Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ehud Lesar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Individual statements

Statement by Thatcher

The funny thing about sockpuppets and checkuser is that whenever checkuser shows that two accounts are related, people complain that IPs are shared and the checkusers don't know what they're doing and you have to look at the contributions. When the contributions show strong similarities of point of view, approach, and interest in obscure topics, people complain that checkuser shows no connection and therefore the accounts can't be the same. Any thinking person with a bit of experience at editing Wikipedia and on the internet can come up with two or three ways of appearing to be in two different places at the same time (with or without the help of a confederate), thus "proving" that he is two different people. So I'm dubious about the value of having Adil and Ehud contact the Foundation with their private IDs. Until Mediawiki enables the clairvoyance extension allowing admins to see who is typing at the other end of the pipe and to know with certainty that that person is not acting on instructions of another, or sharing the account when no one is looking, then we have to go on similarities of style, point of view, and topic interest. 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. But I have no problem if another admin with more experience of this user has made a determination.

Statement by John Vandenberg

I was first made aware of the possibility of Ehud being Adil when Fayadee make the accusation on WP:AN/AE, as if it was fact, without any evidence at that time, despite a failed checkuser. This accusation had already appeared on numerous talk pages previously, so I warned the user to quit ABF and compile some evidence. In response, just before Christmas, I was notified that some evidence had been created; I did a quick evaluation of the users contributions and deduced that the user was possibly meat-puppeting initially, but had since moved onto a more productive approach. As a result, it looked suspect enough to investigate further, so I said I would look into it, and posted a query on User talk:Fedayee/LesarBaguirov Evidence to get the ball rolling.

When I came back from Christmas celebrations, I found Fedayee was again making the accusation on WP:AN/AE as if it was fact and canvassing for someone to block Ehud, so I blocked the user for 24hrs to prevent another thread from going offtopic with attacks on a new user, which is how Ehud should have been treated per WP:AGF.[1][2] This resulted in my talk page gather some rather interesting attacks by TigranTheGreat (talk · contribs), and then a curious JamesDS (talk · contribs) dropped in to ask a few questions (btw, JamesDS looks like a sock, but I honestly answered rather than block).

Again I reiterated that these investigations take time[3][4]. Soon after Moreschi placed Ehud on revert parole, and a few days later Thatcher closed the sock accusation on WP:AN/AE. In this time I started to research the various topics like Geycha and Zangezur Republic which are supposed to be theories of limited circulation, and I have looked for similarities in the talk page comments made by the two users. I hadnt found anything indicating a close tie when Nishkid inquired about it, and I clearly said so. Because he was certain that it was a sock, and I still wasnt convinced, I asked for more time, saying something to the effect of "I will play devils advocate, and try to find evidence that they are different people." So I then started to collate evidence that they have different editing habits; enough to raise doubts.

Before I could discuss with Nishkid, Ehud was blocked, and I decided to stayed clear of it due to lack of time to read the volumes of text that appeared on AN, and now here. I did see the two diffs that Khoikhoi used as additional justification, and didnt see reason to block based on that, but I havent caught up entirely or read everyones statements here, so perhaps there has been better proof of similarity than the initial evidence. I find the block odd, the defense of the block odd, and I am surprised that we havent yet confirmed or denied the separate identity of the two users. I am quite sure that we will find that the user is a separate person, with few touch points except for a few topics of shared interest, and Ehud being drawn into questions about Adil, which are being used as evidence of similarity. Quite simply, Ehud has been harassed, and the harassment has gone unchecked under the umbrella of "identifying socks".

As an aside since I see VartanM has mentioned it, I hassled Adil to contribute to Wikisource around April 2007 due to some PD documents he emailed me during a content dispute, and I was unaware that he had actually registered as I was only a newbie there myself at that stage. Besides that one email reply to Adil, I had never communicated with him. Grandmaster and VartanM have both started contributing since October, with increasingly frequency. It comes as only a mild surprise that Adil turned up there recently in the wee hours of the morning (my time) with some texts that are on shaky PD grounds, to which I replied by littering his talk page with the Wikisource equivalent of "non-free image" messages.

Statement by uninvolved User:Atabek

The accusation of User:Ehud Lesar being sock of User:AdilBaguirov has no basis, because:

1) It's not based on checkuser evidence;

2) Blocking administrator showed no interest in verifying the identity of the blocked user within the limitation of WP:PRIVACY. Nishkid64's request here for Ehud Lesar to produce a copy of his passport, especially given the lack of checkuser or any evidence produced by a non-conflicting party, is in violation of WP:PRIVACY.

3) Accusation by User:Nishkid64 that User:Ehud Lesar told him or posted somewhere about his real name being Ehud Lesar is not based on any evidence produced or presented so far.

4) Charges brought up by User:Fedayee and User:VartanM that User:Ehud Lesar is not really Jewish have no supporting evidence. Azerbaijani Jews are tightly integrated into Azerbaijani society, and many support the national point of view as shown by an independent source here [5]. Moreover, accusing someone based on dislike of his account name being associated with a certain ethnicity is simply a violation of WP:PRIVACY and WP:HARASS.

5) User:Fedayee's evidence is frivolous:

6) Overall the argument that Ehud Lesar must be a sock of Adil, because he lives in Texas and has a Jewish username, is ridiculous and carries no basis whatsoever. There are a number of contributors, supporting the same POV as User:Artaxiad banned by ArbCom and caught with 34 checkuser-confirmed sock accounts so far, and residing in the same state of California [8]. This does not establish a basis to accuse them all of sockpuppetry based on assumptions about POV.

Thanks. Atabek (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:Nishkid64

4) I posted WP:PRIVACY line, which renders your arguments about whether Ehud Lesar should or should not have his name as real username, as violation. Reread the policy: Wikipedia requires no personal information from anyone who wishes to edit it.

5a) Your claim:

  • Adil was the first person on Wikipedia to make that point. Ehud Lesar made that exact same point, and given how it's not some universal view, it looks quite suspicious.

It may look suspicious that two contributors cite an external source of information, but it definitely does not establish basis for accusation of sockpuppetry or claims that Ehud is Adil. Nishkid64, from your sentence above, it's also clear that you have no evidence to prove that Ehud is Adil, but only trying to use any fact of POV link in edits of two people originating from one country to establish sockpuppetry. May as well state that you want to block all Azeri contributors on suspicions that their views mostly match those of Adil.

5b) It's an evidence of User:Fedayee making false accusation in Wikipedia and not being able to produce evidence for his claims. The case is awfully similar to User:Ehud Lesar case, with fabrication of such evidence. The purpose is single, to target contributors along national lines.

  • Since I contested that he was indeed Adil Baguirov, a real-life Azeri energy lobbyist, I figured that an identity confirmation would prove his innocence.

clearly violates, this line of WP:NPA, which is a fundamental Wikipedia policy:

  • Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any Wikipedian through the posting of external links is not permitted. Harassment in this context may include but is not limited to linking to offsite personal attacks, privacy violations, and/or threats of physical violence.

You haven't produced any evidence that Adil Baguirov is a "real life Azeri energy lobbyist" either. May be worth also reading for your supporters in this issue User:VartanM and User:Fedayee.

Response to User:Fedayee

Regarding your statement:

  • Point 5b), Atabek is harassing me with that, I have made that remark once, Atabek brought it back again and again. I have replied to him that I can not post this here. He knows what happens when such information is posted here. But for this information, I have submitted it to one admin who may feel free to provide it to whomever he thinks it is appropriate.

The false claims and assumptions that you make in your communication with any administrator is your own business. However, your claim that I have off-wiki relation with another contributor is a violation of WP:HARASS, especially without any presentable evidence. So I demanded you to produce that evidence in the same medium where you made the accusation. And please, recall fundamental policies:

Unless, you produce the evidence or apologize for your false statement, I will pursue your statements further in WP:ANI as a clear violation of WP:HARASS.

Response to User:VartanM and User:Fedayee

The application of word genocide is of subjective matter. Obviously every person from Azerbaijan, including myself, considers Khojaly massacre to be an act of genocide, just like every Armenian considers Armenian Genocide to an act of genocide. So argument that Ehud is a sock of Adil because he calls Khojaly a genocide, holds no water.

Comment by Moreschi

Tough one, this. I'm not especially familiar with Adil's edit pattern, so it's hard for me to really say. All I can assert is this: Ehud Lesar was not editing disruptively enough to merit an indefinite block on grounds of disruptive editing alone, though I did put him on revert parole. I think it's worth taking the case, if only to determine whether the evidence really is good enough. From an outside perspective I wasn't convinced, but that may have been from ignorance of Adil's behaviour pattern. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 14:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved user:Pocopocopocopoco

If this case is accepted I request that all fairly recent instances where the WP:DUCK test has been used to ban users be given scrutiny and I also request that the ARBCOM committee look into what I consider abuse and gaming of the WP:RFCU process by user:Atabek and user:Grandmaster. Artaxiad (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was banned about a year ago by the ARBCOM committee and it appears that he had a history of using proxies. Subsequent checkuser run against Artaxiad thus have (and had) a good chance of becoming inconclusive. After the inconclusive verdict, the user was often banned by an admin apparently by the duck test. The following users were banned in such a manner:

Bassenius (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Verjakette (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Azizbekov (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Vonones (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Those are the ones that I am aware of, there may be more. Bassenius and Verjakette were found to be likely socks of one another but it was inconclusive as to whether they were socks of Artaxiad (presumably due to his proxy use). Also, see the following evidence comparing the writing style of Bassenius, Verjakette, and Vonones. Three alleged sockpuppets of Artaxiad. Looking at that evidence, you can see that it is questionable that they were all the same person. user:VartanM may be able to provide additional evidence that they were different people from Artaxiad. One may argue that Verjakette and Bassenius were likely socks of each other so what's the big deal about indef. blocking them? The answer is that there is a chance that they were not and even if they were, they didn't seem to be socking abusively. I would also ask that the committee look at Grandmaster and Atabek's checkuser requests in Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Artaxiad, especially the latest one. They are now checkusering user:Steelmate, user:Andranikpasha, against Artaxiad, completely ignoring writing style and the fact that these users have established themselves as completely distinct and independent identities. I have also somehow made it onto the latest checkuser list. I may expand upon this if I have more time. I also suggest that if this case is accepted, the name be changed to something like Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan-Ducktests. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: please make note of the response by the checkuser at Atabek and Grandmaster's recent checkuser request "This is the umpteenth time you've come here listing three or four different established identities and asking them all to be against some new account or other."[9] Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request by Ehud Lesar

Ehud Lesar has emailed me asking to be unblocked so he can participate in the case and assures me he will not edit elsewhere. I have saved the email and also forwarded to the Committee, asking them for a decision on this matter. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has been unblocked by an arb and can only edit this case. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ban reset

One of the consequences of Ehud's block was resetting of ban of User:AdilBaguirov for 1 year. Since Ehud is not Adil's sock, I believe the ban extension should be reversed as well. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Blocks_to_implement_bans. Grandmaster (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'm double-checking with the committee. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the decision says: An arbitrator will perform the unblock (of Ehud) and make a notation in his block log noting that the Committee found insufficient evidence of sockpuppetry to sustain the block. However Ehud was unblocked before the case was finished to allow participation in the case, so unblock is not necessary, however the second part of this decision, i.e. to "make a notation in his block log noting that the Committee found insufficient evidence of sockpuppetry to sustain the block" is still to be performed, I suppose. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Grandmaster (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed that out when I closed the case, but they did not do it yet. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Hopefully this will be done soon. Grandmaster (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just updated the unblock of Ehud Lesar by changing its rationale. Could Thatcher or Rlevse tell me if AdilBaguirov block expires on July or August? I have confusing dates. Thanks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 07:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is confusing as there are a few resets in his block log. The last reset was on January 11, 2008 by Thatcher with an expiration of 1 year, so it will expire in Jan 2009. The original 1-year ban was for 1 year on April 11, 2007, which would have expired in April 2008, next month. I do see where you get the August date from but not the July one. But the original ban was before that. So, in my opinion, if the extensions are reversed and we leave the original ban intact, we should unban him as of April 10, 2008 as that block was made April 11, 2007. Note, I'll be leaving on vacation in a few hours, so I ask Thatcher to finish this up for me if more work is needed. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is from where I got the July date. Thanks for your help and happy holidays Rlevse. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/AdilBaguirov#AdilBaguirov(3rd request) - it looks quite clear, but it might be worth asking the CU Voice of All to confirm, to be sure, to be sure. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John. I've found the answer. It expires on June 27, 2008. It's done. Case officially closed. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing. Adil's ban reset back to previous duration needs to be recorded at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Blocks_to_implement_bans. This can be done by any admin. The results of Ehud's case probably also need to be mentioned there, as currently the log says that Ehud is Adil's sock. Grandmaster (talk) 06:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, now now there are no outstanding issues. Grandmaster (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Ehud_Lesar&oldid=1140183663"