Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ehud Lesar/Proposed decision

message: Principle 1 currently says "A ban is a standing order that a particular person (and all his/her reincarnations) is not permitted to edit the Wikipedia web site".  I think this should tweaked to read ".. English Wikipedia ..", as banned users can and do edit productively on other sub-domains, especially if their problematic behaviour is exacerbated here because English is not their first language. John Vandenberg (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur, bans on one mediawiki project do not automatically take force on other projects.  — Rlevse • Talk •  15:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Fair enough although it's really only 'for the avoidance of doubt' given that English wikipedia Arbcom findings do not bind other projects. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  banned from the "English" Wikipedia 

message: More evidenece was added today. Shouldn't the committee judge what was presented as evidence and not what others see in Ehud? FYI, the only administrators experienced with Adil are Khoikhoi, Alex and Francis, all three recognized Adil's behaviour in Ehud. -- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 21:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The case opened on January 30th. The guidelines say the committee usually allows at least a week for the evidence phase before moving into voting, which was given. Historically, most cases have moved too slowly rather than too quickly and there is an effort to speed the process up a bit. However, most of the arbitrators (including myself) have not yet had a chance to review the evidence, and any evidence added today or in the near future will be reviewed carefully before the final decision is made. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. Thanks for the info.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 22:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Already voting? 

message: I have found some inaccurate statements in the proposed findings:
*Ehud was first suspected of being a sockpuppet of AdilBaguirov by  in November 2007, not December.
*From this, it appears that Thatcher did not evaluate Fedayee's evidence sub-page. 
*Dmcdevit conducted the CheckUser request. He did not find any connection between Adil and Ehud, but he never commented on the merits of Fedayee's evidence. He just stated that an admin who is familiar with the user's editing should evaluate the evidence and behavioral similarities and make a judgment call.   
*As Jayvdb said above, proposed principle #1 needs to be amended.
*In proposed finding #1, where did 27 June 2007 come from? Thatcher reset the ban until August 23, 2008, and it has since been amended to January 9, 2009 again by Thatcher, in response to Ehud's sockpuppetry block.
*In proposed remedy #2 is accepted, shouldn't the ban be reset from the closing date of the case?
Also, note that more evidence arguing for and against sockpuppetry is being compiled. I feel it is best to wait until all evidence has been posted before churning out proposed findings. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Can you point to the edit by Francis Tyers, because I couldn't find anything? I'm not inclined to change the reference to Thatcher and Dmcdevit at the moment because it would contradict the principle: sockpuppetry determination is a matter of checkuser and of editing similarities with neither being dominant. Fedayee's evidence page was intended as amplification of what he had already posted (nb his edit summary on creating the page). The 27 June date comes from the log of blocks and bans. All case findings are reviewed in the light of new evidence but with AdilBaguirov banned and Ehud Lesar only able to participate in this case, all of the new evidence is reinterpretation of what has already happened. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thatcher never evaluated the editing similarities. It's a misrepresentation to say he evaluated the allegations of sockpuppetry. It should also be clarified that Dmcdevit's involvement was only with CheckUser, and nothing more. It reads as if both users evaluated the evidence and judged that there was no sockpuppetry involved. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Here you go Sam, this is where Francis is creating a checkuser for Ehud/Adil: . Here Francis tells Ehud on his talkpage that Ehud is editing in the same manner as Adil: . As you can see the dates are in early July, not November or December.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 03:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  With regard to Thatcher's position, he said in his statement to arbcom: I was not convinced of the identity of Ehud when a complaint was posted to WP:AE,   and other admins reviewing the evidence at WP:AE did not find it convincing either. Picaroon, John Vandenberg and Moreschi did not find the evidence compelling, and Moreschi said to Ehud: I have no good reason to think you're a sockpuppet of anyone.. LaraLove unblocked Ehud and said that there was "No evidence of sockpuppetry", so it is not that there was a consensus among the admins on blocking Ehud as a sock. Grandmaster (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Grandmaster, see my link. Thatcher just read the AE discussion; he did not read Fedayee's evidence sub-page. Picaroon never commented on the merits of the case. He asked if there was more behavioral evidence. My mistake on the date; for some reason, I felt Francis made the Ehud-Adil connection in November. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe Picaroon did comment on the merits of the case and said that Geycha and Zangezur stuff that was backbone of Fedayee's evidence made no sense to him. We can ask him for additional clarification if needed. And I quoted Thatcher's statement to arbcom. he said that he did not find the evidence convinced, but did not mind if an admin made a judgment call. In any case, he appeared to summarize the discussion at AE, which resulted in no block of Ehud as a sock. Grandmaster (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked him if he had read Fedayee's evidence just hours before he commented on the case here. Also, you forgot to mention that Thatcher said, "I was not convinced of the identity of Ehud when a complaint was posted to WP:AE, and Fedayee's evidence page was not linked to the complaint." Clearly, that shows he didn't read Fedayee's evidence at the time (and he essentially acknowledged that on his talk page). Nishkid64 (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies in proposals 

message: With regard to Sam's question here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ehud_Lesar/Proposed_decision#General. I believe that there was user user misconduct in raising concerns about Ehud being a suspected sock. It is worth to note that the accusers never followed formal channels for investigation of their allegations, and no formal investigation was initiated after the block was contested. Please see this section in my evidence:  it demonstrates that every time Ehud tried to post a comment on talkpages he was attacked by a certain group of users, and User:Fedayee's conduct was especially questionable. In my opinion, it was an open harassment campaign. So if arbcom is going to deal with user conduct, I suggest arbitrators carefully evaluate the evidence that I presented. It has all the diffs of personal attacks on Ehud, which made his life in Wikipedia miserable. I think that users should be strongly encouraged to follow formal channels for investigation of sockpuppetry allegations and attacks on Ehud should be denounced. Otherwise we are not guaranteed from similar situations taking place in Wikipedia again, and one group of users can get another user banned by constant repetition of accusations, attacks and admin shopping. Also, I believe it would be good if arbcom would advise on how to contest a questionable ban without having to take it to the arbcom and if it is OK that a user was blocked, and then reblocked in a situation, when clearly there was no consensus among the admins that the user was a sock and the issue was not taken for review to WP:ANI, WP:AN, WP:AE or any other forum before the block/reblock was made. Grandmaster (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fadix has commented on this. John Vandenberg (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  User misconduct in raising concerns 

message: Is this FoF from the not proven stable? Stifle (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FoF 3.2.4 

message: I'm afraid I have little idea how all this works but I'm on this page as I was alerted by Grandmaster who told me that for some reason somone thinks I'm meant to be doubling as a character calle Ehud. I'm not. And I don't really have time or interest to work out who that is or why he/she might want to be me, but if it helps to clear things up please feel free to e-mail me any questions I can help with. I don't usually visit all this arcane Wiki World - only add corrections when I see errors hoping to help people. If I've messed up somewhere in how I'm meant to present things, my apologies. Malikbek (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for responding, Malikbek. So much for another conspiracy theory. Grandmaster (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malikbek 

message: Per Nyb. The content added by Ehud Lesar will be closely watched so I urge that Ehud Lesar to made quality additions based on Wikipedia core content policies. Will he be watched as closely as Atabek is closely watched? (Feeling the irony?) - Fedayee (talk) 05:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ehud Lesar will be closely watched 

message: Both User:Fedayee and User:VartanM should be watched for their bad faith, incivil comments sometimes going overboard, such as repeated calling a contributor "immature" - is this civil?! There is a clear attempt by these two contributors to get contributors banned along national lines, because their reports and comments here always recite Atabek, Grandmaster, AdilBaguirov, Ehud Lesar, any sock is immediately attributed by Fedayee and VartanM to these four or more established users (along national lines) without any logical explanation or RFCU. Isn't this a bad faith? A good faith contributor would file an RFCU first before actually making further assumptions.
I do believe in good faith of administrators in trusting Fedayee's report. However, it's clear that his report was prepared to target Ehud Lesar unfairly, simply because User:Fedayee was a subject of two Armenia-Azerbaijan ArbComs, yet continued to target pro-Azeri contributors. It's clear as a day that Ehud Lesar was blocked unfairly, unable to edit Wikipedia for couple of months, that he is not AdilBaguirov, that he was judged/questioned about his identity, nationality, ethnicity, when Wikipedia rules clearly prescribe against that, harassed and refused any opportunity to prove his identity and the fact that he is not AdilBaguirov. And all of this for what? For Fedayee's bad faith report!
And now instead of retracting and considering an apology for unfairly targeting Ehud Lesar and wasting community's time, undermining administrator's judgments, he is "feeling irony". Perhaps, arbitrators shall make it clear to Fedayee that he shall assume good faith otherwise, lack of any attention to his behavior will cause more disruption and waste more of community's time in future. Atabek (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this in Good faith?

message: Just wanted to drop a quick note and thank all of the administrators for looking through all of the evidence/arguments/comments from both sides and spending their time on this case.
Ehud (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank You note