Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ehud Lesar/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Move to allow for the review of other WP:DUCK indef. blocks

1) Request the review, in this arbcom case, of other Armenia-Azerbaijan topic editors that were indefinitely blocked using the WP:DUCK test.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think that would be inappropriate. Cases must be considered on their merits; Ehud Lesar was accepted on its merits and the same does not apply to other users. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I suggest we stick to Ehud Lesar's block only. That was why the case was in the first place. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. As per my statement. I believe these editors were indefinitely banned with far less evidence than Ehud Lesar. I may also post additional information in the evidence section. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Move to review the checkuser request behavior of Grandmaster and Atabek

2) Request a review of user:Grandmaster and user:Atabek's WP:RFCU behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Arbitration cases consider the activities of all parties in a case, if the arbitrators consider it relevant. If you want to present evidence against these two users, you may; it will be considered if it is relevant to Ehud Lesar's block. However the committee is reluctant to enlarge cases wider than their immediate connections. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose. This appears to be just an attempt by this user to prevent cu on himself. Pocopocopocopoco was protesting implementation of a cu, which revealed 4 sock accounts, and stopped only when the steward told him to: [1], and he is believed by some to be a reincarnation of a banned user: [2] His constant appearance on cu requests filed on suspicious accounts sharing the same views with him looks very strange. I have a reason to assume that this request has certain personal motives. In addition to that, this is not related to Ehud's case in any way. Grandmaster (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

To The Arbitrators. Please make note of what Grandmaster has posted above. He is referring to a checkuser run against me last August. I believe he is doing this to further false innuendo against me in order to silence or discredit me. This is not the first time he has done this when he has disagreed with me (diffs can be provided on request). I believe this is a long term pattern of behavior which may have led to the incorrect banning of a number of users. If anything, his statement above demonstrates that a RFCU behavioral review of Grandmaster and Atabek would be prudent. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

But what is your problem with the cu procedure? It cannot harm anyone in any way. I personally was checkusered many times, and I don't mind being checked at any time if anyone has any doubts about me. If one does not use socks, he has nothing to be afraid of. However for some reason every time a cu is filed on suspicious accounts representing a certain POV in AA issues one can see you there protesting. It may not be your intention, but it looks very strange, and I believe that instead of resisting the cu you should do quite the opposite, i.e. cooperate, like I always do. It will only help to clear the matters. I personally do not understand how your proposal is related to Ehud's case and what the point is in reviewing mine and Atabek's "WP:RFCU behavior". So far both me and Atabek helped the admins to reveal countless number of sock accounts, User:Artaxiad alone has more than 30 sock accounts, established by cu. Is there anything wrong with having them checked and preventing the disruption? Grandmaster (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Just look at your earlier statement. You took a checkuser that was run against me 7 months ago and you try to use to sew suspicion towards me. This clearly indicates part of the problem with your checkuser behavior. Anything further (including the connection with Ehud Lesar) I will add to the evidence section. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Checkuser is a formal procedure with clearly outlined rules, in fact, the most recent request Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Artaxiad (note Artaxiad was already identified by checkuser with over 30 sock accounts) contained evidence of suspicions, which were not reviewed or addressed due to unrelated content disputes by Pocopocopocopoco, Steelmate and Andranikpasha. The request by User:Pocopocopocopoco here clearly carries personal motives due to the fact that the additional evidence of suspicions on his connection in this report was presented not by me or Grandmaster but by User:Kober and was never reviewed either. And his request has nothing to do with Ehud Lesar case. The fact that Pocopocopocopoco opposes simple Checkuser reports only serves to raise more suspicions about his involvement in the reported disruption. Atabek (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. As per my statement. I may also post additional info in the evidence section. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Move to rename Case

3) Request that this case be renamed to Armenia-Azerbaijan-Ducktests

Comment by Arbitrators:

No. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose. The case was opened to resolve the situation with the block of Ehud Lesar. There is no need to distract attention, it was already decided that this will not be ArbCom Armenia-Azerbaijan 3. Atabek (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Atabek. The focus of the case surrounds the block of Ehud Lesar. That's all. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. As per my statement. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Move to restrict contributors from Content discussions in Wikipedia boards

3) Request to restrict involved parties from turning the ArbCom evidence and workshop pages into content discussion threads on Armenia-Azerbaijan related topics. It would be nice to have some kind of restriction of opening discussion threads also on formal RFCU or AE requests. They really are counterproductive and only serve to distract attention from the report of disruption by suspected and/or disrupting contributors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is a matter for the clerks. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Atabek (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom cases do not deal with content. If there is an issue, make sure I know about it. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this should be filed as a separate motion to the arbcom. There's indeed a problem, which however is not directly related to Ehud's case. I suggest Atabek takes this to the arbcom as a separate request for clarification. Grandmaster (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You gents seem to be talking of a specific issue, but I'm not sure what that is. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My request was general regarding this case, not specific to Pocopocopocopoco or anyone else. The objective is to prevent lengthy discussion threads, which do not contribute to the topic of present ArbCom case and only make it difficult to analyze presented evidence. This seems to be a problem with general Armenia-Azerbaijan-related board postings at ANI, AE and ArbCom cases. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Note to the arbitrators, I'm not sure really sure myself what Atabek is referring to but I want to make it clear that I know of no current content disputes I have with Atabek in article space. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Move to restrict contributors violating WP:HARASS

5) Request to take action with regards to harassment and privacy attacks by users VartanM and Fedayee, within the requirements of WP:HARASS and WP:PRIVACY policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. [3] and evidence presented here [4] from Fedayee are indicative of the lack of desire on behalf of these two contributors from respecting people's privacy and stopping identity harassment, which have nothing to do with intent of Wikipedia or ArbCom. As note, User:Fadix and User:Artaxiad were banned by Arbitration Committee for the same set of violations during AA1 case, so attempts by user VartanM and Fedayee can be deemed as a continuation of such targeting. Atabek (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

• Parties and others are requested to discuss whether, apart from the allegation of sockpuppetry, Ehud Lesar's contributions were acceptable or disruptive. This may be discussed here or in the context of your evidence or workshop proposals. Please keep all comments (on this and all other issues) civil and avoid personal attacks or inflammatory rhetoric. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• • In my opinion, Ehud's contributions were acceptable. He was not involved in any disruption, had no history of blocks (his indefinite ban by Khoikhoi was Ehud's first ever block), did not edit war more than most other parties to AA cases, and always remained civil. I know of other editors which behaved much worse than Ehud, and some admins in their statements to the arbcom admitted that Ehud's editing did not warrant a ban. Grandmaster (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ehud meatpuppeted for Grandmaster and Atabek when they exhausted their revert limits. He revert warred and POV pushed on several articles. Evidence of which will be provided. Here is a sample, the image is still being used as a reliable source. VartanM (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hello Newyorkbrad, I think it's a little early for that now. Evidence regarding sockpuppetry should be dealt with first. If Arbcom decides there is sufficient evidence then we can move on. AdilBaguirov has used several socks abusively, we're not talking about a member who was banned and then registered another account and is now behaving. One should not be able to have multiple accounts, some for disruption and others for borderline activities. We're talking about this Adil who claims that Western encyclopedia's are controlled by the Armenian Diaspora and that Wikipedia is the place to change that. Adil's set goals and ideals are and will always be in contradiction with the project. There really is no grey area here.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• I hope that it can be determined whether Ehud is Adil. If it comes down to deciding whether unblocking will be positive or negative to the project, I recommend leaving him blocked because I believe his contributions will be negative to the project. He has argued for the article Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (a potential GA) to be deleted and that it should only be a section on the article Azerbaijani administrative divisions of Nagorno-Karabakh.[5] I see this as a promoting a scorched earth policy in wikipedia in order to suit his POV. He had also created an article UN Security Council Resolutions Armenia-Azerbaijan which eventually got deleted due to its POV. The article basically misrepresented the Security Council resolutions, and he would revert anything that would go against his version of the article. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The article about UNSC resolutions was actually a good contribution, just done the wrong way due to lack of experience by Ehud. I recreated it by consensus with deleting admin as 4 separate articles, i.e. United Nations Security Council Resolution 822, United Nations Security Council Resolution 853‎, United Nations Security Council Resolution 874 and United Nations Security Council Resolution 884. Interestingly, it was Pocopocopocopoco who suggested to merge them again into one article, i.e. make it the way Ehud originally did: [6] Grandmaster (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't recall that you contributed or discussed that article in the talk page despite my request for assistance at WP:AZERI. I can't post diffs as it's been deleted but basically Ehud was completely misrepresenting the UN resolutions and he couldn't be reasoned with in talk. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Disruptive… check Eupator’s evidence. First check his version of this article he created. First two lines were about the man, read the rest. Soapboxing about the Jewish community and the conflict with Armenia etc, Agarunov is used as a pretext. He has gone further by actually expanding the irrelevant section. It is POV pushing. Both Grandmaster and Atabek have exaggerated Ehud Lesar’s contribution. Ehud Lesar has 65 contributions in the mainspace. About 22 of them were reverts, this does not include his 14 edits on Albert Agarunov, the pretext article I mentioned. Doesn't also include this about vandalism, pushing this information to represent 3/4 of the text on present-day Jews. [7] This does not include his disruptions in the talkpage which includes incivility and various forms of provocation; those will be provided as evidence later. Sockpuppetry is not the only thing. Meatpuppeting is of relevance. The reason is that if a new Armenian user starts meatpuppeting, it could be Rovoam, it could be Artaxiad, it could be Fadix, it could be Azizbekov, it could be Robert, it could be Ararat Arev etc…. there are several banned users. Only Adil Baguirov from the Azeri side is banned, so when someone comes out of nowhere to revert for another user in this case, it's more than usual to suspect Adil. - Fedayee (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Disruptive enough (edit-warring) that I put him on revert parole for six months. Not disruptive enough to merit an outright indefinite block (which I do not shrink away from, as a rule) unless he was a sockpuppet of Adil. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• I understand now more than clearly, that my case is just a nuclear bomb the above Armenian users are launching against user User:AdilBaguirov. Therefore, I see that it's not only about me. By having me blocked they really want to extend the above user's block, thus also blocking me indefinitely, although I have nothing to do with the above user. I am not really understanding where I could have been disruptive. I've always been a part of discussion pages where I did edits and reverts; I always remained civil towards any users, while at the same time being attacked with continuous harrassments from Armenian users, starting with a sock User:Azizbekov and ending with User:Fedayee, User:VartanM, and User: Eupator.

Please note that:

• • wherever it is obvious that I was experienced and worked too much on one artcile such as Albert Agarunov, they will go ahead and say that I am adding irrelavant information [8] or imply that I was experienced and/or was incivil [9] but was faking;
  • wherever I edited and created articles on Jews, be it on Jewish institutions, people, relations with other countries, they will go on with accusations that I am faking it just to look like a Jew;
  • wherever I edit, create articles about and related to Azerbaijan, they imply that I am pushing a POV [10], only because my edits are not pro-armenian and do not benefit their goals in Wikipedia project
  • wherever administrators present any questions which may jeopordize all this so-called "evidence" and accusation on being a sockpuppet, they will now start a campaign trying to present me as a meatpuppet now [11]
  • wherever I talk about a genocide, they imply that Jews never recognize other genocide.

I think it's more than obvious that these users are doing anything at everything to smash and kill the name and reputation of a user who do not present their point of view. I request from the Committee to review the case, determine the priorities as needed. I think the main points of concern to everyone are:

• • • Checking and determining through checkusers and other ways (I am ready to cooperate with the Committee members, provided that my privacy is not abused) that I am not sockpuppet of any other user, including that of User:AdilBaguirov;
    • Identifying whether or not, I was disruptive or acted in any incivil way;
    • Finalizing with suggestions to resolve the case. Ehud (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:X

Proposed Principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Y

Proposed Principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Z

Proposed Principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: