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.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Move to review the checkuser request behavior of Grandmaster and Atabek[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Move to rename Case[edit]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

Move to restrict contributors from Content discussions in Wikipedia boards[edit]

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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Move to restrict contributors violating WP:HARASS[edit]

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)[reply]

Move case to review AA1, AA2 and include interest groups and POV pushing[edit]

Proposed. Ehud Lesar = Adil issue could be documented as part of such a case, since we're in the middle of an arbitration lets do it right this time. Fixing the sockpuppetry issue is only the point of an iceberg.VartanM (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

* Oppose. The purpose and scope of the current case is to address specifically the block of Ehud Lesar based on, so far unfounded, allegations that he is Adil. After some initial indications of futility of targeting users along personality and/or nationality, VartanM now proposes to move to another AA Arbcom. Yet a repeated AA ArbCom case would be appropriate only if the remedies and principles of prior case on that same topic are no longer applicable, which is clearly not the case. Atabek (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request to userfy deleted articles for possible evidence[edit]

Request to move the deleted articles UN Security Resolutions on the Nagorno-Karabakh War and UN Security Resolutions on the Nagorno-Karabakh War to my user space, I'd like to have a look and see if there is any connection with some of the links that user:Eupator posted below. Anyone else that wants to look at these is free to do so as well. Please restore the complete history of the above articles. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've restored the full history of UN Security Resolutions on the Nagorno-Karabakh War and (redirect) UN Security Resolutions on Armenian-Azerbaijani Conflict, and revised the article to be a list. I dont mind if it is userfied, deleted or expanded. John Vandenberg (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use some of the same analysis as the Mantanmoreland arbcom case[edit]

It might be late in the game but I recommend this case use some of the same tools and analysis that is currently being used in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland arbcom case. I think it might become the new standard of using the duck test.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm not really aware of that case, but I think the best argument against sockpuppetry allegations is the person himself. The best counterevidence Ehud can propose is his real life persona. Since it is claimed that Ehud does not exist in real life and is nothing but Adil in disguise, in my opinion the arbcom (if any arbitrator still has doubts as to whether Ehud is a genuine user) should contact Ehud whichever way they believe is the best and verify his existence in real life. I think the arbitration committee needs to establish some ways of verification that the user is not a fictitious account, but has a real life identity. I don't know how this could be done to everyone's satisfaction, but there should be a way of doing this. Grandmaster (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• As for meatpuppeting, which certain users start accusing Ehud of now, there’s no proof of Ehud being anyone’s meatpuppet, and jumping out of nowhere to rv obscure article or vote is nothing unusual for AA related articles. A couple of examples. Almost every Armenian editor turned up to vote for deletion of the category of Azerbaijani khanates: [5] Some of those users turned up after quite a prolonged absence for the sole purpose of voting there. See for example Davo88 (talk · contribs), who has not contributed since 11 December 2007, but somehow became aware of the voting on 5 January. Before voting he made only one edit in December, one edit in November, and no edits in October. [6] Or Hakob (talk · contribs). He appears only to rv quite obscure controversial articles, such as Paytakaran, Movses Kaghankatvatsi or Shusha pogrom, which he never ever edited before: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Are those users meatpuppets? Unlike those users, Ehud regularly edited and discussed on talk. Grandmaster (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say that's a false analogy if I ever saw one. New arbitrators should read the evidence provided in AA2. Davo88 actually edits in Armenian Wikipedia as a result of constant intimidation he faced here. He is a veteran user still active in Armenian Wiki. Ulvi/Aynabend and Parishan constantly do the same, so did Tabib in the past. We have never accused either of them to be socks of anyone. As for Hakob, that's also nonsense, Hakob also contributes mostly in Armenian Wikipedia, for the same reasons as Davo. He is also a veteran user with countless contributions unrelated to the AA conflicts. All the evidence was already provided during AA2 on how he was pushed off from here by baseless accusations so he avoids these topics now, the same goes for ROOB323. Real victims are intimidated and leave, false victims brag harassement and shout Armenian users want to get rid of Azeri users all the way along national lines to make it seem as we want to get rid of Azeri users. When did anyone try to "get rid of" you, Parishan or Ulvi? Ehud jumped out of nowhere, as a new editor. Someone who claims to not have known Adil and yet knew so much of Azerbaijan International and its editors activity. Adil Baguirov is not only a regular contributor in that magazine, but he was actually featured there along with his friends. I'm surprised he thought he could get away with this even with your unconditiopnal support. I understand why you want to steer this case into another direction ala AA3 but lets just stick to Ehud.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not a false analogy. If Ehud is disruptive, so are those users who appear from time to time to rv controversial articles. As I mentioned above, unlike those users Ehud always takes part in discussions. There must be some criteria of what disruptive is. I don't see that Ehud is more disruptive than for example User:Andranikpasha, who was officially proven to be engaged in disruption across multiple wikimedia projects: [14] As for Adil, I don't understand how his contribution to Azerbaijan International magazine can be a proof that Ehud is a sock. There are hundreds of contributors to that magazine, and I don't understand why do you even mention it here. When did Ehud demonstrate any awareness of its editor's activity? I saw that Vartan baselessly tried to link Ehud with Zondi. Previously Fedayee tried to link Ehud to Elsanaturk. Who's next Ehud will be linked to? Grandmaster (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No point bringing up his stye of writing. That will be presented in the evidence section. On Zondi, that's plain wrong. Atabek's reply was a twist, it's not only about knowing Azerbaijan International, but personally knowing the editor and personally talking with that editor (the editor was a lecturer during the conference with a self appointed mission to fix the "distortions" brought by the all powerful Armenian lobby). Zondi reverted the Church of Kish supporting a position that was first put forward in Azerbaijan International by Adil Baguirov. Zondi reverted on that article and his creation of Heroes of Azerbaijan had Agarunov and Ehud just happens to have created the article while reverting with him on Church of Kish. The claim that Ehud did not know Zondi is doubtful at best, finding coincidences has some logical limit at the end. Perpetuating those false analogies is quite funny. Those are established users, with a history in Wikipedia, not users with 65 edits in namespace one third of which are reverts, or obscure creations (which were first loaded in Adils website). Just like Adil, pushing Adil's organization's action alerts on Jews. Nothing from the other editors comes even close to what Ehud did here to suspect them of anything. It's fruitless to have this discussion between us. I'll leave it to the evidence. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eupator, do you realize that hundreds of people contribute to that magazine and tens of thousands people know the editor? It is the best English language magazine about Azerbaijan. Do all the people who contribute to the magazine and know the editor also know each other? How can you present this as an argument? Grandmaster (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And the only contribution of Hakob other than reverting obscure articles seems to be adding categories to various articles. That does not make him more established editor than Ehud. And Ehud never did anything close to what Andranikpasha did, yet they are both are placed on the same 6 months parole. Grandmaster (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is that supposed to mean "Ehud jumped out of nowhere?". Did I need to ask for your permission? Where did you jump out from here [15]? I joined Wikipedia when I joined it. Yes, you do want to get rid of Azerbaijani editors. Your efforts are endless. Yes, imagine that I did not know Adil Baguirov. I am not a frequent reader of Azerbaijan International, yet its editor is famous enough to be known. So, based on your words, anybody in Azerbaijan, or let's just say, over a million and a half student body in Azerbaijan, know or heard of Adil Baguirov? For your information, since oil industry is the main export of Azerbaijan and since 16% of southwestern Azerbaijan is occupied by a neighboring Armenia, those subjects are well studied by student and heard about through mass media. Are you telling me now that everyone sits there and hears Adil Baguirov's name over and over on TV, newspapers, or studies his theories? Analyze. Yes, that's right, let's stick to Ehud case and find out if he is a sockpuppet, not only of User:AdilBaguirov, but of anyone. We're not discussing here whether I am accused of being AdilBaguirov's sockpuppet, we are to determine if I am a sockpuppet at all. So, your continuous efforts to attach me to the name of a blocked user for obvious reasons are quite clear. Ehud (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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.[16] 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)[reply]
  • 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: [17] Grandmaster (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • That's interesting, I would want to know what that is (the deleted resolutions). I bet the distortions of the UN security resolutions would be identical to the ones AdilBaguirov brought up ad nauseum. Look at these:[18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] While revert warring against Golbez. Also Grandmaster claims that it was deleted because of Ehud's lack of experience does not make sense in the context of Ehud being Adil. Adil's badly executed edits were not because of lack of experience. Prior to being banned he created plenty similar articles, all poorly written. [24] It's now deleted, it was a resolution pushed over by lobbyists to answer to a resolution on the Armenian Genocide. Also, Ehud's lack of experience is not proven by making minor errors in the beginning, in fatc they all seem intentional. Anyone can fake that and we don't even need to go that far. Most of Fadix's socks did the exact same. We wouldn't see him sign his name until someone would tell him how. [25] Here he is saying test as if trying to see if the signature works. Here he wonders why he can't edit the article when it's locked. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 03:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Eupator, Ehud and Adil have completely different writing styles, as is obvious from the diffs that you provided. No offense to Ehud, but his English is much poorer than that of Adil, while Adil's English is indeed at the professional level as he claimed on his user page. You need to demonstrate similarities of style, but you actually do quite the opposite. If one compares the texts written by these two editors, he can see that they are not written by the same person. Grandmaster (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • How hard would it be for Adil to make an occasional error. Its not even the other way around. that argument doesn't hold water. VartanM (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Vartan, I use the rare "doesn't hold water" statement quite often in my comments on Wikipedia. So I hope you understand that your usage of this statement of mine does not imply that you're meat- or sockpuppeting with me. I hope you understand this analogy of your argument in case of Ehud Lesar. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I will reply to you when you come up with real and serious arguments. Otherwise you're just wasting everybodys time. VartanM (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. [26] 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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 [27] or imply that I was experienced and/or was incivil [28] 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 [29], 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 [30]
  • 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)[reply]

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed Principles[edit]

Decorum[edit]

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to gaming the system and disrupting wikipedia to make a point is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for Checkusers[edit]

2) Requests for checkuser should only be filed as a last resort when there is genuine concern of abusive sockpuppetry. They should not be filed in order to bludgeon opponents. Gaming of the Requests for checkuser process has a chilling effect on peoples willingness to contribute to Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Atabek's Request for Checkuser[edit]

1) Following a disagreement with Steelmate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Andranikpasha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) over the block of Ehud Lesar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Atabek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) opened up a new checkuser request comparing Andranikpasha and Steelmate with long time banned user Artaxiad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed. Checkuser is not related to Ehud Lesar case, and it wasn't run. Since Pocopocopocopoco opposes the requests to which he was added based on evidence of User:Kober, there is more suspicion that evidence may be basis to run the checkuser. Atabek (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster's addition to the checkuser[edit]

2) Following Atabek's request for checkuser, Grandmaster added additional banned users to the checkuser.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for checkuser[edit]

3) There was no rationale for checkusering Andranikpasha and Steelmate, and this checkuser request was rejected by the checkuser user:Dmcdevit because it appeared to be an attempt by user:Atabek and user:Grandmaster to bludgeon their opponents.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Londium and Ehud Lesar are the same user[edit]

4) Based on a complete review of the evidence presented, including user contributions, and the comments of parties and others, the Arbitration Committee finds that there is sufficient credible evidence to support the allegation that User:Londium is a sockpuppet of, or is otherwise closely connected with, User:Ehud Lesar.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose There's no evidence whatsoever to support this allegation. Grandmaster (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply proves that you are again arguing in the thin air without reading others comments[31]. There is no denying that Ehud is Londium. It should now be reevaluated whatever or not Ehud Lesar is Adil Baguirov according to his edits as Ehud Lesar and Londium. Both accounts were blocked by two different admins as socks of Adil Bagirov, and when their contributions are merged together we can confirm that the most likely situation is that Ehud Lesar is Adil Baguirov. It is very unlikely that after one user stops contributing the other returns the very next day. It is even less likely that the second one continues for several days and stops a day before the first ones return. There is no crossing, not even a single edit. Since Ehud Lesar is always out for several days and that we know Adil does move between Huston and Washington DC quite often, that can explain why Ehud does not contribute regularly. There was a checkuser run on Londium, if the IP was kept we can check and see if it traces to another user. VartanM (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is just your assumption. How can anyone use it as a proof of sockpuppetry? Grandmaster (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't noticed this section is called Finding of facts. I will again kindly ask you to let the arbitration decide, you simply don't have the authority to do that for them. VartanM (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't decide anything. This section is for the parties to comment. Arbitrators have their own section to comment, if they deem necessary, they will. I'm just questioning your proposed finding. Why are you trying to shut me up? Grandmaster (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to shut you up, you can talk all you want, its just more proof for me. VartanM (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Grandmaster (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. VartanM (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Londium and Ehud Lesar are sockpuppet of Adil Baguirov[edit]

5) Based on a complete review of the evidence presented, including user contributions, and the comments of parties and others, the Arbitration Committee finds that there is sufficient credible evidence to support the allegation when merging User:Londium and User:Ehud Lesar contributions that both are sockpuppets of, or are otherwise closely connected with, User:AdilBaguirov.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Any proof of that? CU result, or some credible proof? Personal beliefs cannot be findings of facts. Grandmaster (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking the committee to decide whether its a personal belief or a fact. You provided 0 arguments to prove me otherwise. Unless you have evidence proving that Londium and Ehud didn't interchangeably edit with one continuing when the other stopped, you have no right to question my beliefs. VartanM (talk) 03:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say they did. People do it all the time here. How does it prove that Londium is Ehud's sock and Ehud is Adil's sock? Grandmaster (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They did and I provided evidence for it. It doesn't ring bells in your ears when one stopped editing and the other continued, then the other stopped and the other continued, don't you think that its highly unlikely, considering that both were blocked by two different admins as socks of Adil Baguirov. VartanM (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without any proof whatsoever. That's why the block is contested. Grandmaster (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. VartanM (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AdilBaguirov has used sockpuppets to evade his ban[edit]

7) Based on a complete review of the evidence presented, including user contributions, and the comments of parties and others, the Arbitration Committee finds that there is sufficient credible evidence to support the allegation that User:AdilBaguirov created and used SPA accounts to evade his ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There's such finding of fact based on a cu result. Do you want this repeated once again? If you mean any other account not mentioned in the cu, there's no proof for that. Grandmaster (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case CU results have been proven to be unreliable. Let the arbitrators decide if there is proof or not. VartanM (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CU results cannot be unreliable. You need to demonstrate that Ehud is Adil evading the ban and cu detection. So far your evidence does not look convincing. Grandmaster (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Grandmaster for looking at my evidence and coming to conclusion that its not convincing. Your effort is really appreciated. My IP address has changed 4 times since April of last year. VartanM (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And mine hasn't since 2005, when I joined Wikipedia. You propose as finding of fact that Adil created SPA accounts to evade the ban. You haven't proved that Adil used any accounts other than those mentioned in cu. Your logic is that since such and such account edits from Azerbaijani POV, then it is Adil and nobody else. But there are millions of people visiting wikipedia every day, and many people from Azerbaijan drop by too. Some of them create accounts, but become unable to adopt to Wikiediting and get banned. It does not mean that all those accounts belong to Adil. But you just collect all those banned accounts and claim that it is Adil. In addition to that, you try to link to Adil good faith editors such as Malikbek, who have nothing to do with Adil and simply cannot be him for geographic reasons. And then you present all that "evidence" as a proof of sockpuppetry. You need something a lot better than that to claim inclusion as a FoF. Grandmaster (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. VartanM (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AdilBaguirov has used strawpuppets[edit]

8) Based on a complete review of the evidence presented, including user contributions, and the comments of parties and others, the Arbitration Committee finds that there is sufficient credible evidence to support the allegation that User:AdilBaguirov or are individuals otherwise closely connected to him have created and used straw puppets.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not supported by credible evidence. You need to present real proof for that, other than conspiracy theories including absolutely unrelated editors. Grandmaster (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again let the arbitrators decide whats credible and whats not. You are yet to prove anything in my evidence to be unreliable or untrue.VartanM (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. VartanM (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ehud Lesar’s block was contested in good faith[edit]

The efforts made by editors to contest the block of User:Ehud Lesar in order to ensure the fair enforcement of sockpuppetry policy were in good faith, with the intention of protecting Wikipedia from harm.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I don't mind the FoF that "The sockpuppetry accusations were made in good faith", and I never doubted that the blocking admins acted in good faith, while I did claim that they made an error in judgment. I'm not so sure about some users making sockpuppetry accusations though. But since this FoF is to be passed, would it not be logical to pass another FoF that the admins and users contesting the block also acted in good faith, since there are people who seem to have doubts about that? Or maybe there should be one FoF stating that the editors making accusations and those contesting them acted in good faith? Grandmaster (talk) 06:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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.

Atabek admonished[edit]

1) Atabek is admonished to use the requests for checkuser process as a last resort only when there is a genuine concern of abusive sockpuppetry.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. Again waste of community's time - see Pocopocopocopoco's duplicate requests below. Atabek (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster admonished[edit]

2) Grandmaster is admonished to use the requests for checkuser process as a last resort only when there is a genuine concern of abusive sockpuppetry.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. Same as above. Atabek (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek topic banned for 5 days[edit]

3) Atabek is topic banned from all Armenia-Azerbaijan articles for 5 days for gaming the requests for checkuser process to bludgeon A-A editors he disagrees with.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. Apparently a triplicate request :), and how does checkuser request from a month ago relate to article topics? Atabek (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster topic banned for 3 days[edit]

4) Grandmaster is topic banned from all Armenia-Azerbaijan articles for 3 days for enabling the gaming of the requests for checkuser process to bludgeon A-A editors he disagrees with.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

And how is this related to Ehud's case? Is it at all? I appears that Pocopocopocopoco tries to prevent certain users from filing cu for the period of 3 months, after which the cu data will become stale. But posting irrelevant proposals to unrelated arbcom cases is not the way to resolve personal issues. If Pocopocopocopoco has any grievances related to AA issues, he should take it to WP:AE. Grandmaster (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's directly related to this case because the reason behind the gaming of the checkuser process was disagreements you and Atabek had over the block of Ehud Lesar. Also, with the 3 month ban on checkusers, you will still be able to file checkusers indirectly through an admin if you have a genuine concern about sockpuppetry. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. Same as above. Interesting question though why 5 days above and 3 days here :)) Atabek (talk) 07:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 days for Grandmaster was to account for the fact that you started the checkuser request and that you have a more extensive block history than Grandmaster. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek banned from the Request for checkuser page for 3 months[edit]

5) Atabek is banned from the Request for checkuser page for 3 months for gaming the requests for checkuser process to bludgeon A-A editors he disagrees with. Should he have a genuine concern of sockpuppetry in A-A related articles, he can channel his request through the administrator that is mediating these articles

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. Don't see why a non-completed checkuser [32], in which User:Pocopocopocopoco was added on serious suspicions and evidence presented by User:Kober, is causing him so much concern so as to prevent me from checkuser filing. Perhaps, in light of his reaction, the evidence presented in regards to Pocopocopocopoco in that case will need to be paid a more closer attention to instead of outright dismissal. Otherwise, I don't see why filing a formal checkuser request should cause so much concern in general. It's a robust procedure to which there is Yes or No answer... Atabek (talk) 07:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the 5th time you've mentioned Kober. Note that Kober is not a party to this case. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this proposition should not be here at all, since this is a case related to Ehud Lesar block only! But since you feel free to bring irrelevant stuff into here to target other contributors, may as well present all of the facts. I did not add you to that checkuser that you keep talking about, it was Kober, but I do fully support further investigating his evidence in the checkuser request, especially in light of your opposition to it. Atabek (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already presented my rationale as to why this is relevant to the case. If you feel that Kober should be added as a party to this case then present your rationale. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster banned from the Request for checkuser page for 3 months[edit]

6) Grandmaster is banned from the Request for checkuser page for 3 months for enabling the gaming of the requests for checkuser process to bludgeon A-A editors he disagrees with. Should he have a genuine concern of sockpuppetry in A-A related articles, he can channel his request through the administrator that is mediating these articles

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. Same as above, in fact, I suggest that Pocopocopocopoco stops wasting arbitrators' and community's time with requests that are counter productive and absolutely irrelevant to "Ehud Lesar block" case. Atabek (talk) 07:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed Principles[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed Principles[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: