User:GreenC/t

This ArbCom began as a legitimate attempt to examine some users whose actions might be harming Wikipedia content, at large scale. It was later expanded to include 7&6. They are two separate issues. The case against 7&6 is evidenced by many of the same who tried to sanction him at ANI in October and November, but failed because 7&6 has the support of many members of the community, and the evidence was never strong. User:S Marshall earlier attempted to frame 7&6 for things he did not do (closed: "likely a good faith error"). User:S Marshall now says he takes "delight" in seeing 7&6 at ArbCom (Special:Diff/1093739354/1093743304).

User:EEng has been an inveterate cynical commentator about ARS for years. During this ArbCom evidence phase he called ARS a "religion" (Special:Diff/1093919940/1093931066), which implies blind faith and not objective decisions. If we are sanctioning users for aspersions, start here. This thread at ARS says it all, where he jokingly says he remains "subtle" about long running personal feuds (Special:Diff/1093594879/1093594962), though he originally said "I hide it well" (Special:Diff/1093594285/1093594879).

There has long been direct evidence of anti-ARS dog whistling at Wikipediocracy, for example most recently related to this ArbCom case: ("the old-school ARSehole Brigade still left"). It is a constant thing at Wikipediocracy, with people disparaging ARS and its members whenever there is an ANI or contentious AfD.

I picked two users, as examples, due to space constraint, though I make no direct accusations of off-site activity. Look, this case is strongest against the original three users: the question is if they are doing the right thing for Wikipedia at scale. This is the evidence ArbCom should focus on; in the case of 7&6 some trivial involved-editor personal grudges have spilled into ArbCom with little scale impact.