Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein/Proposed decision

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 when I was blocked the first time, it was after I had already agreed to allow the POV blurb to be deleted and placed a link to it instead? Do they realize that I was blocked the second time (which was for a week) it not for the small blurb explaining the POV no the link, since I had already agreed to delete those? 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)

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.

Well, one thing I know about human nature is the people will tend to do anything to avoid admitting they were wrong, even to avoid admitting it to themselves. So, I don't hold out much hope for that at all. Billy Ego 15:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

FloNight showed bias in acceptance to hear the arbitration

FloNight pointed out his bias in his acceptance to hear the arbitration 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)" [1] This arbtrator came into this case with his mind already being made up to "support an admin." Arbitrators should come in with an open mind. I request that FloNight's votes to stricken from the record. He should voluntarily step down. It's becoming clearer and clearer that I'm simply being punished for challenging the authority of an adminstrator (i.e. for requesting and arguing this arbitration case). How dare a lowly user question the limits of adminstrator power, right? Billy Ego 15:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Minds made up

If you wish to quit advocating Nazism on your user page, by all means inform us. Fred Bauder 18:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The essence of this case. Please make a decision.

I've NEVER advocated Nazism. I support Fascism. I oppose Nazism. There is a difference. And, as already pointed out in the Workshop (which you didn't allow to fully develop before you voted), I had already allowed the POV blurb to be deleted. I was blocked LATER, after the POV blurb was gone, for having quotes on my page which explained the Fascist economic position (which I thought would be an acceptable compromise). I would simply like to be allowed a paragraph and some quotes to make it clear that my support of fascism is restricted to economics (which is essentially what Fascism is) and explain a bit about that. And, in it I would like to be able to explain that I'm opposed to anti-Semetism and why (which is obviously necessary because you're an example of a person who equates Facism with Nazism). I think I have the right to restore material that is deleted from my user page until a consensus decision is made by the community that the content violates some type of Wikipedia policy (just as someone has a right to delete things from my user page, I have a right to put them back). You as arbitrators are free to correct me if I'm wrong on that. That's why I initiated this case. Correct me and let us all know that a single adminstrator can decide to delete/block (including block for "indefinite duration") without obtaining consensus first in case such as this where claimed violation is far from obvious. Such a consensus-seeking process never happened. I simply find it hard to believe that an adminstrator would be allowed to act as judge, jury, and executioner in a case like this. Again, correct me if I'm wrong. If that's what you allow, let us know. That's all I'm asking. If that's the policy, then whatever Sandtein deletes from my user page will stay deleted, now and in the future. He will be the absolute authority of what's allowed on my user page. Though I think it would be a bad decision on your part, I would comply with it. If adminstrators are not allowed to act without obtaining consensus for something like this, then I should be free to write something and have it judged by the community to see whether or not the consensus is that it violates some policy. All of you seem to be avoiding addressing the central reason why I initiated this case. Please, make a decision on this (even if you decide to ban me in the process). Billy Ego 18:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I plead guilty. I generally associate both fascism and communism with aggressive violence and mass murder. Based on experience, not prejudice. The problem is, there is no other way to maintain such regimes in the face of the opposition which develops. Fred Bauder 14:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

So you still want to avoid making a decision. Just ban Billy Ego so that you don't have to bother with making a difficult decision, right? Billy Ego 17:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Question for Billy Ego

Please comment as soon as possible on whether the allegation made here is correct. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 19:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No it's not correct. I've never heard of those people. It looks like some little kid playing around. Billy Ego 19:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Billy Ego's multiple user accounts

Fred Bauder has noted on the evidence page that a checkuser has revealed that Billy Ego uses three user accounts. In the likely event that this case closes with remedies against Billy Ego, I suggest that these accounts be disclosed for enforcement purposes. Sandstein 12:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Question for Billy Ego

Please respond immediately to the allegations made here, including but not limited to that you are a reincarnation of banned user RJII. Newyorkbrad 15:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The accusations are false. I'm not a banned user of anybody. Billy Ego 15:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the evidence page. It appears someone is trying to link me to my roomates' Wikipedia accounts. I don't know what this has to do with a banned user RJII. Billy Ego 15:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I just remembered, I had actually mentioned on my user page that I had roomates who use Wikipedia. "My roomates certainly haven't tried to kick me out (and one of them is a capitalist) and we have good debates, but then I haven't yet reverted any of his edits." Billy Ego 15:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And not to mention, friends that come over and do Wikipedia. Billy Ego 15:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't block my roomates and friends. Though I'm sure it's easy enough to get back on Wikipedia if one is blocked, it still might be an inconveience to them. They have nothing to do with this. Billy Ego 15:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you acknowledge that you have edited from any accounts at all other than User:Billy Ego? Please identify all such accounts and explain why you chose to use multiple accounts. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 15:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No, this the only account I've edited under. That's to the best of my knowledge. I could imagine a situation where I maybe walked over and changed something on Wikipedia when a roomate was logged in but I don't recall that happening. If so, it would have been an accident. Billy Ego 15:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for stating your position. The arbitrators or administrators will have to decide whether to believe you. Newyorkbrad 15:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is that important anyway? Is there a rule against having multiple accounts? Billy Ego 15:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

When a user is banned by decision of the Arbitration Committee, the ban extends to all of that user's accounts, unless the arbitrators decide otherwise. Newyorkbrad 15:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way I don't even recognize a lot of those user names being listed. I just noticed a user name listed called "Your Disease" that apparently does punk rock articles. None of my roomates are into punk. I have no clue who that could have been. Maybe just someone in the same city with the same IP. This is a very large city. There are only a few usernames that I recognize but I'd rather not say who they are in order to protect my roomates. Billy Ego 16:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You or your roommates can privately email the names of the user accounts to the Arbitration committee as a group at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org or any individual arbitrator. We may take this evidence into consideration before we block these accounts if it appears they are primarily used to edit topics separate from your topics and are likely a different user. FloNight 16:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll let them know, but I'm going to suggest to them not to do it in order to protect themselves. You guys are obviously out for blood. Maybe you should just block the whole city. That should give you guys a good power rush. Billy Ego 17:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Update. I just called one of my roomates and he said if worse comes to worse he'll just switch internet providers and change usernames or just walk across the hall to use his girlfriend's account. Ever played Find Waldo Now? Billy Ego 18:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Related to this is User_talk:Billy_Ego#Disruptive_editing, where Nikodemos and Billy Ego engaged in a talk page thread where Nikodemos accused Billy Ego of being a sockpuppet and Billy Ego returned the compliment. This seems to have led to the declined CheckUser request here. When declining that request, jpgordon said "You'll need to do this via analysis of edits; checkuser won't be helpful here." That older, declined CheckUser request is one of two linked from Mackenson's evidence section in the link provided at the start of this thread by Newyorkbrad. Hopefully this background will be helpful. Carcharoth 17:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You have that backwards. I accused Nikodemos of being a sockpuppet first, because it was so obvious. He responded back claiming I was a sockpuppet in retaliation. There is no question about it that he was using sockpuppets to revert changes in articles back to the Nikodemos version or vice versa. "Ruadh" is one of his sockpuppets. Read this Checkuser case if you have any doubt: [2] Though the Checkuser was declined, it's obvious. He all but admitted it and never denied it. Billy Ego 17:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If I Am Banned

If I am banned, it will stand as a testament of the inadequacy of the Wikipedia justice system. It is obvious to whoever carefully studies this case that the only real crime I have committed is to challenge the limits of administrator power in an arbitration forum. I offended delicate egos and will therefore pay the price. No one who carefully judges the facts of this case with an emotionally-detached manner would conclude to ban me. If I am banned it is because the focus of my argument has been that there should be limits to the authority of administrators. Astute observers will have already realized that is a losing case from the start, because those very adminstrators are the ones voting on my fate. If the judgement were put to the authority of the general community, rather than self-important administrators and arbitrators, there is no doubt that I would not be banned. I speak for all the users of Wikipedia who live under the arbitrary whims of power-drunken administrators. I have advice for Wikipedians. The first step to improving the arbitration process would be to get rid of the arbitrators and turn the function over to the common people. Having professional arbitrators is unnecessary, useless and counterproductive. It appears the "arbitrator" function was created simply to create a class of people who wish to call themselves "arbitrators." There could be no other purpose. Wikipedians, take my advice, get rid of the arbitrators. It is in your own interests to do so. Force those individuals who bask in the role of "arbitrators" to find something else to do with their lives to make themselves feel important. Community, rise up and take what is rightfully yours: your own destiny. Be judged by your community, not by elites. Never allow administrators or professional arbitrators to vote. The administrators/arbitrator complex seeks nothing but to protect and expand its own power. This ambition must be offset by giving the common people the opportunity to check their power.

However, though the quality of the encyclopedia would be improved by allowing the people to decide arbitration cases, Wikipedia would still be mediocre. Users and administrators, do not fool yourselves. No one is "building an encyclopedia." Nothing gets "built" on Wikipedia. Everyone is partaking in a Sisyphian project. I was naive to believe otherwise when I came here. But, I've learned quickly. Wikipedia is nothing comparable to contructing a building, creating a work of art, or writing a book. Articles merely waver between absolute disasters and mediocrity, sometimes disasterous, sometimes mediocre depending on what day of the month you read an article. It cannot be any other way, by the very nature of the system. Arbitrators and administrators, do not fool yourselves. You are not doing anything useful with your lives by your administration and arbitration activities. You are merely guardians and perpetuators of a perpetually dilapidated machine. I was at first under the expectation that the arbitrators were a distinct entity who would come to these cases and judge with reason, diligence, and care rather than with emotion, greed, elitism, and sloth. I've been utterly disappointed. I'm finding that the arbitrators are part of that machine, and the arbitration process is just as dysfunctional. The whole system is mediocre at a systemic level, and therefore it attracts the most mediocre of humanity to come maintain it so to ensure that it says mediocre. At least this is true for those that stay for the long term. Truly intelligent people do not edit nor administrate Wikipedia for very long, because they quickly learn what a waste of effort it is. It is the dull that stay on Wikipedia for the long term, and therefore it is the dull that have seniority and have the most influence over it. Knowing this, why should anyone expect Wikipedia to be a quality encyclopedia? The intelligent quickly move on to do more worthwhile things with their lives. Those with self-esteem are shortly banned for being themselves. If I am banned, it will make no difference because I will be leaving voluntarily shortly anyway. I have requested this arbitration upon principle. Let it be known that I have not at any moment stooped to the level of subservience or servility to prevent my own banning. If speaking the truth leads to my being banned, so be it. Fellow Wikipedians, I suggest you take the same attitude and stance when confronted by adminstrators. Do not treat them as superiors. They are not. They simply pretend to be. They may be able to ban you, but do not let them crush your dignity. If you are banned, it will have been for your own good. It was your destiny to be banned, because you are too big, too important for Wikipedia. Proudly leave them behind, knowing that you did not submit. Take your self-esteem into the real world and do something truly worthwhile. To be frank, Wikipedia is for losers. And, most Wikipedia adminstrators and professional arbitrators are the biggest losers of them all. If I am banned for saying what I have, and doing what I've done, then it was all worth it just to expose what I have exposed. What I have spoken is the truth.

At the time of writing, it appears that I will be banned for "one year." If it is not yet clear to anyone why, let me make it clear. The reason I will be banned is because I am a threat. Not a threat to the quality of this encyclopedia. But, a threat to the ability of administrators and arbitrators to exercise limitless arbitrary power over the common people. They will try to fool you into believing that I'm being banned for some other reason, but do not allow yourselves to be fooled. It is because I wish to bring power to the common people that I must be banished as quickly as possible. I happily leave Wikipedia as martyr for the empowerment of the people. If I am banned, I will be banned for speaking the truth. Wikipedia, good riddance. I'm simply too good for you.

Sincerely, Billy Ego

(BTW, I'll posting this all over the internet in order to prevent it from being censored).

We all know exactly why you were banned; Because you were stubborn. We don't have unlimited power. You don't seem to want to listen, so I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you again. Administrators don't want to be treated as "superiors"; you are correct in that fashion. I'm sorry that it took you this long to figure that out. // PTO 16:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Discomfort.

One of the stated reasons for the banning of Billy is "the addition of inflammatory materials (including pro-Nazi advocacy and other content likely to bring the project into disrepute)".

I'm uncomfortable with this. I don't see it as "bringing wikipedia into disrepute" that we allow users to have objectionable POV, quite the contrary. We should allow people from all extremes to contribute, so long as they can do so constructively. While experience shows that extremists generally can't contribute constructively, it should only be the contribution that matters, not the POV that motivates the contribution.

On a more minor matter, Ego is correct when he says that there are differences between facism and nazism. Can a clerk please correct the charge sheet? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Direction

Despite Billy Ego's ego, his stubbornness, his unwillingness "to play well with others", he has made two very important points that this ArbCom committee must consider for the long term health of this project, two points which, by ignoring, the ArbCom committee will turn into precedents that will in the long-run harm this project. The two valid points Billy Ego has made (though not explicitly) are:

• Users should not be afraid of holding and expressing their relevant points-of-view only because it offends a few other editors.
  • Users should be encouraged to disclose and explicate their point-of-view, especially on controversial topics. Doing so would facilitate and smoothen discussion and debate around certain topics, and, I believe, help reduce suspcion as to another editors' motives. Of course, Wikipedia is not a soap-box, but this does not mean contentious positions should not be well-articulated.
  • Currently, the proposed decision includes verbage, "the addition of inflammatory materials...". This is a can of worms, as it suggests that two people who don't like the content of a User's page can ask to have that material removed and deleted. This kind of decision would lead to the unintended consequence of allowing a small group of editors and administrators to intimidate and quash those with opposing viewpoints, especially those who take the time to disclose their point-of-view.
• An administrator should not use his tools to block someone with whom he is in a content dispute.
  • Sandestein and others argue that Billy Ego does not WP:OWN his User page and that it is simply an extension of the project, subject to the will of the community. Fine. But this makes it content, and if Sandestein disagrees with the suitability of the content, he should not be the one who

sets the blocks. Would this have made a difference in this case? I cannot say. But if there is a dispute over the content of the User page, Administrators should consult other, objective administrators. A consensus should not be necessary, of course. But the user should not ask, for instance, El_C (who proudly displays his pro-communist, pro-marxist banner of Che Guevera) to block an anti-marxist (or in this case, apparent pro-Nazi).

Only by taking these steps will the ArbCom committee rescue itself from the criticism that this community is become closed and reclusive to like-minded editors.

With hope for the best, --AnOutsider 08:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There is general societal revulsion with respect to advocacy of Nazism. Administrators who take responsibility with respect to such advocacy and its baleful effect on the reputation of the project are to be commended. Fred Bauder 13:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Bauder, first, please consider the flip side of what you are saying. There is currently a "general societal revulsion" around the world toward Mr. Bush. His popularity might be greatest in the US, where it hovers below 40%. Let's say a user primarily edits the articles on George W. Bush and on the second War in Iraq. Every day his user and talk pages are vandalized by IP users calling Bush a "fag" or him a fag, or whatever. So, he uses his User page to clarify his position by stating that he supports the War on Iraq, but does not support Bush on domestic issues -- a position not to different than, say, Joe_Lieberman. But now, in doing so, an administrator comes along and considers this "soapboxing" and nominates the user page for AfD. The User is in between a rock and a hardplace. In sum I am not saying this is a good analog to Billy Idol's position. I am saying that the current proposed principles will lead to this kind of dilemma.

Adolf was a closet half-wit too, but the comparison fails. Fred Bauder 19:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Second, please consider that the point of an encyclopedia is to facilitate education, not to foster to people's prejudices and biases. Prejudice and bias can be overcome only by education. So what better institution to combat such societal revulsion than Wikipedia? Quashing "unpopular viewpoints" for the good "reputation of the project" sounds awfully like ... something other than what Wikipedia is. I hope.

Third, by setting such a precedent, you only push such advocacy (whatever it is) "underground". People with dissenting or unpopular viewpoints will be forced to be sneaky and surreptitious about it. This will result in doubt cast on other users or members who have no such viewpoints.

--AnOutsider 14:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What you are saying is exactly right. But, I've found that it's futile to try to convince the arbitrators to make a decision on this. They're doing everything that can to avoid making a decision on this. Their claimed excuse for not having to think about this seems to be that I'm putting the encyclopedia in "disrepute," as if it was reputable in the first place. Part of the reason for not making a decision on this is laziness, I'm sure. But I think the biggest part of it is they they they work for "the system". We have a small group of professional arbitrators comfortable in their positions that will do anything to avoid a ruling that diminishes aministrator power. We see this in real life judicial systems. Judges tend to side with the police. This is why we have jury trials composed on common citizens. That's why my suggestion for Wikipedians is to rise up and change policy so that the common people are allowed to vote in arbitration cases, and to forbid professional arbitrators and administrators from voting (in arbitration cases or anything else on Wikipedia). There must be a check on the power of the administrator/arbitrator complex. Another thing is that if someone does make a proposal such as I'm suggesting on policy change, adminstrators shouldn't be allowed to vote on that proposal, for obvious reasons. How would this be accomplished? I'm not sure. But thank you an AnOutsider from seeing my point and coming up with some new ones of your own. Is it any surprise that those who have made comments in support of the reason I requested this arbitration are not administrators or arbitrators? Not one administrator has expressed support. It's the common people like you, Random832, Zakath, and others who are concerned with the danger that this kind of administrator/arbitrator power poses to ordinary Wikipedians and Wikipedia as a whole. I notice that you seem to have created an account in order to comment here anonymously. This is very telling. It goes to show that anyone that question the limits of administrator authority puts himself in danger. Maybe you or someone else can undertake this policy change I've suggested. Good luck. Billy Ego 15:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be considerably less uncomfortable with proceedings here if there weren't the repeated equation of fascism with Nazism. The point has repeatedly been made, not simply by Billy Ego during this dust-up but by a seeming infinitude of academic writers, that not all fascisms have been Nazisms. It is as if some feel that a persuasive case cannot be made against Billy Ego without perverting taxonomy. I am hard-pressed to identify the Good Guys in this process. —SlamDiego 17:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Addressing not so much Billy Ego himself as anyone else who might read here, it is important to bear in mind that the arbitrators were appointed from among experienced editors who finished favorably in elections held by the community. Any editor with more than a relatively small number of edits as of the deadline was eligible to run. The fact that all of the arbitrators are administrators is a function of the fact that those are the people who were elected. Non-administrators were eligible to run and several did, but they did not win the election.

I participated actively in Wikipedia for 6 months as a non-administrator before being nominated for adminship. I don't see my role on the site as any different now that it was before, except that I have a few extra buttons and a few extra chores and responsibilities. And if anyone believes that all admins stick together on all things, take a look at the administrators' noticeboard sometimes; and if anyone believes that the Arbitration Committee always sides with administrators, read the decisions in, for example, the Marudubshinki, Siobchan, Philwelch, InShaneee, or Darwinek ArbCom cases.

Billy Ego, you have repeatedly expressed your disgust toward, and disdain for, the content and the people of Wikipedia. I suggest that you devote your time and abilities toward activities you respect and enjoy more. Newyorkbrad 15:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never expressed disgust or disdain for the people of Wikipedia. I'm supporting them by asserting their right to be free from arbitrary administrator power. This case was not initiated in self-interest at all. I could have easily avoided being blocked, by simply not requesting an arbitration and/or not arguing my case against administrator power. I'm more concerned with serving the community, which I respect above all else, and who is being denied power by a group of elites. If preventing myself from being blocked was my prime concern, isn't it obvious I would have been more of a suck up? And what do elections have to do with anything? Hitler was elected but sold out fascist principles and murdered millions of Jews. Electing someone is fine, but make sure there's a check on their power. That's what's lacking on Wikipedia. Again, is it any surprise you're going to disagree with me? You're the one wearing a badge. Billy Ego 15:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Billy, this is getting off topic. This page isn't about the appointment and oversight of admins and the arbcom, only about what to do with you, and what are and and are not valid grounds for making that decision. Regards, Ben Aveling 18:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion I've made from observing the arbitration process and recommendation for Wikipedians

Conclusions I've made from observing the arbitration process and recommendation for Wikipedians: Change policy so that professional arbitratrors and adminstrators are forbidden from voting in arbitration cases. The vote should be put to the common people, in order to offset the natural ambition of the administrator/arbitrator complex to protect and expand its own power (the reason for jury trials). Wikipedia at present lacks such an automatic system of checks and balances to prevent the administrator/arbitrator complex from having absolute power over ordinary Wikipedians. The fact that the community votes on who will rule over them is insufficient, because after being elected the individuals become part of the adminstration/arbitration complex that as a whole has near-unlimited authority. Potential difficulties of enacting such a policy: The vote on whether to accept such a proposed policy, that would limit the power of administrators and grant the civilian community more power over themselves, will be improperly skewed if adminstrators/arbitrators are allowed to vote on the proposal itself. Billy Ego 19:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Bring out the hemlock

Arbitrators: I'm done stating my position. Feel free to finalize the ban any time you like. You may now administer the poison hemlock. Billy Ego 19:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)