Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein/Proposed decision
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Why are decisions being made before the all the evidence and testimony has been put forth?
Why have Kirill Lokshin and Fred Bauder already voted for banning without having heard all the testimony? There were several findings and principles and facts that were added after they voted. I doubt very much that they undertood the details of the case when they voted. Do they realize that I did not add the disputed material back after the block? Do they realize that I explicitly agreed not to add back the material pending the results of the arbitration decision? That's why I requested this arbitration, which to obtain guidance on the matter and to determine whether Sandstein acted within the law. Do they realize that I was blocked the second time (which was for a week) it not for the small blurb explaining the POV, since I had already agreed to delete that? I was blocked simply for having the quotes on my user page. Again, I agreed to allow these to be deleted, pending the result of the arbitration. All they have to do is make a decision on whether or not consensus needs to be obtained before blocking/banning a user for something like this. If not, then the material stays deleted. Recommending banning for year, tells me, that they simply didn't understand the case because they didn't wait to hear all the testimony and evidence. There is no way that that blocking me for a year could be justified.
There is something wrong with this judicial system if arbitrators are making these kinds of decisions before hearing all the evidence, testimony, and details of the case. There should at least be announced some type of time limit for everyone to get all their information out, and arguments in. That's essential for a properly functioning judicial system. If Wikipedia needs me to design a fair justice system, complete with checks and balances, I'd be happy to do so, because if this is the way things are done, it's a sham. Billy Ego 00:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a project to create an encyclopedia, not a judicial system. I'm not going to humor your attempts at playing courtroom merely because you're unable to understand that premise. Kirill Lokshin 00:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- So, what you're saying is that it's a sham. You make decisions before hearing all the evidence. That's all I need to know. Billy Ego 01:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, it's not a sham. They have read all the evidence on the evidence page in full, I'm sure. // PTO 01:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Those two couldn't have read all the material in the Workshop. Much material was added after they made their decision that was crucial to the case. Either they've been neglectful or they simply don't care. There was absolutely no reason to think that we were finished in the Workshop page. The least they could have done is announce they were going to vote in X days so that we could know what the time limit is for completion of testimony. This is irresponsible of both of these arbitrators. I'm requesting that the votes from these two administrators be stricken from the record, and they not be allowed to vote again in this case (the latter because there is now good reason to believe I have led them to have personal bias against me for calling them out on this and embarrassing them). I realize that there is no one governing them, so I just have to hope these two have the decency to step down. Billy Ego 01:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I would be truly surprised and shocked if the arbitrators were embarrassed by carrying out the standard procedure. // PTO 01:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Those two couldn't have read all the material in the Workshop. Much material was added after they made their decision that was crucial to the case. Either they've been neglectful or they simply don't care. There was absolutely no reason to think that we were finished in the Workshop page. The least they could have done is announce they were going to vote in X days so that we could know what the time limit is for completion of testimony. This is irresponsible of both of these arbitrators. I'm requesting that the votes from these two administrators be stricken from the record, and they not be allowed to vote again in this case (the latter because there is now good reason to believe I have led them to have personal bias against me for calling them out on this and embarrassing them). I realize that there is no one governing them, so I just have to hope these two have the decency to step down. Billy Ego 01:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, it's not a sham. They have read all the evidence on the evidence page in full, I'm sure. // PTO 01:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- So, what you're saying is that it's a sham. You make decisions before hearing all the evidence. That's all I need to know. Billy Ego 01:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Something you may not realize (there seems to be a lot you don't realize about this process) that i'll explain for your benefit is that if they see something in continuing to follow the workshop page that changes their decisions, they are free to change their vote. --Random832 06:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC) Also you should know that not just actions regarding your userpage, but your general attitude, actions in editing articles, etc, are all being examined.
