Geogre's Daily Kos Diary, Administration: Lashes (L)earned from my Wikipedia Years Options

[The Joy]

Administration: Lashes (L)earned from my Wikipedia Years

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/13/9...-Years?via=user

Some interesting points there. I'm glad to see Geogre (T-C-L-K-R-D) is still kicking. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Edit: Could a mod change "Dairy" to "Diary?" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Ottava]

Anyone else wondering why Sue Gardner (connected to the Daily Kos) would allow for a disgrace admin that used a sock puppet to help him harass other people and game the consensus system at Wikipedia for over two years to write about admin related matters?

[Newyorkbrad]

Anyone else wondering why Sue Gardner (connected to the Daily Kos) would allow for a disgrace admin that used a sock puppet to help him harass other people and game the consensus system at Wikipedia for over two years to write about admin related matters?

This is a grossly exaggerated, unfair, and misleading description of Geogre's behavior.

[Ottava]

Anyone else wondering why Sue Gardner (connected to the Daily Kos) would allow for a disgrace admin that used a sock puppet to help him harass other people and game the consensus system at Wikipedia for over two years to write about admin related matters?

This is a grossly exaggerated, unfair, and misleading description of Geogre's behavior.

http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/stalker/?...e=4&namespace=5

109 Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Durova/Proposed decision 2/2 [1, 2]
110 Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision 2/2 [1, 2]
115 Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 5 2/2 [1, 2]
116 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elizabeth Needham 2/2 [1, 2]
117 Wikipedia:Featured article review/1755 Lisbon earthquake/archive1 2/2 [1, 2]
118 Wikipedia:Featured article review/Restoration literature/archive1 2/2 [1, 2]
119 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:wikipedia-en-admins (3rd nomination) 2/2 [1, 2]
120 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 August 12 2/2 [1, 2]
121 Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities 2/2 [1, 2]
122 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny 2 2/2 [1, 2]
123 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Risker 2/2 [1, 2]
124 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova/Workshop 2/2 [1, 2]
125 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes/Workshop 2/2 [1, 2]
126 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Giano II 2/2 [1, 2]

Article edits duplicated can be explained as coincidence or vandalism. These, however, are discussion based and show Utgard Loki in many discussions acting as a different person from Geogre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...sputed_behavior

One of many places where evidence that the Geogre/Utgard Loki dual discussing crossed the line.


He also used the two accounts to tag team John Carter, a highly respected admin, in addition to using the two accounts to try and have me banned multiple times, have pages of mine deleted, etc.


Is this appropriate behavior for an admin? Are you speaking here as an Arbitrator who had substantial evidence of Geogre's socking, tag teaming, following after people and insulting them simultaneously on two names, etc?

[Newyorkbrad]

Anyone else wondering why Sue Gardner (connected to the Daily Kos) would allow for a disgrace admin that used a sock puppet to help him harass other people and game the consensus system at Wikipedia for over two years to write about admin related matters?

This is a grossly exaggerated, unfair, and misleading description of Geogre's behavior.

http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/stalker/?...e=4&namespace=5

109 Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Durova/Proposed decision 2/2 [1, 2]
110 Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision 2/2 [1, 2]
115 Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 5 2/2 [1, 2]
116 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elizabeth Needham 2/2 [1, 2]
117 Wikipedia:Featured article review/1755 Lisbon earthquake/archive1 2/2 [1, 2]
118 Wikipedia:Featured article review/Restoration literature/archive1 2/2 [1, 2]
119 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:wikipedia-en-admins (3rd nomination) 2/2 [1, 2]
120 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 August 12 2/2 [1, 2]
121 Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities 2/2 [1, 2]
122 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny 2 2/2 [1, 2]
123 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Risker 2/2 [1, 2]
124 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova/Workshop 2/2 [1, 2]
125 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes/Workshop 2/2 [1, 2]
126 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Giano II 2/2 [1, 2]

Article edits duplicated can be explained as coincidence or vandalism. These, however, are discussion based and show Utgard Loki in many discussions acting as a different person from Geogre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...sputed_behavior

One of many places where evidence that the Geogre/Utgard Loki dual discussing crossed the line.

He also used the two accounts to tag team John Carter, a highly respected admin, in addition to using the two accounts to try and have me banned multiple times, have pages of mine deleted, etc.

Is this appropriate behavior for an admin? Are you speaking here as an Arbitrator who had substantial evidence of Geogre's socking, tag teaming, following after people and insulting them simultaneously on two names, etc?

I adhere to my views as posted on-wiki two years ago when the motions concerning Geogre were voted on. Going into them again at length here is unlikely to be productive in any context, and especially not in a discussion with you.

[Ottava]

I adhere to my views as posted on-wiki two years ago when the motions concerning Geogre were voted on.

Yes, you made it clear: sock puppetry is acceptable when you like the person. Just like you were involved in getting Unitanode to move to his 8th sock account when knowing that 3 of the accounts were used at the same time, in the same discussion, and that he "restarted" 4 times before right as multiple people were putting him up for ban/block discussions.

How is this acting like a responsible Arbitrator by encouraging bad behavior by people who use sock puppets to destroy consensus and personally attack people in really nasty ways?



By the way, I like how you completely disagree with Coren who made it clear that it was abuse and that it is nonsense to claim otherwise.

Anyone who sees this statement from Durova can easily see that you are full of it if you dare try to say Geogre acted appropriately. He was one of the worst of the worst, and the bad thing is that you probably helped him get a new name like you did Unitanode.


Thatcher, you seemed to think that Geogre clearly abused multiple accounts. Do you think NYBrad is speaking properly on the matter?


By the way: The original ArbCom motion states: "Geogre is indefinitely prohibited from maintaining any other alternate account without disclosing it publicly. Geogre is strongly admonished for sockpuppeting and his actions related thereto."

Such a statement makes it clear that you cannot claim Geogre didn't abuse sock puppets to harass people.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[No one of consequence]

Thatcher, you seemed to think that Geogre clearly abused multiple accounts. Do you think NYBrad is speaking properly on the matter?

I can't judge the "properness" of any other person's opinion. My own opinion is that people should not be dicks, whether with one or multiple accounts.

[Ottava]

Thatcher, you seemed to think that Geogre clearly abused multiple accounts. Do you think NYBrad is speaking properly on the matter?

I can't judge the "properness" of any other person's opinion. My own opinion is that people should not be dicks, whether with one or multiple accounts.

I'm not talking about his opinion. I'm talking about his characterization of my pointing out that Geogre abused multiple accounts to harass people while as an admin (NYB: "This is a grossly exaggerated, unfair, and misleading description of Geogre's behavior.")

Is it a gross exaggeration of me to say that?

I mean, afterall, the socks were used to put up pages of mine for deletion because he didn't like this page (originally called Swift's printers) nor my working on the Drapier's Letter page, then was involved with both names when Bishonen proposed to indef me and Unitanode also proposed the same.

He did the same thing to Durova, to John Carter, and to others, so it wasn't just me. The actions spanned from 2007 until mid 2009.

What part of my comments suggest that my claim that he was abusive were exaggerations?

[No one of consequence]

I'm not talking about his opinion.

Sure you are. You want me to judge whether Brad's opinion of you is fair. That's a slightly different question than I thought I was answering, but my answer is the same. I won't pass judgement on Brad's opinion of you (or of your opinion of him, for that matter).

If I thought I had all the answers, I would have run for Arbcom and would now be telling people how to run things on WP (or more likely, disagreeing with others on Arbcom who have the opposite view and consequently not accomplishing anything at all). I hope I have finally outgrown my adolescent judgmental phase. I probably still judge people privately in my mind -- who doesn't -- although I try not to. In this case I respectfully decline to offer a judgment on whether Brad's opinion of your opinion of Geogre's actions, or Brad's opinion of your opinion of Brad's opinion of Geogre's actions, or whatever else you are asking, is fair or unfair.

[Ottava]

I'm not talking about his opinion.

Sure you are. You want me to judge whether Brad's opinion of you is fair. That's a slightly different question than I thought I was answering, but my answer is the same. I won't pass judgement on Brad's opinion of you (or of your opinion of him, for that matter).

No. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) I'm asking you for -your- opinion of -my- opinion. Not Brad's. Ultimately, the two views of my opinion could be compared to each other. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

But yes, the ArbCom ruling made it clear that Geogre was desysopped for abuse of socks, and that Coren originally blocked Utgard Loki for a lot of evidence of abuse. Bishonen also had multiple RfCs involving her knowledge of his abuse, which suggests that Geogre's abuse was so bad that others with knowledge were contributing to the badness.

Such an individual should not be given a podium to declare what good admining is because his experience involved him using sock puppets to not only stack the deck but to attack his opposition in an unfair way.

We all know I utterly despise sock puppets and think that they are one of the worst possible things that the Wiki has to deal with. If we got rid of the sock puppets, I would be confident that over 50% of the problems would vanish or become easier to deal with.