Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/DotSix/Evidence

I need some direction here. After doing an RfC, and the evidence provided on the RfAr, do I need to come here and present the evidence again? Or is the case being considered on the basis of the evidence already presented? Will a cut-and-paste suffice?

The damage that DotSix is inflicting is most pronounced when considered in terms of time lost from other activities. A dozen or so editors have spent literally hours, in good faith, attempting to sort this muck out; all this time could have been put to much better use. This will be the third re-hash of the evidence against DotSix; it is an overwhelming body of information. We know that he is a troll with a history on other sites going back years. We know he can manipulate multiple IPs. We know he will use delaying tactics, such as the identity crisis he is presently manufacturing. He has deliberately chosen not to participate in this arbitration, undermining the process by attempting to start arbitration proceedings against what he calls my "cabal".

Due process is vital - but how much process is due to someone who will not participate? He has had every opportunity to present a reason for his disruptive behaviour, and not done so. Further delay simply provides him with further opportunity to derail the writing of the Wiki.

So, if it is really necessary that the evidence be presented here again, I will do so. But please, consider what you are asking. The delay simply allows further vandalism to occur. Banno 21:33, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, folks, I find the instructions obscure and the format absurd. Much as I want to continue this process, I am stumped. What is the expectation of ArbCom? Set out an example, if nothing else. Banno 09:38, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

The few edits I've done took far too long - a few hours. Yet I've been unable to make sense of the identity crisis DotSix and Donald R. Alford are having. It looks as if the time that will be taken by these proceedings will be huge. So the Troll wins. The Wiki must develop a more economical way of dealing with this blatant abuse. I'm not here to chastise folk or engage in arbitration - what I want to do, and I guess this is true of most editors, is build better articles. I think the evidence presented in the RfC and the RfArb is sufficient for the case to be carried. I hope the commitee agree. Banno 10:35, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Question for Mr. Banno: [personal attack removed]

Take a close look at the original editition [1] of

UPDATE: 67.182.157.6 now explicitly admits that he is Donald Alford. See this diff: [5] "The allegation in WP:Arb 67.182.157.6, "DotSix is Donald R. Alford" is correct," --Nate Ladd 19:12, August 20, 2005 (UTC)"

where Nate Ladd is caught lying through is teeth, then write some more of your obscurantist sophistry as an apology for Nate's behavior here: