Noting here the requests I made while following up the most recent blocks and the sockpuppet investigation: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. If anyone else needs to be notified of this case, please note this here. Carcharoth ( talk) 20:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I find Nollops actions rather odd. If he does not wish to edit anymore he does not have to yet he insists he wants to be banned. Its almost as if he wants to be able to (continue) to blame others for his situation. Perhaps we should oblige him, making it clear it was at his own request. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
For anyone watching this page, and not the proposed decision page, I've made a proposal here to dismiss the case. Discussion is here. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Noting here the requests I made while following up the most recent blocks and the sockpuppet investigation: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. If anyone else needs to be notified of this case, please note this here. Carcharoth ( talk) 20:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I find Nollops actions rather odd. If he does not wish to edit anymore he does not have to yet he insists he wants to be banned. Its almost as if he wants to be able to (continue) to blame others for his situation. Perhaps we should oblige him, making it clear it was at his own request. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
For anyone watching this page, and not the proposed decision page, I've made a proposal here to dismiss the case. Discussion is here. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)