Based on the types of comments the arbitrators have made in other cases recently, I think they are likely to request more specific evidence that there is a problem with this article and the user conduct relating to it, including specific diffs, before they can consider accepting the case for arbitration. The diffs above and in the mediation request reflect some incivility, but do not yet establish problems at the level that usually lead ArbCom to accept a case. I'm just putting this here to save some time if the initiator of the case or anyone else want to post additional information before the arbitrators start commenting/voting. Newyorkbrad 01:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Superseded per additional info provided and the comment from Essjay. Newyorkbrad 13:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(uninvolved in this present issue, but previously involved with one party on another topic)

I asked ^demon whether a pattern of incivility by the same user (against other Wikipedians, on other topics, as showing character) would be relevant information for this arbitration, and was told yes, so... Please consider the pattern of personal attacks on other editors, as shown in Talk:Disemvoweling. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 23:07, 10 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Just for clarity, I'd like to ask that the statement at the top of the case be altered to read "Initiated by the Mediation Committee at 23:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)" to make it clear that ^demon did not initiate this case as a private party, but on behalf of the Mediation Committee. The difference is mostly academic, but could prove important in the understanding of where the case originated; it is a referral from mediation per the Arbitration policy. Essjay (Talk) 01:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merci. :) Essjay (Talk) 01:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]