Frankly I am less interested than comparisons between coordination between with the list vs watchlist coordination than opaque coordination (list or watchlist) vs transparent collaboration.  I am just wondering what effects on articles (if any) can be seen.  I know these tactics frustrate editors and hold back the articles by attrition.  And the "other side" are all parties too.  I am not suggesting you only present evidence against EE list members.  Or even that it really be focused on individual editors.  What has the existence of a Battleground done to articles in this topic area, is really what I want to know.  While EE editors have apologized for some personal offenses, I believe that none of them have shown understanding that they harmed Wikipedia.  I am probably wrong about none, but I can't recall this.  I can't say that I have even paid much attention to this at the individual editor level.  Except to be honest I feel a bit differently about the admin. Mostly I want support for the argument that the whole Battleground approach is inferior.  Evidence that shows damage done by all parties for what it is would help because the focus on the revelations from the list while ignoring the other half the battleground reinforces their feelings of persecution.  Right now each side exaggerates the damage done by the other and then there is extra evidence against EE from the list.  If we don't convince them that we have a point about condemning this sort of behavior; I don't know that anything Arbcom can do will make an impact.  Arbcom isn't good at convincing.  If you think you have a chance of convincing them, I think it would be helpful.SB