Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Evidence

Evidence submissions by June 6/7th

For the attention of all who intend to offer evidence: The Committee would like for all evidence to be submitted by June 6/7th. If you foresee any problems on your part with meeting that deadline, please make this known.

Thanks, AGK 18:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Scope of this case

I've got a question: what slant are the arbs looking at here? Is this purely about AMIB in the context of the Ikip incident, or anything earlier? Root is providing evidence regarding the 12 3RR/edit warring blocks, but most of those date back to 2007 and earlier, w/ only one in 2008 and two in 2009. That evidence is being used in the workshop to support sanctions on AMIB. So do the arbs want some evidence regarding that era or is that not germane? hbdragon88 (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This is something I'd also like to know. How narrow or broad is the focus? Or is this supposed to come out through the evidence presented?

Also, with all the refactoring of the process, I'm not sure what we are and aren't supposed to do now. - jc37 04:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Some guidance on this point would be appreciated. I'm not sure what I need to spend my time responding to. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated issues from more than a year ago would usually be disregarded. However if there are similar scenarios, irrespective of how far they go back, the arbitrators would want to be informed of them as that would demonstrate a pattern.

The block log is especially relevant, especially due to edit warring and it looks to be an ongoing problem. We often make note of the prior block log as a finding of fact, and it would be good if AMiB will point out which block entries should be disregarded due to the circumstances at the time. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is Ikip mentioned in this?

If you have a problem with Ikip, then this isn't a place for it. Why does Steel have an entire section apparently just about Ikip? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A_Man_In_Black/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Steel Did something Ikip do, justify A Man in Black's actions somehow? Dream Focus 19:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the drafting arbitrator, this case's scope is not limited to AMIB but all parties as usual. – Steel 21:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ikip has been sending me emails during this case asking me to ghost post stuff for him

While I dislike AMIB, I want to see him go down legitimately; as such, I refuse to cooperate with Ikip. Ikip, if you want things posted, do it yourself. You're a party to the case, not me.

Also, to the arbs: should I be contributing anything? I was most definitely involved in the dispute with the Gundam articles (and the concurrent template dispute over infoboxes), but I'm not sure that I could add much, as most of the pertinent stuff's already been commented on. I would be certainly be willing to explain why I acted as I did at the time. Jtrainor (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)