Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein

message: === 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)
replies: text: I commend the committee for the speedy resolution of this case. Well done. El_C 21:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments prior to case acceptance

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved user Wizardman 

message: 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)
replies: text: I commend the committee for the speedy resolution of this case. Well done. El_C 21:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by ElC

message: 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)
thread_title: Statement by Seraphimblade

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by JzG 

message: ===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)
thread_title: Additional comments

message: (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)
thread_title: Statement by Random832

message: #: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)
replies: text: 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 m:CheckUser policy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsequent request for clarification