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

This is a page for working on arbitration decisions. The arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions&mdash;the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Adding TexasAndroid as a party to the case
1) I move to add as a party to the case. TexasAndroid is the admin who lifted Billy Ego's one week block  without prior consultation with me, the blocking admin. I believe TexasAndroid has acted in good faith, and I am not going to propose remedies with regard to him. However, I believe it could be beneficial if ArbCom were to reestablish that the unblock consultation procedure established in WP:BP is to be followed in all but very obvious cases. — I have notified TexasAndroid of this motion here. Sandstein 17:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Motion withdrawn. It's clear now that the last thing we need here is yet more complicated process. Sorry. Sandstein 06:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Motion proposed. Sandstein 17:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I would prefer not to be added, but if I must, I must. I try to avoid this part of the project, because drama and in-fighting are just not my thing.
 * I guess I can see two interlinked issues here. 1) Should Billy have been unblocked?  2) Should I have consulted Sandstein ahead of time.
 * I do still think that, given the situation at the time, the unblock was justified. Blocks are preventative, not puntative.  Billy was blocked that time over his reinsertion of the large political paragraph.  Multiple times.  I was watching Billy's talk page after having warned Billy a week or two earlier when he and another user were getting into arguments on WP:AN/I and WP:RFCU.  I watched the discussions on Billy's talk page after the block, and felt I had a fairly good idea of the current situation.  The discussions between Billy and a 3rd party reached a point where Billy promised to stop reinserting the paragraph and to take the whole situation to dispute resolution.  Given this promise, an AGF assumption that the promise was good, and the "preventative not puntative" nature of blocks, I felt that the promise meant there was no longer any reason for him to remain blocked.
 * Should I have contacted Sandstein? Likely.  But I felt I understood the situation well enough, and that Billy's promise had changed the situation such that his block was no longer proper.  So looking back I'm not sure that consultation would have added much to the situation, though it would have been the courteous thing for me to have done.  But the block was for reinsertion of material, Billy promised to no longer reinsert it, and he has not reinserted it since the unblock.  My AGF of Billy, in this one aspect, has been shown to have been well placed.
 * I make no judgement here of the validity of the original block. Nor of any other aspects of this case.  So beyond what I've said above, I'm really not sure what else I have to add to things. - TexasAndroid 12:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)



Motion to request checkuser be run
2) Pursuant to this evidence statement by and the instructions at Requests for checkuser ("Question about a possible sock puppet related to an open arbitration case... Request checkuser on the arbitration case pages"), hereby respectfully requesting that checkuser be run regarding the suggested connection between the following users:-



The latter three are all the one person, community-banned at ANI. Under normal circumstances (ie. outside of an RfAr), this request would clearly meet the code letter criteria F for running a checkuser at RFCU ("F: Evasion of community-based bans or blocks...List here with a diff of the discussion that resulted in the ban or block"), and it would be of extremely high importance to this case to run this check.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * We have done this, but the results were different from this hypothesis. Fred Bauder 14:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Sounds like a good idea. I assumed that this would be actionable based on the evidence statement itself, but no checkuser result has been published there so far. Sandstein 07:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed.  Daniel Bryant  06:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties
=Proposed final decision=

Personal expression on User Pages
1) Users who contribute to the encyclopedia are generally permitted to include in their userspace a limited amount of non-inflammatory personal expression not directly related to encyclopedic collaboration.

1.1) Editors are generally permitted to include in their userspace a limited amount of non-inflammatory personal expression not directly related to encyclopedic collaboration, including moderate declarations of POV.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Yes. Paul August &#9742; 18:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've proposed a slightly reworded version 1.1. Paul August &#9742; 17:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. I think this is basically consistent with WP:UP and current general consensus on MFD. --Random832 15:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur. Sandstein 17:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree for now. Non-inflammatory? Clarify. While I do not agree with Billy Ego's philosophical decisions/outlook; I also cannot agree with the notion that if someone/anyone finds something inflammatory on a user page they can remove it, repeatedly, which then gets the user blocked as a result. As a vandal fighter I'm familiar with users claiming ownership of their talk pages to remove warnings; but this seems different and somehow petty despite the high principles some are trying to enforce. I see a line in the sand at the user space that has been crossed, perhaps for good reason(s), but still shouldn't have been crossed. - RoyBoy 800 03:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of material from userpages
2) While users are given significant latitude over their own userpages, they still do not own them, and inflammatory or otherwise disruptive material may be removed by anyone and they may be blocked if they continue re-adding it.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Not without obtaining a consensus that what they have written is inflammatory or disruptive to a reasonable person (unless the material was obviously and indisputably so). The user has as much right to restore the material as someone else has to delete it, and to not be blocked for it, until such a judgement has been made. Billy Ego 16:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur. Sandstein 17:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. I'm not taking any sides; this is generally accepted and relevant. --Random832 16:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is good. Although the wikilink on "own" refers to a policy called "Ownership of articles", it applies in principle, and subject to the requirements of fidelity and intelligibility of comments, to all edited content. --Tony Sidaway 07:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Material harmful to the project, to users, or the safety of users must be removed. - Denny  ( talk ) 17:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. There is plenty of support for the idea that WP:OWN applies to all namespaces, notwithstanding the somewhat greater latitude traditionally accorded in user space. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty much covered by WP:NOT --pgk 20:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Some political labels are more inflammatory than others
3) To state that one is a conservative or a capitalist may annoy people but is unlikely to cause offence to more than a small minority. To say that one is a fascist, by the addition of a category, and further to loudly proclaim pride in that, is to risk giving serious offence to a significant number of editors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Nyet. Mackensen (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Can of worms. Paul August &#9742; 18:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * All political labels are going to be somewhat "inflammatory" to someone else. However, if such a label inflames someone to such a degree that he goes into a flying rage, then that person has an emotional problem. The question is whether it is inflammatory, and how inflammatory it is, to a reasonable and stable person. I submit that no reasonable person would be substationally "inflamed" by someone revealing that they are a fascist, especially when it is explained by that user on his user page that he is not, and why he is not, an anti-Semite (that explanation is one of the things that Sandstein has been deleting and blocking me for restoring). Billy Ego 15:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed Guy (Help!) 22:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. It should not be regarded as intrinsically inflammatory to express one's agreement with a political doctrine. There is a strong tradition on Wikipedia of declaring one's biases.  This is not the same as engaging in polemical discourse in defence of those biases.  There is a necessary tension here--at some point (and usually sooner rather than later) one's elaboration of one's viewpoint becomes unacceptable proselytism. --Tony Sidaway 07:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Consider: "This user is in broad agreement with the economic principles of fascism", vs. "THIS USER IS A FASCIST AND PROUD OF IT, HERE, SEE THIS HUGE EAGLE!". There are ways of saying things.  The mere word fascist is considered grossly inflammatory by a significant number of people, so it should be used with care and a degree of sensitivity.  I think that overall it is sensitivity which is lacking here.  Guy (Help!) 09:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we are in agreement on that. While fascism is, in my moderately humble opinion, a grossly offensive political philosophy, most of us Wikipedians hail from polities where even extremist minorities are free to voice their opinion. Since our content is not censored, I suppose this must by necessity extend, in a very general sense, to our user and discussion pages. As such, I'm hesitant to call any specific expression of POV inappropriate on its face, except in extreme cases like "this user advocates eating babies". (Although fascism comes close to that.) Maybe principle 6 below is more what you had in mind. Sandstein 19:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Given what he clearly explains (in the very content whose inclusion is disputed) to be his definition of "fascism", it comes NOWHERE close to "this user advocates eating babies". Can you explain what you think fascism means, since it's apparently relevant to the way you have reacted here. --Random832 05:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I was talking in the abstract – whether a self-identification as "fascist" in the sense the word is commonly used, i.e. synonymous to Nazi – would be inflammatory. This is, at any rate, unrelated to the present case, since I have never stated that my administrative actions in this case were caused by disapproval of what Billy Ego says is his political stance. I did what I did because he misused his user page as a free web host for non-encyclopedia-related content. Sandstein 05:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Linking to historical versions of removed material
4) It is accepted practice to provide links to the page history for material that has been removed, even if reinserting the material itself would not be acceptable.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I disagree that this is accepted practice in the context of this case. History links to objectionable material are useful on discussion pages where a mere removal of the content would make the discussion hard to follow. On content pages, such as articles or user pages, a history link is merely a superficial means to cover up objectionable content. If, as here, the link is made up as (I paraphrase) "CLICK HERE TO SEE WHAT THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE", it draws as much (or more) attention as the non-removed content would have. Sandstein 18:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed - if WP:RPA, various templates (can't recall what they are now) are any indication, this is accepted in at least one context. --Random832 12:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would we allow people to simple avoid rules against posting libelous, defamatory, or inappropriate comment by just linking to an old version? If a banned user writes, "Hey Mr. Admin! You suck (insert vile personal attack)! I am going to sue Wikipedia!!", and someone removes their content per policy, why would another user in turn be free to relink to the inappropriate content? If its inappropriate, it's inappropriate. - Denny  ( talk ) 17:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

User has a right to edit and revert changes made by others to his user page
5) Though user pages are not officially "owned" by the user, the user has as least as much of a right to edit and revert content as anyone else whether the content being edited or reverted is that of an admnistrator or a plebeian.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This isn't at issue here. Users aren't allowed to contravene policy on their own user pages. Mackensen (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Billy Ego 16:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is beside the point. The right of Billy Ego to edit his user page, as such, is not in dispute. What is in dispute, among other things, is what content is appropriate on his user page. Sandstein 18:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No. What is in dispute is whether you should be allowed to block a user, and make threats of blocks of "indefinite duration" against that user, to prevent that user from editing his user page, when that material you are deleting has not been subject to a successful consensus-seeking process to determine whether the material violates a Wikipedia policy. Just as you have a right to delete the material, the user has a right to revert back the material. What you do not have a right to do, in this case, is to block a user to prevent him from editing his user page (much less to block him from editing all Wikipedia articles). Billy Ego 20:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * This would really be better said as a proposed finding that Sandstein used his administrative tools in a content dispute. However, you should be aware that edit warring is no more tolerated in your userspace than anywhere else, and while perhaps he should not have blocked you, someone else should have blocked (perhaps both of) you for edit warring. --Random832 03:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this dispute can be characterised as a content dispute (in which of course I would have been wrong to use admin tools). This is not about what either of us wants an article to say – I have never to my knowledge edited an article Billy Ego worked on. It's about the application and enforcement of WP:NOT on a non-article page. Similarly, edit-warring is "when two or more contributors repeatedly revert one another's edits to an article " (my emphasis). Off-article policy enforcement actions, even if performed repeatedly due to intransigence, are not editwarring or content disputes. They may be objectionable on other grounds, of course, such as being against policy. Sandstein 05:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Some methods of political expression may be offensive
6) While editors may wish to put a bias or viewpoint out in the open to help in evaluation by others, making such a declaration in an excessive or polemical way, especially on contentious issues like politics, may be offensive to other editors and is discouraged.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * "Discouraged" possibly, but not blocked. And certainly not blocked without going through a process of achieving a consensus that determines whether the content is appropriate. And most definitely, not blocked for "indefinite duration" without such a process. Moreover, to my knowledge there is no policy that forbids stating one's POV in "an excessive or polemical way." If there is such a policy, then whether it is "excessive" is obviously a very subjective judgement call. A competant and responsible administrator would recognize this and not take it upon himself to be judge, jury, and executioner. Billy Ego 17:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with the proposed principle, although in fine it should read "... is discouraged". Sandstein 18:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed as an alternative to address the objections to 3 above. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, well done, that's really what I was getting at. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox
7) Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Relevant. Paul August &#9742; 18:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I concur. Sandstein 06:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, alongside WP:NOT seems fairly fundamental to what is appropriate for userpage content revealing biases. --pgk 20:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In the interest of having the proposal be a complete thought, I have appended material from the linked page. "vehicle for propaganda" may be pertinent here (though he insists that what was called propaganda was in fact necessary to clarify that he's not an anti-semite) --Random832 03:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Need for consensus prior to simultaneous removal of another editor's edits and blocking that user (in this type of case)
8) Unless content on a user page, or any other article, is unquestionably and egregiously vile, an administrator should not delete the content and then block that user without first obtaining a consensus on the matter (especially before a block of "indefinite duration", which Sandstein threatened).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * There's no relationship between this principle and the evidence as presented. Mackensen (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Billy Ego 23:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * As I read this, Sandstein contends that he did in fact have a consensus, not that it was acceptable to act without one. You should be aware that consensus is _not_ necessarily obtained by a regimented process such as voting. Also, your title took up a lot of space and left little room for an edit summary, are you ok with this shortened version? --Random832 03:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant in this case (there was consensus) and actively harmful if taken literally - it would make it impossible for an admin to remove offensive content and subsequently block them, after due warning, for continuing to reinsert it. Of course it's always better with more eyes on a problem, but the reality is that most cases are completely unambiguous and we really don't want to open the door to Wikilawyering in this way. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sandstein's "administrator" title does not grant him absolute power
9) The rightful power of a single administrator is limited. There are situations where a single administrator should not take the role of judge, jury, and executioner. There are situations where a single administrator should not preclude the community from expressing its opinion and judgement. There are situations where a single adminstrator should not usurp the authority of the arbitrators by imposing whatever sentence he wishes for what he personally interprets to be a violation of Wikipedia policy.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * True, but not relevant to this case (evidence doesn't suggest that Sandstein acted unilaterally). Mackensen (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Billy Ego


 * Comment by others:
 * Billy Ego, the phrasing you are using in some of your proposals, including the titles, is unnecessarily strident. I believe you will make your points more effectively if you use more moderate language. Newyorkbrad 00:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant, and based on a false premise. Admins are allowed to protect pages and block people indefinitely, but that is not absolute in that it can be appealed. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

User pages
10) While not explicitly stated on User page, it is implicit there that users should refrain from creating user pages likely to bring the project into disrepute.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Only thing we need, really. Kirill Lokshin 00:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support. I'll propose adding it explicitly to WP:UP once this case is over. Sandstein 06:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Censoring self-descriptions of editors brings the project into disrepute. Billy Ego 19:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * New here, aren't you? Some of us remember the pedophilia userbox war. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * There is not at present a proposed finding of fact that his user page was likely to bring the project into disrepute. --Random832 21:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration
11) Requests for arbitration should not be used for frivolous or pointless disputes.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * May also be needed, unfortunately. Kirill Lokshin 20:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Certainly. But challenging an administrator's threat to block a user for "indefinite duration" if that user makes changes to his user page that that administrator thinks might be in violation of some vague Wikipedia policy (or worse yet, "guideline), without obtaining verified consensus on the matter and not giving the user an opportunity to argue his case in a judicial forum of any sort is not "frivolous or pointless." Such blocks require proper and formal procedure to be follows. Sandstein does not have absolute power on Wikipedia. If I make a change to my user page today or some time in the future, and Sandstein doesn't like it, he feels he has the right to peremptorily place a block one me not only for "one week" (which he did), but for an "indefinite duration," which he has threatened. No Wikipedia user should have to work under such a threat of arbitrary power. There is nothing frivolous at all about this case. My very existence on Wikipedia depends on it. Billy Ego 03:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Does this refer to the fact that this is Billy Ego's second trip here? If so, it is probably merited, but rejecting the case citing WP:TROUT might have made the case just as well :-) Guy (Help!) 21:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Community mores
12) Wikipedia's view on social interaction and use of user space is summed up by don't be a dick.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * A vile personal attack of this sort against a user engaged in an arbitration is something a reputable administrator would not make. Billy Ego 03:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. It's what some of us were thinking anyway. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This was completely uncalled for. Insulting people _never_ helps. --Random832 03:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I think it's completely relevant. Billy Ego's insistence on having a soapboxy user page after being asked with escalating degrees of firmess by several long-established users is precisely what that page is designed to describe.  How else would you characterise standing on your rights to defend something which several people have asked you not to do because it is likely to cause grave offence to others?  Read the Meta article.  Specifically: "Don't be a dick" is the fundamental rule of all social spaces. Every other policy for getting along is a special case of it. Although nobody is empowered to ban or block somebody for being a dick (as this would be an instance of being a dick), it is still a bad idea to be one. So don't do it.  No definition of being a dick has been provided. This is deliberate. If a significant number of reasonable people suggest, whether bluntly or politely, that you are being a dick, the odds are good that you are not entirely in the right. Being right about an issue does not mean you're not being a dick yourself! Dicks can be right — but they're still dicks; if there's something in what they say that is worth hearing, it goes unheard, because no one likes listening to dicks. It doesn't matter how right they are. And so on.  Several people told Billy Ego that he was being gratuitously offensive, and he insisted on his right to continue being gratuitously offensive - and then complained about the people telling him.  And that, my friend, is the very definition of being a dick.  Guy (Help!) 18:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * They can also call other people dicks. Honestly, I'm not saying he's not. I'm saying that this proposal was pointlessly uncivil. Yes, he's being gratuitously offensive (partially explainable, though not justified, by the fact that he clearly sees arbitration as an adversarial process), but that doesn't mean you should fight fire with fire. --Random832 16:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Polling is unnecessary
13) While a poll can be a useful way of measuring consensus in some situations, it is not the only way, or in most cases the best way to do so. That a poll was not taken does per se not mean consensus was not "sought", nor that there was no consensus.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. --Random832 03:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Relevance? Guy (Help!) 18:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Remember, there are _two_ parties to this arbitration, both of whose actions are being examined. This helps to establish that just because a formal straw poll was not taken it does not mean that Sandstein acted unilaterally. --Random832 05:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't what "polling is evil" means. It does not mean that seeking other opinions is wrong, but rather refers to the numerous problems caused by setting up polls of opinions early in a discussion. --Tony Sidaway 09:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed title. --Random832 15:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Administrators tend to protect their own and fight against limitations on their own power
14) Just as, we all know, police tend to be very protective of their own, Wikipedia administrators also follow suit. What I am doing, in this case, is arguing that there is a limitation on their authority, so it is quite expected that several administrators will be here defending the actions of Sandstein. It takes a somewhat sophisticated mentality and maturity, on the part of an administrator, to elevate oneself above this propensity. I am not saying that any of them are acting in bad faith, but that this defense mechanism is a natural tendency and, I'm sure, an unconscious one. I trust that arbitrators of this honorable court will be conscious of this simple fact. It is not unexpected that the arbitrators are already familiar with this phenomenon given their experience in judging cases, so this most probably need not even be mentioned. But, arbitrators, please excuse my indiscretion in casting the slightest doubt on your judgement abilities, for my existence on Wikipedia depends on those abilities.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Billy Ego 04:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:CABAL. Sandstein 05:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you. Quote credit: Khaosworks //PTO {speak} 04:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There Is No Cabal. Guy (Help!), for and on behalf of The Cabal. 18:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Customary practices
15) Certain customary practices used on Wikipedia are not written down, but can be ascertained by communication with other users.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Notes. Kirill Lokshin 04:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Not sure of the relevance, can you explain which practices you mean? And, anyway, shouldn't people be writing these down? Having an "unwritten constitution", so to speak, is a bit newbie-biting by nature. --Random832 05:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Trolling
16) Editing in a manner so as to intentionally provoke other editors is a form of trolling and goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Notes. Kirill Lokshin 04:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Amen to that. Guy (Help!) 18:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Fascism
17) Fascism, divorced of anti-semitism, is a political philosophy that a reasonable person may hold, and a self-identification of an individual editor as holding such views, while distasteful to some, does not rise to the level of "likely to bring the project into disrepute"


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * "Racism was not a constitutive element of fascism although a number of fascist movements expressed racist beliefs." (Herbert Kitschelt, Anthony J. McGann. The Radical Right in Western Europe: a comparative analysis. 1996 University of Michigan Press. p. 30). Billy Ego 15:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC) In my opinion, Hitler was right on about economic matters, however he turned out to be an evil man becuase of his attacks on the Jews. Mussolini is considered to be the epitome of fascism, but he didn't commit mass murders against Jews. If you examine fascism, its essence is collectivism and economic opposition to both capitalism and communism, in favor of a "third way." Billy Ego 15:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. I don't personally agree with fascism, but, then, I don't agree with Republicans either and no-one's proposing banning people from self-identifying as that. If it doesn't pass, fine, but a lot of people are acting as if it's beyond questioning that it is offensive/inflammatory/whatever. --Random832 13:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur, for what it's worth. Zakath 15:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't have a finding-of-fact that Fascism is or is not "a political philosophy that a reasonable person may hold" - that's way outside the jurisdiction of arbcom. Someone posting multiple lengthy quotes from more mainstream politicians like George Bush, Hillary Clinton or Tony Blair would similarly be out of line. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you provide an example of someone's user page being aggressively moderated for a quote by such a person? I've seen quotes of various types on numerous user pages, including my own and the pages of several admins who are serving on ArbCom. I'm skeptical that someone would have objected to the quotes on Billy Ego's page if they had belonged to any of the people you named. Zakath 21:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Locus of dispute
1) The locus of the dispute in this case is the content of Billy Ego's userpage, specifically the presence (or not) of an explanation of his fascist political views and of a collection of quotes mainly by Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The specific content itself is not why I requested this arbitration. Regardless of what the content of my user page is, I requested this arbitration to challenge the practice of an administrator acting as judge, jury, and executioner in determing whether to block a user for explaining his POV and/or having quotes on his user page (including using the threat of a block of "indefinite duration") instead of going through a consensus-seeking process to justify his actions. Billy Ego 15:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree in principle with the finding, although instead of "...an explanation of his political stance..." I propose "...an essay stating his political position as a fascist..."; and I would add a diff to the content at issue. Sandstein 19:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * proposed --Random832 12:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He states that he's a fascist at the top of the page; the essay is an explanation of what he means by it. I've updated the wording to mention that it's fascism, since you seem to want it there and since he self-identifies it seems fine to say it. --Random832 03:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
2) The locus of this dispute is whether administrator Sandstein is acting improperly by changing a user's user page and then placing a block on that user for explaining his own POV and/or having quotes on his user page, without going through a consensus-seeking process (including threatening a block of "indefinite duration" without going through a consensus seeking-process in order to prevent user from editing his user page).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Billy Ego 16:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The locus is the place on or about which the dispute took place. The locus is your user page, not a paraphrase of your argument. Sandstein 19:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The administrator Sandstein does appear to understand figurative language. (If he wants to get really literal, the "locus" of the dispute is right here on this page, and changes location depending on where and when we are arguing). The reason I requested this arbitration was so that arbitrators could straighten Sandstein out on the limits of his authority. The purpose was to prevent Sandstein from acting as judge, jury, and executioner. That is, to prevent him from blocking me for an alleged violation of policy without obtaining a consensus. That is the "locus" of this dispute. Billy Ego 23:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The locus of the dispute is primarily Billy Ego's userpage. The subject-matter of the dispute may include what you've stated in this paragraph (if your chronology is accurate). Let's not spend too much time on the semantics. Newyorkbrad 23:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Sandstein did not act unilaterally
3) While dissent also existed, there was substantial input from others supporting Sandstein's actions at the time they were taken.


 * Obiter dicta from Arbitrators:
 * Unilateral is often a term of abuse for an action that isn't liked. While all actions in themselves are unilateral, there are very, very few actions that do not command at least some support. Any action that can be defended on policy grounds is supported, if not authored, by Wikipedia as a whole. Mackensen (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Sandstein took no survey before his actions. There is no way to know what the consensus is without asking for opinions first. Simply because a couple other users deleted content from my user page does not tell us what the opinion of the wider community is. Other users expressed discontent with what Sandstein was doing. And, the fact that Sandstein said he would block me for "indefinite duration" without knowing for certain what the consensus is is shocking. This shows that Sandstein has little concern for truth and justice. Sandstein is ill-equiped to be an adminstrator. Billy Ego 19:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Billy Ego has been presuming that he acted unilaterally and that it goes without saying. (incidentally, you're free to propose that he did act unilaterally, but building your whole argument on it when it's not likely to be accepted is unwise) --Random832 03:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup. This was discussed in the appropriate venue, the admin noticeboards, and broad support was expressed.  This was not in any way a unilateral action by Sandstein, as evidence the number of editors who had removed content from User:Billy Ego prior to Sandstein's involvement. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Clear consensus of support
4) There was a clear consensus of support from the community at Administrators' noticeboard acknowledging that Sandstein's actions were appropriate.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Any supposed consensus on Administrator's noticeboard was after the block was over and I was complaining. An administrator is supposed to determine consensus before he takes these kinds of actions. Regardless, there was an administrator there that disagreed with Sandstein's actions as well as another one on my personal talk page. There were also a few non-administrators on my talk page that expressed discontent with Sandstein's actions. There was not a consensus either way.Billy Ego 04:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your understanding of consensus is flawed, and your understanding of how AN works is also. A consensus doesn't need to exist for administrators to make decisions - or else, why would all 1100 of them have the buttons? - but rather it is good to note in this case that there is consensus that what Sandstein did was supported by the community at large.  Daniel Bryant  04:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You have no evidence that "there is consensus that what Sandstein did was supported by the community at large." Such a forum was never created to analyze this. A few administrators eager to fight against limitations on their power, chiming in on a Noticeboard, does not reflect "the community at large." Where is the opinion of uninvolved parties who exist subject to the whims of power-drunken administrators? Where is the evidence that blocking me for one week, not for having a POV blurb on my user page, but for having quotes on my user page is supported by the community at large (or even a consensus of administrators)? Also, note that a consensus should be sought BEFOREHAND, in this type of situation. Billy Ego 05:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The block was posted to the administrators' noticeboard for peer-review. That is the normal forum and process for such a review.  I note that you have also been blocked three times for edit warring in mainspace.  It would be good to have some indication that at some point you are going to learn that discussion is better than edit warring, and stop edit warring as a result. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed.  Daniel Bryant  03:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's unclear that those whose support is being taken as consensus were aware that Sandstein had a problem with even the inclusion of the quotes without the essay. --Random832 05:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Nature of the disputed material
5) The primary thrust of the essay whose inclusion is disputed is clarification that his (stated elsewhere on the userpage) identification as "Fascist" refers to a mainly economic political stance, and specifically that it does not have anything to do with antisemitism (due to perhaps a perceived risk of being seen as antisemitic without such clarification). However, that is not to say that its tone does not at times tend to be somewhat polemical.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Note that I was blocked for "one week," after I had already deleted the small blurb explaining my POV, as well as after I had deleted the "diff" showing that the essay was deleted. Sandstein put the "one week" block on me simply for having the quotes about economics of Mussolini and Hitler on my user page. Sandstein deleting the quotes: 06:34, 23 March 2007Sandstein placing the one week block, and saying it was because of the quotes: 06:38, 23 March 2007 Billy Ego 04:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's not true. Sandstein didn't block you for having the quotes, he blocked you for repeatedly reinserting them, and other polemical content, in defiance of numerous requests not to.  This is similar to your three other blocks for edit warring in mainspace. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed - based on my reading of the essay in question. --Random832 04:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC) It seems that many people involved in this are (IMO incorrectly) reading the essay as a sort of manifesto, whereas my impression is he is simply explaining (perhaps at more length than necessary) what sort of "fascist" he is (as opposed to, one supposes, the other kind...)) --Random832 05:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Disputed. The problem was twofold: a polemical essay, and a reluctance to accept that it was polemical and liable to cause offence.  We have also blocked users for self-identifying as paedophiles; user space is not the place to set up a soapbox. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The essay was only slightly polemical, and not beyond fixing. No-one suggested anything other than wholesale removal. --Random832 17:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully concur that there was nothing objectionable about the content on his page other than it being too wordy. When one is likely to be taken for a racist, clarification seems to me eminently reasonable. Zakath 02:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Billy Ego was blocked for one week for having quotes on his user page. Ego had already deleted the "blurb."
6) Billy Ego was blocked for "one week," after he had already deleted the small blurb explaining his POV, as well as after he had deleted the "diff" showing that the blurb was deleted. Sandstein put the "one week" block on Billy Ego for having the quotes about economics of Mussolini and Hitler on his user page. Sandstein deleting the quotes: 06:34, 23 March 2007Sandstein placing the one week block, and saying it was because of the quotes: 06:38, 23 March 2007 Billy Ego 04:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Billy Ego 04:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Factually inaccurate. Billy Ego was blocked for testing the boundaries by continually stepping over them.  If you are told that waving a four-foot placard is unacceptable, you don't come back the next day with a two-foot placard, you ask what is acceptable.  Guy (Help!) 18:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No finding of fact has, as far as i can tell, been proposed that the quotes were in fact not acceptable. If the reason a four-foot placard is unacceptable is because the limit is three feet, it doesn't matter if he asks before coming back with a two-foot one. The reason that Sandstein had broad support was, as stated by some of the users supporting him, because of the rule about _extensive_ material not related to the encyclopedia, not anything about supposed offensiveness. --Random832 15:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sandstein deleted the quotes and blocked Billy Ego without determining consensus
7) Sandstein deleted the quotes and blocked Billy Ego, with the duration of his personal choice, without determining whether there was a consensus to do either. There are some claims being made that the Administrator's noticeboard showed a consensus, however this exchange on the AN/I was about the blurb, so it's not relevant to the later "one week" block which was for the quotes. The blurb had already been deleted when Billy Ego was blocked for "one week." Billy Ego asked later, on Administrator's Noticeboard, after the "one week" block, what he should do, since the first arbitration request was rejected and Sandstein had made a threat of a block of "indefinite duration" against him. Note that the adminstrators were giving their opinion in that discussion  about the POV blurb, not the quotes. Again, Billy Ego was blocked for having quotes on his user page. So, neither of these Noticeboard accounts are relevant. Morever, these discussions happened AFTER the blocks, so they cannot be used to show that Sandstein sought consensus before deleting/blocking. Sandstein never sought, nor determined, consensus.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Billy Ego 05:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Irrelevant and wrong. Irrelevant because admins are supposed to do stuff without submitting form 3b in triplicate and waiting three months for a reply, and inaccurate because firstly there is broad consensus that user space is not a soapbox, and admins reviewing Sandstein's actions broadly supported them, and secondly, there have been half a dozen other editors who have removed the same or similar content from your user page. Guy (Help!) 18:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Billy Ego
8) has, since his arrival on Wikipedia, been engaged largely in a variety of disruptive behaviors, including interfering with the deletion nomination of  and recreating it multiple times once it had been deleted, tendentious edit-warring on Nazism, Fascism, and related articles , the addition of inflammatory materials (including pro-Nazi advocacy and other content likely to bring the project into disrepute) to his userpage , vexatious attempts to use Wikipedia processes against editors attempting to stop his activities , and making wild allegations against editors in good standing.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Might as well be thorough. Kirill Lokshin 05:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Yep. Sandstein 06:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What's "disruptive," depends on which side you're on. There was nothing intrinsically "disruptive" and certainly nothing improper about anything in the above. The Fascist Wikipedians category now exists, because I forced the issue to a proper vote (a successful challenge of improper administrator behavior). I recreated it because I had every right to recreate it. It's no surprise that this would upset adminstrators who feel they should not have to go through such a process. It's no surprise that such an administrator would call this "disruptive." Billy Ego 06:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been blocked once for violating 3RR. It was true that I violated 3RR and I accepted the 8 hour punishment. I was later blocked for "edit warring." This was an improper block. The administrator seems to have based his judgement simply on the fact that I was engaged in making many edits along with a reversion or two. However, reversions are permissible, permissible, and useful function on Wikipedia. And, there is nothing wrong with making many edits in short time frame. The administrator also seems to neglect to see that I was engaging in extensive discussion in the talk pages and that I was adding new material and new sources. I requested an unblock, but was denied to be unblocked by none other than Sandstein (I believe this was my first contact with Sandstein). The block was clearly unjustified. Sandstein said in his explanation for refusing to lift the block "While I agree that this is not one of the more egregious cases of edit warring I've seen, the block is (although barely) justified in view of your generally overaggressive editing of Fascism and related articles." He could not bring himself to admit that I was not edit-warring and could not bring himself to lift to block Instead he throws out some vague accusation of "generally overaggressive editing" to justify the block. Later I was blocked for 3RR. However, I believe that administrator that placed this block does not understand 3RR, because he counted things as reversions such things as changing the term "capitalist" to "owner of capital" or something similar. This is not a reversion but merely a rewording, which I did to assist readers in understanding what sense the term "capitalist" was being used. But, of course the vague claim of "edit warring" was used to justify the block, when violation of 3RR could not be shown. I still do not see how discussing edits in talk, adding sources to articles, rewording things, etc, is "edit warring." I think when someone is blocked, fellow adminstrators tend to think "He must have done SOMETHING wrong to be blocked" and will defend those on the side of "the system." So there you have one violation of 3RR, one block that was unjustified (or if you want to take Sandstein's word for it "barely" justified), and block based on a mistaken understanding of what a reversion is (later justified with the vague "edit warring"). Certainly nothing serious at all. Regardless, these events are long gone, and I have only been engaged in occassional editing since, and don't plan to engage in any heavy editing since the difficult task of getting important information into the articles I was working on against resistance from a few individuals (and along with the welcomed assistance of other individuals who helped to keep information in that I added), complete with thorough sourcing, has been accomplished. I don't know the point is of bringing these past events up unless the administrator who did bring it up wishes to see me punished all over again for the above. To punish someone for the same crime twice is injust. I expect that any reputable admnistrator would recognize this basic principle of justice. But, possibly, this is simply an attempt to discredit the accuser in this case. I'm trust that the arbitrators can filter through such irrelevant information. I initiated this arbitration, and it is a case against Sandstein, not me. Billy Ego 16:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * It's a fair cop, guv, you got him bang to rights. Taken as a whole: this is an editor with strong opinions who is learning rather too slowly how best to fit those opinions into the Wikipedia way of working. Guy (Help!) 18:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't edit Wikipedia based on my "opinion." I add material to Wikipedia with sources attached. Almost all of my additions are still present in the articles because they are obviously true and beneficial to the encyclopedia. Billy Ego 00:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the Fascist Wikipedians category - I should weigh in since I'm really IMO the one who "saved" it (though i'd rather see it gone along with the rest of the political categories). Just because the category was restored does not mean your actions were correct. The DRV was clearly heading towards endorsing the deletion (and thus keeping it deleted) before my arguments (among a few others) turned it around. --Random832 05:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. There is a reason that RFAR's do not have a "plaintiff" and "defendant". You should stop treating this as a courtroom.
 * This is a fallacious statement. You're attempting to propose something as a finding of fact that is inherently unknowable until after this arbitration process concludes. If ArbCom were to find that Billy Ego was correct and Sandstein's actions were inappropriate, it would directly contradict the last three statements in this proposal. If you were to strike the last three bits from that proposal I would have no problem with it...but then it would be irrelevant to this case. Zakath 14:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sandstein threatened a block of "indefinite duration" in an attempt to prevent Billy Ego from defying his wishes
9) When Billy Ego notified Sandstein that he was going to reisinert the material he deleted from his user page, since arbitrators stated that he should have sought consensus first, Sandstein threatened a block of "indefinite duration" in an attempt to prevent Billy Ego from defying his wishes. (Reference: In the first attempt at arbitration, arbitrators said: "Blocks related to this issue, in all but the most obvious cases, should be based on consensus." "Sandstein should have sought, and received, support from other admins, but he realises that." ) But, he did not, and still does not realize that, or simply refuses to abide by that principle.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Billy Ego's views aren't at issue here. Mackensen (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to convey the impression that they were. Poor choice of words on my part perhaps...but an admin threatening a permanent block for something I see as well within the editor's rights is what I have a problem with. As I read it, it is disputed that Billy Ego's quotations (and perhaps a less polemical statement of POV) are objectionable content. Sandstein went through the correct process once; why are short-cuts being taken now? Zakath 02:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Billy Ego 17:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Baseless. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The wording as written is too adversarial, but I do think Sandstein's threat was excessive and did not reflect a willingness to allow Billy Ego to find a non-objectionable way to present his views. Zakath 00:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * His views _are_ most certainly at issue here. Many of the arguments rest on whether the material removed was inappropriate solely due to length and general wordiness, or because he's a fascist, with JzG and Sandstein taking the latter view. Also, the result of this case, implicitly or explicitly, will determine whether the material will be allowed to be on his userpage. --Random832 03:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sandstein has said that he objected to the material because it amounted to turning the user page into free webspace. I disagree with his assessment, but I don't think there's any reason not to take him at his word. Zakath 04:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Billy Ego has not put the disputed material back on his user page since the "one week" block
10) Billy Ego has not put the disputed material back on his user page since the "one week" block.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Billy Ego 19:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC) I respect the process. That's why I'm here. I do not want to violate any Wikipedia policies. I simply want to make sure that proper procedure by an administrator is followed before blocking a user, as well as to make sure that what I had on my user page was permissible. I was blocked for "one week" merely for having "quotes" on my user page. If a judgement is made on the permissibility of quotes, I will of course respect that. I believe in the judicial system. What I do not believe in is absolutle power for a single adminstrator to be judge, jury, and executioner in a case like this. Billy Ego 19:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Billy Ego made compromise after compromise in trying to customize his user page (POV blurb was already gone when he was first blocked)
11) Billy Ego was not blocked for having the POV blurb on his page. He had already compromised by allowing that to be deleted and then placed a link to the blurb. When he was told by Sandstein that links are not allowed, he compromised further and displayed a "diff" to show it was deleted (As evidence that he had not reinserted the POV blurb when the first block (48 hours) was placed, and that he compromised by only placing a "diff", see Sandstein deleting: 20:32, 20 March 2007 and Sandstein blocking: 20:32, 20 March 2007) As a compromise after that, Billy did not reinsert the "diff" but simply put some quotes on his page. Sandstein then blocked for "one week" for the quotes, and Billy Ego has not put the quotes back on his user page.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Billy Ego 04:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Where is the "disruption" in that? I am not a mind reader. I do not know what Sandstein will approve or disapprove of ahead of time. I was merely trying different ways to customize my user page that would cause him to cease the attacks. What I've been trying to get across on my user page is that my fascism is about economics, and I wanted it to be clear that I was opposed to anti-semitism. I thought the quotes alone might pacify him, but that's when he came and blocked me for "one week" without even saying beforehand that he disapproved of the quotes. If he would have simply said "remove the quotes" or I'll block you, I would have removed the quotes, then requested an arbitration. How was I supposed to know he wasn't going to allow the quotes either? This is the problem with a single administrator having arbitrary power. In order for the system to be just and fair, there has to be some kind of process to go through, a diffusion of authority, to take the actions he has. And most importanly, there has to be some way for the user to argue his case against what he believes to be improper adminstrator actions. It's unfortunate that some adminsitrators here do not even respect my right the argue my case and are upset that I am doing so. In fact, if I never requested this arbitration there would not have been proposals to for me to be "banned for one year." I'm convinced that I'm being punished for pursuing this arbitration case. What is happening is attrocious. Billy Ego 04:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

An attempt is being made to punish Billy Ego for pursuing this arbitration case.
12) An attempt is being made to punish Billy Ego, and from the looks of it it will be a successful attempt, to punish him for initiating this arbitration against an administrator and arguing the case against that administrator. Before he requested this arbitration there were no proposals for him to be "banned for a year." There were no requests for any blocks whatsoever. However, all of a sudden, when he started pursuing this arbitration, most adminstrators and arbitrators have obviously now come out for blood. It is apparent that this is revenge being taken against him for daring to challenge the authority of an adminisitrator, because there is nothing else he could have done that could possibly warrant such a reprisal.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Your request resulted in many people viewing your user pages. My vote, at least, is based on their content which is damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia. Perhaps you could try bumper stickers and see how that works out. Fred Bauder 14:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your vote should not count. Let the people vote and the outcome would be much different. Administrators/arbitrators should not be allowed to vote. There needs to be a system of checks and balances. Someone needs to police those in power. That's where the community should come in. That's the point behind jury trials, which are the common people deciding the cases. Right now, the people are oppressed by power-drunken elites who exercise arbitrary and limitless power over them. If an arbitration case is pursued with the argument that administrators/arbitrators are exercising too much power, administrators/abitrators themselves are those who casts the votes on the matter. The system protects and expands the power of the elites, because ordinary Wikipedians have not risen up to balance that power by changing the policy. I suggest that all adminsitrators/arbitrators be forbidden from voting on all issues in Wikipedia. There needs to be a check on their power by allowing Wikipedia community as a whole (minus administrators or a small clique of arbitrators) to vote in arbitration cases. Billy Ego 18:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Billy Ego 14:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Looking back, this was predictable given this blatantly biased comment from an arbitratator agreeing to hear the case: "Accept. If we need to make it clear that Wikipedia is not a web hosting service and support an admin, we will. FloNight 11:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)" This arbtrator came into this case with his mind already being made up to "support an admin." Billy Ego 14:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC) How dare a lowly user question the authority of an adminstrator, right? Billy Ego 15:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Please stop trying to make yourself look like a martyr. You're not. // PTO 19:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment 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.

No remedies required
1) No remedies are required as a result of this case.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I think we need at the least something actionable about Billy Ego's soapboxing, which is the reason we're here. A finding that it's inappropriate and can be further dealt with through normal administrative channels would do. And maybe something to deal with his evident tendency to use disruptive and vexatious process against anything he disagrees with. I'll leave it to those more familiar with ArbCom to come up with appropriate findings and remedies. Sandstein 06:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I withdraw it as it appears there will need to be remedies.  Daniel Bryant  06:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Principle 11 and Finding of fact 3, in my opinion, sum up why. Unless, of course, ArbCom wants to impose a sanction on Billy Ego for being annoying and disruptive, or if someone wants to think up something new with regard to maybe controlling the content of User:Billy Ego for x months; my opinion on the latter is that it would be too punative, but that's just me.  Daniel Bryant  23:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Block Sandstein and suspend administrator privileges
2) Block administrator Sandstein's from editing Wikipedia for one month and suspend his administrator privileges for two months. This should give him time to research the limitations of his power on Wikipedia and to think about some very fundamental principles of justice that, at present, escape him.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Billy Ego 03:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Don't think so. It's also somewhat incivil. //PTO {speak} 03:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Baseless. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Billy Ego
3) For acting in a way which was consistantly disruptive, and failing to acknowledge clear community and administrative consensus in doing so, Billy Ego's editing privileges are suspended for a period of 14 days.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Note that administrator Daniel.Bryant added this proposed remedy only after I submitted the above proposed remedy (2). Notice the about-face from his (1) proposed remedy. He has appeared to change course simply based on the fact that I requested disciplinary action against administrator Sandstein. Billy Ego 04:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, proposed principle 14 is what highlighted it.  Daniel Bryant  04:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No such community or administrative consensus has been shown to exist. Morover, I have not added back the blurb explaining my POV, nor the quotes, so it is unclear what "faling to acknolwedge clear community and administrative consensus" means. Perhaps administrator Daniel.Bryant means that simply disagreeing that there is consensus is something that is punishable? Given his irrational statements on other areas of this page, this probably exactly what he means. This is symptomatic of the syndrome that afflicts some administrators. They believe that people should be punished for simply disagreeing. They see it as an assault against their status as policemen. I am being attacked by adminstrators on this page for the simple fact that I am arguing that there are limits to their authority. Billy Ego 17:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. The proposed remedy above (block an administrator for a month and desysop for two when they are acting within consensus is totally ridiculous), as well as all his responses above (see NYB's comment here) are perfect examples of the continuing disruptive editing.  Daniel Bryant  03:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds about right. Billy Ego has been drifting towards the "administrative cabal" mindset. //PTO {speak} 04:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Billy Ego banned
4) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

4.1) is banned from Wikipedia indefinitely.  Withdrawn.  Daniel Bryant  08:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I see neither hope for reform nor productivity enough to justify softer measures here. Kirill Lokshin 05:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Very funny. The fact that I am pursuing this arbitration is obviously deeply unsettling to certain administrators. The fact that some administrators would even entertain the thought of a one year ban for challenging the limits of their authority is symptomatic of the underying forces at work here. Those with a modicum of power will often go to any length to persecute someone who dares to challenge their authority. To draw a parallel I made earilier, we see this behavior in police officers. Fortunately, they aren't the final authority on Wikipedia. There is a process that they must answer to. It's just unfortunately that not all of them respect the right of an individual to take this remedial action. Billy Ego 06:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I endorse the proposed remedy. Then maybe the rest of us can get back to work on the encyclopedia? Sandstein 06:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sandstein supports a one year ban on me. Need I say more about his unfitness to have administrator power? There is obviously something very wrong with his judgement ability. This is an adminstrator who knows no bounds. Billy Ego 06:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently the same also applies to more than half our Arbitrators. Maybe it's you that's got it wrong?  I'd say that your failure to allow for that possibility is the single biggest problem you face, and is the main reason that a ban rather than parole or some other restriction has such wide support. Guy (Help!) 11:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Now it's been upped to "banned from Wikipedia indefinitely." This is completely irrational and emotionally motivated. All I can say is thank God this is not real life with real police officers, because I'm certain I would have shot dead by now. Billy Ego 07:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * On the basis of FoF 8, strongly endorse.  Daniel Bryant  06:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note this edit to the above comment.  Daniel Bryant  06:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do. Billy Ego 06:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Proposed 4.1 in light of the "judgement" comment above. For a complete collection, see    .  Daniel Bryant  07:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * [pointless debate unrelated to the function of /Workshop removed. 08:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)]

Billy Ego placed on standard parole
5) is placed on standard editing parole for a period of one year.  If during this time he engages in tendentious editing or revert warring he may be blocked for 24 hours in the first instance, duration of blocks escalating with repeated infractions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. It's not time to show him the door yet, but he does need to understand that edit warring is not on. Behaviour in this arbitration is problematic, but that's not entirely surprising since he's had a rude awakening, discovering all of a sudden that his arbitration "against" Sandstein is actually a review of his own behaviour. With a mixture of kindness and firmness he may become a productive editor.  Measures to limit his negative impact on the project are, however, probably appropriate.  Guy (Help!) 18:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I like this better than the above proposals. While his behavior has hardly been exemplary, he has (to me, at least) shown the ability to learn from his mistakes. Zakath 00:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Billy Ego banned from creating categories
6) is banned from creating categories.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 08:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What categories are we talking about here? While he was wrong in the way he went about it, his argument about "Fascist Wikipedians" being equivalent to other political categories (and thus ought to be kept if they are) proved to have the consensus of the community when separated from people voting to delete due to dislike of political categories in general. He is also now aware of the existence of deletion review (he evidently was not before), and can probably be expected to go there with any deleted categories he wishes to recreate in the future. --Random832 15:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Template
7) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
8) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
9) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
5) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Relative time of discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Initial comment: The major issue, it seems, with this dispute is whether Sandstein needed consensus before or after the blocking/protecting took place. To me, it seems like a minor and irrelevant detail, but to Billy it isn't, apparently. I'd therefore like Billy to rationally explain the logic behind why he believes Sandstein erred, in relation to when he gathered "consensus" (disputed, but that isn't the issue in this discussion section). Is there any rule on Wikipedia about this? Any generally-followed precedent? Any Arbitration precedent? What is the reason why consensus after the action is any different from before it?
 * I ask this in good faith, in the attempt to clear up a minsunderstanding which seems to be affecting this workshop. I also apologise for anything stupid/offensive/silly/annoying I have said on this workshop up until this point. This page is for developing potential remedies for the Arbitrators to select and vote on, not to bicker and fight. Cheers,  Daniel Bryant  08:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A "minor detail" that an administrator must obtain consensus before he places a block for something like this? Never heard of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"? A "minor detail" that before placing a block of "indefinite duration" that consensus must be ascertained? A "minor detail" that if such a block were placed, and an unblock request were placed, that all it would take is one careless administrator to refuse to unblock and I would be blocked forever? There is something very wrong with the the approval process for administrators here if someone can become an administrator and then say with a straight face that these things are "minor details." Billy Ego 18:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a court of law. It is an encyclopedia whose assume good faith policy practically applies the principles of innocent until proven guilty.  You were given the chance to keep your userpage within norms but you kept re-adding stuff being deleted according to policies.  You refused to acknowledge there was an issue and kept going against the advice of administrators and more experienced users.  Blocking you was the right thing to do.  Upholding the block was the right decision.  Banning you for a year will be the right decision too.  You are not here to participate constructively and collaboratively to the encyclopedia.  You are here to disrupt and push your agenda.   Lost Kiwi (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're completely wrong. I deleted the material in question from my user page. It is still deleted. I have simply come here to seek the guidance of the judicial system to determine whether the administrator acted within the law. As far as being here to disrupt and push an agenda, nothing could be further from the truth. I have come here to help improve the encyclopedia on matters concerning fascism. My contribution has been very valuable. Billy Ego 23:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not gonna spend much time on this because it is quite obvious you have no interest in truthfully discussing the issue here but only twists the truth and flat out lie to try to advance any point you have. Those attitudes might make you a good lawyer but it makes you a very bad wikipedian.   Anyways, YOU did not delete any material from your userpage.  As a quick glance at the first page of history of your userpage shows (mostly between 03/19 and 03/22), it was deleted by other parties, you then restored it... once it was deleted again, you put a link to the section that was deleted... once that was deleted too, you tried to go around by introducing new text with quotes that were as unappropriate as what was there before.  That was removed too by Sandstein.  You did not delete anything yourself.... unless not putting back material you were told a few times not to re-add count as "I deleted it" in your world.   Lost Kiwi (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with Billy Ego that consensus must be ascertained in a specific way "before the fact", but I do not think that there was consensus that the quotes alone were inappropriate, nor that the consensus that the essay was inappropriate was policy-based. --Random832 15:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)