Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
  • Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if she/he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and 1 is inactive, so there are 13 of 14 arbitrators available, and 7 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:


[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Courtesy

1) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other, see Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 14:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 16:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 17:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mackensen (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 20:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutralitytalk 22:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Dispute resolution

2) When disputes arise users are expected to patiently negotiate, consult sources and other editors and, if necessary, follow the procedures in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 14:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 16:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 17:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mackensen (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 20:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutralitytalk 22:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Disruption

3) Users may be banned or otherwise restricted for editing in a way that constitutes clear and intentional disruption.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 14:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 16:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 17:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mackensen (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 20:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutralitytalk 22:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Edit wars

4) Edit wars or revert wars are considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 08:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 14:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 16:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 17:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mackensen (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 20:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutralitytalk 22:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Locus and adversaries

1) The locus of the dispute is Superman and Batman and concerns the edits and interaction of T-man,_the_Wise_Scarecrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Dyslexic_agnostic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Dyslexic agnostic feels he has a duty to correct T-man, the Wise Scarecrow [1]. T-man, the Wise Scarecrow has not appreciated the attention [2]

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 09:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 14:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 16:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 17:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mackensen (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 20:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutralitytalk 22:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discourtesy and personal attacks by T-man, the Wise Scarecrow

2) T-man, the Wise Scarecrow has been discourteous and has made egregious personal attacks [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]. See also [9].

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 09:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 14:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 16:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 17:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mackensen (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 20:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutralitytalk 22:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] T-man, the Wise Scarecrow blocked for personal attacks

3) T-man,_the_Wise_Scarecrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was blocked for one week for continued personal attacks [10]. The block was extended to a month and his talk page protected after the attacks persisted [11].

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 09:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 14:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 16:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 17:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mackensen (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 20:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutralitytalk 22:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discourtesy and personal attacks by Dyslexic Agnostic

4) Dyslexic Agnostic has been discourteous and made personal attacks [12], [13], [14], and [15].

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 09:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 14:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 16:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 17:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mackensen (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 20:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutralitytalk 22:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Disruption by T-man, the Wise Scarecrow

5) T-man, the Wise Scarecrow has disrupted Wikipedia, including blanking large sections of an article in dispute and making intentionally and blatantly provocative edits. [16] [17] [18].

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 09:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 14:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 16:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 17:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mackensen (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 20:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutralitytalk 22:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] T-man has violated assume good faith

6) In response to overtures by Dyslexic Agnostic to make peace [19] and [20], T-man responds [21] and [22].

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 09:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 14:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 16:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 17:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mackensen (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 20:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutralitytalk 22:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Edit wars

7) T-man, the Wise Scarecrow, and Dyslexic Agnostic have both engaged in edit warring in the articles in dispute, see for example [23].

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 09:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 14:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 16:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 17:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mackensen (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 20:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutralitytalk 22:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] T-man, the Wise Scarecrow banned

[edit] ... for 6 months

1) T-man, the Wise Scarecrow is banned from editing Wikipedia for 6 months for personal attacks and disruption.

Support:
  1. Second choice if mentorship passes as well. Clear case of disruption-bordering-on-vandalism and egregious personal attacks that have lead to his current one month block. Dmcdevit·t 09:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 17:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Mackensen (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 20:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Last choice if the other remedies pass also (as it appears they will). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutralitytalk 22:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] ... for 1 month

1.1) T-man, the Wise Scarecrow is banned from editing Wikipedia for 1 month for personal attacks and disruption. The ban to follow his current 1 month block.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. This is sufficient, I think, if the Probation passes too (which seems likely). James F. (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Second choice. SimonP 04:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. This is sufficient if the other remedies pass too, as it appears they will. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Both too light on their own. Dmcdevit·t 09:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    And as general note, the block is already lifted, so this is obsolete. Dmcdevit·t 08:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 20:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 22:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] ... for time served

1.2) T-man, the Wise Scarecrow is banned from editing Wikipedia for 1 month for personal attacks and disruption. His current block of one month shall be counted as time served.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Considering the block has been lifted for a week no without any serious violations (that I see). Dmcdevit·t 08:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. First choice. SimonP 04:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. This is sufficient if the other remedies pass too, as it appears they will. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I think that this is too mild. James F. (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    Dmcdevit·t 09:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 20:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Neutralitytalk 22:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] T-man, the Wise Scarecrow placed on personal attack parole

2) T-man, the Wise Scarecrow is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week. After five such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 09:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 14:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 16:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 17:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mackensen (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 20:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutralitytalk 22:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Dyslexic Agnostic placed on personal attack parole

3) Dyslexic Agnostic is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week. After five such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 09:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 14:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 16:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 17:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mackensen (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 20:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutralitytalk 22:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] T-man, the Wise Scarecrow placed on Probation

4) T-man, the Wise Scarecrow is placed on Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. T-man, the Wise Scarecrow must be notified on his talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. He may post suggestions on the talk page of any page from which he is banned from editing.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 09:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 14:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 16:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 17:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mackensen (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 20:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutralitytalk 22:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Dyslexic Agnostic placed on Probation

5) Dyslexic Agnostic is placed on Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. Dyslexic Agnostic must be notified on his talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. He may post suggestions on the talk page of any page from which he is banned from editing.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 09:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 14:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 16:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 17:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mackensen (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 20:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutralitytalk 22:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Too long, editing wasn't that disruptive. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] T-man, the Wise Scarecrow placed under Mentorship

6) T-man, the Wise Scarecrow placed under the Mentorship of two to three administrators in good standing, to be named by the Arbitration Committee at a later date, for one year. They may be changed at the Arbitration Committee's will. The mentors will be knowledgeable in the case, and are expected to actively enforce T-man's Probation and parole. As such, while any administrators may enforce the ruling, the mentors should be seen as the primary enforcers, and other administrators are encouraged to communicate with them before taking actions. Additionally, the mentors are charged with monitoring and guiding T-man, and maintaining contact with him, as well as helping him to carry on productive communication with others towards the goal of successful collaboration.

Support:
  1. Has indicated willingness even, and I think this would head off a lot of the problems he had. Dmcdevit·t 08:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Yes, with other remedies (Probation, personal attack parole, ban) suspended until and unless the Mentorship fails (that is, were the Mentors to give up and formally dissolve the arrangement). Could be worth a try. James F. (talk) 10:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 13:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 14:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. SimonP 04:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Charles Matthews 20:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutralitytalk 22:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Enforcement of probation

1) Should either Dyslexic Agnostic or T-man, the Wise Scarecrow violate any ban imposed under probation, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 09:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 14:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 16:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 17:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mackensen (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 20:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutralitytalk 22:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

A note to whomever closes this case: the Committee takes the mentorship remedy to supercede the banning remedy, up to and until either the mentorship breaks down or the mentors deem the ban necessary. Dmcdevit·t 09:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to close

[edit] Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision – at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

The following remedies apply with immediate effect:

  • 6) T-man, the Wise Scarecrow placed under Mentorship
    Mentors to be assigned
  • 2) T-man, the Wise Scarecrow placed on personal attack parole
  • 4) T-man, the Wise Scarecrow placed on Probation
  • 3) Dyslexic Agnostic placed on personal attack parole
  • 5) Dyslexic Agnostic placed on Probation

Should the mentorship fail, the following remedy shall be implemented:

  • 1) T-man, the Wise Scarecrow banned for six months

Excuse me if I misplace this comment I'm making, it's juts that I find weird unanimity in some issues. Only Fred Bauder showed some deep analisis of the situation, try to look at it from my shoes. I mean, remember I'm not the one that got the administrators attention and it was really hard for me to understand the criteriao of the personal attack thing. It is important that to point that there is not wikipedia guide (or at least not a clear one) stating: "Personal attacks can't be done on articles or their talk pages, on your or other user's pages or talk pages. There is absolutely no place for personal attacks on wikipedia". You know what I mean? It might seem obvious to you with all your experteace, but to newbys like me, used to the kind of trashy characteristic talks on your regular internet forum, it is not that easy. I'd also like to point that I was the one saying I don't think DA acts in bad faith. I was trying to be open and explain myself, I feel realy unconftable about the way you let DA twist my own words and put them on a sensacionalistic perspective. I mean, according to myself, I was calling things by their name. Let's be honest, all parties on an arbitration case like this one are suspected of acting in bad faith, that's what is discused here whether users are acting in good faith or not. And I'm a party, the term itself implies that I'm up against another "party" involved. If I considere myself the victim (one that stands his ground, and doesn't take crap from anybody mean, even if I only did it through foolish choices from which I think I learned a lot), the other party's bad faith is implied. You have to place words in context, that's what this arbitration lacked of in my opinion. I'm very sorry, but I saw very few arbitrators getting deep into the case. Besides, why the insistence on blocking me for 6 months if I fail the mentorship. Actually I asked for it. What, the other party can fail parole? DA followed me during and after the arbitration and told me on mail he actually plans to keep doing it. I sent that mail already to NSLE and Shanel, following their advice I cut mail interaction with DA. I've been registering DA's monitoring on my talk page. I hope this word can help some how. I'm being honest and I hope you can find a way to help, advice and get me through this problem..--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 07:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. Close. Dmcdevit·t 09:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Close. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 09:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Close. James F. (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Close. ➥the Epopt 15:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Close. Charles Matthews 20:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Close. Neutralitytalk 22:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)