Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Case Opened on 13:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.
Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.
Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.
Contents |
[edit] Involved parties
- Sandstein (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)
- Billy Ego (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
[edit] Statement by Billy Ego
Note: I recently tried to get this honorable court to take an arbitration case on this matter and you denied. However, new events have occured that I think make arbitration necessary. This was confirmed to me from an administrator on Administrator's noticeboard when I took the issue there after you declined to take the case here a few days ago. That administrator said "Well, Sandstein's content is obviously wrong here. The problem is what to do about this. Take it to WP:RFC/U and see what can be done there. that would be the best idea, I'd say. You can probabyl copy-paste this even.--User:Wizardman" [1] What has happened since my first request here is that Sandstein has now said that without seeking a conensus he will put an "indefinite" block on me if I edit my user page in a way that he personally think doesn't accord with the WP:UP "guideline" (as you can see here [2]). A better detailed account, with links, follows:
Administrator user:Sandstein has been deleting parts of my user page that he personally doesn't like, and at the same time, blocking me. It started when he deleted a short blurb which I wrote and placed on my user page in order to explain what my personal POV was in order that working together with other editors could be more transparent. This was done for the benefit of the Wikipedia community, instead of hiding my POV. You can see it here: [3] He deleted it and blocked me. So I came back and made a comprise version. [4] He blocked me again. So, as a further compromise I took the link out and just put some quotes on my page [5] He recently deleted the information [6] and proceeded to put a one week block on me, saying this is because I had quotes on my user page [7], ]without even a prior warning that he didn't like the quotes. How am I supposed to know ahead of time what he doesn't like? His excuse his that he claims I'm violating WP:UP, but that's not even a policy but a "guideline" that should generally be followed. It's not some document granting him absolute authority over what is on the the user pages of others and the authority to use blocks, and threats of blocks, in order to get others to arrange their user pages the way he wants them. I requested an unblock. Another adminstrator said, on my user page, that he was uncomfortable with what Sanstein was doing [8] and said he would unblock me under the condition that I requiested an arbitration against Sandstein and wait for a ruling there before I restored what was deleted from my user page. Others individuals chimed in on my talk page as well, such as user:The Hybrid, and said Sanstein is misusing his power: [9] (There are others who chimed in as well against Sandstein's actions. For example [10]). So, I was unblocked by another administrator [11], and as promised I went to request an arbitration case against Sandstein. Unfortunately, the arbitration commitee refused to take the case. However, administrators in the arbitration commitee that voted did say that Sandstein should have sought consensus before doing what he did, such as here [12] and [13]. So, I went to Sandstein's talk page and told him I would be restoring my user page the way I wanted it and asked him if he would abide by the convention to seek consensus before acting as judge, jury, and execution by deleting parts of my userpage that don't suit his fancy and then blocking me. He replied back with a threat that he would block me for "indefinite duration" if I restore what he deleted from my user page. [14] I'm asking that some administrator set Sandstein straight and do not allow him to delete parts of my user page, such as quotes from famous people, and block me with "indefinite duration." Also, he shouldn't be making threats of blocking me in order to keep me from editing my user page. I plan on restoring all that was deleted from my user page. There is no way for me to know what changes I make to my user page are going to upset Sandstein. He feels he can just come in and delete what he doesn't like and throw a block on me, even an "indefinite' one. I can't imagine that this is proper behavior from an administrator.
[edit] Statement by Sandstein
The ArbCom rejected essentially the same request a day or so ago (see Thatcher131 below). In the meantime, consensus on the WP:AN has made it clear to Billy Ego – for the nth time – that no, he may in fact not misuse his user page as a free web host (WP:NOT#MYSPACE, WP:UP) for lengthy political essays and a collection of Hitler / Mussolini quotes. The present request is disruptive forum shopping by a user whose contributions, apart from many, many edits related to this matter, are strictly limited to aggressive and at times disruptive editing on the topic of the economic policies of fascist regimes (see his block log), which he states he admires.
More case history is available through the AN thread linked to above. I recommend that the Arbitration Committee either reject this request and let the community deal with this issue, or accept the case with a view to examine the disruptive behaviour of Billy Ego. Sandstein 05:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Preliminary decisions
[edit] Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/0/0/0)
- Accept Fred Bauder 05:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Accept. Mackensen (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- Accept. Kirill Lokshin 13:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Accept. Paul August ☎ 14:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Accept since clarification seems to be required. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Temporary injunction (none)
[edit] Final decision (none yet)
All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)
[edit] Principles
[edit] Findings of Fact
[edit] 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.
[edit] Enforcement
[edit] Log of blocks and bans
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.
