Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:26, 14 September 2009

Requests made

Noting here the requests I made while following up the most recent blocks and the sockpuppet investigation: , , , , . If anyone else needs to be notified of this case, please note this here. Carcharoth (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

I've tracked down the diff here where Pantherskin added Noloop to this sockpuppet investigation. I'm still trying to work out what went on there. If evidence is presented by Nolooop, Pantherskin and Abce2 about the events leading up to that, then that might help make clearer what happened here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Case extended for one week

Very little evidence has been added so far, and what has been added is difficult to understand at the moment. There has also been zero activity on the workshop, and Noloop has said he does not intend to participate in this case, and WebHamster said he would not be entering a statement at the request. Consequently, I'm extending the target date for the proposed decision to next week (13 September), and will start to add an evidence section to keep track of the details here as I go through the diffs presented so far. I will leave a note on the talk page of all the parties to notify them of this, and direct them here to discuss this. Carcharoth (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've quit editing articles, as I explained on my Talk page , and also in my statement here. This community is unfair. Your comment about editors' statements being "difficult to understand" made me laugh. I dealt with such statements for two months. You requested evidence, so here's a little. My last effort to work toward consensus on Anti-Americanism was to create a section called "Guiding Principles" in which I outline my ideas for the article . Slatersteven's response was "difficult to understand," ignored my reasoning, and mostly seemed aimed at just contradicting me . Pantherskin trolled . That was one day. Multiply it by 60, across half a dozen articles that they followed me to. Then add in the indifference of the admin community , and you have the causes of my frustration. So, I quit. I would be happy to be indefinitely blocked. Noloop (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank god, although it would have been better you would not have started editing here at all and wasting everyone's else time and nerves. Although I am afraid that we all have to watch out for future edits by Noloops sockpuppet, but then fortunately the way he trolls and the way he attacks other editors is easy to detect. Pantherskin (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Another reason not to put energy into providing evidence of, say, trolling: it's eventually self-provided. Noloop (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, your comment only proves what I said. Apart from that, this arbitration request is a waste of time due to Noloops inactive status. And should Noloop reappear as a sockpuppet there will be other ways for the community to deal with him. Pantherskin (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is anything to feel glad about. I truely bleive that Nollop activites started to deterioate after witnessing what he thought ws accetabel behaviure from others.Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree. — Ched :  ?  22:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Strange I wasn't mentioned. I'm usually accused of something at least once a week. Not joking. Abce2|TalkSign 05:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

But honestly, take the log out of your (in this case:you) eye before taking the speck out of your friends eye, (in this case:Noloop). Now, I'm not saying Noloop should get away with it, I'm just saying we all did something. Abce2|TalkSign 05:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Who is you?Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Everyone. Abce2|TalkSign 20:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems fair enough. I agree that we all did something we should not be proud of. And as I said I bleive that Nollop has just picked up bad habbits.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. More evidence would still be good. I can look into the context of events, but I do need to be guided by the evidence being presented. What would also be helpful is thoughts on what you all think the scope of the case should be. I've been a bit busy this week, but should be able to get back to this on Friday. Carcharoth (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no details on Webhammsters acount (such as how often hes been blocked and why)?Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

My computer crashed last night. I've filled in the details now. I am going to be working on this case every night this week, but I will need to attend to some other business as well. If no-one has evidence left to present, may I suggest that they present workshop proposals instead, to give more of an idea of what they want from this case. I should have some proposals up in a few days. Carcharoth (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Scope

I think tjhat (over the issue of the sockpuppetery) all (involved) user accounts should be looked at in regards to the actions of the two cases listed in this dispute.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Kind of seems like an unnessecary block for most parties. Abce2|TalkSign 20:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

But we do not know who created the sockpuppets, only that someoen was playing about. Of course it was most likly one of three accounts, but it might not have been.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

We do. Some troll who's done this before. Abce2|This isnot a test 20:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)