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)


 * Is this a precise, enforced deadline of 00:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)? I anticipate that I may need until 08:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC). Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've submitted my full evidence, thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:34, 7 June 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?  D r e a m 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)
 * Shouldn't we just focus on one person at a time? Do the actions of someone else, justify the actions of the 12 times blocked administrator?  Isn't this case about an administrator misusing his tools and not acting like an administrator should, not the behavior of one of many editors he crossed paths with?   D r e a m Focus  21:17, 3 June 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. Though, I havn't really had any interaction with AMIB (beyond occasionally running into him at AFDs) since the Gundam thing. Jtrainor (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say go with the Gundam stuff. It is far more effective to present all evidence at once than going separately on our own.  I don't even know who Ikip is, or his disputes with AMIB, but from what I see in occasions I visit AMIB's talk page, he seems to have various disagreements with a lot of party, though I support some of them, and some I agree with AMIB, yet the actions AMIB performs obviously angers a lot of people and is not quite suited as an admin.  MythSearchertalk 06:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And yes, Ikip, has in the past used email to solicit help. (In the past, I've received several, myself.) So I have no doubt that this continues. - jc37 06:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. Contributed my interactions with AMIB. Jtrainor (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Jtrainor's integrity is admirable - it is difficult to think of a good faith reason Ikip would choose to participate in this way. If he has time to email people to ask them to comment by proxy surely he could come off his tactical wikibreak for long enough to log in. Perhaps some of Ikips' other, more compliant "correspondents" could identify themselves? pablo hablo. 18:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not it! Hobit (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not been approached that I know of, although my spam filter can be a bit buggy.  MBisanz  talk 20:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ikip's is busy studying for the bar examine, he having administrators block him from being able to post anywhere on wikipedia, for a few weeks, so he could study, without the temptation of wikipedia distracting him. Then something happens, that brings him into it, he still trying to study. I see on his webpage someone telling him he can just "Since you're on wikibreak with the enforcer tool, you can always add any evidence through e-mail, or any replies to evidence against you". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ikip#Wikipedia:Arbitration.2FRequests.2FCase.2FA_Man_In_Black_2  D r e a m Focus  20:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice coincidence. But it's worth noting one more thing: the idea with emailing evidence is that you send it to a neutral party (preferably a clerk) who post it on your behalf under your name, not secretly send it to people sympathetic to your cause who post it under their name. – Steel 21:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Coincidence? You mean he went to law school, because he somehow knew that years later his exams would happen at the exact time something like this would happen?  That he somehow conspired to have things fall into place, just so he could ask someone else to post something, instead of doing it himself?  Do you think he knew A Man in Black would be brought to arbitration a week after he got blocked to study, and that he would later be dragged into it, for whatever reason?  And since we don't know what the email said exactly, we don't know what he said, so can't really judge its contents right now.   D r e a m Focus  21:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * @Steel - That was my understanding too, you e-mail your submissions and they are posted under your name, not enlist a merry bunch of helpers to cut-and-paste your e-mails under their own names. pablo hablo. 21:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is also my understanding, so if I am posting for anyone else, I will mention it precisely in quotations. MythSearchertalk 06:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)