Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein

Statement by uninvolved user Wizardman
Just to point out, I did in fact ask for this to be taken to RFC first, as this was just RFA'd and denied. Notice how this has yet to go to RFC, of MedCom, which may be a better option.
 * Addendum: Now that I finally found the original censored essay (at first I thought the debate was over Sandstein's removal of the quotes...) I do have to question judgment. Was the removal of the quotes necessary? Probably not, as you're allowed to have quotes in your userpage. The essay was a violation of the "not a soapbox" policy. If he left it to just "I am a fascist" it would've sufficed. If that's the main issue here, then I'm surprised that ArbCom's taking it. I'm not going to get involved further (no reason to) and I'll accept Arbcom's ruling.-- Wizardman 13:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by ElC
With the sole (?) exception (?) of Wizardman, admin consensus on ANI was in support of Sandstein's. How long will this user be permitted to waste the time of admins & the AC? I urge its members to accept the case for the purpose of examining the tendencious edits of Billy Ego. El_C 03:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I commend the committee for the speedy resolution of this case. Well done. El_C 21:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade
I also support Sandstein's actions and the community's consensus, and did so at the time. If ArbCom is what it takes to put this behind us, I urge the Arbitrators to accept. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
As noted above, there was broad support on the admin noticeboard for Sandstein's actions. ArbCom may wish to take this case in order to consider whether BillyEgo should be subject to some sanction for trolling, misuse of user space and wasting everybody's time. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Random832
(full disclosure: I was involved in the DRV of Category:Fascist Wikipedians which resulted in its deletion being overturned on grounds of the same standard being applied to it as to other political categories) I get the impression that there are two issues here: the essay and the quotes. Broad support for Sandstein's actions in one regard (demanding the essay be removed) should not be too easily construed as applying to the other (not allowing even a limited selection of quotes, not warning him before blocking when he was trying to reach a compromise). --Random832 16:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Subsequent request for clarification

 * Category:Fascist Wikipedians has been recreated. This category was mentioned in the finding of fact but there appears to be no remedy requiring it's deletion. Should I delete and salt it? It's gone. --kingboyk 10:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Billy Ego has edited his talk page since the ban, and it is now protected. However, User:Billy Ego appears to remain unprotected. I propose protection but wish to check with ArbCom first. --kingboyk 16:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) A lot of the users don't make sense to be on the sockpuppet list, so I am asking for where the IP logs as evidence for this are and if I can see them. After looking at the banned users list, a lot of these have had very differing opinions and I've ended up arguing against.  Especially User:  Instantiayion, with whom I had to compromise on the Planned Economy article with (actually, that running debate was about to be solved until he got banned), Anarcho-capitalism here whos position (as much as I can tell ideologically) does not line up with either User:  Instantiayion nor User:  Billy Ego.  I find it hard to believe that even if it were true, that one person would be able to so accurately portray so many personalities and ideologies.  This just doesn't seem to line up at all.  Fephisto 17:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding #2 - why protect it? Is it being vandalized? Regarding #3, no, you don't get to see the IP logs; they're confidential -- see CheckUser policy. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)