Revision as of 10:42, 25 July 2009

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Motions

Shortcuts WP:ARM WP:ARBM This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. Make a motion (Arbitrators only) You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

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:

• Both the Geogre account and the Utgard Loki account were used in discussions during several arbitration cases: Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision, Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Durova/Proposed decision, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Durova/Workshop, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes/Workshop;
• The Utgard Loki account has been used on a number of occasions to reply in support of the Geogre account's position to various questions addressed to the Geogre account: , , , , ;
• Both accounts were used to make comments at Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Restoration literature/archive1;
• At Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 5, the Geogre account was used to express support for the Utgard Loki account;
• At Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Elizabeth Needham, the Geogre account supported promoting the article to featured status, and then both accounts were used to respond to a user opposing promotion;
• The two accounts were jointly used to edit war, making six reverts within less than 12 hours: Geogre, Utgard Loki, Utgard Loki, Geogre, Geogre, Geogre (this last revert was made through protection). The Utgard Loki account referred to the Geogre account as if it were a separate user in the edit summary of one revert () and in a talk page discussion (User talk:Utgard Loki#Peachoid);
• At Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/1755 Lisbon earthquake/archive1, the Utgard Loki account was used to respond to a user disagreeing with a comment by the Geogre account;
• At Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/A Tale of a Tub/archive1, a featured article review concerning an article to which Geogre was the leading contributor, the Utgard Loki account was used to defend the article;
• At Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:wikipedia-en-admins (3rd nomination), the Utgard Loki account was used to support deletion, while the Geogre account was used to make comments in response to someone who did not support deletion (, );
• At Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Risker, the Geogre account was used to support the request and the Utgard Loki account was used to comment in a thread concerning someone who opposed the request;
• At Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 August 12 (section "WP:GANG → Misplaced Pages:Tag team"), the Utgard Loki account was used to support deletion, while the Geogre account was used to reply to users not supporting deletion;
• At Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Augustan literature/archive1, a featured article review concerning an article to which Geogre was the leading contributor, the Utgard Loki account was used to defend the article;
• The Geogre account was used to unblock a user (User talk:Peter Damian#Blocked2), and the Utgard Loki account was subsequently used to comment on the situation (User talk:Peter Damian#Question).

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, and Risker is 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)
2. (But see below in regards to my previous involvement). — Coren  13:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
4. At least this, yeah. Wizardman 14:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Please also see comments below. Carcharoth (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
7. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
8. John Vandenberg 22:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
9.  Roger Davies 15:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Placeholder; vote and comments to follow. I also note that while I have read Geogre's e-mail to one of my colleagues, I do not know whether he will want to make a statement here that should be taken into account. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Recuse:

1. (Risker)

Motion 2

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)
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  22:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 14:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
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)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. 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)
2. 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)
3. I too am hanging fire until we've heard from Geogre publicly.  Roger Davies 15:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Recuse:

1. (Risker)

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  13:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

  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  22:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• I'm waiting for a statement from Geogre before considering any motions other than the first motion. John Vandenberg 23:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Question by MZMcBride

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

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

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 and then used his Utgard Loki account to fan the flames when I tried to edit and comment on Buckingham Palace, Augustan literature and Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Restoration comedy, on his talk page and elsewhere. For example, Geogre used Utgard Loki to defend User:Giano II calling me a troll and to ridicule me., as well as disparage me in edit summaries. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I am interested if User:Disinfoboxman is also Geogre, given these harassing diffs:, hiding my comments in a box, where Utgard Loki also posted. —Mattisse (Talk) 10:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

Giano's assertion that Mattisse is "commonly known to the ArbCom and throughout the encyclopedia 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)

Time has, and will, prove me correct. I see you even followed her secure link , (which logged you out) , to comment here. Time does indeed come about very quickly. Giano (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

• Giano (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 00:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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 02:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 14:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 23:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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)

Statement by FT2

I endorse the grave concerns of my colleagues and will be adding diffs and other evidence when collated. 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  07:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

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 03:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Wait until all the motions are proposed and pass or fail. Enacting them all at once will be better, I think. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Concur with FloNight. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Concur with my colleagues.  Roger Davies 15:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Ditto. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)