This is shockingly short. Frostly (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is. There shall no doubt be a lot more after the decision's published, since right now it'd have to be a carefully unbiasd summary of a lot of competing viewpoints. Considered whether this should be rolled into one of the other sections, didn't see an obvious target, and, well.... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 06:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a very sensible editorial judgment to wait to cover the ArbCom decision until after it is issued, or at least is proposed. However, the references above to Wikipediocracy and BLPCRIME were probably not worth specific mention here; at least in my perception, these items are of very minor, if any, significance to the case as a whole. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They stood out to me, as the author of several Arbcom reports going back to the 2017 timeframe or thereabouts. It seemed unusual enough to mention. Rather the opposite; I would not have been surprised if off-wiki evidence, especially from that particular source, was subject to removal. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what? they said they weren't getting into off-wiki behaviour, which is what the BLPCRIME stuff is all about. Elinruby (talk) 04:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm mistaken this discussion by one of the parties is an explicit discussion of points made on WO. Whether it's to rebut or to dismiss it from evidence, I don't know, and isn't especially relevant at this point. The point is, it's being discussed in an Arbcom case at all. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]