Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noloop/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

False interpretation of consensus
Noloop continued to edit in a way that was disruptive to others, even after been asked and warned many times. He claims that just because he disagrees with it that it is wrong, even with several established editors against deleting whatever it is. Abce2 | Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  19:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

 

Continues to belive that Clean-up tags need discussion before placement even after it has been explained multiple times.

Personal attacks (I'm not just following the text that was below)
Noloop has called anyone who has disagreed with (with the exemption of admins) trolls, stalkers, and once socks. That's just basicly it. Note: When I "Apparently" followed Noloop, isn't the truth. Most people who know me know that I mostly fight vandals. But I also have 150 or so pages that I've watchlisted to work on later, which I never got to. Seeing Noloop pop up on my watchlist did surprise me. Abce2 | Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  20:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Noloop's stalking of WebHamster, doing so for no apparent reason.   accusations after a failed attempt to explain things to Noloop. ANI started by Noloop.

falese assertion of stalking
If I have been accused of stalking, I shall answer this in this way. [] was directly connected (by user noloops use of language to []). I therefore thought it would be useful if Nollops suggested rules changes were put into context. [] It was me wgho suggested that noloops and Abce2 took their dispute to nollops talk page (it was only natural that I would keep an eye on that matter)[] []. In addition you will not that I malso warn him of an ani [](it was this post he called staklking?). [] I have no excuse for other then often users only find out about pages thru other eds editis, other then I saw that same actions as on []. [] I came across as a result of seeing the report on user blippys page, no as a result of knowing Nollop was there. As to [], all I can say is that I waited 2 days before making my addition (you will not that Nloop him self says that “He doesn't generally revert my edits, just buzzes about and often opposes[].” You will also note I have now made a number of edits to this page, that is what I mean by you don’t allways know a page exists untill somkeone else edits it. I wouold also point out that Noloop has editted over 15 pages in total of since the 19th July, he has accused me of stalking because I have editied 5 of them. I hope this is rightSlatersteven (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

edit war block
As noloop points out I was blocked for one day for edit warring with user Webhammster. This was wrong on my part, and a rather childish reaction to a kind of goading to do so [] this in no way excuses what I did, the other user was (it seemed to me) attempting to either force me into 3RR or to not revert his edit (which seems to be to be playing the system). I was not however (as far as I am aware) blocked for incivility just edit warring. There have been three other attempts to report me for edit warring both have failed[], and in both cases my objections have now largely been accepted anyway. In the other nollop was blocked [], not me, though certainly I could have acted better, I bleived that Nollops edits were tountermount to vandalism. I cant find the other one right now.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be usefull if you were to give examples here of how you have been treated diffeerantly, or were you bleive an edd has been treated differanlty or more leaniantly then other edds. I think this is the sort of thing Noloop is talking about [] and this []. This is an example of nollop apping another user, in this case Webhammster []. Instead you make threats of Vandalism if you are not indef blocked []. Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Response to statement by Noloop : It is worth noting that there did seem to be some black sockpuppet accounts created []I cant find the other one. The evidance against Patherskin and blippy is rather poor[]. As to playing games, well I think this makes interesting reading [] [] I replied thus[] to which nollop [].Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Response to statement by Noloop on talk page : The compromise [] consisted of Nollop telling everyone what he wanted. It did not offer one compromise on his possiison. I raised an objection [] based upon policy, not attempts to circumvent it by creating new rules for one page only (rules that the user himslef does not obey on otehr pages. He made a similar attempt here[]. Slatersteven (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Third Response to statement by Noloop

Evidence presented by Noloop
I'm not inclined to participate. I don't trust admins to be careful or fair. I'm also mildly suspicious of sock puppets in the larger group (including Pantherskin, Munci, Gasta220, and Blippy). It's hard to put a lot of effort into reconciliation when you think someone's playing games. Wikipedia is a fascinating idea and I wish the project my best, but I don't trust the community. Noloop (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Carcharoth seems to be doing what I feel all admins have an obligation to do: putting diligence and care first, and judgment second. Also, what I feel no admin has done up to this point. Maybe the Arbitration Committee is like the "Editor Advocacy" team I proposed in my discussion with MangoJuice (on my Talk page). If so, the hurdles are too high. Quality over quantity in adminning is too important to be as limited as Arbcom cases seem to be. Noloop (talk) 03:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by PeterSymonds
Apologies for the delay; I have been out for the weekend. Per User talk:PeterSymonds, was causing disruption with his edits during a request for comment. He filed a sockpuppet investigation requests against several established users who were in disagreement with his edits (see Sockpuppet investigations/Papa November/Archive). I archived the case (bot edit), and then reverted the archiving. I blocked Free Hans, as it had all the hallmarks of sockpuppetry, but checkuser later confirmed that the two accounts were unrelated. An apparent troll, I changed the block reason to reflect the checkuser findings. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 21:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Background to the disputes
Adding links here to create a timeline for the disputes.
 * Middle East (7-21 July 2009, talk page thread at 'Anti-Americanism')
 * Please be civil (12-15 July 2009, WebHamster user talk page thread)
 * Some notes (16-18 July 2009, Noloop user talk page thread)
 * In light of the recent discussions... (16-20 July 2009, AN thread)
 * Requests for comment/WebHamster (created 16 July 2009 by Noloop, not certified or listed at RFC/U)
 * Four outside views by: Writegeist, Abce2 (later struck), Friday and ChildofMidnight
 * Other than the filer (Noloop), twelve other editors commented at this RfC
 * Despite lack of certification, kept as evidence for this case
 * Most edits between 16-29 July 2009, with a few late edits on 23 August 2009
 * Harassment (5-8 August 2009, ANI thread)
 * Requests for comment/Noloop (created 11 August 2009 by Abce2, certified by WebHamster and Slatersteven, listed at RFC/U)
 * One editor (other than the three certifiers) signed this RfC (Until It Sleeps)
 * No outside views submitted or further comments made
 * One outside view was made by a sockpuppet of Free Hans, and struck and moved to the talk page
 * Editing of the RfC took place from 11-22 August 2009, with a closing edit made on 27 August 2009
 * A talk page suggestion to file an arbitration request was made on 14 August 2009 by Soxwon
 * Arbitration request filed by Abce2 on 14 August 2009. Accepted and case opened on 23 August.

Locus of disputes

 * Anti-Americanism (former good article nominee, 28 talk page archives)
 * Articles for deletion/Anti-Americanism
 * Criticism of Human Rights Watch (no talk page archives)
 * Articles for deletion/Criticism of Human Rights Watch
 * Articles for deletion/Criticism of Human Rights Watch (2nd nomination)
 * Subject to general sanctions relating to Arab-Israeli conflict content

Other locales
These have been mentioned in evidence:
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Papa November
 * 6 July 2009
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Marbehraglaim
 * 2-6 August 2009
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Free Hans
 * 9 and 12 August 2009

Case activity
As of the timestamp to this post, apart from the initial statements by the parties and the single statement by a non-party, and the activity on this evidence page and its talk page, the only other activity was this thread on the Workshop page (regarding unblocking Noloop a day early from a week-long block to participate in the case). Noloop has posted to the evidence talk page and has stated twice he does not intend to continue editing. WebHamster declined to make a statement at the arbitration request, and has not responded to notices about this case. Abce2 and Slatersteven have participated at the evidence page talk page.

Case parties
On 9 and 11 September, Noloop asked Mangojuice to block him indefinitely (and again). Prior interaction appears to be this unblock request. Filed the arbitration case and the RfC on Noloop.
 * Noloop
 * Account created 12 March 2009
 * 855 edits since 12/03/2009
 * Blocked twice (16 and 18 August 2009) for 48 hours (FisherQueen) and then 1 week (Black Kite) for "Disruptive editing at Criticism of Human Rights Watch"
 * Extensive discussion on talk page (along with other relevant discussions).
 * WebHamster
 * Account created 2 November 2006
 * 17623 edits since 02/11/2006
 * Blocked five times and unblocked once. First block was on 27 January 2008 for 8 hours for 3RR at Alan Parsons (Stifle). Second block was on 7 March 2008 for 12 hours for 3RR at Anti-Americanism (Stifle). Third block was on 30 May 2009 for 24 hours for "disruptive editing: trolling" - unblocked four hours later by blocking admin after discussion (Jehochman). Fourth block was on 21 July 2009 for 5 days for "edit warring and persistent incivility" (CIreland). Fifth block was on 3 August 2009 for 24 hours for "being abusive after warnings" (Chillum).
 * Abce2
 * Account created 4 December 2008
 * 16,369 edits since 04/12/2008
 * No blocks
 * Slatersteven
 * Account created 4 April 2007
 * 2303 edits since 04/04/2007
 * Blocked once (21 July 2009) for 24 hours (CIreland) for edit warring at Anti-Americanism. Talk page thread.

Others

 * Pantherskin
 * Account created 31 July 2009
 * 121 edits since 31/07/2009, but see statement on user page
 * No blocks
 * , . Added Noloop to an ongoing sockpuppet investigation.

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.