Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For the former contest, see Wikipedia:Article rescue contest.

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Technical 13		25 May 2015	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	21 Dec 2024	11 Jan 2025

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

Technical 13

Initiated by PHANTOMTECH (talk) at 00:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Involved parties

• PhantomTech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Technical 13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Technical 13

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• AN/I thread endorsing an old block of T13's
• AN/I thread by T13 which endorsed his first loss of TE
• Subsection of an AN/I by T13, expressing concern about T13
• Most recent AN/I

Statement by PhantomTech

Technical 13 has a history of permission removals and temporary blocks resulting from problematic behavior. Continued problematic behavior indicates that past remedies have not been effective and that more severe remedies are required. The most recent AN/I thread resulted in no action with almost all who opposed claiming that the problems brought up were not serious or that T13's work makes up for the problems, these users made up about half of those who responded while the other half encouraged the situation to be looked into but did not seem to want to get too involved. This lack of a willingness to get involved that many editors, for whatever reason, seem to have is why I think the arbitration committee should get involved in this investigation of T13's behavior. Some example of past behavior include inappropriate attempts to sway the opinions of editors [1] [2] and failure to admit fault or change behavior pointed out to him [3]. Pointing out problems to T13 seems to be useless as several instances, that I'm aware of, of problematic behavior have occurred in the 3 weeks since the most recent AN/I thread was posted:

• A personal attack against editors, calling them "project dictators"
• Here T13 claims to have had no knowledge of the job queue issues while making the contested changes but that he should not revert those changes because he is now aware of the job queue issues and here he proves that he knew about the issue before making the contested changes changes to that template
• Here T13 violates canvassing policy by modifying his script to notify its users of a discussion where they would have a bias.
• Here, in part of a longer interaction with a specific IP filled with more WP:IPHUMAN issues, T13 claims he cannot start a discussion on an IPs talk page unless they register an account
• In another breach of canvassing policy and a disruption to recent changes patrol, T13 began sending out what would have been well over a thousand posts to notify people of a discussion on a humor page until eventually stopping after a talk page message, only to claim he did nothing wrong while quoting the exact part of the policy he violated
• In another reply to the above, he claims that the hudreds of messages he sent were not "too many", wikilawyers saying that he is not a bot which is technically true but at 20+ edits per minute with AWB is effectively no different and, finally, in what appears to be pointy behavior, he implies that what he did was better than an RfC since any notices from an RfC would have been posted by a bot

PHANTOMTECH (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Request to ArbCom

Considering T13 planned to be here on Monday, can more information be provided as to why he is unable to comment? Also curious as to how the case will be affected. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Note the date and type of deletion [4] PHANTOMTECH (talk) 06:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Response to Euryalus

@Euryalus: Very few who opposed brought up the age of evidence. With a quick look back at the "Recent issues" section numbers 1 and 3 are the only issues I can find that are more than a few days before the posting date, April 30th, with the oldest of all the "recent issues" points being less than a month old. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Technical 13

I apologize for my delay in responding, and I am drafting a response currently. I am also waiting on a response from WMF legal to an email about an issue concerning one of the arbitrators here before I post it live to this page. Doug Weller and DeltaQuad are aware of the issue, and hopefully can confirm that for me if needed. 20:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rschen7754

If this case is accepted, I plan to provide crosswiki evidence with the intent of allowing for "The Committee [to] take notice of conduct outside its jurisdiction when making decisions about conduct on the English Wikipedia if such outside conduct impacts or has the potential to impact adversely upon the English Wikipedia or its editors," such as applying for a global right to be able to edit all protected and interface pages (including on this wiki) after losing the templateeditor right on this wiki. [5] --Rschen7754 04:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I handed in my Meta admin flag with my steward flag, but I have been told by a Meta admin that there was no onwiki request for deletion of m:User:Technical 13, meaning that the request must have been over IRC or email (or some other offwiki medium). That being said: I find it interesting that Technical 13 has requested deletion of their Meta userpage, as their activity on Meta relates to the evidence I plan to present. --Rschen7754 01:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Also noting the past ArbCom filing by Technical 13: [6] In that filing, they again claimed to be busy in outside life. --Rschen7754 02:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@OccultZone: I remember something about that restoration of rights, but would have to do some research to remember what exactly, unfortunately. --Rschen7754 02:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Technical 13's userpage was undeleted by the same admin with the following summary: [7] While this raises some obvious questions, they are not within the scope of this case. --Rschen7754 04:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: I assume that others can present the evidence on the English Wikipedia better than I can, so I probably won't touch that. My evidence would probably relate to 1) applying for a global right on Meta to be able to have the same abilities to edit protected and interface pages on the English Wikipedia that admins do (even when their template editor permissions were removed, thus ignoring the principle of community trust/evading our local policies), and 2) providing additional diffs from other WMF sites to give additional perspective as to their attitude/manner of collaboration locally. --Rschen7754 16:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by L235

There was previously a pseudo-clerking section here; Callanecc's now done all the needed. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Wow, I'm already breaching my enforced Wikibreak by using my alternate account. Anyways:

• Having read through every ANI referenced by PhantomTech and other evidence provided, I believe that the Committee should accept this case to look into what appear to be very longstanding conduct issues, unresolvable in other venues.
• I agree with the points made by Floq and Iridescent. I consider myself to have a working relationship with T13- that is, we sometimes help each other to some degree on IRC about technical issues, etc.- and I agree with the characterization of him as a "mixed blessing". At times, he can be extremely stubborn and unwilling to compromise or change.
• Also, in response to Euryalus's point, I don't think PhantomTech could have opened another ANI without reasonable fear of accusations of forum-shopping.

Thanks, --L235 (alt / t / c / ping in reply) 03:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Euryalus: I agree with you completely in that PhantomTech would not be forum shopping, but I'm sure you know that, unfortunately, you have to be really careful when bringing established users before ANI, especially when you're much less experienced on Wikipedia, and I personally couldn't fault PhantomTech for coming to ArbCom in the circumstances. Unfortunately, (without assuming bad faith on the part of any specific editor- I have the highest respect for T13) meatball:VestedContributors are a thing. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to suggest that the Committee accept the case but not open it until T13 gets back, since there's no time pressure here. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• @Euryalus: I think I'm way too familiar with the procedures, but in response to your point, the ArbCom procedures explicitly say Editors named as parties to an arbitration case, and duly notified of it, are expected to participate in the proceeding. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Euryalus: OK, my bad, I think I read your comment wrongly the first time. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Hmm, I saw Technical 13's userspace draft for their response, and I'd like to respond to some of it, but seeing as it is still unposted, and the arbs look likely to accept anyways, and some people have already started responding, and it violates the word limit a lot, I think I'll just not respond. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kharkiv07

Technical 13 also constantly marks semi-protected edit request as " Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format." or " Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template." where he puts very little to no attention to look at the requests; many of his responses are preventing users trying to be productive from editing semi-protected articles.

All of his responses: [8]
Examples of marking clear requests as not clear: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]
Requests that clearly don't require consensus being marked as "no-consensus": [14], [15]
Marking "having sufficient rights" when user did not: [16]

Kharkiv07 (T) 19:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by TheMesquito

The Committee should hear this request due to the fact that anytime T13 behavior is called into question, nothing is done due to the excuse "he does good work" and then he continues to violate policy because he knows he can without punishment. Just because a user does "great work" does not excuse the fact that they are not following policy. TheMesquito^buzz 15:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@B: I disagree with your first point, as that was a most definitely a personal attack on the editors of AFC, it was not .snarky, it was rude and was uncalled for, and was done out of spite since T13 was told he should stay away from AFC. Your second point is valid, I did not see the problem there, and as for the Canvassing accusations, it was most certainly canvassing as the policy states "Do not send messages to to many users" and the mere fact that T13 is being so standoffish about it is worrying. TheMesquito^buzz 02:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Spartaz

If I may, this feels very similar to the problems we had with Betacommand - another user with good intentions, strong technical skills and a hopeless way of responding to feedback. We all know how badly that ended. While I note that T13 isn't editing right now the committee needs to get a grip on the situation to save us all from the disruptive potential time sink this could become. How we deal with it I don't know but I'm sure leaving this to fester isn't the answer. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with NYB. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• seriously? He can't respond because he is waiting on WMF legal? Is this to a case of CIR now? Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Robert McClenon

I am not making a statement as to whether the ArbCom should accept this case at this time. I will comment only on details. First, the statement that User:Technical 13 is taking a short Wikibreak is incorrect. That statement has been on his en.wiki page since at least 29 January 2015. Second, his Meta user page was deleted at his request on 26 May 2015. His en.wiki page is still up, with the incorrect Wikibreak banner. Third, he hasn't edited since the ArbCom notice was posted on 25 May (so maybe the banner is now correct after all). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I would ask the ArbCom not to decline this case only because the subject has not made a statement. As other editors have noted, it is too common for controversial editors to take long Wiki-breaks when their conduct is questioned. Any arbitrators who think that a case is not justified at this time may decline for that reason. A Request for Arbitration can be kept open for a long time or suspended. I ask any arbitrators who want to hear from the subject first to leave this request open (or suspended) rather than declining it due to the lack of a statement. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Floq

I've always considered T13 a mixed blessing; sometimes useful, sometimes mistake-prone, sometimes flexible, more often inflexible, always a little over-enthusiastic and over-confident in his infallibility. I would normally be ambivalent about a case and not post here, especially since now it means the clerks are going to notify me about the progress of a case 4-5 times. But I am sick to death of people suddenly "not being able to comment for a couple weeks" the second something serious happens. This may not be the best acceptance rationale, but I'd suggest accepting the case pour encourager les autres not to tell this fable when a case is looming/in progress. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Iridescent

What Floq says. While I haven't been monitoring him since then, from all I see little seems to have changed since I declined an unblock request from T13 two years ago. While I don't have any reason to doubt his good faith or desire to help, this seems to be another Betacommand, Mattisse or Merridew who is so convinced that he's an overwhelming force for good that he genuinely believes any criticism of his actions to be itself disruptive. I also endorse Floq's "pour encourager les autres" point unless T13 has provided a very convincing reason for his absence; my patience towards those who contract "ANI Flu" whenever their actions are challenged is not high, particularly given that the last few iterations of Arbcom quite often let people get away with the "been gone for a month and now the complaint is stale so we're not going to take any action" stunt whilst dishing out harsh penalties to participants who had the integrity to turn up and try to explain their actions. – iridescent 19:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad

Floquenbeam and Iridescent both make good points. I think they should both run for ArbCom. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment by B

I don't hugely care one way or the other, but just from reading the diffs in the original request, I disagree with four of PhantomTech's characterizations:

• A personal attack against editors, calling them "project dictators" - that's hardly a personal attack - it's at most mildly snarky.
• Here T13 claims to have had no knowledge of the job queue issues while making the contested changes but that he should not revert those changes because he is now aware of the job queue issues and here he proves that he knew about the issue before making the contested changes changes to that template - actually, from reading this, I believe the changes he is referring to are the ones he made on the 6th and 7th - before his ANI post. He said, "I wasn't aware of the job queue issues until after the changes made here" (emphasis mine).
• Here T13 violates canvassing policy by modifying his script to notify its users of a discussion where they would have a bias. - I'm not clear on what the problem here is - he is inviting people who use a script to join a discussion about improving the script? Am I missing the problem?
• Here, in part of a longer interaction with a specific IP filled with more WP:IPHUMAN issues, T13 claims he cannot start a discussion on an IPs talk page unless they register an account - this is taking what he says out of context - he neither says nor implies that it is not possible to communicate with an IP user, rather, he says that he prefers not to have discussions on IP talk pages because they get fragmented when the IP changes. He is not at all unwilling to talk to the person and specifically invites the person to continue the conversation on T13's talk page. Your claim of what he said is patently unrelated to what he actually said.

(As to the other two, concerning the notifications about the discussion of the Wikipediaholism test, regardless of whether it technically (no pun intended) violates a policy, it is at least a bad idea to do such a pointless exercise. I don't think it was a canvassing violation since he didn't pick and choose which side ... and he marked the edits as minor to minimize the RC disruption ... but whatever it is, it's a pointless waste of time.)

I'm not sure there is anything here for arbcom to arbitrate. A simple "please don't do it again" should suffice on the notifications and the rest of it ranges from extremely minor to patent mischaracterizations of what he said. --B (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by OccultZone

@Rschen7754: In the wake of this decline, after 10 hours, T13's template right was restored.[17] What do you think? There was no discussion before restoring the right. I was also involved in the extended discussion from July 2014,[18] I wonder if the right had to be restored without significant discussion, since there were problems with closing template edit requests.[19]

I also remember that Technical 13 had made reasonable amount of protest on ARC,[20] AN,[21] concerning the events that led to the removal of template-editor user right. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kurtis

I have no strong opinion either way. If an ArbCom case is what it takes to settle things, then so be it.

@Newyorkbrad: Touché. Kurtis ^(talk) 15:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Salvidrim

Without commenting on whether the case should be approved or not, I'm just noting down something here so that I am notified if it is accepted, because I intend to submit some (very small) piece of evidence privately, concerning the restoration of T13's TE user right in Dec. 2014. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

I like Technical13. Nevertheless, when people make the effort to pursue dispute resolution, they deserve a result, even when one of the parties is unavailable to participate. Unless there is evidence that the filing was done vexatiously, timed to annoy or inconvenience, the case should be heard now, preferably with the input of Technical13, or without if participation is not possible. Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Hammersoft

Responding to the original complaint;

• The term "project dictators" was not associated with any particular person. While it might (might) have been uncivil, it was not a personal attack. This is looking for a violation where there isn't one.
• Modifying a script to notify users of it is not in violation of WP:CANVAS. T13 wasn't advocating they vote any particular way. Rather, he was notifying the users of it. How is that a problem? These are the very people who would be affected by changes. He asked for their comments, and did not indicate any preference for how they should comment. This, too, is looking for a violation where there isn't one.
• T13 didn't claim he couldn't start a discussion on an IP page. Your statement is false. If you read the diff you supplied, he makes it clear he does not like chasing IPs around. This is quite reasonable. He also notes a willingness to continue the conversation with the IP. Once again, this is looking for a violation where there isn't one.
• Your second claim of violating WP:CANVAS is also false. The messages he left on user's talk pages were neutrally worded and addressed to those who would have an interest. You have a semantic difference with him over the term "too many" (which isn't defined anywhere) and 'interest'. Disagreeing on those terms doesn't make him wrong and you right. T13 is one of 35 editors here granted the massmessage-sender privilege. I also note that as soon as you raised the issue with him, he stopped the message sending and has not resumed. Great move on his part. And again, this is looking for a violation where there isn't one.

In short, I find your accusations without merit. I've not looked into the job queues issue as this is not my area of expertise. But, in every other respect your accusations are without merit. I concur with the first comment made here. You are digging at straws. I fear this case will become a billboard at which people will throw as much stuff as they can, from as far back as they can find, to make T13 look bad. What specific complaint do you have that you would like to see addressed other than that you don't like this editor and his actions?

To ArbCom; If you accept this case, you'd better be very clear about the scope of the case. Else, it WILL become open season anyone to dredge up all manner of 'evidence' that may or may not have anything to do with any other 'evidence' provided. This is already happening in this RFAR. How much dirt can we dig up on him? If you don't indicate the scope, you might as well indefinitely block T13 now and toss the keys in the water. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

2nd To ArbCom: The idea that you should accept this case on the grounds of "pour encourager les autres" is grossly in violation of WP:AGF. The case should not be accepted on the basis of whether T13 is here or not. It is irrelevant to the case. If in the event he can be here, he will certainly be motivated to do so if the case is accepted. If in the event that he can't be here, there's still no reason to not open the case. The project's work should never stop because a person is absent. We don't have to presume he is lying about his absence to conduct our work. Further, attempting to make an example of T13 so that other would-be miscreants 'who contract "ANI Flu"' would be discouraged from doing so would not have any desirable effect. That this suggestion would come from two former arbitrators is shocking. RFAR is NOT about making an example of anyone. This isn't a drumhead trial. Any action taken by ArbCom on the basis of supposedly making an example of T13 brings discredit to ArbCom and undermines the very purpose that ArbCom is supposed to serve. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Wbm1058

It seems his attention isn't fully devoted to this case, per his most recent edit, while his response remains a user-space draft. I just noticed this yesterday, and want to comment regarding his recent edits to Template:Orphan. I'm involved in maintaining that template, and I responded with this: Regarding the Job Queue, see the discussions here and here. phab:T98621 has been closed. Apparently there is more than one queue, but if the "jobs" statistic at this link is a useful indication, it's apparently shrunk from 15.7 million to something in the ballpark of 283 thousand. Per the phab comment "so we're back to business as usual even though there is still some backlog to recover", I take it that we can take this reason for delay off the table. Per this May 7 edit, you were aware of this job queue problem before your most recent of three Template:Orphan edits this month. We should ensure that there is a consensus for changes before making them live, and as you've already made three edits go live this month, you clearly haven't done that as well as it could have been done. Not that an occasional misreading of consensus should be a big deal. So, he granted himself three mulligans on editing a high-profile template, without adequately determining consensus, and intimidated others from making even a single edit. And, when he finally reverted his edits, apparently in an effort to save face, he felt obliged to also revert two other respected technical editors' edits, which had been previously accepted as they had stood for several months, dating from February and September. I suppose the rationale would be bold-revert-discuss, but these struck me as spiteful reversions, given their timing. Meanwhile, I've hesitated in proposing my {{orphan}} solution, as I feel sometimes that getting too close to an area that he's recently edited is like treading dangerously close to a "third rail".

Regarding the focus and direction of this, I would like to see further explained the rationale for why his template-editor rights were restored without discussion. I suggest that this case focus on his use and/or abuse of his template editor and mass-message sender privileges, with the potential sanctions of revoking these rights for a set period of time, or until a broad consensus is formed to restore them. I'm not keen to block this editor, and given their rights-collection, believe that revocation of one or two of them is a penalty that may have the desired effect. He should still be free to submit protected-edit requests for protected templates, and perhaps see what it feels like to occasionally get perfunctory "not done" responses to his requests. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Recuse. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Technical 13: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <7/1/0/5>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Awaiting T13's. I am strongly leaning in the direction of accepting this. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept per Floq, Iridescent et al. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• Waiting for response from Technical 13. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
• Waiting to see what Technical 13 has to say. Courcelles (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Noting that we have received communication indicating that Technical 13 will not be able to comment for a couple weeks. Courcelles (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• In light of [22], Accept. Courcelles (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• @Rschen7754:, you are correct. I can confirm that the Meta userpage was not tagged for deletion, in fact, it had not been edited since January. Technical 13's last edit on Meta (live or otherwise) was on 11 May 2015. Courcelles (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Minded to accept, but I'll await Technical13's statement before arriving at a final decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept, we've given plenty of time to deal with delaying factors. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Someone has to present the less popular view, it may as well be me. Leaning decline, subject to any reason why the following is invalid: from the evidence present, it appears all previous steps in dispute resolution have not been tried, because the bulk of the evidence submitted here post-dates the May 5 ANI. I agree the evidence from the past three weeks shows problematic conduct, especially the notification spam. However the May 5 ANI went nowhere because too much of the evidence was considered too old. If it was relodged with this more recent evidence as submitted here, I suspect it may get a different result. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• @PhantomTech: I suppose I'm suggesting you've provided excellent evidence of disruptive conduct over the last three weeks, but this evidence doesn't seem to have previously been presented at ANI. The May 5 ANI didn't show any great enthusiasm for action, perhaps a new ANI would if this additional material was presented. Or perhaps not, in which case all previous dispute resolution having been exhausted, I'd change my view here re a case on the topic. This is of course just my view - the consensus currently seems to lean the other way so this may all be moot. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• @L236:Personally, I wouldn't think it was forum shopping to open a new ANI with significantly different evidence from edits made subsequent to the previous ANI closing. An assessment of forum-shopping really depends on whether the new request is in evident good faith, or is just hounding someone over something already resolved. In my view this would be the former. But disagreement welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• @Hammersoft: Agreed re the sentiment of your two "notes to Arbcom." First, a coherent scope is essential so T13 (and anyone else) knows what they would need to address on the case pages. Not suggesting this is abnormally difficult here, just noting it something that should/would be borne in mind in basic case administration. On the second point: People are welcome to participate in Arbcom processes in which they are named parties, and they are equally welcome not to participate and to let their editing records speak for them. Per the recent Collect case: if T13 is unavailable the Committee can still proceed but shouldn't read anything negative into his unavailability. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• @L236: sure, but we're all volunteers and we all have real lives to attend to. Cases can't be delayed forever to suit everyone's convenience. But nor should we assume bad faith for extended absences. I expect people to take part in cases, and failure to do so may harm their position because they miss a chance to present their views. But I'm considerably unlikely to condem them solely because they won't or can't be there. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• I still want to wait. I'm not going to release personal information but the reason he gave made sense to me, given the time of year, so I'm going to AgF and accept it. I've been wrong before, but there's no time pressure right now since he's not editing. If I were to vote right now, which I'm not doing, it would be to decline as I agree with Euryalus. Doug Weller (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon: We aren't talking about a long wikibreak. He tells me he'll be back next weekend and I have no reason to disbelieve him. So I see no need to vote or even a suspend motion right now. Doug Weller 20:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Accept, sine this will need to be dealt with eventually. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Would really prefer to see T13 comment before I add anything. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon: I personally would not dismiss this case because of no comment. I would be preferred to do a suspend motion than to outright decline. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
• @Rschen7754: Can you define a little more of the scope of the evidence you would be presenting so that Arbitrators can be aware of the general issues that are surrounding this. It would help us make a more informed decision. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Rschen7754: Noted, thank you. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• After discussion with T13 regarding individual circumstances, nothing particularly prohibits this case moving forward at this time. I'm going to go with accept and encourage other Arbs to start finding a direction for this. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• While I am very much leaning towards accepting this case, I would like to see Technical13's comments first. I have seen the reason he has provided to the committee for not being around for a couple of weeks, and it is both credible and convincing. If he doesn't turn up and participate within a few days of when he says he will, I will be prepared to hear a case in absentia, but I do not believe at the present time that this is a case of "ANI flu". Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept. I'm growing increasingly concerned that Technical 13 is now trying to stall for time. Based on what is presented here and in private I see no reason why the case cannot proceed at this time. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Accept, with similar thoughts to Thryduulf. LFaraone 22:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)