder 17:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Benjamin Gatti is banned from editing the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act and the Nuclear power article until this arbitration is complete
1) Hello. I am requesting a temporary injunction that would prevent Ben Gatti from editing Price Anderson Act and nuclear power until this arbitration case is closed. I believe that Ben's pattern of disruptive editing has gotten manifoldly worse as the arbitration case began going forward. The last few weeks have seen an increasing amount of POV edits and threats of edit warring from Ben. Many of the edits have Ben threatening a continuing edit war if we others do not bow to his views. The fact that we had to have the article protected just a week ago due to an edit war shows that he was serious about it. Examples of POV edits:this one and this one. The worst one is probably this one from November 20th. Finally, there is this one from December 10th. I would not feel this necessary, except that in my view Benjamin has grown more and more disruptive as this case has neared. Examples: this edit, where he restored a comment I had deleted from a talk page. And we also have this edit. Since Ben has violated several policies and has shown no qualms about doing anything possible to win an argument, I can imagine what he's going to do now that this case is live. Please pass an injunction to block him from these 2 articles. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC) I added Nuclear power due to recent POV edits on that article. If we do not include NP, I suspect that he will just simply move to that article and continue his disruption and his POV edits there instead. As we've said, gaming is his #1 favorite thing to do. It goes back to working on redirects while the main P-A article was protected. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * 1) I looked at his contributions, they were not so excessive as to require an injunction, in my opinion Fred Bauder 18:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:

Benjamin Gatti 03:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC) ____
 * 1) I support this. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 17:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Obviously, I do too. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Certainly we need to take every precaution to insure that comments (false accusations) made to the mediator are not restored and responded to by the person criticized. We recently had a so-called edit war in which no one violated 3RR. Silliness. We have a lively debate amongst 6 well-intentioned editors, some of which follow the difference between a negative void coefficient and positive temperature coefficient and the varying sensitivity to control rods between Uranium and Plutonium fuels as well as the distinction between "limited insurance funds" and "unlimited sovereign indemnity regardless of cause", and some which don't. I would like to know where there is a factual error in the diffs here. Price Anderson definitely shields the nuclear industry from all liability - even for criminal acts (such as has become popular with energy companies ie Enron, Duke, and not uncommon at nuclear plants where witnesses have been beat nearly to death in recent events) The Government study (CRAC-II) apparently establishes the risk horizon at 300 billion with tens of thousands killed, and the act completely guts the rights of victims to equal protection under state laws. Given the effect of whitewashing risk reports (see Fog Facts, the Levy breach study, the CIA info on flight school students) I believe it is vital to promote the publishing of unpopular facts - provided they can meet the same standard of sourcing as other assertions.
 * The talk Diffs are all civil and not ad hominem.
 * The Content Diffs are a straightforward content disputes.
 * We have managed to keep below 1RR for several months with rare exception.


 * 1) Arbcom, I think Ben just proved our point. He's using even this space to POV push. If he isn't taken off of P-A, we'll have more edit wars. Ben has mentioned in the evidence that he's made the P-A article better. Actually, our side has. Every change that was made was our side giving in. He hasn't genuinely compromised once since early July, when I became involved. All he does is POV push, like he did here. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) I support the request for a temporary injunction. As stated in my initial comments, Ben sees himself as on a battlefield    and not bound by any rules he can game. Simesa 02:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) As the ArbCom will be aware I have requested and adjournment in proceedings. However, I would merely note at this time that a large number of rollbacks have been performed by the complaining witnesses. So even if we were to ignore, arguendo, the factual and other faults by the complaining witnesses it is abundantly clear that they are at least equally to blame as Ben is. Therefore any injunction imposed on Ben should be applied equally to the complaining witnesses and also some of the other people who are constantly reverting the articles in question --Chazz88 21:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC) for - AMA Rep for Benjamin Gatti
 * Um, no. A genuinely disruptive user should be and can be expected to be reverted. That he is is not evidence to the contrary, or evidence in itself that the others are disruptive. Dmcdevit·t 22:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The argument is whether or not he is being disruptive. His posts weren't vandalism and the defendant was merely correcting the article and using respectable sources for his assertions. Something which didn't always happen when the complainants were editing the articles. However, as I said I will need more time to read evidence before I come back with you. Some of the evidence pages of 250 pages of evidence to read. Plus I will be searching out my own evidence. --Chazz88 22:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC) AMA rep for Benjamin Gatti
 * 2) I would also note that I am yet to hear a valid reason as to why the injunction should only be on Ben. --Chazz 22:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) I want to see you defend this edit. It's one of many many edits on the evidence page that shows POV pushing my Ben. I don't see any sources in that edit. Zero. And this was a month ago. It wasn't when he was "new". --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Aside for the reverse Robin Hood phrase "robs the poor" - which is what subsidies for special interests invariably do as most tax watchdogs would argue - which of the assertions in that edit do you suggest are false, uncited, or both?
 * 5) In the event of an accident - even if caused by criminal conduct like the Progress Energy case, PAA takes money (from taxpayers) and uses it to pay the debts of nuclear companies.
 * 6) This taxpayer funded hedge-fund creates a sexy deal for investors - and decreases investor interest in alternative energy sources.
 * 7) Indemnity encourages companies to behave irresponsibly - Again - look at the Progress Energy case. Smoking gun evidence.
 * 8) I get that you take issue with some of this stuff, but if you won't identify the assertions you contest - then where is good faith? Benjamin Gatti 04:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring your own advocate. "His posts weren't vandalism and the defendant was merely correcting the article and using respectable sources for his assertions." You didn't use any sources in the edit above. Besides, I was addressing him, not you. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Again and Again, facts are presented - with sources - that edit is sourced by the Supreme Court, The Army Medical Manual, CATO, and the other sources listed at the bottom of the article. Again - you name the fact - and I'll point you to a source. (I'm not saying that the facts couldn't be better phrased. Benjamin Gatti 05:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest examining Simesa 13:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Nuclear energy is a form of subsidy-farming in which the real product is the diversion of public funds into private coffers in exchange for political contributions - in essence the laundering of tax dollars. Certainly that is CATO's position - thus it is sourced. Phrase it better - fine.
 * It is uninsurable, and certainly explosive as evidenced by the need for Price Anderson. I think you have just argued that a limitation of admin powers isn't necessary because there is no reason to worry about such abuse - applying your own logic to nuclear power - if there is no need to worry about a catastrophic nuclear incident - than why do we have the Price Anderson Act to deal with one? How about you answer that question - it's been like 8 months since I posed it - so it goes to press.
 * Is there any question that the people near DeLay used illegal funds to propagandize Texan politics into a mean - quid pro quo, you launder my money - I'll launder yours affair? - or that the resulting Congressional majority is not principally responsible for the damn-the-environment full speed ahead energy policy of this administration? These are uncomfortable facts which you want excluded. Benjamin Gatti 16:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I would respectfully point out to the ArbCom that Ben hasn't edited the Nuclear Power and Price Anderson pages since 27 December 2005 and 25 December 2005 respectively. Therefore, similar to the argument being used by the complainants in the "motion to restrict admin powers motion", this motion is unnecsarry. All this assumes, of course, that Ben has done anything wrong in the first place. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 21:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC) AMA Rep for Benjamin Gatti

Restriction of Administrator Powers
Order asked for: "All administrators, bureacrats, etc who are party to this case are hereby banned, until further notice, from using their "Admin Powers" in relation to this dispute. Failure to comply with this order gives permission for the offending parties powers' to be removed pending a decision by the Arbitration Committee" --Chazz88 22:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC) AMA rep for Benjamin Gatti - Updated 23:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The above order is pretty much Wikiquette for admins; admins aren't meant to use their powers for which their are in a dispute about. I am unsure if it would be needed however I want to ask for it now because it usually take the ArbCom a while to make decisions on temporary injunctions. --Chazz88 22:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC) AMA rep for Benjamin Gatti


 * 1) Again, this is completely unnecessary. Katefan0 and I have been admins since August and July respectively and we haven't done a single block of Ben. We haven't even suggested that he be blocked. Hell, even now, I don't want him blocked from the site. Never have. And she and I could have also protected the page by ourselves, but when we wanted it protected, we always used the proper channels. I object to this motion because it implies an abuse that hasn't occured yet and won't occur. It makes it sound as if we've been blocking Ben and protecting the page over and over again. It's Wikilawyering. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) If you're not also going to ban all involved editors from editing anywhere, why pick on just the admins? And why revoke their privileges because Ben has abused his?  Simesa 13:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Administrators are already prohibited from using their administrator powers on articles in which they are involved in a content dispute. There's no need for this, it's already covered by Wikipedia's administrator policies; beyond which, there have been no instances in which either of us have used administrator powers on this article. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 15:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In which case there is no reaon for you to object to the ArbCom making it clear that admin powers aren't meant to be used in this dispute by people involved in the dispute. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 16:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC) - AMA Rep for Benjamin Gatti
 * We're fundamentally in agreement here -- administrators shouldn't use their privileges on articles in which they're engaged in a content dispute. But there's no reason for the arbcom to "make it clear" as part of this case -- it's already written into policies; there's no ambiguity as it regards this arbitration case.  Proposed principles should relate to actions (or inactions) taken during that dispute.  If Woohookitty or I had abused our privileges in this instance I could see why you'd want it listed as a proposd principle.  But that hasn't happened, so this request is rather moot. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 16:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite simply: this addresses no problem at hand, and is simply punitive. Unwarranted. Dmcdevit·t 00:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

=Proposed final decision=

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Standard operating procedure. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * 1) Banning a user is meant to be a last resort. I admit that Ben has been less than perfect; however, he isn't the only person to blame for this whole mess. Yet, the most important issue is that Ben hasn't received a formal admonishment for his conduct. I feel that this should come first. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC) for Benjamin Gatti
 * You keep saying that and yet you've offered no evidence to support it. These unspecified accusations against ustanding members of our community are getting rather irritating. Dmcdevit·t 19:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not excludes advocacy and propaganda, see What_Wikipedia_is_not.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * 1) Essence of the matter Fred Bauder 17:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Facts are not Soap
While Wikipedia is not a soapbox - Facts are not Soap. The advocacy for fair representation of unpopular but legitimate and sourced facts does not constitute Soapboxing.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * 1) Take this one fact:

This factoid (actuary data) is inescapably central to the subject of Insurance for Nuclear reactors. It is sourced seven ways to Sunday,     originates from Congressman and Chairman Ed Markey and the NRC at an NRC Authorization Hearing April 17, 1985,  It has been introduced in the talk pages  , and yet it has been fully whitewashed in an article on Nuclear risk. This is simply unacceptable, and if the Arbcom fails to take measures to improve the commitment of this site to the uncensored presentation of the facts, than I for one will have a significantly reduced interest in donating my talents, experience and expertise to the project. Benjamin Gatti 03:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * 1) This is too vague for me to understand it well enough to decide if I agree with it or not. The Literate Engineer 05:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I expounded a bit for you. Benjamin Gatti 15:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) This fact is from a 1975 study (WASH-1400) that has been replaced by the 1991 NUREG-1150, to which I have requested data from Sandia National Laboratories. In addition, the probability of containment building failure (1 in 100) was not considered in WASH-1400.  Finally, NUREG-1150 found that source terms were better estimated at 1/20th the assumptions used for WASH-1400.  All-in-all, WASH-1400 was a first-cut attempt, and Ben's factoid is very outdated.  When Sandia NL responds (last message from them was January 4th), I will add to NUREG-1150 and, as appropriate, other articles. Simesa 15:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) This is the essense of the debate. I offer well sourced facts, Simesa counters with original research and promises to get data in the future. The Nuclear industry is slow moving. The reactors are the same now as then, The Supreme court case is from 1978. Simesa is the best expert in the panel, and he doesn't dispute the fact that this study concluded this result. It is the most recent, well sourced expression of risk probability we have, and that is the gravamen of the article. Sure we should update the information when possible, but this is the best data which we currently have, and it's fine to couch it with the date, and Simesa's original research I suppose, but we should not quash well sourced data merely because it is unpleasant or unsettling. Ban me for life if you choose, but it will hardly resolve this problem. Benjamin Gatti 15:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) There will be no original research - my statements came from the references to NUREG-1150. What's in that 1991 peer-reviewed report is presumably the best Sandia NL currently has ready, and it is far different from WASH-1400. Simesa 15:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Again, I have offered as relevant information the sourced fact that the NRC, in an official meeting with Congress in 1985, on the record, asserted the probability of a core melt as 45% over 20 years with 100 reactors operating. That is relevant, germane, and clear. Simesa has rejected the inclusion of a valid fact, arguing that it is out of date and sites as his source a non-peer reviewed power point presentation given to a youth club in Canada. (NUREG-1150 -> [])(Diff=). I suggest the NPOV solution is to include both fairly attributed. I have no problem with Simesa including his youth group power points, so long as he attributes them, but they can hardly support the position that testimony to Congress should be excluded! Benjamin Gatti 16:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) The method for accessing NUREG-1150 is now in the article; using the data on pages 3-5, 3-7, 4-5 and 4-7 the probability of core damage is about 30% over 20 years - this number doesn't include containment failure, which is about 8% for PWRs (page 3-13, use the probabilities at the bottom) and 84% for BWRs (page 4-14, same technique). So for the 104 current-design U.S. plants the chance of a major release of radiation is under 8% every 20 years.  Different by about a factor of 6, even under NUREG-1150's conservative assumptions. Simesa 15:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) All good, all irrelevent. A Fact exists - which is the fact that in 1985 a government study concluded x. There is no subsequent fact which could cause the first fact not to exist. The first fact is relevent to the history and purposes of an insurance act. You want to assert that newer tests conclude differently, but I feel that by cherry-picking judges, we are biasing the results. Both should be included - leave it to the reader to do the cherry-picking. Benjamin Gatti 16:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No Original Research applies to the deletions as well
No Original Research contemplates and disallows the removal of relevent and sourced information as well as its inclusion. Valid facts which are well sourced should not be removed on the basis of Original Research which disputed them. When facts conflict, we do not choose winners, we include both facts - properly qualified.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * 1) As above, Simesa has rejected the inclusion of relevant and well sourced information, on personal knowledge which he promises will be made public in the future. I suggest that this is a form of Original Research. Benjamin Gatti 15:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) NUREG-1150 has been out for 15 years now, and the article on it has references.  Should we incorporate 30 year old info we know to be wrong? Simesa 15:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Benjamin Gatti 22:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Original Research. Perhaps we should just say "Simesa knows it is wrong", or "One Wikipedian knows it is wrong" - Certainly I don't know it is wrong, and in any case, these are estimates of probability, there really isn't right or wrong, these are estimates based on certain assumptions, experiment, and research. We should simply report them if they are relevent. And I believe it is very relevent. Benjamin Gatti 22:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes - it is not the place of the Wikipedia to "decide" whether or not NRC was "wrong" as you put it.
 * The Act is some 50 years old, the Plants are 20-40 years old, During which time a plurality of studies have been done relevant to risk. I suggest that all of the them are relevant facts. To the extent their conclusions are inconsistent, it is not our duty to censor one, and present only the study which most closely corresponds with our bias. This is not after all the White House, and I am not Colin Powell. Again, I propose that all relevant facts should be included. I am in no way proposing that we exclude's Simesa's interviewed Nuclear Youth Group Propaganda or additional studies with different results so long as he properly describes and attributes it. Benjamin Gatti 17:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * NUREG-1150 represents, to the best of our knowledge, the NRC's latest calculations (see the pages cited above).
 * If the NRC (which issues the NUREGs) updates its position, we should not cite its previous quotes.
 * Citing studies shown to be hugely incorrect is ridiculous. We should cite the most accurate study/studies, and comment on its/their accuracy as well.
 * How to get the actual text and figures of NUREG-1150 is now in the article. The information given the international youth conference turns out to have been correct. Simesa 04:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's the problem: I don't know that one is right and one is wrong. What I do know is that two or more studies exist, and that there are a plurality of arguments touting the relative reliability of the two - and that is what the reader should hear. For one editor to conclude that for specific and scientific reasons the first study bears no mention - even in the history of the act defeats the intent of both NOR and NPOV. Benjamin Gatti 16:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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

Comment by Arbitrators:
 * 1) It is to be expected that advocates of nuclear energy will also edit Fred Bauder 20:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:
 * 1) I would support the Principle, but I doubt it is relevant here. Simesa and I traded civil barbs over our advocacy. He accused me, as indeed has been done here, of being biased on account that I have a Website showing a Wave Energy device - I replied by suggesting that he receives or received money from the Industry. I never suggested that Simesa should not participate, in fact, his participation is critical. The article is really quite good at this point, and would be largely inferior if either side were not present to compete within the rules for the equal treatment for divergent views. Benjamin Gatti 04:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Actually, Ben commented first, as shown in  - he didn't reveal his website until June 29, and I did not comment on it before the diff here. Simesa 12:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Incidentally, I will eventually receive a tiny pension from only one company, and it is no longer in the nuclear industry. Simesa 12:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) I think the most important issue here is anomominity: people can edit Wikipedia anomously and as such there is no requirement for people to "declare all interests". Nevertheless I would say that Ben was given a hard time from the word go here and as such the complainants have breached their requirement to assume good faith. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Attribute all Contested Assertions
All disputed or contested assertions must be attributed in-line without exception - not even for God or Jimbo Wales.

Comment by Arbitrators:
 * 1) You break this rule yourself Fred Bauder 18:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:
 * 1) Disputed subjects can best be represented to the reader by summarizing disparate views and listing verifyable assertions which openly and notoriously identify who made the statement and how it might be verifyied. Benjamin Gatti
 * 2) (in re Fred Bauder) - True, and yet I agree to be held to it. Everyone initially lists facts just as they are. However, the mediation in the case began because others insisted on positing the intent of Congress is a casual tone despite authoritative evidence to the contrary. If someone challenges a fact I contribute, then I am more than content to try asserting it in the attributed form. The disagreement in this case has long been a hypocritical position of some insisting on qualifying the criticisms while touting the benefits in a casual and unqualified manner - and again of corralling the negatives into a "criticism" section, while letting the positive side run free. My continued participation here is conditional on both the negative and the positives being handled as if they were interchangeable. I feel it is an arbiter's duty to insist on fairness, and my duty as an editor to defend the viewpoints I see are being treated unfairly. I accept that that position is slightly closer to being an advocate for a viewpoint than perhaps the golden middle or writing for the enemy, but I believe in some cases, unpopular viewpoints need to be defended - not advanced beyond their popular counterparts mind you, but to a semblance of equal protection. (que for Wikilawyering rant). Thank you for your attention to this matter. Benjamin Gatti 23:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) In essence we feel there is a double standard scenario situation occuring here: the anti-nuclear camp are being called upon to back up their assertions with no requirement for the pro-nuclear camp to do likewise. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC) for Benjamin Gatti

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is Civil
1) Civility Listed examples listed include:
 * calling for bans and blocks
 * judgmental tone in edit summaries ("fixed sloppy spelling," "snipped rambling crap")


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * 1) Sound principle Fred Bauder 18:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * 1) Some editors have begun to be decorated with personal remarks meant to poison the well. There is nothing POV about the statement that Nuclear energy is more dangerous than all the Insurance companies in the world could insure. That is a fact well sourced and cited by top authorities such as the Supreme Court of the US. There is nothing POV about the fact that the US takes money to pay for the risks of nuclear power, or that it has plans to take even more money from taxpayers if the industry engages in criminal conduct - such as falsifying an inspection report - which contributes to a nuclear accident. Benjamin Gatti 23:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Please stop citing content from the article. It has no place here. Also, you are more guilty of being incivil than anyone else, Ben. You are the one who constantly tells me that I have no clue what I am talking about and that I should leave the issues to people who know what they are talking about. You typically have a condescending attitude towards those who you think aren't as knowledgable as you are, which I would consider uncivil. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 00:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Mustn't discuss the facts, mustn't we? From my corner, we believe in the empirical utility of facts. Others are entitled to an incompatible rubric, but I for one hardly intend to switch the focus of this witch hunt from the obsession by some to sweep under the carpet those facts which their Orwellian complacency forbids them to contemplate. As for the principle of cognitive equality, I am a hopeful sceptic - as much as I should like to believe that good-intentions alone were an adequate substitute for the practiced exercise of a systematic and empirical logic; alas, I am unpersuaded. Rather than plead with one's prey to stop breathing, may I propose in the alternative that the accusers in this parade answer the fairly posed question: In what way is the assertion that - the risks of Nuclear energy are greater than all of the insurance companies in the entire world are able to insure (as has been found by the Supreme Court) - in any way less than fully, empirically, and verifiably true?. Black has responded; White must answer or resign. Benjamin Gatti 03:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) BOTH OF YOU! This section is merely for principles lets keep the facts of the case for later on :) --Chazz88 23:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

White-Washing is Unencyclopedic

 * 1) Wikipedians should not whitewash, water-down, or censor plain facts merely because they are unpopular.
 * 2) Unpopular facts should be treated the same as popular facts in every respect; they should not be corralled into a seperate (but equal) section of the article, nor should they be held to a higher (or lower) standard of evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:
 * 1) Right Fred Bauder 18:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * 1) Supported under NPOV; however, some editors could apparently benefit by more specific policies related to the removal of unpopular facts. Benjamin Gatti 22:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Am I right in thinking that the complainants agree with this principle? --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC) for Benjamin Gatti

Comment by others:

Wikipedia does not exclude influential historical science - regardless: (Wikipedians must maintain a neutral point of view)

 * 1) Whether perfect or imperfect, historical and influential science should be included - the proper treatment of bad science is to include it along with its critics in a manner which empowers the reader to conclude for themself the relative merits of each case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikipedia are not experts (WP:NOR)

 * 1) Wikipedians, regardless of their professed experience, should not attempt to resolve scientific or other professional debates on the basis of their personal expertise. Instead, conflicting research should be adequately described along with valid and sourced criticisms where appropriate - leaving the reader to weigh for themselves the relevant merits of competing ideas.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:
 * 1) In this case, it is wrong to exclude real and historically influential science - simply because one self-proclaimed expert wikipedian believes it to be wrong, inadequate, and superseded by modern science. (Though in no way should we exclude valid criticisms of that science as well). Benjamin Gatti 20:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Truth is more important than consensus

 * 1) In matters of factual accuracy, Wikipedians should not hesitate to correct the record, and the Arbcom will always support the correction of factual errors, misleading assertions, or other errors which would stand to degrade the quality and integrity of the Wikipedia as a reliable reference.

Comment by Arbitrators:
 * 1) Yep Fred Bauder 18:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:
 * 1) In light of the Nature study Arbcom should elevate the importance of factual accuracy relative to very important, but secondary goal of consensus. Benjamin Gatti 02:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) To a certain extent I agree truth is more important than consensus. However, I think all that is required in most lack of truth cases is to simply shed light on those who deny truth. Truth and consensus need not be mutually exclusive but the way the "cabal" has apparently corrupted Wikipedia's definitions for most abstract fundamental principles they probably are. zen master T 02:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Is the intent of this to justify excusing egregious user conduct?  There's no "cabal".  As for accurate and comprehensive depictions of the truth, I insist on that (and have restored criticisms before) - while I believe that such depictions will get you consensus, I fully agree with the Principle as stated under the header. Simesa 21:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Vigorous debate of a proportionate nature is necessary and appropriate.
An informed public, being essential to the excersize of a free democracy, is better served by the apparent chaos of a vigorous discussion than by the artificially imposed stability of a quashed debate.

Comment by Arbitrators: Aggressive point of view editing will be squashed like a bug Fred Bauder 18:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:
 * 1) An informed public, being essential to the excersize of a free democracy, is better served by the apparent chaos of a vigorous discussion than by the artificially imposed stability of a quashed debate. Benjamin Gatti 06:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) The problem is I have with this idea is that it's not speaking of Wikipedia. Do I agree with you in terms of the world at large? Yes. But we have rules here. "Artificially imposed stability of a quashed debate" means that the rules of Wikipedia are meant to censor people. No. The rules of Wikipedia are meant to stop the type of free form, POV pushing debate that you relish in and admit that you relish in. When we've tried to point out policies to you, we get a "debate the issues, not my conduct" statement from you. No. Conduct is just as important as what you say on Wikipedia. That's always been the case and will continue to be. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 13:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Again Woohookitty lets stikc to principles. NOT who is to blame at this point. --Chazz88 23:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Principles. Like. Someone continually violating 4 major policies that we have and being completely unapologetic about it? --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Again I would kindly ask you to look at my previous point on this principle. This section is merely to determine if certain principles should be considered (as in are they principles of the Wikipedia community). The catfight over facts takes place below in "Findings of Fact" but not here. Lets stick to this procedure otherwise this whole page will become a mess. Correction: More of a mess than it already is. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC) for Benjamin Gatti

Comment by others:
 * 1) How does this relate to Wikipedia (which isn't a democracy) and this arbitration? Dmcdevit·t 09:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Because we are about to put a counter-allegation in. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 23:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC) (Noticed as being unsigned from an earlier date)

Blackmail and threats are not permissible
Blackmail or threats are not permitted on Wikipedia. ,,.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:




 * Comment by parties:


 * 1) I have sent Ben Gatti some emails I am not proud of. I admit that. And actually, I apologized to him for it last night. His response is to essentially blackmail me. He has spent the day with this "give up the user conduct case or else I'll post these emails as evidence". I don't think this can be tolerated. It's essentially blackmail. It's akin to a legal threat, which as far as I know, is not tolerated here. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * His AMA advocate, ChazzWiki, has also claimed that two members of the arbcom have said that the emails will be permitted to be entered into evidence . I've certainly never seen any open discussion of this, and would like to hear whether it's true or not.  If so I'd think it would be fairly unprecedented, as it's been my impression that arbcom does not accept email correspondence as part of arbitration cases.  If this is indeed incorrect, I'd appreciate being disabused of this notion.  Of course, I suppose Benjamin could send arbcom copies of his own emails, or he could enter in emails he sent himself, but that's another matter entirely.  &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 04:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Kate, see DeeCeeVoice case, wiki-emails are included. However, to construe as blackmail a persistent appeal on my part to focus here on substance rather than pretend that we're a gaggle of parochial co-ed's in Sunday school class looking to see who's laundry is the dirtiest is beyond the pale. I must object. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin Gatti (talk • contribs)
 * That someone posted an email doesn't mean it was "allowed." Anyone can post anything, doesn't make it proper or right.  Emails are confidential, even if they're between Wikipedia editors.  &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 05:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Ben has said repeatedly that he's on a battlefield.  I've seen no indication that he intends to change his ways.  This should be investigated.  In the mean time this case must go on. Simesa 04:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) That is an amazing statement. Benjamin Gatti 05:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:
 * 1) Frankly (in reference to some of the comments above,) I don't much care if Ben posts the emails. Personally I think it is wrong, and wouldn't do it myself, but whatever they contain, I, and I trust the arbitrators as well, will easily forgive unusual incivility, especially by an admin who (provably) has been under a lot of stress recently for his hard work for the project. Some off-wiki emails are not ennough to establish the necessary pattern that warrants an arbcom measure. I am seriously concerned by Benjamin Gatti's threats though. Do it or don't, but threats are unnecessarily combative, and if you read WP:NLT, you'd see that they're banned more for the "threat" than anything else. It is more than incivil. This is just to generate ill-will as far as I can see. And Ben, if you are going to do it, you could at least forward the emails to arbcom's mailing list, rather than post it publicly. Dmcdevit·t 06:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hypocrisy is uncivil
Civil persons hold themselves to the same standards which they seek to impose on others. Hypocrisy, by definition, involves the holding of others to a higher standard.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:
 * 1) Defendant does not claim to be perfect; however in dealing with this dispute, he has refrained or attempted to refrain from making the issue of content in any way personal. (On one of the most controversial subjects of our time - the appropriateness of the use of nuclear energy in the world today) When he attempted to bring the dispute to Arbcom, it was not framed in the form of a personal attack on character, but was rather framed as what it should be: a question of NPOV as it related to rather technical questions, ie. good science vs. junk science. Once here, the complainants have pulled out all the stops in a smear campaign, and I believe have now crossed the line into plainly hypocritical territory. Having succeeded in getting the charge of "Wikilawyering" to stick, they now launch a very legalesque attempt to exclude the introduction of evidence on technical grounds and follow it up by making an accusation that the submission of evidence to show hypocrisy would be a crime. That is certainly the use of legalesque technicalities to obstruct a full hearing in this matter, even in substance a legal threat as the assertion that one's action are a crime, is clearly to raise the specter of legal recriminations for participation in this forum. This is hypocrisy in fullest regalia. Benjamin Gatti 22:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wikipedia aims to produce a factually accurate and neutral point of view encyclopedia
Wikipedia aims to produce a factually accurate and neutral point of view encyclopedia.

Comment by ArbCom:

Comment by parties:

Comment by Others:

Correcting systemic bias is not disruptive
Correcting systemic bias (by correcting factual errors) is not disruptive, even if viewed by some as unpopular, contra-consensus, or advocacy. Corrections should however be well-sourced, verifiable, and falsifiable.

Comment by ArbCom:

Comment by parties:
 * 1) You'd have to prove bias first and that's very difficult. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Others:

Aggressive point of view editing by Benjamin Gatti
aggressively edits from a strong anti-nuclear point of view affecting the articles Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act and Nuclear power. See, , , , , [Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti/Evidence#POV_pushing], and immense amount of evidence presented by Simesa.

Comment by Arbitrators:
 * 1) Seems sound Fred Bauder 17:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:
 * 1) When some of the eidtors involved in this arbitration case exclude, downplay, and mischaracterize viewpoints, facts and sources (that happen to not flatter nuclear power and the Price-Anderson Act) that is "POV" combined with censorship. zen master T 00:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Then I urge you to present the evidence that proves their POV (and acting on it) and make a finding of fact. But I'm skeptical that it can be done. Dmcdevit·t 01:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I urge you to read all the evidence that Ben has presented. In my interpretation arbcom's job is not to make a finding of fact that proves one POV over another, they can however censure editors if they exclude or mischaracterize sources and viewpoint, and especially if these editors stifle people and contribution to wikipedia while committing the former. zen master T 01:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is not to "prove one POV over another," but to find that an editor makes consistently POV edits. Of course ArbCom does not advocate any POV, but neither Wikipedia itself, and doing so violates our most sacred tenet. Dmcdevit·t 08:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What you interpret as Ben's "POV" edits is actually Ben being refuted trying to add cited and relevant information to multiple articles, censorship is the worst form of "POV" there is. zen master T 15:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ZM, read the diffs, it is no such thing. "All fair minded individuals will agree that it is not fair..." "...we ought to change the laws for everyone." etc. are so hopelessly personal opinion and POV (and unsourced) that I find it amazing you could disagree. Dmcdevit·t 01:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Allow me. I would agree that these assertions are more properly put forward in a form which identifies the proponents. This argument is the argument made by CATO, Greenpeace, and others as is fully referenced, and as in fact they were put in subsequent edits. This is a nascent and obscure article in which discussion and new ideas were often hammered out on the front page. We have had Simesa assert, on personal authority that the chances of having an Accident like Chernobyl in the United States is less because and I quote "the people are different". We have had Sandpiper expound his personal and original research which suggest that Congress, having Indemnified the industry would as a matter of fact, recover the full cost of any accident from the industry by as yet nonexistent retrospective taxation. We have had the kinds of health effects which Price Anderson insures against - in the proper medical language provided by the Army Medical Manual - deleted out of hand as being POV. We need more eyes and effective resolution of issues, but it is misleading to suggest, as the totality of this fishing expedition seeks to assert, that the factual inadequacies of the two articles named can be resolved by tying them to a goat and leading it out of the city. Benjamin Gatti 02:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Benjamin Gatti serves a greater good
Benjamin Gatti's activities with respect to nuclear power represent values which transcend the purpose and policy of Wikipedia and Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti/Workshop.

Comments by arbitrators: Comments by parties:
 * 1) Motive Fred Bauder
 * 2) Noble, but not within the scope of Wikipedia's mission Fred Bauder 18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * However isn't this a neccesary finding to determine how severe any remedies are? The point is: Ben may have done some things wrong but he didn't mean to. As such he just needs a warning, an admonishment, (and perhaps mentorship) to ensure that he kicks the "newbie habit" which has stuck with him for longer than most. The answer isn't a "One Year Ban" as proposed by the complainants. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 23:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I appreciate the understanding sentiments, my concern is the accuracy. The Nuclear articles should include information related to the risk; not white-washed, not cherry-picked. At Hubbert's Hubris I have contributed edits which might be construed as pro-nuclear; certainly nuclear energy might comprise a method for example of using more energy to extract oil while continuing to provide the portable and relatively safe form of energy which gasoline represents even after the point of negative EROI. In short, I do not exclusively advocate for anti-nuclear POV, rather I persist that the well-sourced government issued facts related to risk are not excluded on the basis of some youth group power-point which says otherwise. (Is that a greater good?) Benjamin Gatti 19:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Whereas this calls into question my intentions visa vi Nuclear power, permit me to be somewhat clear on them. I do not maintain or argue that Nuclear energy is bad. I do argue that Nuclear energy is so heavily subsidized relative to its peers that it is nearly impossible to determine whether or not safe, clean, energy could be competitive in a fair market. I do not insist that the articles assert in an unqualified voice that Nuclear energy is bad, but I do defend the quashed viewpoint that Nuclear is in fact very dangerous in ways we can calculate, the cost horizon for example is greater than all the insurance companies in the world could insure (~300 Billion), and the probability is great enough that not one single company is willing to build a plant without socialized insurance (in the US) - an advantage that no other energy technology enjoys. I believe as a scientific matter, the economic advantage of Nuclear energy over safe, clean alternatives is as false and as rigged as the South Korean stem cell research - a falsity which permeates and distorts nearly every article related to energy. Some evidence: 1. 97% of government funded research into energy has been sunk into Nuclear energy at the expense of others (sourced in the article). 2. In spite of being nearly unfunded by government, Wind Energy is the fastest growing energy form in the World today (pretty widely reported). 3. In a single incident, the Chernobyl accident cost some three times more than the economic benefit of the entire soviet nuclear program. I readily admit to defending these facts, but not at the expense of the project or its goals. I have found authoritative sources for these facts, and participated in many hours of constructive editing sessions to incorporate them into the articles. This has been largely successful, and the project has improved more than it has been disrupted by this effort. Benjamin Gatti 23:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments by others:


 * 1) But Ben continues to aggressively POV edit. He does nothing for the "greater good". He's doing it so that his POV wins. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) I think Fred probably meant the header to say "feels he serves a greater good," judging on the text below. If not feel free to change it back, Fred. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 16:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive edits
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",, "[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 Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti/Evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:
 * 1) Sound Fred Bauder 17:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:
 * 1) Today we hold out hope for 12 miners who are clearly the victims of a company which put profit ahead of safety. Without even mentioning it, we all know that their families are going to sue the company, and that the jury is in fact going to award them the entire face value of the corporation for two reasons; the most important being that no company should gain a profit advantage by means of safety violations. What we forget, is that if these safety violations occurred instead at Progress Energy in Raleigh, they would first be kept secret, small fines would be paid, and God forbid, an accident should occur which harms the public, the victims do not have the same right to sue those responsible - even for criminal negligence in maintaining - say - the radiation barrier. This is an outrage, and it deserves to be fully exposed and reported. Benjamin Gatti 02:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) Benjamin, I respectfully submit that I think you may find more contentment and less conflict by starting a blog. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 05:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Case in point. Dmcdevit·t 08:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * By which of course you suggest that I engage in opining. So tell me, which of the following assertions is not based on a government documented source:


 * 1) Nuclear energy is more dangerous than all of the insurance companies in the world can insure?
 * 2) Criminal conduct, such as falsifying safety reports, and operating an unsafe reactor, is Indemnified - that is protected and shielded by the Price Anderson Act?
 * 3) Price Anderson came about shortly after GE and Westinghouse threatened Congress with a nuclear walk-out?
 * 4) Taxpayers would foot the bill to the tune of 300 Billion dollars in a single CRAC-II contemplated incident.
 * 5) Industry would foot only 10 Billion dollars in such a case or 2%.
 * 6) Victims could expect Malformation, Death, Growth Retardation, Severe Mental Retardation, Intellectual deficit, or experience heritable changes in their reproductive organs which could impact their own children as a consequence of a CRAC-II event.
 * 7) Victims of same could not sue those responsible for their disease - even if criminal conduct were the direct and proximate cause.
 * 8) Price Anderson is a taxpayer-backed subsidy for investors.
 * 9) Price Anderson eliminates the state's right to hold bad actors accountable for harming the public.
 * So then, under what definition of personal opinion is the current introduction not a warmed over propaganda piece taking sides on a contentious issue while supplanting authoritative and neutral facts with borrowed phrases from the Nuclear Subsidy Lobby? Benjamin Gatti 05:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is the Intro as it appears here

I would call this a nuclear love-fest - completely unbalanced soft and fuzzy intro - worse in every respect than nothing at all as it misleads the reader into a false sense of understanding the Act. I would suggest that the version we have hammered out together is far superior. Benjamin Gatti 06:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Benjamin, with respect, this is a non sequitur, and I don't much care about your content dispute, but about your disruption. May I suggest that if you would like to analyze specific evidence and diffs, for our sanity (and especially the arbitrators') put this in the "analysis of evidence" section (didn't want to move it myself, but would rather not clog this section with a protracted discussion). Dmcdevit·t 07:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's an idea. Where you don't want a vigorous defense - don't make an accusation. List your evidence, but leave your opinions and accusations for a place where they can be defended. The truth is always a defense. The fact that you see a non-sequitur where fully 5 editors have held an informed debate speaks volumes. Benjamin Gatti 08:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The non-sequitur is in that you are trying to make these clear cases of disruption into a separate POV dispute. It is not, and they are blatant. I don't care for your POV dispute, and indeed have never even edited the article in question and don't intend to. Dmcdevit·t 08:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * 1) May need better wording, but the fact of it is there, and this can't be avoided. Dmcdevit·t 00:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Failure to assume good faith
1) Benjamin Gatti fails to assume good faith towards those who oppose him. Examples:, , ,

Comment by Arbitrators:
 * 1) Rather minor violations, more a case of not assuming good faith Fred Bauder 18:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Rewritten Fred Bauder 20:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:
 * 1) The finding is far too sweeping for credibility. If the Arbcom intends to keep a Sunday school; these edits might justify censure, but in a sea of a thousand edits between six or more editors, these hardly rise to the level of the present continuous tense. Benjamin Gatti 01:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wikilawyering
Benjamin Gatti's comments, particularly in this arbitration case, and in dealing with article disputes, frequently appeal to technicalities in order to obstruct, characteristic of Wikilawyering. ,, and Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti/Workshop.

Comment by Arbitrators:
 * 1) Changed this a bit, but certainly a sound finding. The only penalty for wikilawyering however is presenting a losing case. Fred Bauder 17:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:
 * 1) Answered here by an appeal to hyperbole. Obstruct suggests the actual prevention of process. It is suggested that an illustration of the application of Price Anderson by translating it into the Lingua Franca actually prevented this process? Surely the Arbcom is more than capable of continuing its work in the face of elucidation (well received I might add by several experts from as far away as Hong Kong). Benjamin Gatti 03:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree with the proposed find of fact. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) With all due respect, Woohookitty is being hippocritical. For example it was suggested that we go through the procedural agony of ANOTHER ArbCom case for the content dispute. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 12:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC) (signed later)
 * 4) Chazz, you are reading into my words. I never suggested that another arbcom case would have to be gone through for the content dispute. I said that *this* case is not a content dispute. It is a user dispute. Why would I say that we would have to go through another arbcom for the content dispute when we've said many many times that the arbcom does not take content disputes? I think it's similar to what happened with this idea that I use the word "Wikilawyering" constantly when I've used it 6-7 times at most (and actually I think it's closer to 4-5). Use my words, not what you think I said. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:
 * 1) Interestingly, the first diff here by Benjamin is the example of Wikilawyering at Wikilawyering (written by Fred Bauder). Dmcdevit·t 00:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) It is an arbitration subject's privilege to interpret policy documents to support his defense. The cited motions do not appeal to "technicalities," but rather are frivolous motions to alter policy in the middle of the case. Wikilawyering is not a mature guideline and should not be cited in in arbitration. Gazpacho 22:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Citing Wikilawyering as part of a formal motion in arbitration is recursive. (Gazpacho, you're spoiling an excellent performance art piece, let it ride) Benjamin Gatti 23:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Complainants have excluded negative information in violation of Nor Original Research and Neutral POV
Simesa has excluded findings of the NRC nuclear risk analysis in 1985 as reported to Congress on the grounds that it was "outdated" and wrong, in his opinion, and in the opinion of others.

Comments by ArbCom:
 * 1) I see no harm is discussing whether the information is outdated Fred Bauder 14:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If I may clarify. There is no objection to the inclusion of additional studies, nor to valid, sourced, ex parte criticisms and comparisons of all studies. Where I object, on the grounds stated, is to the exclusion of historically relevant research, reported to congress, which more than likely were used by congress to form the policies in the article. The fact that they might have been wrong would only make them more interesting as it would suggest the policies were misguided; but you can't unring the bell. The report exists - criticise it, compare it - fine - but it cannot be excluded simply because one editor thinks it is wrong. I happen to think the moonies are wrong, do we then delete the article? no. Neither do we delete real science which was used to form policies (right or wrong). Benjamin Gatti 20:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments by Parties:
 * 1) The principles of wikipedia do not invite editors to settle scientific inconsistencies, nor do the principles invite the advocacy for one view by the exclusion of verifiable facts in support of alternative views. As it is not the role of editors to determine the rightness or wrongness of scientific studies, the results of any scientific study which is notable and relevant should be incorporated into the article. A study performed by a regulatory committee and reported to Congress is most certainly notable. Benjamin Gatti 02:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There are in fact articles on WASH-740, WASH-1400, CRAC-II and NUREG-1150 (which reference each other), and it is in them or in an article on nuclear accident analysis that the history under discussion here belongs. Putting outdated information in other articles solely for the sake of POV-pushing would be confusing to the casual reader. Simesa 21:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments by Others:

Complainants have failed to assume good faith
Wikipedians should assume good faith. Especially with regard to new contributors. However, the complainants have failed to assume good faith ever since Ben started editing on Wikipedia in May.

Comments by ArbCom:

Comments by Parties:
 * 1) I have had to raise this issue because much of the "evidence" of the complainants focuses upon events in June. They fail to acknowledge that Bens behaviour has improved since then. And that most of his prior "disruptive edits" were due to a lack of understanding of WP rules --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC) AMA Rep for Ben Gatti
 * This is completely spurious. I very carefully explained Wikipedia's policies to Benjamin when I first noticed his editing pattern in late June     .  That he continued even up until last month to make edits like this:  (not to mention the Bush/golfer edit in late September, which he defended this week ), and of course his very recent behavior as part of User prerogatives, shows he has in fact NOT improved. Benjamin has been aware of policies and how they should be applied for months. His continuing bad behavior stems from flagrant disregard for them, not from ignorance of them. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 20:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes. Literate Engineer and I have evidence listed just from the last week. Many of Ben's worst POV edits were in November, not June. The infamous "rob the poor and give to the rich" edit was on November 20th. So this isn't ancient history. Has he improved? That's debatable. At first glance you would think so but the talk page blankings that are in the evidence were less than a week ago. And it was done without discussion, which is usually typical of a newbie, not someone who has been here since May. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) However, the two complainants comments before this one fail to notice that Benjamin was given a hard time about his posts ever since he started editing in May. No wonder there have been problems: he hasn't been given a chance. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Chazz, I invite you to examine the diffs I gave above and then tell me that I wasn't careful and polite with Benjamin when I first began interacting with him -- I'd even go so far as to say I did a lot of handholding as it concerned his edits. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 21:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Having been editing in the Nuclear Power and Price-Anderson articles since June 22, I don't agree with the conclusion "he wasn't given a chance". I recall the other editors being extremely civil, whereas edit comments like "BTW - Ultramarines intro is pretty good - mine might be a little too honest for the corporate criminals who are dictating nuclear policy around here but hey...)" (June 18) are more indicative of the problem. Certainly the RfC process was designed to give him a chance. Simesa 21:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments by others:

Hypocrisy
Complainants have come with dirty hands and accused defendant of two (2) specific charges of which they themselves were as or more guilty:


 * 1) Complaint of incivility while conspiring to be incivil:
 * The complaining party has by their own admission sent emails through wikipedia of an incivil nature. The same has been defended here by other complainants and others either by wikiarguing that they should be excluded, or by arguing that such are justified.
 * Complaining party made the charge of Blackmail which is a criminal charge, when there is no basis in fact which would permit a reasonable person to find the elements of the charge. The making of frivolous legal complaints is uncivil.


 * 1) Complaint of Wikilawyering while making technical arguments to obstruct the inclusion of cross-evidence:
 * Having criticised defendant for Wikilawyering, complainants have argued that emails are technically excluded as evidence citing no higher principle.
 * Further to exclude said emails as cross-evidence, complaints have launched a concerted effort to forward the frivolous charge of blackmail.

(Principle: Hypocrisy is uncivil)

Comments by ArbCom:
 * As I have received a few nasty notes myself, I actually would support using emails as evidence but there is a strong consensus to not do so. You don't seem to be in touch with that strong opinion.Fred Bauder 13:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Even without the email, we have ample evidence of arguing on technicalities (wikilawyering)while seeking to sanction the defendant for same. I'm not opposed to technical arguments as I believe there is a principle at the heart of every rule, where I object is to the double standard, the animal farm mentality, the "we can do it you can't", "we can be profanely uncivil because you've done x". The application, yeah even the toleration of a double standard discredits the Arbcom and leads to unpersuasive rulings. The Arbcom, in my opinion, must inspire editors to uphold the principles by example. MLK said "I can't be what I'm supposed to be until you are what you should be." And I suggest that if the Arbcom permits a systemic bias against a pov and then if advocates object by raising Cain, the Arbcom should address the substance, rather than setting a double standard founded in base popularity. A popular decision will persuade only the choir; a principled decision may inspire even those who disagree. Equality is the first principle. Hypocracy has no place. Benjamin Gatti 15:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Additionally I spoke to 2 other ArbCom members and they, under circumstances, felt that they should be admitted as evidence. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 21:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) for Benjamin Gatti

Comments by Parties:
 * 1) Yes there is a higher principle involved. It's called confidentiality. Emails are offsite. They are not directly connected to Wikipedia. There needs to be an avenue outside of Wikipedia to frankly discuss issues in a way that you can't on here. Plus, we have no mechanism to track emails to verify them. So that's the other reason why the are not taken as evidence. In other words, people could make up emails and post them here and there is no way for the arbcom to track them. Jimbo believes very strongly in privacy. He would not allow the arbcom to track emails' source. I mean heck. Only 5 users on the entire site can track which IP addresses people are posting from and they only do it in special circumstances. So generally, emails are not taken in as evidence. And I'm not making all of this up. Ask Fred or one of the arbcom. These are the reasons why email is not taken. It's not "just policy". --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry we can use the headers of the e-mails to trace them directly to you. So determining the accuracy of the e-mais will not be a problem. However by way of implication you have already admitted on Wikipedia to sending the e-mail in question. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 21:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I wasn't referring to this specific case. I was speaking in generalities. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments by others:

Wikipedia exhibits a bias against renewable energy
Specifically by the interjection of disparaging assertions into unrelated articles.

(Simesa denigrates renewable energy in unrelated article - nuclear power).
 * [ Please note that Simesa did not create all of the bolded text. Simesa 17:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) ]

Benjamin Gatti 04:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Attacking a technology where it cannot be fully defended is a bias.
 * 2) critics is an unverifiable weasel term - unfalsifiable - cannot be defended.
 * 3) Because it is unrelated to nuclear power, there is no real opportunity here to provide a full hearing on the issues related to renewable energy - thus the assertion cannot really be defended without expanding the subject indefinitely.
 * 4) "Critics" ? critics of what? in this case, critics of Renewable energy. Why here? The focus is "Nuclear power". What justification exists for making renewable energy the focus of attention?
 * 5) It might be fine to say that Nuclear energy is a competitor to Renewable energy, and has some advantages due to its steady and predictable output - but this isn't true in comparison to hydroelectric, and so begins a rather lengthy discussion which couldn't possibly justify itself under the heading of Nuclear power - so I suggest the incomplete pot-shot is just plain bias. Disparaging comparisons should be made in an article with equal emphasis on all technologies.

This sentence can be found here: Whatever is true about nuclear energy and wind energy, their relative costs and risks can hardly be discussed in an adult conversation in such helplessly black & white terms. For example, the cost of Chernobyl eclipsed by 3 all the cost benefits of nuclear energy in the entire Soviet Union. It is irresponsible and biased to throw out pot-shots which are over-simplified at best and calculated to mislead the reader. Benjamin Gatti 07:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Final note on the Nuclear Article. It mentions the costs of wind power in detail but omits the cost of Chernobyl. How is the cost of Wind power more relevant than the price tag of Chernobyl? Conclusion - it isn't, but one supports the bias, and the other doesn't. Benjamin Gatti 07:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments by Arbitrators:
 * 1) You are not wrong regarding wind power, but there is not basis for a finding that Wikipedia is biased against it. It is almost impossible to include information about an event which has not occurred and is even relatively unlikely (a major nuclear accident in the West) in an article. We are a compilation of known information. Fred Bauder 13:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * A Government study presented to congress showing the probability to be 45% is an event which has occurred. It occurred in 1985. The same is true of the study of wind power cited above. The research is the event, and when released by the government, is often relevant and verifiable. The flooding of New Orleans was a relatively unlikely event as well - until it happened. In retrospect it was far more likely than Joe Complacent thought - in part because of a human weakness in integrating long but sure odds. Benjamin Gatti 15:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) The flooding and destruction of New Orleans was an absolute certainty as is the Big One in both Los Angeles and San Francisco. A major nuclear accident involving a modern Western reactor is not a certainty. Although by political processes it may be decided that that unquantifiable risk is unacceptable. Whatever happened in 1985 was not a major nuclear accident. Fred Bauder 19:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And neither is the fact that Wind must be limited to 15% of demand a certainty. We are comparing two government study - one is against wind, the other expresses a large risk for nuclear. If they were treated the same, I would have no complaint; however, one is included, and the other excluded, and the excluded report is far more relevant to its respective article. A Nuclear accident is not a sure thing, but the report has already occurred and empirically exists. Are we a peer review journal to be deciding what reports ought to be published? I think not, therefore we are compelled by principle to treat published government studies as equals - and where we do not - we exhibit bias. Complainants are using this forum as a tool to promote a bias. Benjamin Gatti 21:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments by Parties:
 * 1) A more recent and better calculated Nuclear Regulatory Commission study contained information that showed the risk was Under 8% in 20 years, yet you cling to the scarier numbers. Where is the bias here?  As to your diff, the word "costly" is based on the existing reference, as discussed on the Talk page - the bias was in leaving it out.  Is it bias to insist on a fair representation of a reference's contents?  As for Chernobyl, I was for leaving it in - as long as the differences between those plants (RBMKs) and non-Soviet plants were discussed (a lack of a full containment building and no graphite in the reactor cores, for starters).  Although I support maximum appropriate use of renewables, Wikipedia shouldn't show a bias either way.  These content disputes are better left to the RfC and RfM processes. Simesa 16:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm for including all studies of risk, certainly they all have relevance even if only historic, and I think the range of results is interesting, and cherry-picking the best numbers is as biased as cherry-picking the worst. The idea that newer science erases older science is silly. Better science is more persuasive, but we aren't to be the judge of that. Include it all, it's the only way to avoid prejudiced cherry-picking. Such is not a content dispute, it's an NPOV dispute. Why is it a conduct dispute where I'm biased, and a content dispute where you're biased. Double standards are for the weak of mind and soul. Buck up and take a fair debate. Stop accusing me of being uncivil (when I'm not) and then wikilawyering to keep me from exposing the hypocritical incivility of others (when they are). Tell us why it's within the scope of "Nuclear power" to denigrate wind, but not within the scope to discuss the single largest nuclear disaster on the planet? Benjamin Gatti 16:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments by others:

Proposed remedies
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
1) Benjamin Gatti is placed on 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 Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti. This remedy may be extended by any three administrators for good cause shown.

Comment by Arbitrators:
 * 1) Re-written Fred Bauder 18:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:
 * 1) There has to be some recourse here for Ben violating basically every major policy we have on the nuclear articles. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 00:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Indefinate probation
2.1) Benjamin Gatti is placed indefinitely on 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 Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti.

Comment by Arbitrators:
 * 1) Rewritten Fred Bauder 18:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:
 * 1) Given the unsourced criticism of renewable energy in Nuclear power, and the exclusion of the government's own science in Price-Anderson Act by complainants, any remedy which is one-sided will exacerbate the current bias against unestablished technologies. Wikipedia should pick winners. Benjamin Gatti 05:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:
 * 1)  While I believe that the self-righteous attitude exhibited in Benjamin Gatti's unrepentant wikilawyering and attempts to suborn policy coupled with his persistently exhibited inability/unwillingness (it is one or the other; which one is immaterial) to communicate directly, civilly, and rationally with people already demonstrates that he is an unsalvagable problem user and justifies a lengthy blocking if not an outright ban, the "General Probation" suggested remedy is, I expect, an appropriate alternative more likely to gain a consensus approving it.  The Literate Engineer 07:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Probation of one year
is placed on probation for one year, and during that time may be banned from any article which relates to nuclear power, including but not limited to Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act and Nuclear power, if in the opinion of any administrator his editing is disruptive. "Relation" is to be interpreted broadly by enforcing administrators. This may include the talk pages of related articles.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Less restrictive option than full probation. Dmcdevit·t 08:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Extensive one year probation
is placed on probation for one year, and during that time may be banned from any article which relates to nuclear power, including but not limited to Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, Nuclear power, or articles related to American politics and government, if in the opinion of any administrator his editing is disruptive. "Relation" is to be interpreted broadly by enforcing administrators. This may include the talk pages of related articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:
 * 1) In light of his disruptive edits, even childish edits at George W. Bush, Michael Chertoff and elsewhere outside nuclear power-related articles, this is less restrictive than 2.1, but more than 2.2. I support this as a first choice of the three. Dmcdevit·t 08:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Gatti admonished
is admonished to be respectful of other editors and avoid incivility and personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:
 * 1) I would reject this motion because I feel this problem won't be solved unless Ben is given mentorship. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 21:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:
 * 1) Based on the FoF. Dmcdevit·t 08:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Gatti blocked for one week for continued violation of several core Wikipedia policies and guidelines (Withdrawn; reinstated by Chazz at 11:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC))
3.1 is banned for one week for continued and excessive violation of several core Wikipedia policies and guidelines without any repentence, including assume good faith, no personal attacks, Gaming the system, POV pushing and others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:
 * 1) The problem I have with just using probation is that Ben is completely unrepentent and he is a master at gaming the system and Wikilawyering. I'm afraid that without a stronger punishment for his behavior, he will try to find ways around probation so it will be rendered meaningless. Less punitive punishment under 3.2. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Again I want the ArbCom to consider this remedy. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 11:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC) for Benjamin Gatti

Comment by others:

===Benjamin Gatti is blocked for one day for continued violation of several core Wikipedia policies and guidelines (Withdrawn; reinstated --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 16:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC))=== 3.2 < is banned for one day for continued and excessive violation of several core Wikipedia policies and guidelines without any repentence, including assume good faith, no personal attacks, Gaming the system, POV pushing and others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:
 * 1) Similar to above. Less punitive. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) I want the ArbCom to consider this as an alternative to probation. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 16:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) What? A one-day block will solve this six month nasty dispute with finality? That's ludicrous. Chazz, you may be an advocate, but I expect you to advocate at least as much for Wikipedia as for Ben. Dmcdevit·t 21:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) You are assuming that the fault lies solely with ben. It really is all parties concerned the solution isn't severe punishment but reasoned resolution to solve the underlying issue- the content dispuite - if the content dispute is solved then everything is solved because their will no longer be anything for the parties to argue about. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 22:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) I am not sure you can reinstate something somebody else withdrew. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ArbCom, please note that if I or Ben had made the above comment made by Woohookitty's then Woohookitty would of accused us of WikiLawyering. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that Chazz is not assuming good faith. He can't know what I would've said. He's making a bad faith assumption. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:
 * 1) A one-day block is pure symbolism and otherwise meaningless. Also, limiting a ban of Benjamin Gatti to nuclear-power related articles ignores his unacceptable behavior elsewhere.  The Literate Engineer 05:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Gatti is banned from editing Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act for a year
is hereby blocked from editing Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act for a year due to his very long history of disruptive edits, lack of assuming good faith and gaming the system, among other infractions. His behavior has been so excessive on this article that since July 2005, 2 mediations have failed and almost 0 progress has been made since July, despite the efforts of other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:
 * 1) Most of our evidence is from Price-Anderson. It has been Ben's main work on Wikipedia since he started editing in May 2005. Despite the best efforts of User:Sandpiper, User:Katefan0, User:Simesa and myself, next to 0 progress has been made on the article since July. Why? Because Ben refuses to compromise, assumes bad faith, games the system, makes disruptive ridiculously POV edits (like, and ), etc. Honestly, I don't see probation changing his behavior there. If anything, I think he'll become even more cunning at violating our rules and policies. He needs to be taken off of Price-Anderson or else that article will stay in its current ugly state for as long as Ben is interested in it and he has said that he will continue what he does for as long as it takes until the article fits his POV. He's already made several editors (me and katefan in particular) give up because it's impossible to deal with someone who doesn't want to listen. I mean. Are we going to let him wear out multiple editors until he gets his POV on this article? --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) This is far too draconian. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 16:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) So far nothing I've seen in these Arbitration pages gives me any indication that Ben intends to change his ways. Simesa 04:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Nope. If it's too "draconian" for some, there is a lesser ban below. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:
 * 1) I really think this and the lesser proposal need to be moved to the proposed decision as well. While Ben exhibits general POV, this is the crux of the issue. Dmcdevit·t 03:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Gatti is banned from editing Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act for a month
4.2 is hereby blocked from editing Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act for a month due to his very long history of disruptive edits, lack of assuming good faith and gaming the system, among other infractions. His behavior has been so excessive on this article that since July 2005, 2 mediations have failed and almost 0 progress has been made since July, despite the efforts of other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:
 * 1) Less punitive version than above.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)

Comments by others:

All Parties are to participate in effective mediation of Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act
5. Parties to this action are hereby required to participate in mediation in re: Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act for one month with the goal of incorporating all sourced facts in a manner which favors neither the status quo, the industry, or its critics, and which prioritized information on the basis of its relevence to Insurance, risk, exposure, costs, what is covered, who is covered, for how much, by what process, from which pocket and so forth, as opposed to prioritizing facts by POV - ie pro side first, with the critics corralled and labelled into irrelevency.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:
 * 1) Two mediations have stalled, but not without progress or for lack of participation, Ed Poor was one, and Ral has been more absent than present. There are important issues of fact here. Addressing symptoms alone is less likely to improve the Wikipedia and sets a poor precedent. I could have presented counter-evidence of far more incivil behaviour including inappropriate language, but I have no interest in participating in a mudsling. Address the underlying issue here, or this is a waste of effort - I implore. Benjamin Gatti 15:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) This is case is a user conduct case. As soon as it's retitled Price-Anderson (which won't happen), you can introduce this. Arbcom does not adjudicate stuff such as forcing mediation. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) If Ben or I had said something similar to what Woohookitty has said we would be accused of Wikilawyering. In fact this is the one case in this dispute where I think I have seen anything like wikilawyering. What Woohookitty would have the ArbCom, and us, do is go through another 2 month long dispute to solve the Content Dispute, which is the underlying issue that is causing the conduct dispute. Woohookitty is in fact that trying to play the system so that this content issue won't be dealt with for months. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 20:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments by others:

Parties are not to exclude relevant, historical, and influential scienctific research for any reason
Parties may not exclude science; however they are encouraged to include third-party criticisms comparisons or analysis of said science as per the Principles and Findings above.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:
 * 1) Completely impossible. But it fits Ben. This is the user who once declared that a blog he used as a source on Looting was as reputable as a major newspaper. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments by others:

A Wiki-mentor is to be appointed for Benjamin Gatti
Since Benjamin Gatti generally means well the point of this ArbCom should be about remedying the situation rahter than punishing Ben. As such a Wiki-mentor will be appointed to try and reform a well meaning POV advocate into a neutral source citer.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:
 * 1) I think the wording isn't quite correct (I'm not 100% convinced that Ben is well meaning), but I have no problem with the concept of a mentor. It doesn't, however, overrule the probation or the other proposed punishments. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) This is getting absurd. It appears that the Complainant has some sadistic wish to see Benjamin Gatti sustain the harshest punishment possible. It is axiomatic that the best solution to this case is to resolve the issues behind the dispute. Not have the complainants use the ArbCom to settle personal scores. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Again, you are not assuming good faith. The arbcom are the ones who will decide this. This is not a negotiation. The motions and remedies are put here and then the arbcom decides whether to take them or not. If they think we're on a "witchhunt", they will act accordingly. You are not the arbitor of that. They are. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * However it seems to me that it is not reasonably possible that you are acting in good faith with relation to this remedy. Therefore it would be unwise for me to assume good faith, and the policy understands this. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 21:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Enforcement by block
1) If, in the view of any 3 independant administrators in good standing, violates any probation or parole remedy he may be briefly blocked, for not more than one week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall be not more than one year. Blocks and bans should be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti.

Comments by Arbitrators:

Comments by Parties:
 * 1) Edited this slightly. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 21:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments by Others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Somebody Help!, I'm being attacked by a gerund!
 * I will not comment on portions of the evidence which lie outside the scope of the prior RfC and Mediation; as to the relevant material, I stand behind the factual accuracy of every edit, from George Bush putting golf ahead of his duties as President, to the Price Anderson Act being a huge corporate giveaway which shields companies which commit criminal behaviour and has recently been exposed as providing an incentive to ignore safety requirements in Nuclear Plants - all of which is copiously sourced. I apologize for the spelling errors. In essence, the complainants have cast legitimate, sourced, and true content as "disruptive" when in fact there are some 6 editors involved in a remarkably civil discourse with no clear consensus on an article waving the ((totallydisputed)) flag (without identifying the disputed items). The Arbcomm is invited to use this opportunity to discourage white-washing, and to tolerate if not encourage vigorous and civil discussions, with an emphasis on providing equal protection for unpopular facts and their contributors. (Note below that complainant believes Whitewashing is an acceptable practice on Wikipedia - I think that is what might be called the admission of an impeachable offense.)Benjamin Gatti 07:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No. I did not say that whitewashing was acceptable practice. I said that there is no specific policy covering it. Don't put words into my mouth, Ben. There is no Whitewashing. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 13:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Just want to point out to Mr. Gatti that "whitewashing" is not a Wikipedia policy. There is no policy that covers his charges. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Censoring and mischaracterizing facts violates NPOV and perhaps other policies. zen master T 00:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * My point is that there are no *specific* policies on whitewashing. If he wants to claim it's a violation of NPOV, he should say so. Pushing "Whitewashing" itself is not against Wikipedia policy. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Censoring content is a direct violation of NPOV. It should be obvious that "white-washing" and one sided presentations are at odds with the fundamental concept of collaborative development and are anti-wiki. zen master T 08:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine. Then Ben needs to cite exactly where in the NPOV policy it says that whitewashing is against policy and what we're doing to violate that policy. You have to cite policies on here when presenting evidence. What is "obvious" to you might not be obvious to others, which is why we have policies written up. Without policies, we'd have chaos. And in arbcom cases, you have to cite policy, since when cases are brought, they are brought up as policy violations. Actually, when I read the NPOV policy, the feeling I get is that facts need to be presented in a balanced manner. The main trouble I have with Ben is that what he states as "facts" are sometimes just his opinion. He states about the public "footing the bill" as being a fact. I say that because he just argued for it as "factual" as inclusion into the intro. Is it a fact that the public pays into the P-A fund with their tax dollars? Yes. But "footing the bill" is his opinion. It's his way of characterizing what the act does. It's POV. But when we take that stuff out, we're "whitewashing". No. We're taking something obviously POV out of the article. It just needs to say that the fund is X and tax payers pay into the fund through their tax dollars. That's all it needs to say. "Foot the bill" is a characterization. It's jargon meant to convey the idea that this is unfair on the tax payer. He needs to specifically site the policies being violated when we "whitewash". Just yelling "censorship!" isn't enough for an arbcom case. Show me exactly what we're violating right from policy. Nothing is "obvious", zen. Without policies and rules here, we'd have chaos. You and Ben seem to have an "anything goes" mentality. Well it doesn't. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ben's additions have in some cases needed re-wording but the point is by what justification are people removing and effectively censoring some form of that information from the Price-Anderson Act article? It's not just Ben's "opinion", cited critics are arguing that and much of the language he's using comes from the Supreme court case. I think one problem is the entire concept of "reverting" which is needlessly confrontational and creates an "us" vs "them" content battle mentality, a better alternative is the WP:0RR which frees people from thinking in terms of "reverting" and promotes the preservation of information and viewpoints, even if they are initially poorly formatted. An article, especially a controversial one, should be a superset of all viewpoints, not completely one sided. Censorship is worse than chaos, especially when the chaos is only theoretical and supposed. zen master T 09:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * When one removes "taxpayers foot the bill" entirely - knowing it to be true, and sourced by a Supreme Court case - that is Whitewashing. If on the other hand one were to re cast the same facts in preferred language - that would be cooperative editing. To assume that "foot the bill" is inherently biased runs contrary to WP:AGF as I am not aware of any connotation for the phrase other than the assertion of who will pay, and indeed the Supreme Court has recognized that compensation - in excess of the first 2% of a CRAC-II contemplated incident would be borne by the Federal government - which one must recognize derives its revenue from "taxpayers." Benjamin Gatti 16:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * A General Thought - by Jimbo Wales

"Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities." Jimbo Wales 16:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe that these edits are all made in the atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. Note the absence of incivility throughout. Professionalism in my opinion does not include rolling over for the exclusion of important facts. Benjamin Gatti 21:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * There is a stress building because Complainants want to use the Evidence Section to analyze their own evidence where the Defendant is not supposed to respond. This violates the first rule of debate which is that a person has the unequivocal right to respond to a personal attack immediately. Therefore I propose and announce that I will exercise the right to respond to any statement made in the evidence section which goes beyond the pure listing of raw facts. Your opinions, where misleading and personal will be answered in situ, and I assert that that is within the rules as the restriction of commentary applies only to evidence, not to any opinions asserted in the evidence section. Benjamin Gatti 20:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It is the arbcom's job to remove things or move things if they think it is against policy. The movings I did were with the permission of Raul654. Again, this is Ben making up his own rules. Similar to "the agree with me in 24 hours or else" type posts he made on the talk page of P-A. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * As I've entered evidence and proposed motions, I'd like to say this: I've never read or edited the Price-Anderson act article, the nuclear power article, or any of the other energy/nuclear articles in the "content dispute". I don't know what the dispute is, don't really understand what's being disputed, and really don't care, as I think it's secondary to the issue of Benjamin Gatti's conduct.  Because Benjamin Gatti does not present his arguments in a coherent and rational matter (regardless of whether or not his arguments are legitimate, which I believe they often are not), no content dispute can be resolved so long as he is involved.  I believe Benjamin Gatti's routine conduct is unacceptable, and that he has behaved in an unacceptable manner in enough places that he has demonstrated it is not just one issue where he's a problem.  Honestly, I wouldn't be bothered if this arbitration resulted in him being banned permanently, and that's due to his conduct.  I think he and Chazz are missing the point when they treat this as a content dispute, and I take it as a sign that he is not willing to try to reform his behavior.  The Literate Engineer 06:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The General Press has reported Pat Robertson's edict as a fatwa and now you want to ban an editor for same. I suggest you're violating WP is not censored to protect Republicans. Benjamin Gatti 06:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow! You demonstrate both an amazing talent for strawman filibustering and ability to totally misconstrue sources. Thanks for providing a great example of why you cannot resolve your content disputes. Dmcdevit·t 10:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Pat Roberston's Fatwa is indeed a part of your comment - you said "enough places" - and when I cited just one of those listed in the evidence, you claim "strawman". Well then, if Fatwa is a straw, what does that makes the evidence? I didn't submit irrelevant staws - and when I refer to the evidence of complainants - they argue "Straw man" like a gaggle of (hypocritical) wikilawyers. How tiring and prurient. Benjamin Gatti 21:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Fatwa" doesn't appear in the 35 diffs I listed as evidence. The Literate Engineer 04:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest that your comment "enough places" refers to more evidence than your own - most of which (it is seems quite clear) you haven't read and know nothing about. Tell you what - read some, and list three of the worse, along with three of the best. See if you still stand by your opinion above. Benjamin Gatti 06:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Good demonstration of violating the assume good faith policy Ben. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)