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

I need to point out the reason this has been brought to a lot of people's attention because Gene Poole has been leaving comments on user's pages asking for support. If Gene Poole has directed you here, please read the evidence before making a comment here. This will save me from having to correct errors made by people who have posted here. Samboy 22:38, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Trusted Arbitrators:

I would have comented on this case earlier, but it was only brought to my attention recently. I read the whole case, and I feel that I cannot remain silent. A few things seem unfair about this case:
 * In the accusation, Samboy refers to Gene Poole as "Mr. George Cruickshank", when it is not verified that that is Gene's true identity.
 * Wikipedia has no official pseudonym policy, and it is unfair to accuse someone of being deceptive merely on the basis of using a pseudonym. The accusation that the name "Gene Poole" is misleading because it "sounds like a real name" is unfair, as the pun behind the name (a pun on "gene pool"), is only funny because it sounds like a real name.  Furthermore, although I don't think it would be fair to lie about your true identity, I do believe that you have a right to privacy and that you should be allowed to conceal your real name online.
 * It is unfair to make Gene's identity a point of contention, and this should not be represented in the official findings of fact (and, perhaps not admited as evidence at all). Bias should be evaluated solely on the basis of a user's actions in Wikipedia.  Users have a right to privacy, and, in this case, Gene's alleged identity is being used, in and of itself, as evidence of his bias.  Use of his alleged identity in this manner is inheirently prejudicial.

I agree with your statement of principles, and, aside from point five, I agree with your findings of fact thusfar, but I humbly request that you add a time limit to your proposed sanction. I do think Gene needs some time to "cool off", but it seems unfair to permanently ban a user from editing articles that reflect their area of expertise, and I feel that permanent bnning of this sort should be reserved for incurable vandals. Please, give Gene the benefit of the doubt.

--L33tminion | (talk) 23:09, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * An earlier version of my case did have evidence of Gene's real name; I removed the evidence at the suggestion of another editor who also felt that bringing up Gene Poole's real name was not appropriate. Keep in mind that Wikipedia encourages people to not use psudonyms for their nickname, unless the psudonym in question is obviously a psudonym (see the policy page on choosing a username). Samboy 23:42, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Did you honestly think that he was actually named Gene Poole ("Gene Pool"), and that his username was not a pun? It seems like an obvious pseudonym to me.  --L33tminion | (talk) 18:58, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * Also, his email adress on his talk page is listed as information@atlantium.org and his picture matches the picture of Emporor George on the front page of the Atlantium website (linked from the article), which hardly makes him seem like a person who is trying to decieve others about his identity. --L33tminion | (talk) 19:14, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * At the time the arbitration case was put forward, he did not have his picture on his user page, nor did he have an @atlantium.org email address listed. And, yes, Gene Poole does sound like a real name.  I've heard stranger real names. Samboy 22:03, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yet another shameless lie from Samboy. He really must think people are idiots by trying to pull this sort of trick. My email address has been openly published on my user page from the very first day it was created - 15 January, 2003.--Gene_poole 00:08, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not appropriate behavior to accuse someone who has made an error of fact as being a liar.  Samboy 22:30, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It is entirely appropriate to draw to public attention a pattern of unacceptable behaviour that is both extensive and fully-documented. Samboy is on record as having lied openly about me on multiple occasions. The above is merely the latest example.--Gene_poole 22:45, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Have I missed something?
As a relative newbie, I'm not sure who these arbitrators are, or whether I have any say in anything on this page; but the majority reasoning spelled out on it by and large seems curious. As far as I can understand, Gene Poole knows a great deal about micronations, because he is responsible for one of them &#8212; therefore some people want him banned from writing about the others????

We all know something about something, and that's usually what we write about. When we write about what we don't know &#8212; that's when we ought to be worried. At any rate, if I am Japanese and know a lot about China, Korea, and Hong Kong, why should I be banned from writing about these latter places just because I might be a firm believer in the modern nation-state system? If I am a mathematician and know a lot about botany and chemistry, and am a firm believer in the scientific principle, how does this make me ineligible to write about any of these things?

Many of these micronations, including quite possibly Atlantium, are of no particular notability or interest: let that be decided by the usual Vfd process. I myself am very fond of parts of central Italy, and know a good deal about them. If I've written an article about some little place that just doesn't hack it in terms of notability or usefulness, the Vfd process will take care of it: what on earth is the problem? &#8212; Bill 23:33, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The issue is not that Gene is the owner of a micronation; the issue is that he has attempted to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for self-promotion to promote his own micronation, Atlantium, and to demote (or remove references to) other micronations that compete with his micronation. The analogies you bring up are false analogies; you're not engaging in self-promotion in your analogies.  Samboy 23:42, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm disappointed in the arbitration process as it is being implemented here. I'm sure that if I am ever brought to arbitration I will simply bow out instead of being railroaded. Frankly, I would expect the arbitration process to provide direct evidence of the stated problems instead of making accusations without providing substance. IMO sure, a user demoting other articles because they are competitive to their interests is a serious problem, but I'd hope to see evidence instead of just flat accusation. Would it be too hard to include links to edits he's made that show this behavior? (After all, that's the point of an edit history, right?) It doesn't make sense to only expose part of the arbitration process -- expose it all or just do it behind doors, don't do it halfway and proudly proclaim its transparency. Respectfully, KeithTyler 19:45, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you bring up a legitimate concern. the evidence page has quite a bit of evidence to support the assertion that Gene Poole has attempted to use Wikipedia to promote his own micronation.  If you feel that documenting more edit wars Gene Has gotten in on the micronation pages would help the case, let me know and I will make additions to the evidence page.  Samboy 22:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Though I'm concerned about the rationale and interpretation of W.W.I.N. applied there. Am I to understand that I should not add links that are relevant to an article if I have a personal connection to the site? Also, as shown in the evidence, the reaction to his links was to remove them summarily, not clean them up to remove advertising (which is the concern). I appreciate seeing the evidence of removed links. Certainly "not referenced in article" is not a valid reason for deleting links from a general topic article when the general topic does apply to them. Though not all of the exhibits in that section are evidence of deletion of competing interests -- the first example shows a deletion of a site that does not appear to have any relation to micronations, others show removal of dead WikiLinks, etc. In any case, this does a lot more to explain the rationale behind the remedies. - KeithTyler 01:43, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * You are of course correct. No evidence whatsoever has been produced to show that Samboy's contention that "my micronation" (which is actually a global progressive political lobby group with hundreds of members) is in "competition" with any micronation. There is no such "competition" because it is no more possible for an organised political group to "compete" with a "web page nation" any more than it is for an apple to "compete" with a baseball; the two are visually similar but have entirely separate and unrelated purposes.


 * A visit to the evidence page will reveal my comprehensive refutation of every single piece of "evidence" cited by Samboy of my so-called "promotion of Atlantium" by allegedly deleting so-called "competing micronations". These show a long history of responsible editing by me, by removing promotional links to non-notable micronations, or micronations not specifically discussed in the article. And by "non-notable" I mean, as I have always clearly stated, that no offline 3rd party verification exists. By focuing on my "deletions" and ignoring the fact that I have added almost all the other content in the articles - including links to literally dozens of notable micronations - Samboy has sought to create a false impression concerning my motivations as an editor. The fact that he has failed to address this issue when challenged by me on this page speaks volumes about the hole he has dug for himself by doing so.


 * The reason I'm not addressing your issues here is that this page is not the appropriate place nor manner to present evidence to the arbitrators. The place to adress the issues is on the evidence page and the place to make your case is on the arbitration page.  It is not fair to the arbitartors to make them wade through a heated discussion; I'm trying to keep this discussion calm. Samboy 22:30, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Samboy has himself admitted that he knows virtually nothing about micronations, and has actually stated that he believes anyone associated with them belongs in a mental asylum, so clearly he has a strong bias based on a profound and disturbing ignorance of a subject he has made such a song and dance about. He also obviously believes himself to be some sort of self-appointed Wiki police force, to the extent that he has openly sought "permission" to stalk my edits, and has published a personal (non-Wiki) web page wherein he uses abusive terminology to describe my presumed mental condition, in a manner that might be considered an act of criminal defamation.--Gene_poole 23:11, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Samboy continues to be utterly shameless in publicly lying about my contributions as an editor. He conveniently neglects to mention that I have created 6 new articles - along with accompanying photographs and cited references - on the subject of micronations - none of which have anything to do with Atlantium, nor do they refer to it in any way whatsoever. He also conveniently ignores the fact that in addition to those contributions I have almost completely re-written or significantly contributed to a further 5 micronation articles - including the major articles on Sealand and micronation. Samboy further conveniently overlooks the fact that he himself has contributed not a single line of text to ANY of these articles, but has instead limited his "contributions" to endless revert wars targeting one editor and one editor only - me. In summary Samboy completely ignores the undeniable fact that without my contributions on the subject of micronations, virtually none of the actual content that exists within Wikipedia would even be there today, and that his continued bleatings about my supposed deletion of content are nothing more than the inventions of a mind in the grip of moronic delusion. He is obviously too deeply sunk in this delusion to grasp that what I have put in vastly outweighs - by many orders of magnitude - what I have taken out, and that what I have taken out is garbage, thereby contributing significantly to the improvement of Wikipedia as a reliable and factual information source. I therefore have no hesitation whatsoever is treating this vile, contemptible individual with the complete derision his appalling, abusive behaviour so richly invites.--Gene_poole 00:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Gene, take a chill pill. Seriously.  You're getting all worked up over nothing.  Samboy 00:47, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, I believe he's worked up about you trying to get him banned, which is upsetting, regaurdless of whether he deserves it. Gene, you do need to calm down.  Both of you, I'm sure you two both share the objective of improving Wikipedia, so you should both treat eachother like teamates, not like enemies.  --L33tminion | (talk) 18:58, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. I'm trying to be reasonable here; he has gotten worked up like this before (quite a bit, I must add) and I, along with other editors, used to get in the most horrible cat fights with him.  I do agree with him when he is calm and presents a reasonable argument; see here for an example.  Samboy 22:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "Trying to be reasonable" by lying and then failing to respond when your lies are shown up. Yet another fascinating interpretation of Samboy's "reality".--Gene_poole 22:50, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Er... he does respond to you. At the end of the talk page, he states that your evidence seems to settle the issue in your favor, and that he has restored in your edit.  The whole thread is contentious, but nothing really steps over the line, although I'm dissapointed at Gene's lack of willingness to compromise as a temporary measure, and Samboy's attempt to discredit Gene by bringing up the arbitration, especially as nothing has been formally decided here yet. --L33tminion | (talk) 20:47, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * That's right. Ignore the facts and abuse the victim. Again. --Gene_poole 01:18, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The arbitrators are in the process of voting to ban him from any article dealing with micronations without presenting any findings which justify such a position. That's not nothing. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 12:20, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Without providing evidence of the accusation above that the contributor has damaged other articles competing with his own interest, I respectfully suggest that the following portion of remedy 1:
 * "any other article concerning or relating to micronations"
 * is too vague and overbroad. IMO the statements of fact should specifically state that the contributor has routinely 1) positive-POVed articles relating to his own interests and 2) negative-POVed or destructively edited articles contrary to his own interests -- and provide at least a subset of links to edits where this has occured -- to justify the remedies proposed. I agree with the comment by Jwrosenzweig that the case has not been sufficiently made. If if can be identified in the edit histories, it should be makeable. Respectfully, KeithTyler 19:54, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Also, the wording "or by proxy" in the finding worries me. As it stands now, that could prohibit him from making suggestions to other editors or pointing out areas that need attention, which seems like an unfair ban. --L33tminion | (talk) 20:35, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * If Gene Poole finds a real inaccuracy, he is free to post to a user's personal talk page to get that editor to fix the inaccuracy in question. Gene Poole has a history of personal attacks against many editors, and any remedy that reduces his power to personally attack editors who disagree with him will make Wikipedia a pleasant place for other editors.  In fact, it is surprising that the proposed remedy does not include a personal attack ban.  (Why do I get the feeling Gene Poole is going to flame in again in reply to this comment) Samboy 22:00, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yet more bald faced lying from a contemptible non-contributor to Wikipedia. It should be noted that well over 80% of the total number of edits has ever made to the Wikipedia project by Samboy during his short time as an editor constitute stalking. In other words, Samboy specifically watches the articles I contribute to (and by contribute to, I mean by writing actual content), and then weighs in by starting revert wars or publishing talk page rants on them in order to deliberately instigate controversy or promote his POV, or the POV of editors who disagree with me. In not a single instance has he ever contributed any actual content to any of these articles. His edit history clearly illustrates this pattern of behaviour. The "history of attacking" other editors he claims I have is yet another delusion. The only evidence he can produce for this relates to vandals such as Belgsoc sockpuppets such as Natryn, self-promoters like StuartSmith, and certifiable lunatics/publishers of incoherent original research such as IndigoGenius - all of whom he has at various times actively colluded with in order to orchestrate edit wars and personal attacks against me - and all of which has been documented in detail.--Gene_poole 22:39, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If Gene Poole finds a real inaccuracy, he is free to post to a user's personal talk page to get that editor to fix the inaccuracy in question. The ruling should mention this, because the current wording would seem to ban this, as it would be an edit made "by proxy". anthony &#35686;&#21578; 15:00, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A few thoughts from an arbitrator
My, I seem to have missed a lengthy conversation -- my apologies. I suppose I may be making myself an available target by commenting here, but I do so with the intent of addressing a few of the many issues raised here.

To the new user who wondered who arbitrators were, a list can be found at Arbitrators. As is noted there, most arbitrators were appointed by the site's founder and benevolent monarch, User:Jimbo Wales. Two arbitrators were elected in August by a sitewide vote -- I am one of the two. We are all fairly experienced editors who have (in at least the mind of Jimbo, if not most editors) a reputation for fairness and care in making decisions. This is not to say we never err -- we are of course human. But we try as hard as we can.

To the user who asked whether people are prevented from linking to sites they are associated with....well, not always, but it's usually a bad idea. If you're placing a link to a site you stand to make any financial gain from, it's seen as advertising and against policy. If no money is involved, it's a little tougher. In general, the rule is that you can place such links if they're not "advertising", but if someone else objects they're not suitable, you remove them until someone not associated with the site comes along and thinks they're worthwhile -- this rule is almost certainly unwritten (if written, I don't know where). But it's a reasonable rule, I think.

To the user who objected to the "proxy" portion of the proposed ruling, all I can tell you is what I mean by proxy. I mean that no user is allowed to have someone blindly introduce material into an article on behalf of a user banned from that article. By no means do I intend to say that Gene would not be allowed to inform you of facts that might eventually be added to the article by you. What I mean is that Gene cannot inform you of facts for the express purpose of adding them to the article. I think I am within the standard dictionary definition of "by proxy" in taking this position, but if not, I'm happy to make my position more explicit on the proposed decision page.

Finally, to those objecting to the findings of the arbitrators, do note that this is a page for proposals....often we kick around ideas we ultimately reject. Part of trying to make decision-making transparent to the community (arbitrators do not traditionally confer via private email or other non-public means -- I never have, I know, nor have I seen signs of it in others) means that you see us try out ideas that later are rejected. In this case, for example, I have considered and then changed my position on consequences for Gene. I'm glad you all posted your ideas here -- while they didn't make my decision for me, they helped me to examine issues in a new light, and I'm very glad of it. I am sure my proposal doesn't suit everybody (in fact, I have a sneaking suspicion that no one will find it quite perfect), but I hope it does at least help establish that arbitrators do change their minds, they are interested in compromise and working towards a good solution, and that the votes on this page are far more fluid than they may at first appear.

Sorry for the long note. I hope it was helpful to at least some of you, and I'm sorry if it causes concerns rather than alleviates them. I am very open to constructive feedback either here or on my talk page. Thanks for your feedback expressed above -- as I said, it was helpful to me. Best wishes, Jwrosenzweig 23:08, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. It is good to see the that the system works, however apparently fallible it may at first appear to be.--Gene_poole 23:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I do have one question/observation -- Is editing by proxy the reason behind banning the user from talk pages? Since there seems to be no opposing argument against that the user has useful knowledge that could improve these articles, it would seem in the greater interest *not* to ban him from talk pages. He could insert information on talk pages, and other contributors could make the call whether or not it should be included. This would not be the same as acquiring a human sockpuppet to put in edits for him. - KeithTyler 23:31, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Good question, Keith. In the past, users that were banned from articles but not their talk pages simply parked on the talk page, trolling for someone to insert their preferred edits.  I don't know if that would be the case with Gene, but that's the thinking behind the talk pages ban.  I will consider your comments, though.  I think if Gene was allowed access to the talk pages, it would be under a fairly stringent set of rules to ensure that no problems surfaced. Jwrosenzweig 23:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Personally I have no issues being banned from editing the Atlantium page if it makes people feel better about alleged self-promotion. The article has survived 3 VfD's 1 (improper) deletion and and a VUD over a 6 month period, despite the best efforts of a small group of deletionists, which must surely qualify it for some sort of award. Despite the impression given by Samboy and his collaborators I have actually not edited the article at all for several months, and almost all of the few edits I made in the preceding months are either, simple spelling corrections/sentence rearrangements, or reversions of overt vandalism by known sockpuppets.--Gene_poole 01:03, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm a little bemused as to why JW has suddenly limited the ban to being only for the Empire of Atlantium page. That's one of the articles involved - but it's far from the worst case. Most of Gene's edit warring and bad behaviour has been on Sealand, Micronation and other such articles, rather than his own. So I'm really struggling to understand how this change makes any sense at all. Ambi 05:57, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm still trying to make sense of the evidence myself, Ambi. Keeping all these evidence pages in the air is getting difficult, and I'm finding that cases run together in my mind.  I will continue to review the evidence page here, and consider your input also. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 14:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, upon looking at the evidence page more closely, I do see that I had too quickly dismissed the edits made to Micronation -- they do present a pattern of behavior that needs stopping, as Gene removed legitimate links while preserving links to his own creations. Sealand, I have been presented no evidence for.  So now I am torn as to whether a blanket ban on micronation article editing is fair, or only a restriction from the two articles involved.  I can see this will take some time -- my apologies for the yo-yoing here. Jwrosenzweig 15:02, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to look in to it. I hope Gene and myself can get along in the future and resolve our issues.  That said, would it be OK for me to post evidence of edit wars and what not on the Sealand page?  Or is it too late in the case to present new evidence? Samboy 20:37, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please do, it is claimed that the problem is limited to Atlantium. Fred Bauder 20:51, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the delay in getting evidence here. I finally have 'net at home, so I can finally get time to do this in a week or so, after finals end. Samboy 03:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see the point in adding more evidence. If the existing evidence in this case is any indication, it won't be examined, just awed for its quantity. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ]  ]] 05:04, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, there's a lot of evidence that he is a troublemaker on the Micronation page and on the page for his own micronation. However, one point people bring up is "But that's too broad to ban him from all micronation pages when the evidence only shows him being a troublemaker on a couple of micronation pages."  This lack of evidence needs to be addressed.  There isn't any evidence here that he's a troublemaker on the Sealand page in this arbitration case yet; the evidence is out there (revert wars and what not) but needs to be documented so the overworked arbitrators can look at it.  Samboy 08:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Personally, my brief examination of a sample of evidence showed allegations that were without merit. For example, the very first piece of evidence under "Has removed 'competing' micronations and added his own" shows an edit where George deleted a link to a completely facetious joke micronation (with apparently a dead wikilink), and in the same edit added his own (which did have a WP entry). A diligent evidence examiner who follows the URL to Bill and Lars online today will find exactly zero references to any micronations or a "BL Republic". Meanwhile, Atlantium still has a net presence and some level, however small, of persistent recognition. The next three pieces of evidence of removed micronations all include an edit comment saying "delete links to micronations not referenced in article.", with the first of these adding "this is not intended as a list of every micronation in existence". No one has addressed this statement as an valid or invalid reason for link removal from a non-list article.


 * Regardless, despite a serious lack in examination over the evidence beyond an ability to count them, the arbitrators in this case are already plotting and voting on courses of action. The due diligence of the process has not been performed. This is what disheartens me, and makes me shake my head at the notion that you feel the need to post more undefended evidence. It won't matter, a majority of the arbitrators have clearly already made up their minds. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ]  ]] 18:48, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how the user in question feels, but if I were ever banned from using the talk pages I'd just as well be completely banned. If the user parks on the talk page and "trolls", well, frankly I don't see the problem. But if it does become a problem, then a further restriction can be passed. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 15:07, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edits by proxy
I guess the issue I have here is that the arbitration committee is proposing to punish me for the actions of another user. If I want to include information which was suggested by Gene Poole, then I have a right to do that without being being reverted by "any other user". anthony &#35686;&#21578; 15:13, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, anthony, I think my notes above clarify how that would be viewed. Assuming it was clear that Gene wasn't using you as a proxy, I would have no objections.  The proxy ban is simply an attempt to keep cronies of a banned user from blindly acting under orders....essentially, "being" him.  Remember, in cases like this we often used to ban from the site entirely for periods of months.  I like the idea of simply restricting otherwise decent editors from their problem areas.  But the problem is that in the past editors have used talk pages to try and cajole their friends into adding their desired changes to the article -- at that point, in effect, they haven't been banned from the articles at all.  So we keep playing with the amount of freedom to give an editor.  The core point I would make is this, though -- an editor is banned from an article or a series of articles because it has become clear that their involvement with that topic or issue causes them to become flagrant violators of policy.  Therefore, I think it is reasonable (though strict) to demand that they really and truly disengage from the topic by restricting them from talk pages, and by making it clear that they cannot use "loopholes" to get their edits onto the page.  I do not believe we would ever censure an editor for proxy unless there was clear, willful action on both the part of the banned user and the "proxy" to circumvent the intent of the ruling. Jwrosenzweig 22:24, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read above, and you think that if Gene is informing me of facts for the express purpose of adding them to an article, that I cannot then add those facts to the article. That's not fair to me.  I'm not afraid of being censured, I'm afraid of having my edits reverted and the arbitration committee giving other editors explicit permission to do so.  Perhaps I'm being a bit overly concerned, though, because I have no intention to blindly act as a proxy for Gene Poole.  But if, as has happened in the past, I run into a situation where I think this user is essentially in the right, I would want to at least make a few edits to the relevant pages, and since I don't regularly follow these pages I wouldn't want my edits to be reverted simply because of the source.


 * As for banning a user for a couple months vs. banning them indefinitely from the pages where they express opinions which others find problematic, I think the former is a less harsh solution. But it's really not clear to me where the justification for all this comes from in the first place.  The arbitrators have so far expressed mainly positive things in the findings section ("Due to his extensive knowledge of the subject, edits of Gene Poole have added signifcantly to the content of Wikipedia concerning micronations." followed by "Gene Poole is banned from editing Micronation, Empire of Atlantium and any other article concerning or relating to micronations including talk pages.").  This proposed ruling really makes no sense as currently written.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 02:18, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposed ban
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)
 * The logic is fine. Some of your past contributions have been good, but you can't call credit on donations.  Anything you contribute here is given of your own will with no expectation of return.  It is fundamentally wrong to think that because you've made a few good edits that the bad ones will be excused to "balance out".  Thus, it is perfectly sound that they would want to thank you for the good edits you've made, but ban you for ones which have been unacceptable.  As for threats to leave, quit the whining, and get out or shut up.  Answers in plain English please. Chris 17:53, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a threat. This user is unwilling to submit to arbitration, and "Unwillingness to submit to arbitration, of course, means an end to the privilege of editing." (Jimbo Wales). I share the users concern that the arbitration committee has explained no basis for its actions. Yes, there are arguments made by some that the user has made predominantly bad edits, but these accusations are not backed up by the findings of fact. I suppose I could go on my own fact-finding mission, but this should be done by the arbitrators, who should back up their decisions with reasoning. Saying that this user is a good editor, not saying anything negative, and then banning the user from editing certain articles is not what we should be doing. If this ruling goes against this user, I'd suggest an appeal to Jimbo Wales. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 17:59, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Advocacy
"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 &#35686;&#21578; 18:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * 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)

Surprised
I'm surprised to see this new addition to a section called Findings of Fact: 8) Due to concerns about self-promotion and a lack of wikiquette on the subject of micronations, Wikipedia would now be better served if Gene Poole made future edits to other areas of Wikipedia. The statement "WP would be better served if X" sounds POV to me. "Better" exactly how? And who decides what actions are "better" for WP? That's pretty subjective. Unless one can point to at least a consensual assessment of List of things that are good for Wikipedia, or at worst, a decree from Jimbo Wales, I don't know how this value judgement can be qualified. Considering point 7, how can it be so objectively certain that a continuation of point 7 would be a bad thing? It sounds like the finding of fact is merely "Some people have concerns that Gene Poole engages in self-promotion and exhibits poor wikiquette when it comes to the subject of micronations." If there's other factual, evidentual details, such as the tangible effects of this fact, then that's fact too. But value judgements are opinions, not facts, and they should be separated from each other. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ]  ]] 17:32, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)