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

I am new to this process. Would someone please read my editorial at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Billy_Ego-Sandstein/Proposed_decision#Wrong_Direction and consider adding to this page the principles I proposed there? --AnOutsider 08:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the case was well into the voting process at the time you first posted, and is currently about to be closed, I am afraid it is too late to effectively add new proposals to the Workshop. However, you will have seen that the arbitrators have included the principle that "[e]ditors 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." I believe this is consistent with the views you have expressed, though it does not go as far as you might wish. With regard to administrator consultation, I believe the evidence indicates that the admin who blocked in this case did consult with other admins and there was a consensus that there was concern regarding the content of Billy Ego's userpage.

Thus, I think the crux of your concerns has been considered by the arbitrators in resolving the case. The exact parameters of what is or is not suitable for userpages is not defined by this case, but that was to be expected, as ArbCom generally deals with specific user-conduct disputes rather than setting policy, which is done by the community as a whole. I hope this is helpful. Newyorkbrad 17:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. The administrator absolutely did NOT seek or obtain a consensus prior to deleting/banning. Also note that I never replaced anything that I was blocked for having. I simply came here to request an arbitration after I was blocked. Billy Ego 19:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]