Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Designating Sri Lanka as a contentious topic	Motions	10 April 2024	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024
Mzajac	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	—	Case suspended

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	Motion	(orig. case)	27 February 2024
Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan 3	Motion	(orig. case)	18 April 2024
Amendment request: Skepticism and coordinated editing	Motion	(orig. case)	16 April 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Geogre	23 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:

• Both the Geogre account and the Utgard Loki account were used in discussions during several arbitration cases: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision, Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Durova/Proposed decision, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova/Workshop, Wikipedia: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: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5];
• Both accounts were used to make comments at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Restoration literature/archive1;
• At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 5, the Geogre account was used to express support for the Utgard Loki account;
• At Wikipedia: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 ([6]) and in a talk page discussion (User talk:Utgard Loki#Peachoid);
• At Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 ([7], [8]);
• At Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 August 12 (section "WP:GANG → Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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

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 ^(talk) 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)

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:

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)
• 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)

Question by MZMcBride

Why is there not a formal admonishment attached to this? --MZMcBride (talk) 18:35, 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 [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], as well as disparage me in edit summaries.[15] Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:19, 23 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)

---