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 cant recall this  I cant 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 dont convince them that we have a point about condemning this sort of behavior I dont know that anything Arbcom can do will make an impact  Arbcom isnt good at convincing  If you think you have a chance of convincing them I think it would be helpfulSB