Recuse:

1. (Risker)

Motion 3

There are currently 12 active arbitrators, and Risker is 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 07:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 14:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
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  14:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
6. Per Flo. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

1. 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 after this motion was published and Geogre notified (i.e. 13:14, 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)

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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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 - 06:06, 26 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)

I just love the old guard trooping out onto parade and blasting from the past. Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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 16:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

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 17:30, 25 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)

• 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 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)

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)

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  14:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
• 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)