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

Arbitrators active on this case

 * To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

banned from the "English" Wikipedia
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)
 * Concur, bans on one mediawiki project do not automatically take force on other projects. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 15:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)

Already voting?
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)
 * 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)
 * Great. Thanks for the info.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 22:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in proposals
I have found some inaccurate statements in the proposed findings: 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)
 * 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?


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

The point is not, in my view, material to the case. I put the finding in there to denote that this is not a simple case of an obvious sockpuppet and that opinions were at all stages divided; most sockpuppets are blocked and ignored, but this one was clearly a controversial one. The finding also helps the decision to flow in a logical structure. The arbitrators are themselves examining the evidence and therefore the conclusions of others, however eminent, are merely interesting sidenotes and not decisive of anything. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User misconduct in raising concerns
With regard to Sam's question here: Requests_for_arbitration/Ehud_Lesar/Proposed_decision. 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)

I have concerns about a finding of fact that there was no misconduct in the identification of Ehud as a sock. It looks like many users have from the outset assumed that Ehud was Adil, and instead of resigning themself to continue to AGF when dealing with an irregular user they harassed the user, and there is the possibility that the intent may have been to entrap the user with the users responses to needless taunts. Also, Khoikhoi has not explained how he became involved in this matter, has been mostly unavailable after the block, has taken a very long time to front up with anything resembling a rationale to block, and this rationale to block leaves a lot to be desired. This makes it difficult to assess what evidence was actually on hand at the time of the block, where it had come from and whether much effort was put into the analysis of this evidence. The independent unblock should have been the status quo until the evidence underpinning the sockpuppetry allegation had been properly aired on WP:SSP and there was consensus to reblock. Keeping users blocked based on secret evidence is not honourable.

I was under the impression that this case would be limited to reviewing whether Ehud is Adil, and relevant actions regarding the actual block, rather than reviewing the conduct of the parties, and especially not condoning it. If I am mistaken in that, and there are going to be general findings of fact to do with user conduct, I think there is some missing evidence and the workshop is vacant of any useful input or proposals from the wider community. John Vandenberg (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Fadix has commented on this. John Vandenberg (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Coincidences
It amazes me how Atabek's evidences can even be taken into account when he is lying about Geycha republic. As it can be seen from the two links passed as independent to support that Ehud position isn't rare. The second link he provided was hosted with hypermart, the company does not offer free hosting since 2004. The page in question was accessible from Adil Baguirov's webpage, the link is still there. When searching for that information on Google, Adil Baguirov's page would have come first during the time of the existence of the page. So Ehud claim that he did not know Adil is not possible. The same free hosting was used to host other Adil pages, for example this student site, Adil run those sites during the '90's, and that student page has a clear Adil Baguirov touch, the included middle picture and the hyperlink to Khojali tragedy. For all we know that claimed government in exile was a product of Adil's imagination, something he came up with. The first link Atabek provides was sourced from a submission of a map, the position maintained there was actually defended by Elmar Chakhtakhtinski. "Geycha" wasn’t even included in the maps of the Azeri representatives at the Paris Peace Conference. Grandmaster and Atabek attempted to present Ehud's Geycha claim as some Azeri claim doesn’t sound honest at all neither their attempt to try minimizing this very strong evidence. Both wrote the the same way, and both used the term for the same reasons and how far Atabek and Grandmaster could try to discredit this evidence, the fact remains that it is very unlikely that someone who holds fringe theories such as a Geycha Republic, or the qualification of Khojali as genocide etc. who would know so much about the current politics of the region and on top of that who lives in Texas would have no knowledge about Adil. Most Azerbaijani’s in the US probably know who Adil is, and with the level of knowledge of Ehud on current issues it’s nearly impossible that he didn’t knew who Adil was.

Most of the positions maintained by several users trace their origin to Adil Baguirov theories. (particularly Ehud’s) Their way of working is to FORK articles (there are 5 FORK articles on NK) or merge articles (Melik was an example which was brought during AA2) When articles cover Armenians more than their taste would allow, some obscure events happen and the result is a FORKing. For example it's very difficult to assume that Adil didn’t have anything to do with this, a FORK created of the article Nakhchevan. After difficulties of adding the Armenian history to the Nakhichevan, some obscure user comes and creates a FORK. Nothing was done about it ecause it would have to go thru an AFD and would probably be kept or mergeed undoing by the same occasion addition of the Armenian history.

Adil had definitely something to do with this, and all of the Armenian users saw this article, there are the categories too. It’s difficult to assume and believe that Grandmaster didn’t saw anything. Adil's recent interests in the history of the region are just that, Nakhichevan. He prepared a lecture in last December about it. The power point is accessible here. You’ll see that when he covers the etymology section he goes to a version of article where any mention to Armenia and Armenians (which is the majority position) is missing. You will also see in that power point that the major positions maintained by Adil were pushed by Grandmaster, included just right now, when he incorporated a translation edited by the foremost Armenophobe who was recognized as having plagiarized other scholars and has deliberately removed the word Armenia and replaced it with Albania. The FORK created there finds its basis of the new site which is a redirect of bakutoday.net (gathering most of Adil Baguirov's friends passed as some news agency), he even provides the link in his powerpoint. Visiting the redirect we see a letter dated on November 5, 2007, we see here that the letter was actually written by Adil Baguirov. The timing of the FORK and the major position on replacing Nakhichevan Armenian cultural presence by Azerbaijani makes it very suspicious.

Following Khoikhoi's rational, on Ehud jumping in edit wars, it is very difficult to accept the credibility of this decision, when in the proposed finding of facts, it says that Ehud has no relation with Adil. This edit was initiated by Tigran's edit, and if any arbitrators have gone in the trouble of understanding and checking why Tigran's edit was so controversial it will appear more than a coincidence why Ehud was there. Just check the number of footnotes we were forced to include in the article to support his ethnicity. The claim of Albanian ethnicity was a position defended by Adil on several articles. And his article about Wikipedia contained just that.

On the Church of Kish article Grandmaster restarted the debate on July 2 being against Meowy, and that again Ehud followed just after Atabek (July 3 Atabek, July 4, Ehud again)

By accident, Ehud always finds his way, Nagorno Karabakh where Ehud hasn't posted for a very long time and guess when he comes back. See this. Again an accident? What credible evidence, what has the arbitration even read?

What about Natavan? Was it a coincidence? What about the fact that Ehud added the vandalism reference the same day Atabek presented it to provoke members?

How many coincidences does one need?

I guess this is coincidence too. 09:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not the evidence page, all conspiracy theories should go there. In any case, claiming that all accounts that contribute irregularly or stopped contributing after a while are Adil is not a good evidence. For example Malikbek is not related to Adil in any way. I suggest you file a cu before making groundless accusations, or I can do that for you. At least you will know the geographic location. I'm going to email that user and ask him to comment on your accusations. Same with your bad faith assumptions with regard to me, Atabek and other users. You need to present a real proof, not groundless claims that such and such accounts must belong to Adil, because you think so. I mean, claims that "most of the positions maintained by several users trace their origin to Adil Baguirov theories" are absolutely baseless, how could this be considered an evidence? Are you trying to say that me or Atabek are also Adil's socks or are manipulated by him? It would be good to see some real proof of that other than your personal beliefs. It is the same as saying that positions of certain users trace their origin to Fadix's theories, I can present a lot of evidence demonstrating that many Armenian users share the same positions with that user. But is it a proof that all those users are socks? And Geycha argument is the most groundless one out of all, if a group of refugees from Armenia proclaimed that republic in 1992, it is unlikely that Adil is the only person on this planet who is aware of that. Is this website also created by Adil? Are you trying to say that Shakhtakhtinski is Adil too? Any proof of that? And Ghalatchian commented one year before Shakhtakhtinski, is he Adil too? I remember that Fedayee was claiming that only Adil spelled the name of the lake as Geycha, and some admins actually believed him before I did some check up, and now this? Grandmaster (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

VartanM, according to your messages all Azeri Wikipeditors across the globe are sockpuppets of each other... But the question remains as to why don't you just file a WP:RFCU instead of spending an incredible amount of quality time that could otherwise be spent on actually contributing to Wikipedia articles rather than pursuing contributor identities (often repeating the arguments of banned Artaxiad and Fadix). I wonder if any administrator or arbitrator would be interested to follow up on this and find out whether VartanM's violations of WP:HARASS and WP:AGF with regards to myself, Grandmaster, Adil, Ehud Lesar or other established contributors, futile attempts to correlate them to real life identities, locations, or unrelated individuals is at all of any use to Wikipedia community? Don't VartanM's edits often precede or follow those of mine, Grandmaster's, Ehud's, etc. in either reverting, removing references from or perturbing the text to versions of Fedayee, Andranikpasha, MarshallBagramyan or others? I think it would be easier if admins just make a recommendation on how to deal in responding to such conspiracy theories. There must be a way to save community's time for editing rather than undue baiting of contributors, like the one Ehud Lesar is suffering from for months now. Atabek (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Using the word conspiracy theory as a pejorative term to dismiss well-founded evidences is frequently an effort to dismiss claims without having to assess them. Worst is the problem, and harder it is to present it without being troubled to be branded as conspirationist.


 * Malikbek and Sisternarmin are the same user, we can begin from there. After a great deal of trouble on the Principality of Khachen page, where finally the article was presented accurately, Malikbek came and undid all the efforts. You’ll observe there that Sisterarmin jumps in the discussion answering as if he was Malikbek. On the merge, one is in red and the other in blue, it’s a given they’re both the same user. He wasn’t even cautious enough since while for example on January 4 one added in the Canned Heat article Gene Taylor, the same day the other worked on Gene Taylor article(and there are various such examples). And I’m ready to bet that if a checkusers was run no relation between both users will ever be found. And the arbitration will claim no sufficient evidence. Zulfugar also nonetheless another incarnation of Adil. Here we see Talyshli reverting to Adil Baguirov version., and here after Zulfugar has deceptively played a match to trick El_C, he return to Talyshli version. which was actually Adil Baguirov version. Everyone bought the game and Adil successfully introduced his change in articles again. Forever fooling editors by doing it as if he was unaware and the results were always in line with Adil.


 * Conspiracy, Conspiracy! Use that word illegitimately and inappropriately, as a mean to dismiss what are in fact substantial and well-evidenced accusations. The rest will be addressed in a short while. VartanM (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So you are claiming that Malikbek is Adil, right? I think we can ask arbitrators to check with that user and verify if he is Adil or not. Malikbek is willing to cooperate. Talyshli resides in Western Europe judging by his IP, he cannot possibly be Adil just because of that. And there's no proof of Zulfugar being Adil, in fact, his editing style is completely different from any other user. I can try contacting him too, if needed. And again, cu could answer a lot of questions. What you do is you dump here all unrelated accounts of infrequent editors and claim that they are all incarnations of Adil without any proof whatsoever. You need something better than that to establish sockpuppetry. Grandmaster (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster, not once have you said anything about Sisterarmin. Why? Do you claim that both are not the same user? Malikbek introduced those changes after the Khachen principality was settled thanks to Fadix who meticulously prepared the whole thing. The claim that Dowsett was Armenian which was to use Atabek's analogy and expose his deliberate falsifications. After finally putting Atabek claims to rest (which included deliberate misquotings, clear example of distortions, uses of Cornell etc.) and having some moment of peace Malikbek came and undid the changes. It wasn’t an accident, Atabek failed and Fadix even bet 10$ with Fedayee that a new sock of Adil will appear there to undo the work like it was always the case. The same thing happened on Paytakaran, when the issue was settled, and that from the mediation it was clear that you were uncompromising and was POV pushing. You made the change, forcing us into a revert war. And again Adil created socks to support you. (Rapikpapik, Zvartnots, Hanrapetutyun)

Your only defense is made possible because the deception is so huge that any attempt to present it would sound as a conspiracy theory. Just recently, I present the case of Talyshi in my evidence page on 7 February, soon later Talyshi question is brought back when an IP (seems to be an open proxy) move the request submitted in July, in the talkpage to have again administrators attention. Again the geographic location brought as evidence to clean Talyshi who introduced Adil Baguirov version. If you are intelligent enough to access the differences in style, you are intelligent enough to know that this is probably one of the first things which someone will think of changing when using several socks. Don't bring arguments which you know yourself aren't valid.

For now, just answer if you think Sisterarmin is Malikbek? Yes or no? VartanM (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's never been proven that Rapikpapik, etc belong to Adil. Will you ever stop making baseless accusations? With regard to Talyshli, I suggest you ask Khoikhoi about it, he knows that Talyshli is not Adil. That account is based in Europe, and Adil is in the US. And the anon that moved unblock template to talk is based in Australia. It cannot be the same person. As for Sisterarmin, I have no idea if it is Malikbek or not, you'd better ask him personally. I just don't see what the point is in discussing that user here. Are you still claiming that Malikbek is Adil too? If so, I'm gonna ask for official investigation of this allegation. You managed to block an innocent editor Ehud by making baseless accusations at various talk pages, I don't want this to happen to another editor, who by the way has never been involved in any disruption and made many useful contributions to Wikipedia. Grandmaster (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * With regard to geographic location, if the IP does not belong to an open proxy, then the same person cannot be at different continents at the same time. And those IPs are not proxies. Grandmaster (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Either support your claim that many of their theories originates from Fadix or back off. You have come with enough phony claims here and the evidence page to discredit yourself to no end. All of my theories finds their origine from several works from google book, Jstor and other available materials, from libraries and widelly accessible, not something obscure. You compare this to claims which were made-up by Adil, but again keep it up with your senseless comparisons. The powerpoint includes the alleged khachkar destruction by Armenians themselves, the source was deformed and falsified. It was you who stirred the clash by moving forward Adil allegations after his ban, of the same misused source. This was a theory maintained by Adil, he cooked it (from the powerpoint), you've reported Marshal for this lie. Don't you remember? Marshal included this in his evidence segment during AA2, you replied to it by meandering mendacious complaints.

It's likely that Talyshli was not Adil, but he nonetheless meatpuppeted for him by reverting to his version(which isn't any different from a sockpuppet). He isn't yet included in Vartan's list so don't bring him in. On the other hand, Ehud is Adil, it's not because arbitrators don't get that yet it means it isn't him. Contributors involved have been more familiar with Adil than them; you can pull the wool over their eyes but not mine or theirs. The reverts made by Ehud in all those articles were the result of your and Atabek hitch with others edits. Church of Kish, it was the outcome of Moewy edit, on Natavan, it was of Hetoum edit causing a revert war and Ehud pops and reverts when all of you achieved your revert limits. On History of Azerbaijan it's the same narrative like Karabakh Khanate or Ethnic minorities in Iran and alike with the talkpages. In spite of his ill intentioned involvement and Adil-like behavior editors are supposed to assume good faith and leave him to return because a bunch of editors who before yesterday had no clue of those subjects and controversies thinks they are in a better position to determine if an editor is the sockpuppet than those who have known and interacted with a very significant amount of time.

Malikbek/Sisternamin justifications don't persuade the three digit IQs one bit and who have seen everything here to anticipate the worst. Sisternamin claims he used both accounts interchangeably and never tried to bury anything. On October 14 Malikbek edits the Principality of Khachen, the following day Sisternamin edit Shahumian, he logs off, Malikbek logs-on and reverts the Principality of Khachen. If he wasn't trying to hide it, why did he log off and then logged with his other account? Did Sisternamin cease bothering after he inadvertently replied in Melikbek's place? How is his admission a proof he's saying the truth? It was just too noticeable they were the same users, it was undeniable. And Vartan's evidence shows that he did everything previously to pass both accounts as being different users. As after he made his revert on Khachen article and continued with the 26 commissars he logged off and then again logged with his other account, within minutes. When he realized his mistake he logged off and logged on with his other account again within minutes. Lets presume that his edits and reverts on Principality of Khachen were all coincidences (what a biased random generator those coincidences are acting like). Was this edit on Azerbaijani Khanates a coincidence? And this? Malikbek edited locations which are mostly controversial and which articles were edited by suspected socks of Adil. The whole thing is bizarre, everything is bizzare. Two IPs continued with the same rationales as Malikbek on Lankaran (continuing what he did prior); and those two IP (212.38.111.120 and 82.118.137.238) originate from LUKOIL-Azerbaijan (this IP too (212.38.115.56), which continued a day after), a leading oil company stationed in Azerbaijan. Adil works for oil companies and regularly flies to Baku, in fact up until December 18 for about two weeks Adil was probably in Baku, both his Ehud and Malikbek accounts returned on December 18-19. He's been contributing more on Wikipedia banned than he ever did prior to AA1. Malikbek now claims to be a British, it's so convenient, A Jew, now we have a British, when will we have our Chinese? After Malikbek distorts Khachen article (he actually falsified by claiming Armenian for a source which was not one) with very bad edits he innocently find his way to the Arbitration page to make a statement playing the poor innocent. . Besides Malikbek rational on Khachen, on presenting both positions after both you and Atabek failed to support your baseless claims was very similar to Ehud's after both of you failed on Movses article. 

Will Ehud claim that Londium is his wife? Didn't Atabek and you together protected Londium and tried discrediting Alex an outstanding administrator one among a small number(and ever declining due to your and Atabek barrage of complains) who has the skills to smell Adil? Ehud contributed from June 26-August 2, he faded away, somewhere, who knows where. Londium pops the very next day and edits until August 7 and disappeares on Ehud's turn. All those days, no Ehud, where is Ehud? Ehud comes back the very next day Londium leaves. There is so much here, that it is worthless to even begin adding evidences. The only solution is that the good editors who are here in good faith leave this place and leave the likes of Adil here.

Keep abusing the checkusers to distract attention every time there is justifiable complains of sockpuppetry. As a result of Vartan's new provided evidences of massive scale sockpuppetry submitted on February 21 you don't waste your time to fill another checkuser request on February 22. , diverging the attention (you and Atabek did the same thing during Ehud Lesar case). The names you submitted have all ceased contributing for weeks and the very same checkusers (excluding Yerkatagear who stopped editing anyway)were already filled prior and with results. But only a day later, a user pops out of nowhere and starts acting like Verjakette. A day after you submit your request for checkusers, there was no rational to do that on February 22 but February 23 when you added that user. Do you have some psychic abilities anticipating new socks before they even come? You and Atabek did the exact same thing when Ehud was blocked and evidences were added, as a result he requested another checkuser which was drafted after an imitation of Fedayee chronological evidence. you came there and added more names, again Verjakette and those are your justifications, you were obviously making fun of Khoikhoi arguments for the block when he wrote: In addition, compare some of his comments to Adil's messages . There are so many weird sockpuppetry issues, so much of them who comes every time there is valide complaints about sockpuppetry and who acts as straw puppets. Like each and single time Atabek and you have flooded here with countless baseless reports preventing genuine reports.

I already knew the minute the case will be accepted how it will end, no point in adding any evidences. And now, to borrow Marshals words from Khachen article, I'm going to sit down and await again the inevitable complaint about me and with that your point by point reply by winding everything, you're indeed a Grandmaster.

If the arbitration was a legtitimate structure, a credible working system, instead of wasting its time on an obvious deceptive user, it would have accepted Tajik case, a user who has on countless occasions attempted to be resinstated but his appeals were ignored. Had the administrators here not been that stupid, they would have seen how weird it would be for someone like Tajik to use in the middle of an arbitration case such an obvious sock as Tajik professor or German Oreientalist, two usernames which will inevitably link to him. More amazing, that the user who will be creating such socks which would make it obvious it is him, will then continue denying it when denying it will defy the purpouse of choosing such obvious usernames. Denying it even after evading his ban.

Anyway, thank's to the charitable mistake by the one who blocked my IP for three months, because it isen't blocked. You don't need to make that mistake twice though.

BTW, it was quite an accomplishement to even have a straw puppet who could find someone to translate in Armenian. Adil you have outdone yourself. But I told you guys, you can try hard to outsmart me, by having all your group of lobbyests here at once it will be a failure.

I will give you guys the secret of success of the Armenian lobby, take note. Mathematicians do math, physicians do physic, Chemists do chemistry, biologists do biology, historians do history, sociologists do sociology..., all in their fields. They do not waste all their elites capacity by stirring such a level of hatered, preventing those people who excel in their study to use their intellectual capability in their field but rather use all this grey matter to fight what they see as their ultimate enemy. Take exemple on your brothers the Turks, on people like Pamuk rather than social rejects like Adil -Fadix


 * The above comment was re-added by me. VartanM (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Fadix reply is necessary, for long time now we have suspected the use of straw puppets who come in articles which Grandmaster and Atabek had editing conflicts. The straw puppet come and push on the Armenian position so much as the result would ridicule it and then use socks. As it is the case with Merjanov who as Fadix said comes out of nowhere a day after Grandmaster requested a checkuser. The last time this happened, the user was accused of being Artaxiad, I tried to check his knowledge of Armenian by witting in Armenian. My test came up empty, user replied in broken Armenian, and didn't answer to the questions. I don't know how this could be done, but it is important to have access to the IP addresses of some of the users who are now banned (are checkuser results kept?). Just recently the new account's (Merjanov) IP traces to Virgina: while it is not in Texas, it traces to Virginia Washington DC, where Adil was reported to be residing according to the whitepages (he now seems to have removed his informations from the white pages).

There is a possibility that some of the users who were banned passing as Armenian editors were actually Adil, or that some of their socks were Adil's creation, which consequences could have been to have banned innocent users. So I will kindly ask any checkusers, if they are willing to provide the IP addresses via email, or if the checkusers are willing to trace each account and submit the results to the Arbitration committee. Thank you. VartanM (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to request an interwiki checkuser to compare Merjanov account with that of AdilBaguirov's from wikisource  VartanM (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've kicked off a CU request here as this needs to be sorted out to ensure we end up with the right outcome. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have 2 questions.


 * 1. Are banned users allowed to edit wikipedia pages without special permission of the arbcom? The reason for this question is that VartanM restored at this talk page the edit of banned User:Fadix.


 * 2. If we make a fantastic assumption all those users and IPs are Adil in disguise, would it be a proof that Ehud is Adil's sock too?


 * Grandmaster (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have endorsed his edit, so I reverted to his version. I take responsibility for what he wrote, because we both know that no matter how strong Fadix's reasons to ask permission could be valid, he will be ignored.

Londium is Ehud, we can start from there. Don't you think it's evidence that both socks of the same user have been blocked by two different admins as socks of Adil. Don't you think that its coincidental that the three IPs that trace to an oil company in Baku continued to work on articles that Malikbek was working on, when at the same time Ehud and Malikbek disapeared? Don't you find fishy that this new accounts traces to where Adil's home is registered? I have said enough, I will sit tight and await the checkusers, it was not needed to add all those names, what I am interested a check for wikisource Adil account with Merjanov. I am confident that for Merjanov Adil may not have been using a proxy because no one would suspect a pretended Armenian. The same for his wikisource account. This is why I think both of those are more relevant then the rest. VartanM (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So Londium is Ehud? And Ehud is Adil? But previous cu showed no relation between Londium and Adil. And Malikbek is in Belgium, as he claims, and Adil and Ehud are in the US. How could they possibly be the same person? And the IPs do not trace to an oil company (I don't know what difference it would make if they did, but still), they trace to Adanet, the Internet provider in Baku, of which Lukoil is the owner. FYI, Lukoil invests not only in oil in Azerbaijan, so the IPs could point to any place in Baku. Btw, I have a reason to suspect that Merjanov is related to User:Verjakette, rather than Adil. Same POV, and similar interests. I'm also curious of the results of this cu and eagerly awaiting the results. Grandmaster (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, cu was performed. The result is that Ehud is not related to any other account. Malikbek is the same as Sisternarmin, as he admitted himself below, so as User:lar noted, no surprises here. And I was right about User:Merjanov, it appears to be another sock of Verjakette. I believe this answers all the questions. Grandmaster (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know where this is going, but the issue of tying me to other users is going far. And, let me mention that, on pointless assumptions. VartanM has turned it into a "big conspiracy" game. I am not Adil, neither am I Londium, Elsanaturk, or any other you had accused me of being. What possibly do you find coincidential? There are only a few articles that are always in the center of attention of both Armenian and Azerbaijani users. This is Wikipedia. When a user reads one article of his interest, he will be eventually led to other related articles, i.e. if you are interested on an article related to Karabakh,you will happen to find a Khojaly Massacre article, or history of Caucasian Albania, or article on Church of Kish. What can possibly be coincidental if two groups of users are constantly reading and researching on the same articles? You mention oil and gas companies. And? That is what the present day Azerbaijan is all about - oil, oil companies, companies servicing oil companies, companies that services companies servicing oil companies. If one user such as Adil Baguirov is working with an oil company, that doesn't mean all Azerbaijanis are tied up to him, or know what he knows, or use his computer? Why do you try to confuse the administrators? It's your business to discuss Adil Baguirov's never ending locations all over the planet, I don't really care, but be so kind to get it off of me. By adding other user names to the name Adil Baguirov, VartanM is just trying to prove that I am one of those users in those mysterious locations.
 * Bottom line is that I am in Texas, and I am willing to prove it to the admins in private, be it through a webcam, in person, so that these endless emails and waste of time digging in Wikipedia articles, JUST to get me banned, end once and for all. Again, I am who I am, and I am willing to work it out with the admins. This is as easy as it sounds. Ehud (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Malikbek
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)


 * Thanks for responding, Malikbek. So much for another conspiracy theory. Grandmaster (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, while I'm not Ehud anybody and don't know anything about that person, Sisternarmin and Malikbek are indeed effectively the same - in November I was a virtually new user and had signed up twice (as Malikbek for me and Sisternarmin for my wife). However we then used both sign-ins quite interchangeably as we do with our personal e-mails. I made no attempt to hide this as you'll notice from my other totally uncotroversial entries - I didn't realise it was a big deal. I have since been told that this is against Wikipedia etiquette: sorry about that, we'll stop doing it (after sending this!). As for Khachen, if the timing of my (ie Malikbek's) interventions was odd I'm afraid that that's pure coincidence. I had been correcting some strange stuff on wikipedia's Goranboy entry which then happened to lead through to Khachen. On that page all I saw was a tiny entry which seemed to give a very one sided argument so I tried to add some balance. As it seemed such a small entry I didn't realise that there had been a vast discussion leading up to those few lines so had no idea that my attempts to be helpful would be taken so badly (I've since learnt about the 'History' tab so can be better informed next time). Somebody then told me that in fact there had been a big discussion to get to the previous stage, so at that point I stopped wasting my time as I realised that there were many more qualified than me to deal with such arcane details. I can assure you, that there was never any negative intent and I continue to learn about how things work in Wiki land where my only motive is to try and be helpful. I hope this helps clarify and de-mystify any conspiracy theories that I might have unwittingly helped to develop by my ignorance of wiki etiquette. Signed for Malikbek by Sisternarmin (talk) 10:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ehud=Londium
More evidence was added. VartanM (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought you were claiming that Ehud was Adil, now he is Londium? Grandmaster (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't play dumb, you're brighter then that. You know very well what I am saying, you actually answered to the Workshop by showing you understood. The point the arbitration is not addressing, which is inexcusable, is that Ehud and Londium are the very same person. And to address whatever or not Ehud is Adil, the arbitration should first provide such a finding of fact on Ehud and Londium. Either the arbitration does not read all the evidences or either the decision is influenced by the Mantanmoreland case. I don't see any other excuses, and neither of those two possibilities are excusable. From this decision, no administrators will ever have any justifications to block other incarnations, and as if this was not enough even less for the strawpuppets. VartanM (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And here is more evidence, why votes are weird. Kirill wrote: Not convinced this is Adil himself. Was there more implied in this answer? Since the proposed finding of fact reads: Ehud Lesar is a sockpuppet of, or is otherwise closely connected with, AdilBagurov. His answer totally exclude otherwise closely connected with —Preceding unsigned comment added by VartanM (talk • contribs) 19:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is quite preposterous and needs no consideration. --bainer (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you clarify what you find preposterous? Do you have any reasonable answer to the anomalous pattern of edits between Londium and Ehud Lesar which should be assessed in combination of that diff? That evidence only shows that Adil has attempted the same thing prior, both by forging an identity and faking words to pass as someone who does not know what he is talking about. - Fedayee (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That section suggests that because Ehud and Londium both said that they didn't know Adil, they must be the same person. That is what I find preposterous. --bainer (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh ok, thank you for you answer. This was not what was intended, check Vartan’s merging From June 26 to August 2 Ehud makes contributions, then he stops, from August 3 to August 7 Londium makes contributions. Then, Ehud makes contributions from August 8 to August 13. How is it possible that those two accounts that were blocked as socks of Adil show this pattern? Statistically what is the probability of this anomalous pattern? Both accounts each contribute for several days without crossing each other and then reappear once the other leaves (next day). The evidence on both claiming not knowing Adil was presented as evidence in that context, in the context that both have Adil’s beliefs and both will claim not knowing Adil, while both will claim not to be ethnically Azeri. One claims being Jewish, the other British. Yet they show an editing continuity with one replacing the other.


 * There are other issues with this case, FoF 3 is obviously wrong yet only one arbitrator has opposed it. Read Thatcher’s statement to the case, and his later replies. FoF 3 misrepresents the situation, which leaves me to wonder if the arbitration really investigated the matter. Only one arbitrator opposed this obviously wrong FoF.


 * Your reply to FoF2 also is wrong, your reply dismisses clear evidence of at least meat puppetry, all of his reverts at those controversial articles had contexts. Ehud is not saying the truth about the Church of Kish and why it is not some Azeri article, or his edit in Movses talk page which was neither some Azeri claim. Both involve the thesis of Caucasian Albanian. There seems to be an Azeri interest because of some supposed Caucasian Albanian ideology. This ideology subscribes to the belief that everything Armenian in Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan are Caucasian Albanian. The same group adheres to the independent Azerbaijani Khanate's which was so pushed by AdilBaguirov.


 * That Ehud is Adil isn’t really a matter of dispute, what is problematic in this case is that the arbitration overrules the judgement call of the administrators who have dealt with Adil. Alex, Khoikhoi, Francis were the only ones who have really dealt with him, and 3 on 3 have seen Adil in him. That the arbitration takes this decision or not will not change anything there. The standards for confirming sockpuppetry have been unjustifiably raised. With the limited number of edits Ehud has done, it does not appear that he is a threat for us. You must ask why him, why do we accuse him? - Fedayee (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Administrators in this case do look through all of the evidence, and the reason they think otherwise, is because they are not blinded by your beliefs. You're making all this case, and you have been making all this case a huge conspiracy theory where one user is allegedly going around the world to create accounts to edit Wikipedia in favor of Azerbaijanis. What are the opportunity costs of buying tickets to different parts of the world and editing Wikipedia just for the sake of it? Where have we been already? Holland, UK, Azerbaijan? Where else? I understand the user AdilBaguirov might have been travelling around the world on his business, but does it really make sense to go around the world and spend enourmous time on editing Wikipedia articles? When does he really do his business then? He might as well do all of the above, I don't know and I'm not sure, and I am not sure about all those accounts attached to him, Malikbek, Londium, Elsanaturk, etc., etc., but why are trying to just harm MY image attaching ME to a banned user Londium? Just because he did not know Adil Baguirov, and I don't know him, that doesn't make him me, does it? How hard is it to check the users' locations? I have already confirmed my willingness to cooperate with administrators to cooperate in any way I can, including having a parole on me. If Administrators decide to unblock me, they may have me on a special parole, where they would check my location with the every edit I make, not even temporarily; they can do it forever, and if Armenian users are so surprised or rather, intrigued why I happen to edit irregularly due to the fact that I also have a personal life, I can promise them that from now on, I will log in and edit these articles every day. Maybe that will stop their conspiracy theories.
 * But most of all, I'd like to ask administrators request an apology from the accusing Armenian users who have been spending all their time on writing detective conspiracy scenarios and labelling me with names and acts I was never part of. Ehud (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Twisting what others write and trying to turn them into derision only further confirms he is Adil and no one else. TheBainer should explain his opposition to FoF2, since from the 65 edits of Ehud in the namespace, 1/3 were reverts and others were undeleted and they had to do with UN resolutions which is still his style anyway. And all, besides one, were timed to come in support of Grandmaster and Atabek. How is 1/3 of the edits in the namespace being reverts and so well timed can have any logical explanations when coupled with the rest of the evidence submitted. It would have been easier for the committee to answer us, on the type of evidence they would require. - Fedayee (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

While Ehud is send free (and there is no answer from arbitrators to Fedayee's question as to what would be qualified as compelling evidences of sockpuppetry), Atabek continues his very immature behavior here and nothing is done about it. VartanM (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but how is calling me "immature" civil or in good faith? Eupator reverted sourced information and accused me of providing false reference, while I did provide him Google Books links again here. It would be appropriate for him to apologize for assumptions of bad faith, and so it would be for you. It's actually quite interesting why all of a sudden non-Armenia-Azerbaijan-related Osroene article became the scene of your, Eupator's and TigranTheGreat's reverting interest, only after my edits there, if that's not for outright wikistalking. Assume good faith. Atabek (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You are immature, fooling around articles, with your childish adding which sounds as:hehe, Armenians are not the first Christians or hehe, the Armenian genocide is not the first genocide is childish and plainly immature, is there no Azerbaijani related articles which needs improvement? Don't you have better things to do than baiting Armenian and Persian members with edits you know will be reverted? Pushing a legend and making it pass as an established history is yet again one of your many other disruptions. You even continued on several of the relevant articles when we have provided several records and clearly explained why we do not agree.

Funny part is that Atabek has actually by his own hands given the context of the pushing on the Church of Kish article, a Church which is claimed by Adil and his palls to be the first Church in the Caucasus, and the pushing of Armenia as not being the first. Ehud was there to revert by accident. As we said, since the arbitrators ignore the contexts, they can buy anything you sell for candy. VartanM (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Answer, and more evidence to the committee… It's actually true, as Adil and his team have participated in the promotion of the restoration of the Church of Kish which was actually vandalism of the worst kind, removing Armenian scriptures and replacing the Georgian looking altar. Atabek’s edits on Edessa related articles is the final blow of the organized POV pushing.


 * According to Movses Kaghankatvatsi, in the 1st century A.D. St. Elishe, a disciple of Thaddeus of Edessa, arrived to a place called Gis,... from the Church of Kish article. . Thaddeus was one of the Seventy apostles of Christ and who according to Eusebius instructed King Abgar and baptised him. (see his article Thaddeus of Edessa)


 * So Atabek’s edits of those articles are definitely related to the POV pushing on the Church of Kish, now arbitrators could pay attention to the name Movses Kaghankatvatsi referred in the quote above from the article Church of Kish. They were fighting over in the article Movses Kaghankatvatsi to remove his Armenian identity.


 * So again, was Ehud edits on Church of Kish and edit in the talkpage of Movses Kaghankatvatsi edits on some Azerbaijani articles? No they were not. - Fedayee (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Fedayee:
 * "Thus, it is Abgar the Great who lays claim to being the world's first Christian monarch and Edessa the first Christian state. More than anything else, a major precedent had been set for the conversion of Rome itself" - is Warwick Ball, author of the book, also Adil Baguirov, myself or Ehud Lesar?
 * "His Royal friend became the first Christian king; and both king and philosopher labored to create the first Christian state" - is Herbermann, who lived century ago, also Adil Baguirov, Ehud Lesar or myself?
 * "Bardesanes was the agent directly creditable with establishing the first Christian state, for he indeed induced prince Abgar Bar-Manu to make Christianity his state religion." - or perhaps, Alvin Boyd Kuhn is, the author of book in 1992 - Adil Baguirov, Atabek, etc.?

Now, let's look at your primary reference:
 * "The conversion of Armenia to Christianity was probably the most crucial step in its history. It turned Armenia sharply away from its Iranian past and stamped it for centuries with an intrinsic character as clear to the native population as to those outside its borders, who identified Armenia almost at once as the first state to adopt Christianity". (Nina Garsoïan in Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times, ed. R.G. Hovannisian, Palgrave Macmillan, 1997, Volume 1, p.81)." -- these are indeed absolutely non-neutral authors on the subject.

So please, assume good faith, we should be only trying to contribute to encyclopedia with neutral references, and frankly, the argument about Armenia supposedly being first Christian state, when it was not, is absolutely irrelevant to any other topic and is not a ground for personal attacks, accusations of sockpuppetry or other forms of WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:HARASS. Simply not worth it. Atabek (talk) 07:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for soapboxing the proposed decision talkpage, I am sure it is very helpful. The reason I brought the subject was to explain the context of two articles edited by Ehud. And your selective uses of Armenian scholars and bolding their names as to make it sound like an Armenian claim again shows how deliberate your manipulation of sources is. I have added a couple of dozen sources at Osroene's talkpage, none writen by Armenians (as if it should make any differences) on the article. Including from several encyclopedia's. I will not say more, but request arbitrators to check the Safavit article, where another obvious sock of Adil has reappeared, again faking bad English supporting Adil's pushed theory, and when he is reverted, Atabek comming in defence and asking Ali why an obviously removable material was removed. - Fedayee (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

More Evidence
I have again added new evidence and I'm still waiting for an answer as to what exactly it takes to determine sockpuppetry. VartanM (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, right, and now Londium must be "sock of Adil" :), when checkuser says otherwise. The most interesting part of this ordeal is the fact that VartanM is convinced that non-Armenian POV in entire Wikipedia is attributed only to one person - Adil, thus anyone even remotely experessing a similar position must be him. This strong conviction of VartanM, in my mind, causes incredible waste of community's valuable time.
 * Anyways, I thought this case is called "Ehud Lesar" as it is, and to identify whether he was Adil or not. If VartanM wants to bring accusation against other accounts being Adil (something that's not related to this ArbCom), then he may do so through another ArbCom. In fact, it would be good in such case to have Adil unblocked and have him properly defend himself against attacks and accusations by VartanM and Fedayee. Atabek (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ehud Lesar will be closely watched
''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)

Is this in Good faith?
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)

Comment
Wow, to say I'm speechless at the outcome of this case is an understatement; it was an obvious sockpuppet of Adil. There won't be any further comments on my part.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * MarshallBagramyan, people in virtual space do not simply exist in some imaginary universe. And this form of attempt to accuse one physical person of being some other physical person in the real world (mainly because the accuser dislikes the POV of the accused) was doomed to fail. And it does not add any credibility to the accusers in this case (Fedayee and VartanM) to continue pushing the same line, when it's obvious that accusations now being made by them are simply in bad faith, along national lines and are last attempts to reverse the ArbCom outcome. I would like to recall a point made once before by one of contributors that if Fedayee wants to prove that Ehud Lesar is Adil Baguirov only using only similarity in POV, then all Armenian contributors in Wikipedia must also be viewed as socks/meats of Artaxiad, Fadix, Rovoam and other banned users due to same POV in articles. This turns into eternal non-constructive fight.


 * Based on the above, I would like to request that as an outcome of this ArbCom, arbitrators provide a more strict definition and application of WP:AGF and WP:HARASS in case of Armenia-Azerbaijan edit conflicts. These conflicts will never get resolved, if the contributors from both sides don't learn to simply assume good faith or continue to target user's identity instead of the subjects of editing/discussion. And wasting time with eternal arguments over a single-line sentences, accusing each other of sockpuppetry, personally attacking in anger, desire to get one more user of the other side blocked, and so forth are essentially a road to nowhere and don't contribute much to Wiki. And that's essentially what the outcome of this ArbCom was.


 * Only sincere understanding of cooperation, serious willingness to listen to other side's view than outright rejection just because it's opposite opinion, moderation instead of radicalism can help to move forward rather than remaining in eternal conflict. Atabek (talk) 05:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's the same establishment which made the mistake to not ban you that will be requesting the unbanning of Ehud. Answering to you will be a waste of time.


 * I don't think it will change anything, but Eupator has forgotten in my evidence the first revert of Ehud Lesar, which was on the History of Azerbaijan, reverting to Atabek’s version on June 6. Again, contextual and with the right timing. If the arbitration isn’t able to get one of the most obvious socks of Adil, what can they see is a legitimate question? - Fedayee (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hope you will give up your stance and bare assumptions of bad faith to understand that Ehud Lesar is not Adil Baguirov, for numerous reasons already explained in this ArbCom case and before. And it's not appropriate to restrict Ehud Lesar from editing just because of your convinction that he is Adil Baguirov. Recall the famous words of Friedrich Nietzsche: "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies." Atabek (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank You note
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)