Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gene Poole vs. Samboy/Proposed decision

message: I note that two arbitrators are now proposing that the committee thank me for my significant contribution to Wikipedia over the past several years on the subject of micronations while banning me from all further contributions. This is not a response founded upon any rational interpretation of the available evidence, and I cannot and will not accept it should it be confirmed as a ruling. Pending a decision by the committee I am therefore ceasing all further contributions to the Wikipedia project. If the proposal is confirmed my withdrawal will become permanent. In the interim I do not propose to follow or make any further comment on this or any other discussion. Those who wish to contact me privately may do so by email. --Gene_poole 23:51, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Another thing to keep in mind is that Gene Poole can be extremely heated and stress-inducing on user's talk pages and article talk pages.  See the evidence page for examples of this kind of behavior.  I don't think it is a matter of punishment as much as it is a matter of letting Gene Poole know that certain behavior he does hurts people's feelings and makes people upset, and that Wikipedia is a better place when said behavior is kept in check. Samboy 03:40, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed ban

message: "Gene Poole has in his edits to the articles Micronation and Empire of Atlantium acted to some extent as an advocate of micronations in general and of his own micronation, Atlantium, in particular to the extent of engaging in edit wars over their content."
Looking once again at the findings of facts, this seems to be the full reasoning behind the ban.  I can see banning this user from the Atlantium article (but not the talk page for that article).  There seems to be a general consensus against editing articles for which one is so intimately tied regardless of past behavior, and there certainly seems to be consensus against edit warring on such articles.  I don't even see a basis for an indefinite ban on micronation, though.  Warning the user not to edit war, even imposing a per-day limit on edits to such articles, I can see.  But an outright ban of the article seems way over the top, and then extending that indefinite ban to articles not even mentioned is even more over the top.  Arbitration is not supposed to be about punishment.  Rulings should be narrowly tailored to what is necessary to solve the problem.  Banning from Atlantium and not allowing the user to edit war should be enough.  I can understand why the user would refuse to accept a full ban.  I'd do the same thing in his situation.  anthony 警告 18:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Another thing to keep in mind is that Gene Poole can be extremely heated and stress-inducing on user's talk pages and article talk pages.  See the evidence page for examples of this kind of behavior.  I don't think it is a matter of punishment as much as it is a matter of letting Gene Poole know that certain behavior he does hurts people's feelings and makes people upset, and that Wikipedia is a better place when said behavior is kept in check. Samboy 03:40, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Advocacy