Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noloop/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

1. Carcharoth
2. Coren
3. Cool Hand Luke
4. FayssalF
5. FloNight
6. Newyorkbrad
7. Rlevse
8. Roger Davies
9. Stephen Bain
10. Vassyana
11. Wizardman

Inactive:

1. John Vandenberg
2. Risker

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Proposed solution (I am not sure where I should put it)

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Given the nature of this dispute I do not think that a lone sanction against one user will solve the problem. It seems that in part it is the product of more then one user (at least some of whom skirt(I believe deliberately) close to breaking an number of policies, and an a regular basis). I therefore propose the following. Abce2: Not sure any action is needed. Slatersteven: Can’t really comments, I believe my actions were in good faith. Perhaps a comment left on my talk page, but no more. Webhammser: I have been in dispute with this user in the past; I believe that he is the main source of Nollops poor behaviour; I suggest that he is watched for 4 weeks, by an admin assigned by Arbcom. I also susgest that if he breached Wikis rules during this period he is banned from editing the page that the dispute in question was likened to. Nollop: I believe that he carries out good faith edits in a bad faith way (he thinks hes right, but does not care how he wiins). I also believe that he has learned some bad habits from the tolerance shown to other edds. Sanction As Webhammster.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC) On second thoughts, as we are all claiming that we are innocent and its everyone else. I suggest that the probationary period (three moths during which any infringement of policy will lead to being banned from a page) is extended to all the involved parties.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Update

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Apologies for the delay. Given recent events, I will be proposing to wrap this case up shortly. More soon. Carcharoth (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Discussion of proposed motion to dismiss the case

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've made a proposal here to dismiss the case. I will be directing parties to leave comments here if they object to this. Carcharoth (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I do not object as such. Nollop has decided to stop edditing for now (but may do so again). Webhammster has been indef blocked fair enough. But there is still to my mine the (unresolved) issue of the black sock puppetrty, it may not have been either of those (or the otehr user accused).lso appeat mthat attempts to get Webhammster unbanned are already underway. Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply