Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 22:40, 29 July 2009 (→‎Arbitrator views and discussion: my comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024
Motion name Date posted
Geogre 23 July 2009
Geogre 29 July 2009

Motions

Geogre

Background

It came to the attention of the Committee in June that Geogre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the operator of an undisclosed second account Utgard Loki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Following an investigation, it has become apparent that Geogre has intentionally or carelessly used this account on a number of occasions for purposes not permitted under the sock puppetry policy, namely to create or contribute to a false impression of consensus:

The Committee invited Geogre to comment upon its concerns about the use of these two accounts early in July, so that he might have an opportunity to respond to them. The Committee has received and considered his response.

Motion 1

There are currently 12 active arbitrators; Risker and John Vandenberg are recused on all Geogre motions, so 6 votes are a majority.

1) The Utgard Loki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account is indefinitely blocked. Geogre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from maintaining any other alternate account without disclosing it publicly.

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. (But see below in regards to my previous involvement). — Coren (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. At least this, yeah. Wizardman 14:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Please also see comments below. Carcharoth (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    John Vandenberg (chat) 22:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Recuse John Vandenberg (chat) 17:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 15:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I have thus far held off on voting or commenting, in anticipation that Geogre might post on-wiki or submit a further statement to us, but it appears that he does not plan to do so. After careful review of the evidence and statements on this page, Geogre's response to an e-mail from one of my colleagues, and a number of mailing list threads, I have decided to abstain on this motion, to support motion 2, and to oppose motion 3. I'll comment in this one place with respect to all.
In his e-mail to an arbitrator, Geogre has explained the reasons he set up his Utgard Loki alternate account. I do not wish to say too much in paraphrasing a private communication to the committee, although my reticence (among other things) probably dooms this paragraph to be conclusory and unconvincing. But more than one person has already mentioned the substance of Geogre's explanation, which is that he sought to keep the edits he made from his home on a different IP than those he made from another location. Having studied his explanation (which went into more detail than this brief summary) and its context, I find it to be entirely credible that this was indeed Geogre's motivation, and that he did not initially create Utgard Loki for the purpose or with the intent of violating any policy.
Of course, having created an alternate account for at least a subjectively legitimate reason, Geogre should have known that as an experienced editor and an administrator he should be punctilious about adhering to our policies and guidelines on the use of multiple accounts. This, as the compilation that Bainer has posted above demonstrates, he repeatedly failed to do. Indeed, this is so in many more instances than I and others were aware of when discussion of this issue began.
Geogre should surely have limited himself to a single account, preferably the Geogre account, in commenting on any single RfA or any single FAR or most certainly in any single arbitration case. He did stop short of any instances of double-!voting or the like, which reflects that he did know that there were rules to be followed; and I find no instance in which it appears that the participation of the two accounts affected the result of any discussion or any case. But Geogre should have wholly avoided any conduct that could be understood as seeking to have his views credited as those of two editors rather than one.
In this regard, I can surmise how the problematic use of both accounts probably got started. After having originally used Utgard Loki simply for content work, at some point Geogre must have wanted to make a point in a project-space discussion, and he must have wanted to make it then rather than wait several hours, and he had either forgotten that the other account had already commented on that page or he decided that having both accounts comment would be, in that instance, harmless. So he went ahead and did it, and the world did not end, and over time it became easier to keep doing the same thing. That is not an excuse, of course; in each case, if he felt it critical to keep the geographical usage of his two accounts wholly discrete, then he had to wait to edit until he was where he needed to be.
But I do not see this in the same grave light as described by some who have commented, as a years-long, brazen scheme of grossly and intentionally abusive socking. I see it as an initially well-intentioned, if to some outside observers unnecessary, protective measure gone badly wrong.
To the best of my knowledge, the very first time Geogre was ever asked whether he was the owner of the Utgard Loki account, in an e-mail from a fellow arbitrator a couple of weeks ago, he immediately acknowledged it and explained his reasons to us. By this point, in Geogre's mind, the purpose of maintaining the separate account had already been compromised, and I am sure that any advice we had given that he was no longer to use more than one account, or no longer to use more than one account for any purpose other than mainspace editing, would have been heeded. Nonetheless, at that stage, it was at least arguable that some public linkage of the accounts might have been desirable, despite Geogre's presumably still-extant desire to keep them separate and unlinked. From that stage, there surely was no reason to suspect that any further misuse of the Utgard Loki account would occur.
The next thing that happened was that an administrator blocked the Utgard Loki account as a misbehaving sockpuppet, templating User:Utgard Loki with an announcement that Utgard Loki was blocked as "a sockpuppet of Geogre"—using precisely the same wording and tone with which we would describe "a sockpuppet of Archtransit" or "a sockpuppet of JarlaxleArtemis" or "a sockpuppet of Amorrow". While I understand that this was intended as transparent equal treatment for an established administrator as for a new user who had made the same mistake, I found it at the time to be at best unnecessary. I am sensitive to the demand that we treat people who commit the same violations in the same manner. Indeed, I committed to writing for the committee (in the Cla68-FM-SV case), our observation that "double standards, actual or perceived, can be seriously demoralizing."
And yet, just as it can be unfair to treat equals unequally, we have also recognized that it can also be unfair to treat unequals equally—as can be inferred from the result in a recent case in which I wrote our decision, which I shall not here identify. An established editor who has been part of the project almost from its inception, with thousands of high-quality contributions and hundreds of hours of dedication and a known if idiosyncratic voice, who regrettably misused his second account and needs to be firmly reminded never to do so again, is not the same thing as a sockpuppeteer who comes here to mess us around. I still believe that a caution or a reminder or an admonition that Geogre must abide strictly by our policy on alternate accounts might well have sufficiently addressed the problem before us.
But that is water under the bridge, and I turn to the three motions now before us. I will abstain on motion 1, above. I am not certain that Utgard Loki needed to be blocked, but the account has been blocked for two weeks now, and there has been no unblock request, and the purpose of the account has been defeated, so the issue of whether the account should remain blocked or not is probably moot. As for the second sentence of the motion, I can understand that we would want to require that any account of Geogre's be disclosed at least to the arbitrators; I am not certain that a "public" disclosure is essential, but this matter too may be moot as it is unlikely that Geogre will seek to operate a second account again in any event. (I fear, of course, that he will lose interest in operating any account at all, but that cannot be a material consideration in my voting.)
I will support motion 2, which admonishes Geogre for his actions. It is not worded as I would have written it, but of the three pending proposals it comes closest to what I consider a proportionate response on the record before us.
I will oppose motion 3, which desysops Geogre, as I find it disproportionate to the offenses committed. Although adminship can be revoked for misconduct not involving the use of administrator tools, the fact the few if any of the issues in this case involve the use of such tools is at least relevant. Candor compels me to add that while the decision to desysop is to my mind excessive, it is understandable. Two or three weeks ago, I considered the idea of desysopping Geogre for his use of Utgard Loki to be an outlandish one; with the additional evidence compiled above, which I thank my colleague for compiling, it is no longer that. But to me it still is too much. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: My attention has been drawn to an edit a year ago in which Utgard Loki denied that he was an administrator, during the course of a discussion. The edit is especially perplexing because the adminship vel non. of Utgard Loki had little, if any, relevance to the discussion in any event. That type of conduct was certainly unworthy and should never be repeated, but fortunately it did not typify the usage of the two accounts as displayed here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The new statement from Geogre changes the situation materially. None of the motions should be closed until we have heard from him further. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse:
  1. (Risker)

Motion 2

There are currently 12 active arbitrators; Risker and John Vandenberg are recused on all Geogre motions, so 6 votes are a majority.

2) Geogre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is strongly admonished for sockpuppeting and his actions related thereto.

Support:
  1. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I originally saw no need for a specific admonition given the one implicit in the imposition of the restriction about undisclosed alternate accounts, but I also see no harm in stating it explicitly. — Coren (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 14:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Regardless of explanation, any occasion where the illusion of two users has been created is problematic and deceptive. However I do note that Geogre has been editing since without fuss, which I do take as an acquiescence to move on past the episode. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Prefer Motion 3 below.  Roger Davies talk 07:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. In addition to motion 1 and motion 3. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    John Vandenberg (chat) 04:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Recuse John Vandenberg (chat) 17:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per my comments on motion 1, which are part of this vote as if quoted in full here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Concur with large parts of what Brad says, but edits like this mislead, even if not intended as such. Carcharoth (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Switching to support. Carcharoth (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC) My support of the restriction above was based on the e-mail correspondence, but I am not yet prepared to support an admonishment (or any further sanctions) until Geogre has responded in public to this motion. I will however, support this admonishment if Geogre fails to respond. Further sanctions would require a case to look at the evidence and the background to all this. Carcharoth (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noting here that I will move to support this motion by 13:14, 28 July 2009 08:33, 28 July 2009 if no response is received. I see no reason to move faster than this here, and will accept a case if an appeal is filed after that date. Carcharoth (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Changing date to be 48 hours after notification of third motion, per my post here[reply]
Placeholder, as above; waiting a bit longer to see if Geogre wishes to post publicly, before commenting further. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I too am hanging fire until we've heard from Geogre publicly.  Roger Davies talk 15:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse:
  1. (Risker)

Motion 3

There are currently 12 active arbitrators; Risker and John Vandenberg are recused on all Geogre motions, so 6 votes are a majority.

3.1 It is beyond doubt that Geogre (talk · contribs) used Utgard Loki (talk · contribs) in a manner which created the illusion of greater support for positions held by Geogre, in breach of the "Voting and other shows of support" and "Avoiding scrutiny" sections of the sock puppetry policy.

3.2 Administrators using a second account in a forbidden manner will be summarily de-sysopped, per the "Administrative sock puppets" section of the sock puppetry policy.

3.3 Geogre is desysopped and may regain adminship via the usual means.

Support
  1. As proposer,  Roger Davies talk 07:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 14:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I agree in principle with this as well, and support the motion, but note that should the more general case request be accepted this must be subsumed (and rendered moot). — Coren (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Despite Geogre's claim that the alternative account was never intentionally used to boost support for an opinion held by himself, there is evidence to the contrary. Some comments gave the false impression that the two accounts were not the same person, so when they both participated in later discussion on related or different topic, other users would reasonably assume that it was more one than one person holding that opinion. Since informal and formal decision making on Wikipedia English is driven by consensus, this undercuts the core way that we work. I will review future statements made by Geogre or others and change my vote accordingly. But so far the claim that no abusive use of the second account happened does not hold up. Since Geogre will not affirm this point, and has in fact stated the opposite then I feel that I have no other option than to desysop with the ability to seek admin after a RFA or by request to the Committee. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Flo. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The use of the alternate account appears careful and calculating, with many incidences of both being used in the same discussion but never overtly crossing the line; for example in deletion debates, one account would be used to expressly support or oppose deletion, while the other would only do so implicitly through comments. This was certainly deliberate. That Utgard Loki was an account to be used at the workplace has been proferred as an explanation above, but that would have been an acceptable explanation if and only if the accounts were publicly disclosed. --bainer (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    per FloNight. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Recuse John Vandenberg (chat) 17:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The wp:sock policy is crystal clear. I am urging all admins who might still operate sockpuppets to follow the policy. The "oh, my sock was known to X and/or Y" should never be used or considered as a valid reason. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Agree with many of the comments for and against this, but on balance am supporting this motion. Carcharoth (talk) 02:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Per my comments on motion 1, which are part of this vote as if quoted in full here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Switching to support. Carcharoth (talk) 02:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Agree in principle with this. I am also still waiting for Geogre to respond publicly. He has not edited since 23 July, three days ago. I am prepared to wait until 5 days 48 hours after this motion was published and Geogre notified (i.e. 13:14, 28 July 2009). (i.e. 08:33, 28 July 2009). If Geogre has not responded by then, I will move to support the desysop motion when I next edit after that point. I don't see a need to move things any faster than that. I will also continue to accept a full case if requested, or if Geogre files a reasonable appeal. Carcharoth (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the point at which it is reasonable to wait for a response to 48 hours after this notification of motion 3. i.e. to 08:33, 28 July 2009. My earlier figure of 5 days was in error, and referred to time elapsed since the first motion, when in fact 48 hours is usually the minimum time for any motion to pass, and should be calculated from the time each individual motion was posted and notified (there was a slight error in that no notification of motion 2 was posted to Geogre's talk page). More on this in my notes here. Carcharoth (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse
  1. (Risker)

Motion to close

  • (Added to avoid confusion on the issue of closing and implementing motions 1, 2 and 3. Thatcher 20:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Four net votes in favor of closure are needed to close and implement motions 1, 2 and 3 (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). The motions will be closed and implemented 24 hours after the 4th net vote to close, unless subsequent votes reduce the net support. The Clerks will close and archive the motions, and take any actions required to implement any motions that pass.

Support
  1.  Roger Davies talk 20:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Since Geogre's statement today is similar to previous statements to the Committee with no new evidence or explanation given, after reviewing Geogre's statement, the best path forward is to enact the motions, and to direct Geogre to make a request for an appeal when he has the time to make the request. I'm basing it on his statement that indicates that he may not be able to make it a priority now. When he can give it his attention, then the Committee can review his statement and evidence. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Given that there is no substantive defense in Geogre's statement, there is no reason to delay closing those motions. I reiterate that he is welcome to either file an appeal once he has the time to make his case, or to provide a statement to the full case that is still pending. — Coren (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 23:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Coren and FloNight. To briefly respond to UncleG here, the diffs he pointed out were found immediately. It was those diffs that caused Mackensen to ask Geogre what was going on back in April 2007, and ArbCom were aware of those diffs from early on as well (when this was raised in late June 2009), and that diff has been mentioned here by me as well. So UncleG pointing that diff out is nothing new. Geogre, if you want to appeal this, you can do so separately from the existing request. Carcharoth (talk) 05:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Noting here that I owe Uncle G an apology. The first "self-identification" diff he points out (from April 2007) was already known. However, the second, from January 2009, was not. Thank you for pointing that out. Still, it should be noted that both diffs were corrected or reverted by Geogre minutes later, thus undoing any "self-identification" value. Carcharoth (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I believe we should have the benefit of a full statement by Geogre before acting on any of the motions and certainly before desysopping him. I would not object to our setting a reasonable deadline for him to submit such a statement. Geogre is not presently very active as an administrator, there is no urgency to the situation, and if deemed necessary we could ask him to refrain from using his administrator tools until the matter is resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • In this particular case, I was notified of the alternate account in my capacity as an administrator by a number of uninvolved editors. After bringing the matter to the Committee's attention and after confirmation that the Utgard Loki account was, indeed, under the direct control of Geogre, I have blocked and tagged the account pending further disposition by ArbCom. My involvement outside normal committee deliberations ends there. Given that this was strictly an enforcement following standard operating procedure, and that I have had no involvement or dispute with either account before or since, there seem to be no reason for me to recuse in this motion formalizing my original act. — Coren (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As an addendum, there is little to add to the timeline summary provided by Carcharoth. It is probably worth mentioning that on June 27 the matter of the Utgard Loki was raised, but was on an unrelated thread and quickly dismissed as unimportant given that, at the time, no indication of improper use of that account noticed. My block on July 5 was following Geogre's email response that positively acknowledged his control of the account; at that time, evidence that the account had been used improperly was available. — Coren (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further action by the Committee is possible in several ways. The Committee has exchanged information with Geogre that led us to take this preliminary action. With more input from the Geogre or others in the Community then the block might be reviewed, or an admonishment or desysop motioned added. A full case request could entertained if more evidence needs to be compiled. These are three on a list of many possible further actions that could happen. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I am the colleague Newyorkbrad referred to in his placeholder statement as having been e-mailed by Geogre. If that is the case, a timeline of that correspondence may help here. While I can't disclose what was discussed, unless all parties agree to it, I think it is important to be open about the level and amount of communication that took place. It may also make things clearer if Coren adds dates and timings to the record of his actions. Anyway, I first became aware of this issue on 27 June, during discussion of an unrelated matter. When we received further information over the following week, and I realised there was sufficient overlap between the editing of the accounts to cause concern, I offered to write to Geogre. This offer was made on 2 July, and the initial e-mail I sent to Geogre was sent later that day, and was copied to the arbitration mailing list. It was followed by a talk page note on 3 July saying he had e-mail. A reply was received on 5 July, addressed both to me and the committee. I sent an acknowledgment of the initial reply on 6 July, and a further response was received that same day. I then sent two specific replies to the two e-mails from Geogre, sending those on 9 July. The three e-mails sent after the initial e-mail were, like the initial e-mail, all copied to the arbitration mailing list. There has been no further correspondence to date. I am happy to answer any questions Geogre has about those e-mails, if he would prefer to continue the discussion in public of the points raised there, and the further points raised here with this motion. Carcharoth (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Giano, Mattisse has raised some valid points that had not been considered previously. As far as I can tell, those diffs are also inappropriate uses of the Utgard Loki and Geogre accounts in the same discussions, or Utgard Loki expressing the same viewpoints as Geogre. Regardless of whether those views are justified or not, it is not acceptable to use two accounts in that way, simply because it misleads those who don't know of the connection between the two accounts. Furthermore, what you have posted below is an attack on Mattisse. I have seen you several times popping up in discussions and commenting on Mattisse in this fashion, calling her a troublemaker and expressing surprise that she is still here. This is classic baiting on your part, and absolutely unacceptable behaviour. It needs to stop. Right now. Carcharoth (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Giano, I've been an arbitrator for six months, not a year. I do consider the storyteller when assessing what is being said here, and that applies to you as well as Mattisse. I am aware of the history with you and Geogre, and Mattisse and Geogre, and I try to make myself aware of any history between Geogre and others commenting here. I try and weigh all this in the balance, including the potential harm and benefit to the encyclopedia, and then, looking at the evidence, decide which motions to support. Carcharoth (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to SlimVirgin, I would like to endorse in particular the appreciation of Geogre's content contributions (with both accounts). However, before any such clemency could be considered, there would have to be some public indication from Geogre that he understands what was inappropriate about the overlapping edits he made with the Geogre and Utgard Loki accounts. Until that happens, and until he indicates that he knows how and why such accounts need to be kept separate, the restriction should stand. Carcharoth (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to David Gerard and Jpgordon - if you, or anyone else, wants to make a case for desysopping, please file a case request or petition an arbitrator to propose a desysop motion. My personal opinion is that this motions page is not the right place to debate and present such evidence. The issue was brought here precisely because no-one had filed a case request. In my view it is not right and proper for arbitrators to file case requests, but initial motions like this can help decide whether the matter can be dealt with by a series of motions, or whether a full case is needed to look at the evidence more closely, and at the background to this case, including who knew what and when. Carcharoth (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is getting a bit unwieldy. I would like to respond to several more of the points below, but doing so here doesn't seem like the right place. Where is the right place for a threaded discussion where points can be responded to in a clearer fashion? I will very briefly point out to SlimVirgin the edit where Mackensen says he was aware of this. See here. That indicates that Mackensen had concerns as long ago as April 2007. Mackensen is welcome to state in public what he knew, or e-mail the Arbitration Committee if that is the better option (given his statements about in camera cases and privacy concerns). I agree with SlimVirgin that this was mostly typical behaviour for an alternate account, but there are actions which were not acceptable. One of the clearest indications that this is an alternate account and not an intentionally abusive one, is here. Any abusive sockmaster would have realised the game was up at that point. Instead, the Utgard Loki account continued contributing, and, in my view, there was a failure on the part of the community to pick up on this, and a failure on the part of everyone that knew or had suspicions to do a proper follow-up here. Carcharoth (talk) 10:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm waiting for a statement from Geogre before considering any motions other than the first motion. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am very disappointed by the actions of Geogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). As a member of the Committee I have read the response of Geogre to the ArbCom's e-mail but was not satisfied by the answers provided. I'll be glad to hear from Goegre before deciding what is best for this encyclopedia. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Geogre's "Statement on the Cenotaph": (i) The text of the "threatening email" is the same text that I posted on Geogre's talk page on 26 July 2009. (ii) I have never speculated on your wishes nor said that "getting demoted is what [you] want" (or anything remotely similar). Roger Davies talk 14:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I note Geogre's last minute statement, but given that it offers no substantive defense or rationale and that it was given after all three motions have passed despite Geogre being aware of them, I see no reason to delay their close. Geogre is welcome to make a statement in the pending full case requested by Durova if he feels he has evidence to bring, or to file an appeal through the normal channels. — Coren (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question by MZMcBride

Why is there not a formal admonishment attached to this? --MZMcBride (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Geogre

Wow, what a great and elastic and plastic thing this is, the motion. The accused doesn't get to speak, no statement space is provided, and no case has to be accepted. In fact, Coren just brings the motion, and then any majority of ArbCom goes ahead, as though it were accepted, acknowledged, and guilt were established.

For the record, I have not logged onto Wikipedia since this mess began. I did get a threatening e-mail from Roger, though, where he told me that I had better come to participate. Now, for myself, I had thought that this was a great deal of drama over a dead issue and a resolved one, and I really don't like arguing and anxiety, and so I ignored his e-mail. Little did I know that such a collection of impotent rogues would gather to express their grave displeasure and sober defense of the letter of the law. Each of them united solely by the fact that, in the past, I had been instrumental in exposing his misdeeds, they are, in sobriety and sagacity, displeased by the non-deceptive alternate account.

Now, though, my real life attempts to deal with real issues are interrupted by finding that "Roger" has told people that getting demoted is what I want? Because I haven't logged on, my failure to speak is not only assent but consent and willingness? Are you guys insane?

No, I do not believe that we punish parking tickets with the death penalty. I do not believe that an accidental or stray comment in two years is worthy of demotion, given the exceptional work that I do/did, both with that account and my primary account, nor given the exceptional exceptions made repeatedly with the very rogues now so soberly shaking their heads. Given that the second account is a dead issue, the matter is settled, and right now this is purely a matter of gleeful malice and revenge. I cannot stop such vindictiveness, but I can offer logic.

This I will do, later, when I have the time. We have not yet been a week since "movement one" began, and I find that all is wrapped up, decided, and I am the worst criminal since Willy on Wheels. Goodness, but this plastic, elastic "motion" system is a wonder.

By the way, when was the "motion" system on Village Pump? I'm surprised that we agreed to it. Geogre (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arb note: I have moved the latest response from Geogre below along with the new motion so that it does not get archived prematurely when the first three motions are closed. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mattisse

The Utgard Loki (talk · contribs) account was used to harass and abuse me for attempting to edit articles, and well as to post on talk pages and FARs of articles belonging to Geogre (talk · contribs), Bishonen (talk · contribs) and Giano II (talk · contribs). At the time, I did not realize these editors were related. Geogre made mischief [9] and then used his Utgard Loki account to fan the flames when I tried to edit and comment on Buckingham Palace, Augustan literature and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Restoration comedy, on his talk page [10] and elsewhere.[11] For example, Geogre used Utgard Loki to defend User:Giano II calling me a troll and to ridicule me.[12][13][14][15], as well as disparage me in edit summaries.[16] Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I am interested if User:Disinfoboxman is also Geogre, given these harassing diffs:[17][18], hiding my comments in a box, where Utgard Loki also posted. He also commented frivolously on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Augustan drama/archive1, the FAR of an article by User talk:Geogre that I initiated.[19] These are of a total of 21 edits this editor had made, until today. —Mattisse (Talk) 10:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Giano

It is commonly known to the ArbCom and throughout the encyclopedia that Mattisse is a troublemaker. When thwarted she trolls, when that fails she resorts to self-pity. We are currently seeing the former, no doubt the latter will follow in due course. I cannot see that "Utgard" has done any harm, and probably quite a lot of good - which is more than can be said of some of those here wanting Geogre's head on a plate. Giano (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giano's assertion that Mattisse is "commonly known to the ArbCom and throughout the encyclopedia [as] a troublemaker" does him no credit, as she is well respected for her contributions, as anyone who took the trouble to look at her recent ArbCom case would be readily able to see. It is rather disappointing to see an editor I had once thought highly of so quick to discard his principles once they prove to be inconvenient. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Time has, and will, prove me correct. I see you even followed her secure link [20], (which logged you out) [21], to comment here. Time does indeed come about very quickly. Giano (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This RFAR is not about Mattisse, and I do not see the relevance of Giano's comments about her. Mattisse's comments on Buckingham Palace were thoroughly enough discussed in the RFAR about her. For what little it's worth, her comments that Giano apparently objects to appeared around 27-28 Sept 2008, and the article version immediately before her commnents had about half as many citations as it needed. --Philcha (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[18] to you as well Giano. What exactly is your point? As someone so closely involved in ArbCom cases you are surely aware that Philcha and I were nominated as advisors at the conclusion of Mattisse's case. If it is your intention to allege any wrong doing on my part or that of Mattisse then kindly spit it out and we can get down to the facts of the matter. I would remind you in the meantime though that you have simply created a side-show, the purpose of which appears to be to deflect attention away from your friend. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Until 3 minutes ago, I was completetly unaware of the outcome of the "Mattisse" case. I certainly did not avidly follow it. She really is of no interest - no interest at all except for when she starts editing fields I walk. I wish you luck with your advising. Giano (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of my "attack" is it you feel is innacurate, Carcharoth? In my experience, fact and fiction can be a thin line, one must always consider the storyteller when assessing. I'm surprised as an Arb of nearly a year's standing you have not discovered that. Remove this post when you have read it, I expect it's in the wrong place or something - I don't anticipate spending any more time on this rather futile and sorry case.Giano (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just love the old guard trooping out onto parade and blasting from the past. Wikipedia really must have some very worried people at the top these days. Gordon, Mackensen, Gerard and Bauder teamed with Sandstein and FT2, goodness me. Giano (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to know - why now? This matter has been known to many of Wikipedia's highest for months and months, if not years. So why now? If those who knew, and they know who they are, and so do I, knew about this and clearly thought it was not a problem - why now? Why have we suddenly in unprecedented fashion all these hasbeen Arbs trooping out? Why now? let's have some answers - then let's adopt the high moral ground. Giano (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SlimVirgin

I would like to ask for clemency for Geogre, and specifically for him not to be forbidden from using an alternate account, so long as there's no SOCK violation. For various reasons, Geogre's edits occasionally attract attention from people out to make a point of some kind. In part because of that, he created an alternate account so he could edit in peace. He also wanted to use a different account when editing from work for privacy reasons, so he would use Geogre at home, and Utgard at work. There was no intention to deceive the people he was editing with, as I think is often clear from the diffs above, where it's pretty obvious Utgard is Geogre. Geogre has a very distinctive writing style, and he made no effort to hide it as Utgard. Even in the diff showing the 3RR violation, he was violating it even using the Geogre account alone. It was just an example of him getting frustrated by what he saw as a bot-like application of rules. His intention was not to use a second account to get round the 3RR rule.

The upshot of Geogre being required to add content using only the Geogre account may be that he stops editing articles entirely. This would be a great pity. He's been with Wikipedia since November 2003, and he's written some great articles, including several FAs. I'd like to ask the Committee to allow him to use an alternate account to create content, on condition that he makes sure there is no SOCK violation and that he tells at least one member of the Committee the name of the second account. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to David, Josh, Mackensen, and Fred, I completely agree that abusive sockpuppetry is destructive behavior that no admin should engage in. The problem I'm having here is seeing a clear example of abuse. In all the diffs I've looked at, it seems clear that Utgard is Geogre. Mackensen and Risker both seemed to know it was him (I can't find the diff now, but they both posted that they assumed Utgard was Geogre). There has to be an attempt at deception for a sock to be abusive. Geogre was trying to hide slightly from the people who had a tendency to pursue him, but without hiding from anyone else.
Take his edits to Karah Parshad. It's an article that attracts very few edits—just 28 edits from 22 editors, only 10 of whom were accounts— exactly the kind of page you avoid using both accounts on if you're socking abusively. Utgard (his work account) edited it from work at 16:05 April 17, 2007—it was a Thursday, a work day. But he made a mistake; he left out an "is." When he got home, he spotted the error and fixed it as Geogre, his home account, just over four hours later at 20:16 April 17, the very next edit after Utgard's. No abusive sockpuppeteer would have done this.
On the same day, Utgard made an edit to another little-edited article, Sewadar (only 15 edits from nine editors) at 16:07, and again left out an "is." Geogre got home and fixed that one too at 20:17, once more the very next edit after Utgard's. There are many more examples like this that strongly suggest he saw Utgard as a legitimate second account. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ottava Rima

I wanted to point out something that I think everyone, after reading, will realize is rather obvious - Geogre will still be editing. The question above is how many accounts he shall have. If there is one or two, Geogre's editing ability will not be diminished. If he is willing to declare an account, the sock standards say that an alternate account is permissible. Since we all know who Loki is right now, it would only make sense to allow that to be a public account. As such, I believe that it would be pointless to bother too much about the indefinite blocking of the Loki name as long as the community and ArbCom are willing to allow Geogre to proceed in an alternate account as allowed for so many others. Therefore, the only thing that could really be discussed are possible ramifications. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Therefore, a block to Geogre's editing as a whole would be unacceptable. The only thing that can really be discussed right now is a matter of trust, as trust is a forward looking idea that takes into consideration past actions. Since Geogre did not (from what I can see) use the power to block or such things in a majorly problematic manner, and that Geogre's main account (as far as I can tell) was the only admin account, then there is no true matter for ArbCom in terms of problematic behavior.

This is simply the situation as I see it now as we should be focusing on the future. The question posed would be if the community still trusts Geogre enough to 1. allow him use of a sock (which shouldn't be too problematic) and 2. allow him use of adminship, although no direct abuse of the tools (from what I can see) has occurred. I do not know if it would be better to have an RfC connected to this series of motions or if ArbCom would be suitable to handle such thing without a motion. I will not speak to either. However, I do believe that in terms of actual content editing, Geogre has shown enough to merit a continued ability to produce content. I will not speak to my personal ability to trust Geogre, nor will I speak to any previous feelings on the matter. I will only add that I respect the content that he has added to the content area that I share with him. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note by Nathan

One of the tools we use at SPI is an intersect report generated by Nixeagle's bot. The report for Geogre and Utgard Loki is here. I haven't looked it over in detail and can't comment on its import, but it might be useful in evaluating this motion. Nathan T 14:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copied here from /requests, since this seems to be more active. Dates added per request from Carcharoth.

Collapsed below are some examples of editing intersection by Geogre and Utgard Loki, discussions only. I've included article talk pages, user talk pages, RfArs, RfCs, FACs, FARs, AfDs, an MfD, an RfD, etc. There are many more instances of user talk page discussion particularly, as well as other intersections that I haven't included but which fall under the umbrella of examples that are shown. I also do not show all edits to a discussion where both accounts participated, only enough edits to demonstrate that participation. To Geogre's credit, I didn't find any obvious examples of article edit warring or using his sock to circumvent 3RR - and in the discussions where a "vote" is recorded, no examples of duplicate voting (that is, specifically listing a vote in bold letters as opposed to commenting in discussion). My intent here is only to assist in providing evidence, so that its lack doesn't affect the outcome of the case in any direction. Nathan T 16:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Problem edits by Geogre/Utgard Loki


[23] (..."Not an admin") August 8, 2008

Posting in the same thread on AN/I

[24] [25] [26] March 19, 2007

[27] [28] June 1, 2007

[29] [30] [31] August 7, 2008

Posting in same thread at AN

[32] (deceptive question) [33] [34] August 19, 2008

[35] [36] [37] [38] [39] (and more edits,all Geogre) November 21, 2007

Posting in same FAR

[40] [41] [42] December 7, 2007

[43] [44] [45] [46] February 25, 2007

Risker's RfA

[47] (Support vote as Geogre) [48] (Argue with opposer as Loki) May 8, 2008

Smoking gun

[49] [50] April 4, 2007

Article RfC, both accounts

[51] [52] September 4, 2007

Speaks of self in third person in edit summary: [53] June 24, 2009

Both accounts participate in an argument with Ottava

[54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] April 14, 2008

Discussion at WT FA

[61] [62] [63] January 23, 2008

Discussion at FAC

[64] [65] [66] June 23, 2007

Two accounts converse

[67] [68] [69] [70] March 27, 2007

[71] [72] (and continues, with other participants) March 29, 2007

[73] [74] [75] April 4, 2007

[76] [77] April 27, 2007

[78] [79] [80] July 17, 2007

Article talkpage discussion, both accounts

[81] [82] October 26, 2008

[83] [84] [85] April 18, 2008

[86] [87] [88] July 14, 2008

[89] [90] [91] April 20, 2007

[92] [93] [94] [95] January 28, 2008

[96] [97] October 4, 2007

[98] [99] September 28, 2008

Participation in AfD

[100] [101] [102] [103] [104] July 14, 2008

Deletion review

[105] [106] [107] March 6, 2007

Miscellany for deletion

[108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] January 30, 2008

Redirects for deletion

[115] [116] August 14, 2008

Posting in discussion about IRC on FloNight's page without disclosing history

[117] February 13, 2008

Same, NYB's talkpage

[118] February 8, 2008

RfAr/Eastern European disputes

[119] [120] [121] [122] October 10, 2008

RfAr/Durova

[123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] November 28, 2007

RfAr/IRC

[138] [139] [140] [141] [142] January 17, 2008

WT RFAR

[143] [144] November 30, 2007

RFC/Giano

[145] [146] [147] [148] January 16, 2009

Also, an explanation has been offered that Utgard Loki was intended primarily as a work account. The images below (from Wikichecker.com, a tool offered on RfAs and sometimes used at SPI) graph the edits of both accounts on a 24hr UTC scale. Links to the full reports are here and here. Nathan T 17:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit graphs
File:Geogre edit distribution.png
Geogre edit distribution
File:Utgard Loki edit distribution.png
Utgard Loki edit distribution

Question from David Gerard

No other administrator has gotten away with abusive sockpuppetry in this manner. Indeed, the past method of dealing with such is a prompt deadminning, never mind waiting for them to deign getting in touch. The evidence doesn't get much more glaring than this. Why does Geogre still have his sysop bit? Why has no arbcom member even proposed removing it? - David Gerard (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Jpgordon

I echo David Gerard here. In my experience with ArbCom, every time an admin was discovered to be abusively sockpuppeting, that admin was immediately de-sysopped; and every time an ordinary user was discovered to be abusing multiple accounts to build a false consensus, that user was banned. It's about as destructive a behavior toward community as there is on Wikipedia. What's so special about this particular case? Why is this editor being given special considerations? Was he somehow unaware that he was behaving improperly? (I don't think so; Geogre is nothing if not aware and intelligent.) Some editors, we know, are more equal than others; and now it's clear that some abusive sockpuppeteers are more equal than others. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RexxS

I think a little patience is called for here. The point is that sockpuppeting is not sanctionable, per se (although I understand that some would wish it so) - it is the abuse that creates the offence. I've skimmed through Nathan's useful link and so far I can see some concerns, but any possible abuse is very thinly scattered. Perhaps I am more tolerant than some, but I've always enjoyed the comments of that Norse sock, in much the same way as I was delighted by Lady Catherine's staunch defence of the manners of a bygone age. While accepting that I may be easily amused, I'd urge those wielding pitchforks to avoid undue haste. You may turn out to be right, but many of us would prefer to wait for some serious evidence of abuse to emerge before arriving at our conclusions. I find it perfectly possible that Geogre never had any malicious or abusive intent. --RexxS (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mackensen

Not much to add to what David and Josh have said, except to wonder at what it takes to get de-sysopped these days, and why the committee has bothered with this big show if it's not actually going to do anything. If the committee wanted to be solicitous of Geogre's privacy it could have done this in private; during my tenure I was privy to two admin sockpuppeting cases which were handled entirely in camera. This seems about the least pleasant and useful way to proceed. Mackensen (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply to Carcaroth; yes, I had concerns years ago and dropped Geogre a note, but the evidence was inconclusive and the committee at the time didn't follow it up. Mackensen (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to SlimVirgin: I was deeply suspicious at one point (~2007), but the technical evidence was lacking and the matter passed. Seeing Risker's comment jogged my memory of the incident, but it's not as though I've been carrying someone's secret for two years. Mackensen (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fred Bauder

I don't understand why the arbitration committee is bending over backwards to avoid banning or even desysopping a user who has contributed so much to the deterioration of the atmosphere on Wikipedia. Indefinite bans are passed out routinely to new users who engage in sockpuppetry, why is an experienced user who cannot possibly have engaged in sockpuppetry in error exempt? Fred Talk 01:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

I concur with David Gerard, Jpgordon and Fred Bauder and recommend that the Committee consider desysopping Geogre. Abuse of sockpuppets constitutes very serious disruption, and to my knowledge people have been desysopped or blocked for less.  Sandstein  06:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FT2

I endorse the grave concerns of my colleagues and will be adding diffs and other evidence when collated (Done). As cases like this move quickly I'm adding a placeholder to that effect.

(I am also awaiting replies from Arbcom on specific points connected to the case.)

The norm in all cases with comparable levels of sock evidence in the past has been a rapid motion for desysopping which does not affect content writing in the slightest but does reflect gross breach of trust.

The user, an admin for 6 years who has played his part in calling for similar sanctions on other project pages (at times stacking these calls with both his accounts as it now transpires), was beyond doubt aware of the seriousness the community and Arbcom attaches to such conduct.

FT2 (Talk | email) 07:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update Does the Committee think it might be worth opening this as a full case (on the one specific issue)? I get the feeling that there is probably significant evidence and discussion of evidence, which is a bit too large for a simple motion, even though it is a simple issue in principle.
If agreeable, please don't merge with other actual or potential cases at this time - for simplicity a brief focused one-issue case is better. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Examples of forbidden conduct: Another case notes this edit. In this diff Utgard Loki accuses Ottava Rima of "mak[ing] disputes everywhere he goes" - then states Ottava has attacked "Bishonen, Geogre, and every other user." That statement in 2008 cannot make sense if people were supposed to know Utgard Loki was Geogre. It doesn't appear that it would be read by most users as "...has attacked Bishonen, me when I edited as Geogre..." It seems unambiguous in its intent to deceive or mislead, and in general both users in the discussion and the user being attacked, probably were deceived or misled.
The fact it also contains a blatant falsehood where Utgard Loki asserts he is not an admin (next para) tends to support this interpretation - the simplest explanation (pending Geogre's statement) is that Ottava was not intended to identify "Utgard Loki" as Geogre.
The same post goes on to add "I'm no admin but [negative observation on Ottava]". Clearly this is 1/ a falsehood, and equally, 2/ Geogre/Utgard Loki did not post it so that users could call him a liar, and he did not post it as "irony" or "humor" (judging from context and tone). The post was to be taken seriously as the view of an established user and the statements it contained were intended to bolster that goal. Hence a reasonable conclusion would be that he was fairly confident when he wrote it, that users and especially opponents did not in fact know that "Utgard Loki" was in fact a long standing admin and hence would not query it (and that the few who did would not disclose it).
(In turn this tends to suggest some kind of limited circle and/or careful selection or awareness of "users who knew", in order to allow such an assumption to be held: - i.e. that those who knew must have been in some sense, "safe", and could be trusted to go along with the deception if they saw this blatant falsehood on-wiki.)
A further instance of stacking to stoke negative perceptions of the same user by pretending to be an established user (but not Geogre) appears here; "Utgard Loki" does this by referring to Geogre as a different user. Although Geogre does this often, here more than most places it is clearly done to deceive the ordinary reader. The intention is to affect the target user, the discussion, and the community's view of that user, for the worse. Calls of this kind via multiple voices can also encourage "mob behavior" rather than calm discussion against the user.
Bottom line: After looking at the concern "could there be a good case for this being a legitimate second account", it seems there is overall fairly good evidence that 1/ the Utgard Loki account's use in a number of instances was not within the limits of a legitimately used alt account in any sense of the term, 2/ not infrequently, it was used in a forbidden abusive manner, 3/ the forbidden use appears in a number of such cases to be intentional and to rely on deception and possibly "users who know looking the other way", and 4/ the general usage of the "Utgard Loki" account is not a "once off"; it broadly persists over a span of years. At least two users on very separate occasions (Ottava, Durova) seem to have been undermined in the community by aggressive forbidden stacking used to create a false impression of established user condemnation, and some examples of deceptions (06-24-09) and stacking (06-21 and 22) were still being posted almost up to the day Arbcom opened the case.
Old diffs normally are not actionable (though gross abuse might be an exception in some cases). Normally they show the history, patterns, and sometimes intentions/editing agendas, which may shed light on the present. In this case evidence from diffs shows this was not an isolated stale incident or accident. Similar conduct was repeated and persists; it involved deliberation and a decision to let others be wrongly hurt; there is no sign of remorse or rethinking in over 2.5 years. Even given a belated apology, it would be very questionable if it carried any genuine weight given the history of deception and abuse, and the present context of exposure and possible/probable desysopping. As well, this is not the mistake of a newcomer but the choice of a user already 2.5 years an admin at the start. As a whole, the evidence does not sustain the high trust and belief in present (or foreseable future) integrity needed for adminship. FT2 (Talk | email) 05:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick replies -
  • RDH - As an admin who has more than once requested desysopping in serious cases where forbidden stacking has taken place by an admin, would you wish me to hold a double standard on it, when my honest belief (based on reasoning that is publicly disclosed) is that I'm seeing it again and it is harmful? Crossref this edit summary and edit.
  • Newyorkbrad - I have read your view but cannot concur. Whatever the motive for creation (and in common Arbcom/checkuser experience almost every sockuser caught redhanded will have an excuse or other justification), the fact is that the user had no question of doubt about admin standards, and yet made unambiguous untruthful statements whose likely purpose was not any valid reason but specifically and solely to cause deception and negative impact on users and debates, on multiple occasions, in a pattern with no real evidence of regret or change. There is no way the above do not show hardened unrepentant abuse. The forbidden behaviors have persisted, at times major scale, at times minor. That is what is unacceptable. If he had stuck with the sock for segregation only, and not started and continued abusing with it, then it would be different. This is someone who in good faith offers to be trusted with something, then instead acclimatizes and habituates to abusing the trust placed in them. That's what isn't permissible in an admin. The tools are not needed so badly for content. Had he not wanted to be described as abusing, the way was to avoid abuse. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geogre - High on rhetoric, otherwise no. The hype and irony doesn't work ("collection of impotent rogues", "an accidental or stray comment in two years", "this is purely a matter of gleeful malice and revenge", "I am the worst criminal since Willy on Wheels"). You've seen this for other users (Runcorn, Archtransit come to mind) yet I don't recall you finding summary desysop an abuse then. You may have wished to segregate (or it may be an excuse) but you used the segregated accounts to attack two users - neither Durova nor Ottava knew they were being attacked by two accounts owned by the same person, and you took steps in many posts to further the impression that their attackers were two different users. You have continued to act in a forbidden manner periodically both before then, and since. In general, it's not helpful to a case, or very convincing, that when called to account, the user relies on emotive sarcasm, hyperbole, misleadingly dismissing it as "accidental or stray", and ad hominen rather than respond to the actual evidence. There was nothing "accidental" or "stray" in the evidenced forbidden uses and abuses. You are accountable for your use as an administrator of multiple accounts in a forbidden manner to abuse communal processes, manipulate users' good faith, and improperly enhance your own calls by having the other account present similar calls as a seemingly-different user, an apparent gross deception and breach of trust, and not for some "accidental or stray comment" (as you call it). FT2 (Talk | email) 16:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncle G - Your question is more about sock-work generally than about this case. As it won't affect this case I've posted some information at your talk page instead (link). Hope it's helpful. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Geogre's main statement

I would be very willing to believe that back in 2007, there were different issues and a concern about abuse might have been in mind. But your account just doesn't work sufficiently at a few points.

  • Almost nobody who had need to know, knew. If you wanted unconnected accounts it was your job to not connect them. A claim that some people could possibly have worked it out means nothing. Those in the debates, attacked, or reading them were for the most part willfully deceived; that means everything.
  • The Utgard account repeatedly stated "I am new" or the like [149][150] and repeatedly talked about the Geogre account as a separate person to fool them and others into believing two separate people were involved. Those claims were evidently calculated to support an appearance (potentially legitimate), but that appearance was then used for repeated forbidden (ab)use.

  • The principle of forbidden stacking is very simple: Would a user visiting the discussion gain an accurate impression of how the community felt on the matter? Answer - no, because they would have seen two users with no visible connection both opining and both treating the other as a distinct human being. You knew that was the impression they would get. Did Durova know that you and Utgard were the same? No. Did those edit warred against? Probably not. Did Ottava? No. If they had known, don't you think they might have said something?

    In fact you deliberately misled the latter as much as you could. You didn't just act to him as two people, but you then iced the cake by having Utgard talk defensively of Geogre and add "I'm no admin" to him.[151]. You saw numerous cases of stacking in your 6 years (Runcorn, 2007 was a notable one) and you knew it was down to you to avoid it, but you embraced it.

The people here attest to the way that any high profile RFAR case gets attention. Yours, as you surely realize, is high profile. You've visited RFAR many times, on many cases, so you know the attention RFAR cases can get. It's a poor time to start now, alleging this is just people who hate you. You could have dropped the worst battles somewhere between then and now. Instead you manipulated the community and stacked on articles and against well known users, using both accounts to call for desysoppings in one case. You know well from 5 years of adminship exactly what that road leads to. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Theresa Knott

I strongly urge the AC to remove the admin bit. This is a very clear case of conduct unbecoming to an admin. Any other remedy send the message that such behavior is acceptable and merits only a slap on the wrist.Theresa Knott | token threats 14:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by R. Baley

The evidence as currently laid out calls for removal of the sysop bit. I don't understand why the committee is so reluctant to do so. I guess if a full arbitration case is going forward that's one way, but it seems like overkill unless there is a significant portion of the picture missing. Illegitimate socking is just not acceptable *at all* by an admin, if for no other reason other than (typically) we have a skill set which would allow us to accomplish it successfully -if we were so inclined to commit to such dishonest behavior. I have to admit, the behavior of the arbitration committee as a whole has been confusing to me (a lot) of late. It's making it difficult to work/volunteer here. R. Baley (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Orderinchaos

When in August 2007 a checkuser found what they believed to have been me operating two sock accounts, I was blocked for a week and the other two users blocked indefinitely. Those blocks were only lifted (some hours later) when I was able to prove to various people's satisfaction (including the two checkusers involved) by offline means that myself and the other two people were three separate individuals - i.e. that it was not socking. Had these actually been my accounts, no questions asked, I would have lost my bit - that was made clear to me at the time, and you'd have to admit it would be the only reasonable outcome, as I would have violated the community's trust which I had sought at RfA only months previously - and on this I concur with R Baley directly above. I saw another situation like mine about four or five months later and it was handled similarly, with some period of considerable confusion and distress for the person involved (as there was with my case too). This, however, is a more clear situation - the person has been abusively socking (as clarified in "Background") and this is not a case where ownership of the two accounts is disputed or denied. I would therefore expect that the sysop bit would be removed pending further discussion as to whether (and how) he can get it back in the future - in the usual fashion via RfA, by application to ArbCom or whatever ArbCom deems appropriate. I'm in fact surprised that the only motion proposed so far is an admonishment - especially given the past history as cited above and also by Jpgordon and others. Orderinchaos 15:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

I would like to add a statement that I very much believe that it would be in the best interests of the project if there were at least a very serious consideration of deadminning this user, under any and all names, and certainly of blocking permanently at least one account. The claims by others above that the two accounts were used so that the work account and the home account would not be confused strikes me as a creditable one, if only barely so. Under such circumstances, however, it would have been useful had someone in a position of power been notified clearly, to eliminate the possibility of abuse. However, the fact that the two accounts have both been used in some discussions to support each other is an obvious violation of WP:SOCK. The claims by others that those "in the know" knew they were both the same person does not really help that party, particularly not the part where someone said the accounts were being used to avoid "some persons". That is not an acceptable reason to abuse multiple accounts. Nor is saying that he might retire if he is not permitted to have both accounts. We don't violate policy like that. If no clear statement from the editor in question (I'm not sure what to call him) is forthcoming, I believe it may well be in the project's best interests to open this as a separate proceeding. John Carter (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Luna Santin

I believe this is the first time I've ever commented directly on any matter of ongoing arbitration; the sorts of issues that reach this level are inevitably quite stressful, and it's not something I bring myself into lightly. I say that to underscore how important I find this issue: for as much as two months nearly a month now, the committee has had evidence of abusive sockpuppetry by one of the most widely known administrators on this project, and you can't even bring yourselves to pass an admonishment?

By your own posted summary, you've known about this since June. If the committee feels the evidence is compelling enough to pass a motion limiting Geogre to one account, I can only assume you find that evidence persuasive. The precedent here is so strong, so obvious, that I'm frankly bedazzled by the twin-pronged action: announce the discovery, and then do nothing about it? If we're waiting on public comment from Geogre, why wasn't that planned before this notice was posted? If the undisclosed reason for sockpuppetry was so good, the need for privacy so compelling, why post here at all? I should hope we're a little more organized, a little more consistent, than all of that.

I would like to hear what Geogre has to say about all this.

I would also like to echo SlimVirgin's cry for clemency, at least in part: I don't think I know the whole story, yet, but at this point I know that I don't want to see Geogre hounded off the project. He's done a lot for us, and I think he can do a lot more still. Even so, I am concerned. You folks are the only avenue by which admins can be desysopped, which also means you hold the only concrete means by which admin abuse can be held directly accountable. Please, please, please don't make it clear that one can get away with anything, so long as one is a vested enough contributor. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited out "two months" above to reflect requests from Carcharoth and FloNight, where they were kind enough to provide some more specific timeline information; I previously spotted "in June" but did not realize how late into June that might mean. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Philcha

I see no good reason for using sockpuppets, and several bad ones, mostly described in comments above. In particular sockpuppetry avoids accountability for one's actions, which can be serious in an ordinary editor (for an extreme example see User_talk:ItsLassieTime#Notice_of_ban), and is intolerable in an admin. The sockpuppet account(s) should be indef blocked, and Geogre should be de-sysopped for avoiding accountability and for failing to understand how sockpuppets can poison the atmosphere. --Philcha (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FT2's research (05:28, 27 July 2009, above) really nails it. --Philcha (talk)

Statement by DuncanHill

I have seen no reasonable explanation for the operation of two accounts. The claims by some that "it was obvious" (or words to that effect) that the two accounts belonged to the same person would undermine any claim that an alternative account was needed for protection from harm. That the accounts were used in support of each other is clearly abusive. Some have called for lenience because of Geogre's history of good content contributions. Abusive sockpuppetteers are normally, I think, banned. I would support leniency to the extent of allowing Geogre to continue editing (without the admin tools) from one account only - and on the clear understanding that any further abuses would result in a very long block. The sock account should be labelled just as we label other abusive sock accounts. DuncanHill (talk) 12:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflectiuon, I do not understand why Geogre has not already been blocked - ArbCom need to stop encouraging the idea that admins are not subject to the same rules and sanctions as the rest of us. Georgre has already removed a sock notice from his own sock's userpage - do other sockpuppetteers get to do this? No of course they don't. Stop the hypocrisy. DuncanHill (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compare tool link posted by Betacommand

Template:Usercompare Posting here the compare tool link posted by User:Betacommand, which was originally posted up above in the background section that was published by the committee. Please place any such links or similar comparison down here. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thatcher

A day late and a dollar short, I expect. For what it's worth, I largely agree with SlimVirgin that the Loki account seems to have been set up to segregate work and non-work edits, and has been mostly harmless. However, there are a number of instances (such as the Peachoid and the Giano Arbcom business, which I knew about last week, and the Mattisse business and others, which I did not) where Geogre, as an experienced editor and admin, knew or should have known that editing with an alternate account was inappropriate, and where he should have either logged in under his primary account from wherever, or withheld his comments until he could log in from home. I have not seen a convincing excuse for why, during these contentious issues, it was necessary to edit as Loki from his non-home location rather than using one of the above mentioned alternatives. Thatcher 02:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RDH (Ghost In The Machine)

This turn of events has been quite disheartening for me, not least because I agree with Thatcher and SlimV for the most part. I've always regarded George as one of the most conscientious, upstanding, articulate and outspoken Wikipedians around. One of few I respect for their character as much as for their editorial contributions. That one so, otherwise, outspoken does not speak out in his own defense, is disappointing. I strongly urge him to show contrition. But, nevertheless, I also strongly urge the committee to, please, consider the following:

  • None of his transgressions involved misuse of his administrative tools.
  • To pronounce that one may regain adminship via the usual means, usually means de-facto, permanent deadmining.
  • Many of those calling for George's mop to be broken, are guilty of far more grievous abuses of their own. Yet they have the temerity to ask for George to be de-mopped and disgraced. Pot meet kettle!

So in light of this (along, of course, with George's numerous, outstanding content contributions) I ask that the committee create a 4th motion, which would desysop George for a period of six months. After which time, with good behavior, his status would be restored. This seems far more fair than to further humiliate one of Wikipedia's finest, far out of proportion to his actual crimes.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishkid64

Using an alternate account gives you an additional veil of pseudonymity, but with that comes the risk that you may violate the sockpuppetry policy, either unknowingly or deliberately. The responsibility for making sure your accounts are used in accordance in policy lies solely with you. Ultimately, it is your responsibility to make sure you follow policy, and our responsibility to enforce policy. In reference to your analogy, the community can excuse a single parking ticket as minor lapse in judgment, but what you’re expecting us to do is to ignore over a dozen parking tickets. No, you’re not going to punished with the death penalty, instead, your license to drive will be revoked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

What I've failed to understand since this was proposed was why Geogre has been given so much room in this. Had this been any other administrator on the project, they'd have been desysopped just about on the spot. There probably wouldn't have even been a desysop motion on wiki, just an announcement. I don't care for people trying to suggest that this might be a legitimate alternate account - it wasn't. If you sock as an admin, you lose your bit and there's very few questions that need asking - the evidence is above for all to see. Why suddenly when Geogre finally makes a statement (I use statement very loosely because it was just an excuse to have a little bitch at ArbCom and the people wanting him desysopped (it didn't refer to the question at hand at all)) he gets mollycoddled by the Arbitrators I just completely fail to understand. Sorry, I don't get this situation at all. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Uncle G

There's been an awful lot of hoo-ha about how this was an undisclosed and unacknowledged alternate account. Not only did Utgard Loki talk about Geogre in the first person ("Take a look back only so far as Geogre "continually" unblocking Giano, when I had done it twice in four years.") but actually self-identified as Geogre ("Optional question by User:Geogre"). That second edit is from 2007. This took less than 5 minutes to find. Why is everyone else acting as if this evidence takes months to find? Uncle G (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by SilkTork

I do not know Geogre, though I am aware of the name and understand that the user has made valued contributions. I have not clashed with this person as I don't think our edit areas cross; so I am not one of the "impotent rogues". From reading the evidence it appears that a small deceit by this user has taken place, and action from that deceit has been used to gain support for this user's own views or position. I find that distasteful rather than shocking. However, while I am aware that humans are not perfect, and frankly I am not that concerned about any Wikipedian's personal morals or toilet habits as long as their contributions to mainspace are valid and helpful, I do feel that users who are admins should not be deceitful, however slightly. As there are people here who are prepared to stand up for this person I was interested to read Geogre's own explanation and apology for the deceit. The statement by Geogre, when it came, did this person no credit - it is somewhat arrogant, lacking in understanding, and insulting to other users. I assume that George is hurting at the moment, and this is simply an emotional outburst. However, one cannot help but observe that this whole incident indicates a small degree of poor judgement, poor attitude, and poor morals. It is not a huge matter, and the user should certainly not be banned - but an admonishment and a desysopping seems appropriate. As the person is held in high regard, and there are no other blemishes, a RFA in a few months time should pass without a problem, so what is occurring here is a somewhat painful, but probably necessary, lesson in accountability. SilkTork *YES! 16:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mythdon

I haven't read the whole situation here, but the basics, but let me present some helpful evidence.

The Utgard Loki account was used to participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other Rangers and Ranger-like allies, which was back in March 2008, an article I nominated for deletion.

I don't have anything else to say but that. I happened to notice it, and hope the committee can use it. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

  • Motion 1 is currently passing, and at 13:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC) it will have been up for 24 hours. Would the arbitrators like a longer period of time before I enact the motion? Tiptoety talk 03:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starting some notes here about Motion 3.
    • In principle, Motion 3 is passing now, but my view is that any motion (of whatever sort) should be up for at least 48 hours before being closed and enacted. Whether it should be 48 hours from the point when the editor affected by the motion has been notified, or 48 hours from the time the motion was posted, is not clear. In this case, I will go with 48 hours from the time the editor was notified of the new motion (the new motions and new notifications should reset the clock). In this case, that is 48 hours since this notification was posted. i.e. The motion should not be closed before 08:33, 28 July 2009. This gives time for Geogre to see that the severity of the motions have changed from a restriction (against undisclosed alternate account) to an admonishment, to a desysop. It also gives the remaining arbitrators time to see that a new motion has been proposed, and to vote on this new motion. Carcharoth (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geogre

Motion 4

There are currently 12 active arbitrators; Risker and John Vandenberg are recused on all Geogre motions, so 6 votes are a majority.

4) The Utgard Loki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account is to be unblocked and clearly identified as being an alternate account of Geogre.  Geogre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) remains indefinitely prohibited from maintaining any other alternate account without disclosing it publicly.

  1. The intent of the first motion was not to prevent Geogre from editing from an alternate account when at work, but only from undisclosed accounts in a way that can be deceptive. If the Utgard Loki account cannot mislead, then I have no problem with it being used to contribute. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Coren. More detailed comment below. Carcharoth (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I have moved Geogre's statement here, along with this proposed amendment, so that it does not get removed prematurely as the previous motions are closed.

    As a simple factual correction, incidentally, I did not propose the previous motions, nor did I post them. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Geogre, if you wish, I can respond in more detail to your statements in a few days (probably on your talk page or elsewhere, if that would be better), as there is a lot there to consider. At the moment, though, I think this is a satisfactory result (if the proposed unblocking of the Utgard Loki account passes). If you would like to contest the desysopping, or get a better idea of what has (to an approximation) been going on here, please look at this page. Effectively (if not with precise formality), what has been happening here is Level II procedures (I know it sounds terribly bureaucratic, but bear with me). "Level II procedures may be used if (a) the account's behaviour is inconsistent with the level of trust required for its associated advanced permissions, and (b) no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming." I think it is fair to say here that the use of the two accounts in a way that could mislead (and almost certainly did mislead some people) covers the 'level of trust' bit. I think it is also fair to say that a majority of arbs have not been satisfied with your explanation (most of which, I have to say, repeats what you e-mailed us at the beginning of July). So what we have been engaged in is stage 4: "A request for removal of advanced permissions may be made once a motion to do so has been endorsed by a majority of active arbitrators." If you want to appeal the impending desysopping, see the bit right at the bottom of the page. Specifically:

    "If the editor in question requests it, or if the Committee determines that a routine reinstatement of permissions is not appropriate, normal arbitration proceedings shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances."

    One thing I will respond to from your statement is that you "suggested a way that they could, indeed, come up with a council for the future". I believe you are referring to the suggestions here. Those are indeed excellent suggestions, and I hope that those ideas get taken on board and developed into something useful. Carcharoth (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Geogre

I will break this into sections. As I have not said anything, I hope that people read it and take it all into account. Given that this is supposed to be a "motion," or a series of them, one would hope that the only people speaking were the arbitrators and myself. I find, though, that a great group of unquiet ghosts of conflicts past have risen in glee. They add spite and spittle, but nothing to the purpose.

Background

The background is not a series of diffs, as diffs are a series of citations of single lines of difference. Instead, the background is two years ago, when there was a different cast at ArbCom and a different makeup and set of procedures at the ArbCom mailing list. At that time, there was check user abuse. I had reason to believe that there was sharing of personal data from users for personal and petty reasons. However, characteristically, I did not feel that chasing down the issues was worth the bother, because, at that time, the mailing list and decisions for ArbCom was dominated by David Gerard ("owner" of the list), whom I did not and do not trust, and "ArbCom, retired arbitrators and trusted others." "Trusted...." Not trusted by me.

Initially, I felt that I needed a second account, if I were to contribute articles at Wikipedia anymore. I became increasingly aware, in the words of Tennyson, that "I am become a name." While many Wikipedians relish getting "famous," I do not. I love getting respect, and I enjoy a compliment, but getting known by people who have never "met" me is a drag. I do not want to be typecast, and yet "Geogre" was "anti-IRC" was "anti-box," was "anti-citation" (!), etc. All of these caricatures meant that any article I wrote was subject to undue attention and animosity. Anywhere I went, I had watchers.

Perhaps, though, I was wrong in this suspicion, I thought. I set up a secondary account and followed the laws and rules. I labeled it an alternate account. Before a week had passed, its password had been scrambled.

That was odd!

Then I set up User:Crowbait. I think I got about ten days out of that one. I did not put the alternate user template on it immediately. I think I took a couple of days and put it on as Crowbait. Nevertheless, the password got scrambled, too!

That was odd, too, wasn't it?

The choice, to me, then, was to either stop writing for Wikipedia, to stop doing the only thing I actually enjoy at Wikipedia -- writing articles and working for readers (remember them, people? readers? do any of you think about them on a daily basis?) -- or to put up with hounding at every turn. I should point out that the miraculous, amazing congregation of people who have and had no interest in my little activities as Utgard Loki here and now more or less testifies to the vehemence of animosity I can look forward to under my proper account name. I also could look forward to, at that time, what I believed to be very corrupt checkuser practices. (I am not convinced that the reforms involved are permanent, nor do I believe that the secret archives at the list are completely secret or that a future iteration would not jeopardize past materials.) Geogre (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motion One

I created and used user:Utgard Loki simply as a work account. It was an alternate account and, most emphatically, not a "sock puppet."

I would urge ArbCom and all others who read this, by the way, to purge themselves of that odious term. It comes from Rush Limbaugh and is freighted with his nastiness.

I did not establish the account to "do" anything. In fact, I took every pain to be honest. On one occasion only on Wiki, someone actually asked me if I was the same, and that was in the Danny RFA matter, and I admitted it, because I was not hiding. Oddly, the "alternate account" rules are something that I am in more agreement with the present ArbCom on than they might suppose. My feeling has been, and remains, that we are in a binary position. Either we should or should not allow them. Instead of that, though, we have these hypocritical and impossible rules that encourage lying.

In fact, had I deceived I would not have "been caught." I have been honest at all times in this regard. When Coren was involved, I was extremely irritated, because, instead of anyone simply asking, on either user talk page, we had to go through the "Ooooh, I've caught you now, you dangerous criminal" method. Why, I asked, does no one communicate? Aren't we supposed to talk first and then resort to arbitration when that fails? No one tried to communicate.

How can readers tell that I am telling the truth?

  1. I edited the same articles, in the same fields.
  2. I used the same writing style. Anyone who knows the Geogre account at all ought to know that he is enough of a writer to assume different voices as occasion demands, and it would have been simple to create a character.
  3. I took the same positions, consistently.
  4. I never made up fake back stories.
  5. I never used one to do one type of edit.

Furthermore, I was very careful to never use my administrative powers to settle something that my editor-only account could not do. For example, as Loki I frequently tagged prods and speedies. In one case, an article really annoyed me, because the "article" as nothing but an infobox. Seriously. There was nothing else there! There wasn't even a noun. Another admin removed the speedy tag. The article had been sitting in that condition for three years, and I was very, very tempted, as Geogre, to come back and delete the article and give a lecture to the junior admin on what CSD A1 means.

The lack of template for "alternate account" was no deception. I went far out of my way to ensure that the two were obviously the same. I was as obvious as I could be without the template. My reasoning was that anyone who knew Geogre would not be confused. If people read Geogre, they'd see, instantly, that the rhythms, habits of metaphor, adjective choice, vocabulary, and structures were identical. In fact, I kept getting e-mails from people saying, "Oh, come on! That's too obvious!" I would answer, "I'm not hiding." (These can be produced, by the way.)

Motion One Nolo contendere

My understanding of the alternate account rules apparently differs from that of a majority, or perhaps consensus, of others, but it is not an irrational one. On the "same page editing," what you will find are two separate cases:

  1. User talk page doubling
  2. Process page doubling

In the case of #1, it is, to my knowledge, entirely allowed. However, what readers will find is that I was extremely careful not to double up on users who did not already know that both accounts were the same person.

In the second case, we are going to have a subtlety that many of you will disagree with.

A. Proposed: The sky is red. B. Answer: No, it's blue! C. Comment: It's blue as a robin's egg. A'. Comment: It is not blue!

Now, in that case, we have two positions and two comments. A' has knocked down B/C, but has not supported A. Is A' "doubling" or "multiplying" or giving "artificial consensus" for A? In two years of operating the alternate account, I rarely knowingly answered comments where my main account had voiced an opinion (or vice versa). I never knowingly doubled my position with a secondary account. By my understanding of the rules of alternate accounts, I was not "supporting myself" when I was denying an attack on my position.

If ArbCom believes that I cannot have this belief in good faith, then it can indefinitely block the secondary account. However, in doing so, they leave me with no capacity to contribute content to Wikipedia.

Motion One results

Utgard Loki wrote some 150 or so articles. He created the format for the XXXX in literature articles and went from 1690 in literature to 1780 in literature, by hand. He wrote a few Classical literature articles. He tweaked quite a few articles. He did the kind of casual addition of content that Geogre cannot do.

Mattisse is a good example of why Geogre cannot do it. Restoration literature got listed at WP:FAR four times. Mattisse was sure that it needed to be torn down. He listed and listed and listed. Because I had downed one of his previous tear-downs, he was on a kick to go after everything. He and others were on a tear to get rid of parenthetical citation and insist on footnotes alone as the only citational method, and any old FA that had citations in parenthetical form had to go. If one disagrees, then woe betide him.

After Coren's unilateral action, I kept going as Geogre, but, as Geogre, I can only do one sort of thing, the sort of thing I do not enjoy: wiki politics. No offense, but y'all bore me. Articles are interesting, but not people. Getting rid of a second account means that all my time has to be spent as an opinion maker and a ranter and agitator and focal point against abuses in power.

Coren's action was stupidly done. (This is not a personal attack.) The way Coren did it was with the sloppy, hamfisted "sock puppet" term (again, let me urge you folks to purify your vocabularies). Because the block log carried that, a group of people who put templates on things without knowing more about the subject were going about putting "This is a sockpuppet of the dangerous Geogre account" template on Loki. How silly was that?

Several people reverted these templateers. One of them must have asked Coren, and so he filed this Motion. <sigh> If he had only communicated, only asked people what the fuss was, it could have been avoided. However, the first reaction was, again, to go with cop talk. Geogre is hardly Amorrow or Gawp, and the template made no sense.

If ArbCom wants to leave me with no way to edit Wikipedia for content, then leave it as it is: block Loki indefinitely (with "account creation blocked" checked... dangerous sock puppeteer, you know). If not, then we can go on and let me label the account with the proper template. Geogre (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment

I'm told I have made mistakes in date and fact, above. This does not surprise me. I often make mistakes. "I am a man, that is sufficient reason to be miserable," as Euripides said. The FAR with Mattisse was Augustan lit.

Further amending, for those who note that Crowbait and Geogre speak to each other, please note that the alternate account label was on the page, and there is a difference between abuse and self abuse. (If you expect something high minded, my model is Henry in The Dream Songs) Geogre (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motion Two

The admonition is dependent upon the central finding, and so is the third motion, of "sockpuppeting."

This relies exclusively on the idea that an account was developed and/or used to abuse and subvert Wikipedia's processes. Such a finding is without basis.

What can be found, and what I will admit to, is in one case knowingly allowing both accounts to speak (the Mattisse FAR). Otherwise, we're looking at mistakes, like the above. As Washington officials like to say, "Mistakes were made," but a mistake is not the same thing as a crime.

For those who believe that it is, consider this. Since the "Motion" format is adapted from law, let us look at what constitutes crime. It requires mens rea and res acta. I would argue that it also includes harm. (I will get to "harm" more on Motion Three.)

Did I have the intent to deceive? If I did, I was mentally deficient. I have many detractors among the undersigned, but I doubt very many would call me stupid. If I had set out to subvert with a second account, I believe that I would have cultivated multiple accounts, the way sock puppet users actually do. I believe that I would have ensured that the accounts did not stick around, the way sock puppet users do. I would have offered lavish lies about relationships, the way meat puppets do. Instead, I stayed with the second account during work hours, always during work hours, and my primary account at home, always at home. Every action looks precisely like a person with two accounts.

Was there the criminal act? I would say that there was not. The criminal act requires inflating votes or swaying consensus. I would ask for a single example where the presence of that second voice made even a difference in outcome.

Motion Three

Oh, absolutely not.

The "threat" was that I had better come and argue. I had been ignoring the first motion because I regarded it as a dead issue. If Coren were going to unilaterally block my second account, I did not want argument and drama. See above: the politics of this place bores me, and the egos of the people are none of my concern. If David Gerard, Fred Bauder, and FT2 want to promote themselves as the three wise men, they're free to do so. I do not care. I was cherishing silence and working on actual governmental bureaucracy at the time. Crisis after crisis have been blossoming in actual living world life, so the self-image and wounded pride of this or that account name was not interesting, and yet here came an e-mail telling me that, if I knew what was good for me, I'd come and take my licks.

Why does no one communicate? Why are people on ArbCom incapable of speaking to people as peers? Is there a requirement that they see everyone as a criminal? Is there some demand that they shriek and threaten? Is there some law that they can't just ask people questions? Is there a style guide that maintains, FT2-style, passive voice and circumlocutions?

User:Geogre has been here since 2003. During that time, I have been a witness to most of the rules as they have come into existence, and I have been a consistent proponent of principle. My chief principle is that power is the enemy of the good, that it is always tempting to invoke exigency and the presence of "enemies" (BADSITES, anyone) to justify power, but that Wikipedia came to be and grew to popularity on the flat hierarchy. (I recently saw that folks were stumbling around, again, unable to think outside of hierarchies, and suggested a way that they could, indeed, come up with a council for the future, if they'd only shake this reliance on being in charge.)

Before anyone decides that my actions were sock puppeting, he or she should see that there was a conscious, rather than mistaken, use of a second account for a malicious goal, as that is the definition of a sock puppet, as opposed to a stray edit by a legitimate second account. Barring that, there would need to be devastating effect of these edits. (I.e. mistaken edits in good faith could amount to the need for demotion if the effect were severe.)

However:

  1. No edit made by Utgard Loki drew a comment from any of the now-aggrieved editors to the user talk page of either account.
  2. No edit made by either account "settled" any of the debates.
  3. No edit or action by either account used or threatened administrative power.

For the mistaken edits to rise to the level of misuse of tools, they would need to, it seems to me, to have the effect of power. I have seen no evidence, as no evidence has been presented, that any thing said or done by either account had any substantial effect on the outcomes in question, much less that it was the determining factor.

If ArbCom wishes to "make an example," simply for someone going out of his way to be honest and not have a "role account" or play the silly buggers games that our current policy encourages, then I would volunteer for a three month suspension of administrator status. At the same time, without a secondary account, I will not be adding article content to Wikipedia. If others believe that I will or will not be harassed in article creation is not their problem: I am sure of it, and I do not feel like going through more of ... this. I detest it. Geogre (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comment from Ottava Rima

I would like my comments to Motions 1-3 carry down in regards to Motion 4. Specifically, my statement that Geogre should be allowed the use of a disclosed secondary account for standard use. Additionally, it would only make logical sense for Geogre to be allowed use of Loki as said secondary account. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=304969560"