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

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 11 active arbitrators. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	6
2–3	5
4–5	4

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Noloop case dismissed

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 ([1], [2]). 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 ([3], [4], [5]). Noloop then attempted to place a wikibreak enforcer on their account on 15 September 2009 ([6]), 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.

Support:

As proposer. Am noting two additional points here: (i) The degree of incivility displayed by WebHamster, and the tone of the trolling and socking accusations made by Noloop, were both unacceptable, and would likely have led to sanctions; (ii) More attention should be paid by uninvolved editors to Anti-Americanism and Criticism of Human Rights Watch. Other arbitrators may wish to propose additional motions on this or other matters. Carcharoth (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 10:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 14:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain: