I'd like to thank the Arbitration Committee for accepting this case. I'm open to discussion of any aspect of this case. — Davenbelle 10:03, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

• There's little that I can add in the way of evidence; so far as I can see, Davenbelle has provided everything that I'd have done (though I'll check more carefully). I do want, though, to express my support for Davenbelle in this process. Trey Stone has a strong point of view which he pushes (and which he admits to pushing) on the articles that he edits; he is either unable or unwilling to see the difference between what is "obvious", "common sense", etc., and what is verifiable and aceptable in Wikipedia; and he is persistent in pushing his edits (as his numerous 3RR violations indicate). He has little or no respect for Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and does whatever he can to subvert them in order to get his own way. I hesitate to call anyone incorrigible, and I hope that he isn't — but he certainly comes close. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I just saw he was busy again on the Suharto page. He has become very annoying. Although I must admit I agree with some of his 'corrections', it's obvious he is not a very pleasant person. He has to discuss and to compromise with other users. Wikipedia is a public encyclopaedia. Please correct me if I am wrong. It seems he isn't willing to compromise. I am afraid Mel Etitis is right. But we shouldn't get personal here. Davenbelle and Trey have to work towards a compromise. Meursault2004 10:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This may be entirely unrelated to this case, but I woul like to point out that User:Coolcat has filed an RFC against Davenbelle, on allegation of her being uncivil, removing his comments, and spuriously invoking rules out of context. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Davenbelle and Stereotek. Radiant_>|< 10:44, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)