Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein/Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

Billy Ego may not understand the way Wikipedia consensus processes work
Billy Ego's talk page included a category, Category:Fascist Wikipedians. This was deleted through process (see User categories for discussion/Archive/September 2006) as being inflammatory, and depopulated. Billy Ego re-inserted the category with the edit summary why wasn't I notified of that vote?. No notification ois necessary, of course, and if all and only users of a category were notified it would likely lead to pile-on "keep" !votes. The category was removed again, and Billy Ego reverted again and again  and again

Billy Ego went to deletion review here: Deletion review/Log/2007 March 5, ''Someone keeps deleting my Category of Fascist Wikipedians. I am a fascist and I should be allowed to have a category. Why is no one deleting the Capitalist Wikipedians category? Why is my category being singled out?'' - looks a bit WP:OWNish. The result was to undelete and group nominate political categories, but this rather misses the point that proclaiming you are a capitalist is somewhat less likely to offend than proclaiming you are a fascist, which is so offensive that it's illegal in some jurisdictions.

It's not just Sandstein
The revision history of shows removal or adjustment of content considered problematic (e.g. the ABSOLUTELY HUGE Napoleonic eagle and the category mentioned above) by:, , , , , ,. In fact, just about every edit to User:Billy Ego other than by Billy Ego himself has been to remove content the editor - talking here about a mix of experienced editors and admins - thought problematic.

As noted below, Sandstein brought this for review to the administrators' noticeboard. As usual, consensus was behind the idea that blatantly defamatory and divisive content is an inappropriate use of user space.

Billy Ego's editing
Report using Interiot's tool: Category:             7 Mainspace           287 Talk:               182 User talk:          178 User:               100 Wikipedia talk:	     20 Wikipedia:          111 avg edits per page 21.59 earliest: 23:31, 11 January 2007 number of unique pages	41 total               885

Almost all edits are to topics relating to fascism:, , , , , ,. Some of Billy Ego's edit summaries are combative, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nazism&diff=prev&oldid=117173664 can't you just ask for a source instead of deleting it? adding a source].

Billy Ego does not understand this process either!
See below. Arbitration against Sandstein? Somebody should tell Billy Ego that the arbs are going to look into both parties' behaviour here, and it's his which most editors seem to think is problematic. Guy (Help!) 08:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Billy Ego
Thank for you accepting my request for arbitration against administrator Sandstein. In viewing the arguments from the other side, you will see such claims of me "wasting time" of administrators. You will see claims that the case is "frivolous" or "trivial." You will see attempts to turn the case around against me. You will see personal attacks against me. You will even see outlandish requests that I be "banned indefinitely" for daring to challenge the authority of an administrator. Note that the reason I requested this arbitration is to challenge the limits of administrator power. It is only natural that administrators will take deep offense at this challenge. It is only natural that adminstrators will rush to defend their fellow adminstrator whose authority is being challenged. However, I trust that you see the importance in challenging administrator authority since absolute authority should not lie in the hands of a single administrator. I trust that this honorable court will take the following arguments and evidence under careful consideration and will render a correct verdict and just sentence.

===Administrator Sandstein abusing his power. Acting as judge, jury, and executioner. Without seeking consensus, using blocks and threats of blocks in order to prevent Billy Ego from editing his user page other than in a way that Sandstein dictates.===

Sandstein is has been deleting content from my user page and blocking me, without going through a consensus-seeking process (such as here and here ). He says the reason he is doing this is because he believes the content violates WP:UP. First of all, WP:UP is not a policy, but a "guideline." But, most importantly, and the reason I requested arbitration against Sandstein, is that he has not tried to obtain a consensus before blocking me. It may well be that I'm doing something improper with my user page (as far as I can tell, I am not. And in the opinion of some others I am not), but Sandstein does not have absolute authority. He does not have the authority to be judge, jury, and executioner. He does not have the right to delete something of this nature from my user page and then immediately place a block on me to make sure that my user page is the way he personally wants it. And, he certainly does not have the right to apply the Wikipedia equivalent of a death sentence, that is, a block of "indefinite duration" on me, simply because he personally thinks my user page does not accord with the WP:UP "guideline." Yet, after the first request for arbitration was denied, when I asked him if he would take the advice of some arbitrators that he first seek consensus, he said "the next block I will impose will be of indefinite duration",. (Note that if I am blocked, there is no way for me to even argue my case. This is the height of injustice and tyranny. And, it is beyond all belief that a person would be allowed to be an adminstrator without recognizing this basic principle of justice).

I ask this honorable court to note that what Sandstein has been doing is the equivalent of one editor who has adminstrator powers coming to an normal Wikipedia article and reverting the edits of another editor, then proceeding to block them, with the claim that they're violating WP:POV, without obtaining going though any type of judicial process whatseover. That would not be permitted. But, nay, it is much more egregrious than that, because WP:POV is a "policy," while WP:UP is merely a "guideline." And, again, he is now using the threat of putting a block of "indefinite duration" on me in order to attempt to prevent me from configuring my user page in a way other than what he imperiously deems appropriate

No policy has been claimed to be violated by my user page
Sandstein was unable to cite a policy that I had violated. He simply cited WP:UP, which is not a policy, but a "guideline."

User pages allowed to express POV
Some degree of freedom is allowed for editors in configuration of their user pages, including revelation of that editor's POV. This is the opinion of two arbitrators:  Note that I wrote the small blurb explaining my POV for the benefit of the Wikipedia community, in order to be more transparent, to make getting along with others and editing with others more constructive. Who can deny that knowing the POV of another editor is helpful?

User page as a whole was not offensive or inflammatory (to a reasonable person)
Note, that there was nothing inflammatory in my small blurb explaining my POV: It deals mainly with economic topics, and explicitly points out that I am not an anti-semite in the conclusion of the small blurb:  I specifically made this note on my user page, not only because it is true that I'm not an anti-semite, but also so that my user page would NOT be offensive to those who associate fascism with anti-semetism. I have no desire to offend or inflame. Who here can honestly claim that explaining that oneself is not an anti-semite, and why, is inflammatory? If anyone claims that the small blurb was inflammatory, I would like to know exactly what part of the blurb is claimed to be so. I submit to this court that simply claiming the blurb is "inflammatory" is too vague of a claim. Moreover, if there is something inflammatory in the blurb, it gives me no indication of what in the blurb I should adjust to make it less inflammatory.

If there is something about what I put on my user page that is found to violate some policy, then please give me the opportunity to simply make changes and submit the modified blurb to some type comittee to see if it passes muster. It is unreasonable to simply delete the whole thing and place a peremptory block on me, without me knowing for sure whether I'm violating a policy or without a consensus-seeking process. It is quite possible that edits could even be made by someone who thought it offensive or inflammatory, in order to bring it to a mutually agreeable non-offensive status. Sandstein, has shown himself incapable of handling this situation in a such reasonable manner.

Wrongly blocked for one week for having quotes on user page (without consensus seeking)
Note that the second block Sandstein imposed was a one week block (which was overturned by another adminstrator), was not for having the small blurb explaining my POV, because I chosen not to restore it for the sake of compromise, but for nothing other than having 5 small quotes on my user page explaining the economic policies of Mussolini and Hitler. (Here is him saying this is in fact why he blocked me ) (Here is the version of my user page with just the quotes, for which he blocked me ). Please note an administrator User:Netsnipe saying that he was "uncomfortable" with that block (Note that he is not only uncomfortable with be being blocked for the quotes, but for the blurb explaining my POV as well). Also, note that a thoughtful editor also chimed in and said that this was a "misuse of power" by Sandstein and that Sandstein actions have crossed "the line." 

List of relevant discussions
I'll refrain, for now, from presenting complete evidence regarding the actions that led up to this case, as Guy and Seraphimblade have already kindly done so. But I'll list, for convenience, the relevant discussion threads in chronological order: Initial discussion on Billy Ego's talk • First ANI discussion • Block discussion on Billy Ego's talk • Second block discussion on Billy Ego's talk • Declined first RfAr • Discussion on my talk • Second AN discussion  (not yet archived). Sandstein 06:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC) — Updated to link to archived version of last discussion, Sandstein 20:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sandstein's blocking of Billy Ego was appropriate
Sandstein did exactly what WP:UP suggests when dealing with a problematic userpage. He first asked Billy Ego to remove the essay, providing links to relevant policy. Billy Ego disagreed, and was subsequently told by several other users why the page was inappropriate. ,, though one other user raised one question. After waiting for about a day and a half after the initial request was made, and discussion had taken place, Sandstein removed the content and warned that reinserting it would lead to a block. He then explained his actions and suggested instead writing the material offsite and linking, to which Billy Ego responded with an accusation of vandalism. Even after this, Sandstein demonstrated patience and tolerance in an attempt to defuse the situation.

Not long after this, Billy Ego put much of the content back, including directing users seeing the page to instead look at the old revision containing the removed essay, and with quotes attributed to Hitler and Mussolini. It was only at this point that Sandstein made a block, after a tremendous amount of effort to resolve the situation without resorting to blocking.

Sandstein's actions were supported by consensus
After the block was made, Billy Ego requested review with the unblock template. Upon review, the block was upheld. Shortly after expiration of the block, Billy Ego replaced most of the removed content, with some changes (and without the reference to page history). . After this, Sandstein again removed the material and blocked Billy Ego for one week. Billy Ego placed another unblock request, which Netsnipe reviewed and agreed to unblock provided that he did not add the material until the issue was decided in arbitration. The arbitration case was subsequently filed and rejected. After this, the matter was instead brought to the administrators' noticeboard. While one opinion was expressed that Sandstein's block had not been appropriate, Sandstein defended his actions , and most comments were in support , , , , , . Following this, the current arbitration request was filed.

Billy Ego is the multiply-banned user LeoniDb, Dormantfascist, and Googleyii


LeoniDb, Dormantfascist and Googleyii are all the same community-banned user (see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive170). He has also edited from numerous IP addresses; the RDNS on the IPs is inconsistent but the ISP is Embarq and they share the same upstream router (by traceroute), which is 69.34.31.134 and which is located in Elizabethtown, PA. This is consistent with the fixation of these users on Corpus Christi School (Pennsylvania) and other Pennsylvania topics.

It was suggested to me privately that based on his edits to fascism topics that Billy Ego is a reincarnation of this user. A simple checkuser to determine if he is contributing from an Embarq IP address in Pennsylvania would confirm it. Thatcher131 18:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not confirmed, different provider, different location. He is using three accounts, but none of those mentioned. Fred Bauder 11:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess my tipster was wrong, but interesting outcome anyway. Thanks, Fred. Thatcher131 12:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Billy Ego has used sockpuppets
I'm presenting this in my role as checkuser and arbitrator. I am not a party to this case. Checkuser reveals that Billy Ego is associated with the following accounts:

Now, several users have independently suggested that these accounts are reincarnations of the banned user. RJII was the subject of several prior arbitration cases:
 * Requests for arbitration/RJII
 * Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug
 * Requests for arbitration/Infinity0

These cases raised many of the same points raised in the present arbitration and comprehend the same subject matter (e.g. Coercive monopoly). This group of users has edit-warred with some of the same participants in the past arbitration cases. Mackensen (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.