Hey Ral, while I undersand the need for this article, my stand was always innocence, even though I understand why the ArbCom had to make the decision. "Very strong evidence" is never 100% conclusive, and if it is possible, I'd like to request that the article not be written in such a biased manner. Of course, I also understand if this isn't possible, trying to put this in the nicest way, the ArbCom would prefer themselves never to be put in a bad light - they are the third-highest power after the Board and Jimbo, after all. Also, please note I've changed the note on my usertalk to "extended wikibreak". Cheers, and good luck in the future, NSLE 11:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)