Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13/Evidence

Case status
Technical 13 made the following edits to Meta indicating that they may have retired. Have there been any indications that they will participate in the case? If not, will the case progress as usual (especially given the nature of the temporary injunction)? --Rschen7754 01:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The case will proceed as usual, with or without T13's participation, unless things change (possible but looking unlikely at this point). If things do change we will of course make it clear on these pages. The temporary injunction applies to the English Wikipedia only. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say he is not participating as per his recent requested permanent block, which included revoking talkpage access.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess on one hand I'm not sure if going through the full case processes would be worthwhile if he really has retired... but on the other I am concerned that he could show up in a few months, get unblocked, and try to proceed as if nothing ever happened. --Rschen7754 13:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. According to WP:SELFBLOCK, a self-requested block is essentially a version of a wikibreak. If a few weeks or months from now Technical 13 returns and requests an unblock by e-mail from any administrator, there is nothing in the policy to prevent such an unblock from being granted simply because of that request. Such a situation can then only lead to gaming, wikilawyering, endless WP:ANI debates and ultimately back to arbcom. In the temporary injunction posted at the proposed decision case the ArbCom states that T13 "has recently made several postings that constitute personal attacks. More than one has had to be suppressed as it was potentially libelous, and this would normally have resulted in an indefinite block from editing." The injunction is worded in such a way as to be an equivalent of an indef block with the limited exception of only allowing T13 to edit the pages of this arbitration case. Since T13 has clearly indicated that he'll not participate further in the Arbcom case, this limited exception has become moot. The Arbs need to just convert, by motion, the current self-block to an indef Arbitration block which can only be lifted via standard arbitration appeal/unblock request procedures. After that the case can be expeditiously closed, sparing everybody further waste of time. 130.126.108.129 (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Noting I've just moved to close the case in light of the events of the last couple days. Courcelles (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * T13 has previously lied about not having time to edit Wikipedia. If the idea that T13 no longer intends to edit is the reason for the motion then I highly recommend you reconsider, however, it seems there might be some other reasons involved. P HANTOM T ECH  (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * T13 is blocked and if the motion passes this will be converted to an ArbCom ban. He will need to contact the committee by email before he is allowed to make any more edits on the English Wikipedia, any edits under any other username are in explicit violation of that ban and should be handled in the usual manner (e.g. WP:CSD). If he does make an appeal, we will consider all the evidence so far presented before accepting it. Thryduulf (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence submission
I had planned to submit more evidence via email. What the evidence supports is very similar to my first email and the type of evidence is also very similar. With the motion to close passed, I'm wondering if the arbs would like me to submit this evidence of if they feel it is unnecessary. If the arbs found the previous submission convincing of what I was trying to show, this evidence does not add much more information. P HANTOM T ECH  (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)