Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Azerbaijan-Armenia-Iran-Kurdistan-Turkey		10 October 2011	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	12 July 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions	none	none	12 July 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	21 June 2024
Clarification request: Noleander	none	(orig. case)	11 July 2024
Amendment request: Durova	Motion	(orig. case)	4 July 2024
Amendment request: Suspension of Beeblebrox	none	none	10 July 2024
Clarification request: Desysoppings	none	none	12 July 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Azerbaijan-Armenia-Iran-Kurdistan-Turkey

Initiated by Khodabandeh14 (talk) at 09:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Khodabandeh14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Orartu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• saygi1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ilgar Khankishiyev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Iksus2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kurdo777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ebrahimi-amir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• cekli829 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Emperyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Supermæn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AnBinava (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([1]) (yes User has one contribution which is a vote)
• Goktr001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NovaSkola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [2] (user Orartu notified)
• [3] (user saygi1 notified)
• [4] (user Ilgar Khankishiyev notified)
• [5] (user Ebrahimi Amir notified)
• [6] (user Iksus2009 notified)
• [7] (user Cekli829 notified)
• [8] (user Emperyan notified)
• [9] (user AnBinava notified)
• [10] (user Goktr001 notified)
• [11] (user Supermæn notified)
• [12] (user NovaSkola is made aware)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• WP:ARBAA
• WP:ARBAA2

Statement by Khodabandeh14

Dear Arbcomm Members,
Despite two Azerbaijan-Armenia arbcomms, unfortunately a whole set of new users have appeared who are editing based on ethno-nationalistic patterns and voting in mass. (See a notable user whos account has one edit and that is a simple Keep vote!). It takes time and energy from the community to constantly file reports on such behavior and in the end, nothing is accomplished (see below). One of my main impetus for making this request is the following massive vote based on nationalistic sentiments [13]. There seems to be no Wikipedia policy in relation to this, despite the fact that massive off-line wiki-grouplists were found (see below for an example) that coordinated such an effort. The other reason to make this request is the fact that now several articles have become out of hand due to nationalistic bickering. Please see point number 7 on how the Russian wikipedia has handled this situation and my request with this regard.

Here are just a few amongst many that has occurred recently:
1)
I can also point out to massive voting due to nationalistic reasons here: [14] Meatpuppetting like this had already banned some of the users once: [15].
. Please note User:AnBinava has only one contribution and that is a single vote in here:[16]. This is clear giveaway. Similar patten with User:Supermæn, User:Goktr001 and User:Emperyan who just happened to showup and vote. User:NovaSkola also is the same issue (showing up and voting).

2)

• Orartu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [17]
  • [18] “Please don't write your dreams .Here is not dreams' book.Azerbaijan belongs to Azerbaijani people not Kurds”
  • "Persian people's writings about Iran are not neutral. Bring western sources”[19]
  • [20] (user claims Assyrians, Kurds and Pahlavi dynasty committed Genocide based on weblogs and partisan non-English articles)
  • User warned by others. [21] "Do not add categories accusing people of perpetrating genocide unless there are reliable sources cited in the article that say that. It is an extremely serious accusation, and must be backed up with sourcing. Please read WP:V as well. LadyofShalott 13:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)"

2)

• Iksus2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • “I hope the US and Israel bomb Iran sometime soon. Not because I hate Persians or Iran. I just think it would be good to bring some humility to Persian chauvinism”[[22]]

Amazingly, no admin action was taken here despire reporting it.
3)

• Ilgar Khankishiyev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • [[23]]. Adds bogus numbers from nationalistic websites to various non-Azeri speaking cities claiming them 100% Azeri. But in his edit title, uses the racist statement: “Persian Vandalizm?”. A look at his source that he had spammed numerous articles with should be sufficient ground for banning in my opinion.

5)

• saygi1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Which I suspect is the same as this user: User:Agasalim (simiular messagee on talkpage and writing style) and ultimately goes back to this user: User:AdilBaguirov (in AA1 and banned for a year) who incidentally was the founder and head of a lobbyist organization (USAN) mentioned recently by wikileaks: [24]. The lobbyist organization was setup exactly to advance the government of Azerbaijan’s position in propaganda and now obviously affecting Wikipedia. Please note this as well: [25] where the head of the lobbyist organization[26] mentions using wikipedia . I am convinced based on pattern and behaviour (and style of writing and arguing) that Sayig1 is that user (given his quotes from USAN and his expertise in Wikipedia in no time). Either way, Wikipedia has been a target for lobbyist group (as the Russian mailing-list mentioned below shows) and one needs an effective mechanism to deal with this issue, since by nature, lobbying for a cause is diametrically opposed to neutrality.
  • Some violations [[27]] which are more like WP:NPA. 1) “if you and your friend (or anyone else who decides to suddenly pop up to play a bad cop, a meat or a straw man) stop your bad faith edits and stop removing that info while unilaterally placing an unsubstantiated so-called "dispute" tag.” 2) “And once again, for a genuine dispute to be, one has to articulate what he is "disputing" with facts and references, not just throwing a bunch of accusations and bring in his "friends" to revert and basically edit war.”. Also violation of WP:synthesis (despite repeated talkpage request mentioning this) stating the various opinions of Azeri officials quoted in VOA, UCLA or etc. as the opinion of these news organizations.

6) Ebrahimi-amir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and cekli829 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Both were banned for nationalistic edit warring and meatpuppetting. Ebrahimi-Amir comes back and re-inserts the same sources (which are quoting nationalistic sources) without discussion (which was the condition for him to not get banned again). Even in Turkish Wikipedia, any mention of Iranian origin of Medes was removed by users Ebrahimi-amir (talk · contribs)) and cekli829 (talk · contribs) (showing disagreement with mainstream scholarly opinion and claiming the Medes as Turks)[28]

7)
Various problems can be mentioned in relationship to these articles: [29]( Inflated numbers like 3.5 million for Iraqi Turkomens pushed by nationalist users). The issue will continue fester as long as nationalistic mindsets are being produced in regional countries. It will also continue since lobbyist organizations are actively promoting ethno-centric writing in Wikipedia (see above). It is unacceptable for Wikipedia and Admins to think that some of these regional issues can be solved from users from the region who take interest in the topics due to nationalistic reasons. Also massive amount of nationalistic falsifications means that some other language wikipedia’s will have problem (e.g. Azerbaijani language Wikipedia where the Parthians, Medes, Javanshir of the Mihranid clan, Scythians, many Iranians are mentioned as Turks).

Consequently, I am suggesting an additional addenum based on the experience of Russian Wikipedia to AA1 and AA2 to hopefully avoid further Arbcomms. We can either make another arbcomm (which will include a longer list including some from the former AA1 and AA2, including formal evidence of the Russian/English Wikipedia list, and waste the communities time) or I suggest we use the experience of Russian Wikipedia. Due to nationalistic upbringings and the increase usage of English, the problem from users of these regions will only increase in English Wikipedia. However, in Russian Wikipedia, after 30 member Azerbaijani nationalist Wikipedia list was found off-line (with some of the users from that list active in English Wikipedia and complete mass voting), the admins setup a committee of expert admins/users not from the region to decide on each controversial matter. [30] [31] Incidentally the archives of the Russian list are here: [32] [33]. Again some of the faces on that list are active in English Wikipedia.

I suggest that a new committee of well known neutral admins and users not from the region be established who make the final decision on controversial matters in each contested content for each AAITK conflicted article. All users must abide by the decision of this committee on the controversial matters without any No, Ifs,Ands and Butts. The following users are some of the admins that I suggest due to their experience in the history of the region:

• User:Folantin
• User:Dbachmann (he can be abrasive at times, but equal opportunity abrasive and once he reads the material, has excellent decision making capabilities. This has made him my faviorate neutral user on topics.)
• User:Kansas Bear
• User:Dougweller
• User:Golbez

(and hopefully 5-10 more established users outside the region can be found)

Mechanism of conflict resolution (based on the Russian Wikipedia experience):

• Items of controversial nature for each article are gathered and put in front of the committee who is to adhere to Wikipedia rulers without feeling sorry for any user, group etc. There should be no more than 50-100 such controversial articles at most. Once these are resolved, wikipedia will be much more calm in relation to these countries.

• Once the committee decides; a tag is placed on the talkpage of the contested article. Also a tag in the mainpage of the article warning new users that this article is protected under "tag X", and users need to read and respect the decision of the commitee before editing the non-controveresial portion. The selected pages are added to the committee list and hopefully more wikipedia users can patrole the selected list for vandalism.

• Any user (new established or otherwise) who tries to change the opinion of the committee by edit warring or POV pushing is sanctioned and banned. However, they may write to the committee with new sources.

As experience has shown, banning users and limiting their account functions has not really helped. They resurface again. But once matters on controversial items are decided (based on scholarly sources and correspondence with expert scholars in the field), then that would be the end of an issue. In this way, the Russian Wikipedia has succeeded in decreasing and virtually eradicating nationalist bickering (in AA related items) while the English Wikipedia’s method has failed. The problem is not one or two users, but complete nationalistic mythology and nationalistic cruft being thought at an early age in some of these countries (e.g. in Turkey where even Kurdish children must chant : "Happy is he who can say he is a Turk" or the this from Government Embassy [34] where the history starts with Summerians, Akkads and Zoroastrianism becomeing Turkish.) For an excellent critique and exposition of nationalistic rewriting of history in Transcaucasia, see: Victor A. Shnirelman (2001): ‘The value of the Past: Myths, Identity and Politics in Transcaucasia’, Osaka: National Musuem of Ethnology"). So the problem is at a state level which educates new minds.
.

I can however point out that the at most, there is about 50-100 problematic articles. That is not a large amount. In Russian wikipedia, after the discovery of the mailing list, the new mechanism was setup and has suppressed bad behaviour tremendously. So I request Arbcomm to follow the experience of Russian Wikipedia and setup such a formal committee to mediate disputes in AAITK related conflicts. These conflicts have already exhausted the Wikipedia communities patience (and are a reflection of nationalistic teachings and tendencies). A host of new set of accounts and users will ensure the continuation of the problem ad infinitum. The experience from Russian Wikipedia shows a working methodology which has considerably reduced all such bad behaviour. One further note I should mention that the AA-problem sovling committee in Russian wikipedia does not use scholarship from regional countries on controversial items for obvious reasons. An additional bonus is that half of the items in English wikipedia which is constantly contested has been solved by the admins there.. Thank you

Second Statement by Khodabandeh14

Two Arbcomm members (perhaps more) asked me why the extra measure is necessary. Essentialy why follow the example of Russian Wikipedia?

• In the Russian wikipedia all the AA conflicts have basically diminished to a large extent while in English Wikipedia, in 2011, the number of AA sanctions

was the same as 2010, if not greater. The mechanism in Russian wikipedia encourages positive participation and in the end, it will reduce the waste time of the wikipedia community considerably. For example, massive voting has no effect on conflict nationalistic items in the Russian-Wikipedia mechanism. Or the same articles are not constantly messed with, once final decision is made by involved admins/users on its controversial issue. Any vandalism of that decision results in severe sanction and ultimate banning.

• Two of the countries (Armenia/Azerbaijan) are in a state of semi-war. Recent poll shows: "In response to the question to name countries that they consider as enemy to Azerbaijan 91.8% of the respondents named Armenia, 20.4% said Iran, 16.4% said Russia, 7.4% pointed at US and only 1% said Turkey. "[35]

The situation might not be better say between Kurds and Turkey. So based on these statistics, one can agree that a good percentage of the average users from these countries have been (unfortunately) influenced by state or political propaganda. Heck just look at the people that voted above, and the azerbaijani wikipedia. Everything historically Armenian and a great deal of Iranian (Medes, Atropatene, Javanshir, Mihranids, Parthians) are protayed as Turks (the Armenian ones are portrayed as Caucasian Albanians which is then turned into Turkish) in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia. The same users then come on this Encyclopaedia to engange in nationalistic editing. Currently, English Wikipedia lacks a mechanism to deal with this.

• War introduces propaganda and falsification. So the problem is at a national level and consequently, it cannot be confined to a few users. A quick example: "Scholars should be on guard when using Soviet and post-Soviet Azeri editions of Azeri, Persian, and even Russian and Western European sources printed in Baku. These have been edited to remove references to Armenians and have been distributed in large numbers in recent years. When utilizing such sources, the researchers should seek out pre-Soviet editions wherever possible. Robert Hewsen. “Armenia: A Historical Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001, p. 291".
• All these conflicts manifest themselves in approximately 50-100 articles, with old users resurfacing and new users being brought to various off-line wiki-list (example given above).
• Large number of new users come (some resurfaced accounts) and violate the same sanctions, thus wasting more time for the community. The obvious rationale. Why be a sanction account? Just create a new user name and use 3rr instead.
• The discovery of the massive off-line wikipedia email list was not considers in AA1 and AA2 (part of this list has to do with ENglish Wikipedia). Furthermore, the vote result above shows such a list exists.
• Most importantly, users (old timers) do not have time to waste on constatly reporting misbehaviour (like the massive vote canvassing mentioned above).
• I would like to mention some of these articles with constant ethno-ntionalist bickering right now:
  • [36]
  • [37]
  • [38]
  • [39]
  • [40]
  • [41]
  • [42]
  • [43]
  • [44]
  • [45]
  • [46]
  • Note an innocent article [[47]] about 220 A.D. being a battle of nationalistic editing.

• Again it is approximately 50-100 such articles. The Russian wikipedia has taken care of a large portion of such conflicted articles through this process.

That means that ethno-nationalist bickering which wastes tremendous time and effort can be stopped effectively using their methodology. No more wasting the communities time for 5 or 10 or 50 years on the same subject. However, the English Wikipedia constantly brings about new users and ips to make the same old edits. The off-line wikipedia coordination list greatly wastes the time of the community. Why would I want to waste time in Wikipedia with such an atmosphere of falsehood (specially with relation to AA topics?)

• The proof for lobbying efforts was given, and I can pass more to Arbcomm via email (as I had several months ago). Obviously, those that have money and lobbying

efforts have their primary goal in rewriting history. The Russian wikipedia mechanism stops this. However, to know that lobbyists are rewriting history in Wikipedia (specifically in Azerbaijan related articles) is greatly discouraging and induces a very discouraging atmosphere for editing. It is a dark negativity cloud which the Russian wikipedia mechanism on these selected regional articles stops. I ask the Arbcomm members to clearly see this.

• So why not include something that has proven to work (the extra mechanism introuced by Russian wikipedia on conflicted article) instead of a system that is broken? We

can partially see this mechanism introduced here: [48]

• When the regional situation gets worst, and more users come online to write propaganda, the Russian mechanism will immediately halt that. The current dysfynctuinal English Wikipedia mechanism is already dysfunctional. In other words, the "kids" (as Dbachmann calls them but it is actually sometimes paid lobbyist) need to be controlled for a healthy atmosphere in AA (broadly construed) topics. The only people that would fear the extra mechanism of Russian Wikipedia (after constant AA bickering which were not resolved until the mechanism was put in place) are exactly nationalist people (AA conflicts) that come to Wikipedia to write propaganda and falsify history. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Third Statement by Khodabandeh

Dear Arbcomm Member,

• The list was active till at least 2010 [49] (note English articles are discussed in this list several times and a head of the lobbyist group has written some of the messages). The other list you saw was only partial version till 2007 (or 2009?) (the rest did not seem to have been obtained). However, the voting above shows there is another list.
• As per failure, check the sanction list in 2011. Yet there is so many articles in AA topics which are currently the subject of nationalistic bickering. Please note that no good-intentioned user who has come in touch with such topics wants to waste time and constantly write reports, and argue the same thing in the same article 100x. Please put yourself in the shoes of the users that have had to deal with this. For example writing a report like this [50] took me hours in order for the admins to finally do something (which was a very temporary fix). And how many oppurtunities do misbehaved users get to push POV?
• Also per failure. Why should authors who use scholastic sources waste time writing hour long reports about misbehaviour? The misbehaviour has to do ultimately with POV pushing. Users are not happy that their biased propaganda POV is not in the article, and consequently misbehave. In the Russian mechanism, a dispute based on content is solved within days. In the ENglish mechanism, it is likely never solved (see below). But the POV pushing (on contensted issues) can easily be solved by the Russian mechanism which will solve the problem of writing hour long reports about misbehaviour of users. Do you really expect me to write reports on each of the individual users (some new accounts created) that voted in the above? Or do you think lobbyist groups work in good faith? How come the current mechanism cannot stop all these new accounts and lobbyist groups? Because, users do not have the time to write hour long reports (and then see new accounts pop up the next month pushing the same POV). This is exactly what is mentioned by lobbyist organizations here: "In "wiki world", it seems that the person who prevails the most vigorously is the one most likely to win out."[51] (user is active in the 2010 list).

• Dear Sir,. Do you really expect that people who work and have jobs; want to waste hours writing long reports about misbehaviour (then see a whole set of new ips and users comeout pushing the same POV) or do you think lobbyists with numerous resources (ips, new user names and lists) will "win out"? I would put my bet on the lobbyist (since non-involved users from the region do not care) and they have more resources. I am not going to waste time writing hour long reports about each misbehaviour to see new ips and users come pushing the same POV. Rather, my responsibility is foremost to my family, and not honesty for Wikipedia. But the Russian Mechanism will help normal users become equal with lobbyist/POV pushers by letting a group of expert admins (not from the region) make a decision on a contested topic.
• I have shown you proof of lobbyist in AA (At least two of the most active users), and host of new accounts, and mailing lists. The current mechanism is still in favor of the latter and not the normal user who does not have hours or mailing lists. No one wants to waste time (hours) writing misbehaviour reports and asking for third opinions (which never usually comes, and is seldom listened to). That is why there is tens of heated discussion page (with many users being sanctioned and many of them misbehaving)(see examples above), and finally no results. I guess the lobbyists think they will win out (which although hurts the integrity of Wikipedia, it is not the real world in the end, and the dynamics of world events is extremly non-linear and unpredictable).
• I think you should also seek the suggestion of established non-regional users like Dbachmman, and see what he thinks of the Russian mechanism. The Russian mechanism has now controlled the AA bickering near zero (thanks to the responsible admins there) while the English wikipedia simply turns off the honest users. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• • ps. For example, lets look here [52]. The nationalist-POV pusher users in English wikipedia believe they can get away denying the Armenian heritage of the monastery. Due to lack of uninvolved admins/users (and sometimes lack of expertise), the nationalist POV pushers have a free hand to be vigorous and admins would naively think it is a "content dispute"! Just look at the number of hours certain users have to waste [53] arguing with likely lobbyists, and there is no result in the end (it will come up again and again). The topic has no experts involved obviously, and a non-involved non-expert person would think the POV pushers have a point. In the Russian Wikipedia they would not dare [54] to pull this cruft as they would be banned (expert admins would get involved and would resolve the matter). Indeed there is a separate article [55] documenting the distortion (exposing the politics behind the denial of the Armenian heritage of the monastery). However in Turkish wikipedia, one of the most sanctioned users in English Wikipedia (Atabəy) [56] makes an article [57] erases any name of Armenian for the monastery and conflates geographical term with ethnic terms (things that only a careful and attentive user would know). The same in Azeri wikipedia [58]. Persian wikipedia is correct (like the Russian) [59]. As I said, this POV pushing would not fly for a second in Russian wikipedia due to the mechanism mentioned. In English wikipedia, with current limitations and lack of neutral and non-regional expert committee, normal users have to waste hours with new ips/lobbyists, and accomplish nothing in the end.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 05:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Fourth statement by Khodabandeh14

Quick statement on the list. An Arbcomm member asked for a list. Incase you wanted one related to English Wikipedia , there is a lot from the 2010 Russian list [60]. Here is a message on why John Vanderbergh is not currently involved in AA Topics in Arbcomm [61]. Here is an example of 2009 message [62] mentioning negatively the current active User:Takabeg. Note there are active users User:Brandmeister) from that list with the same wikipedia name, but others have a different wikipedia name (one within this Russian list is mentioned and I sent information to Arbcomm several months back on that). By the way, these are just the English language stuff of the Russian list mentioning English Wikipedia. The list probably has more in Russian (but I am not fluent in Russian) mentioning English Wikipedia. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 07:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Also banning users within this list is just a temporary fix. New accounts will be created and doing the same thing. However, the Russian mechanism as I mentioned is very robust to this sort of pertubations. Since it doesn't matter if there is one person on oneside and 100+ on the other, in the end the experts (non-involved from the region) decide on the controversial term. This automatically reduces the problem to zero. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 07:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by User:Orartu

Dear Arbcomm Members,please notice this user's speeches ,he wants to poison the atmosphere against new comers.He accuses users (who do not agree with his views) on nationalism.

• Kurdo777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [63]

The user who has created this page, appears to be on disruptive ultra-nationalist Pan-Turkist editor, trying to blame the victims of the well-known well-documented Assyrian Genocide and Armenian Genocide by Turkey, for a fictitious genocide against "Turks"... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide of Azerbaijani people in Iran

Statement by User:Kurdo777

As mentioned above, the main issue here is the involvement of a lobbyist group he

Indented line

aded by Adil Baguirov (User:AdilBaguirov), which is involved in recurring Azerbaijani nationalists to promote/advertise Azerbaijan's national interests on Wikipedia. This is done through one-day seminars in universities for expat Azerbaijani students, or writing articles in Azerbaijani media teaching people how to get around Wikipedia NPOV/RS rules and use it as a "savvy tool" to promote Azerbaijan to the world.[64]. The person behind all this, is Adil Baguirov, who is an Azerbaijani lobbyist/oil consultant in the United States, and runs a foreign lobby group in the States, named U.S. Azeris Network (USAN) with millions of dollars at its disposal. [65] The recruited individuals are then added to a secretive mailing list, and are instructed to take part in edit wars or "fix" AfD votes for the cause of Azerbaijan. (Here is a recent example of obvious Votestacking [66]) This mailing list, was recently compromised by a former member who exposed these activities by releasing the e-mails in question, and this exposure and subsequent controversy led to a new ArbCom case in Russia Wikipedia which permanently solved this problem by forming an oversight committee for this topical area.

These verifiable leaked e-mails, copy of which can presented to the ArbCom by e-mail, show a complicated network that has gone as far as trying to recruit sleeper admin accounts, and members of which have "friendly" off-wiki relations with some admins, including an ArbCom member named User:John Vandenberg who is mentioned in these e-mails as a "friend", and has a history with some of the parties involved, and should therefore recuse himself from this case, and possibly the ArbCom mailing list, for the duration of this case, given the appearances of conflict of interest. That said, this case is not about individuals, or getting anyone banned or sanctioned. The previous two ArbCom cases in English Wikipedia, have shown that individual sanctions are not the solution, as these users appear and disappear with different IPs and names. So the main aim here should be to copy the Russian model, and establish a mechanism that would prevent such abuse through meat-puppetry, sock-puppetry, mailing lists etc, by placing ALL Azerbaijani-related articles under the over-sight of a committee of independent neutral admins/expert editors. Kurdo777 (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by User:Eraserhead1

I have no interest in any further involvement in this case - but based on previous practice I'm sure User:John Vandenberg will recuse himself as per User:John Vandenberg/recusal. So there won't be any issues there. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by User:NovaSkola

This topic should be closed and Khodabandeh who made this should be banned because of crazy conspiracy as I am not clone of any nicknames and I should be not dragged out in here. I have never been under the scope and any admins can do backlog change that this is just false accusations to my address.--NovaSkola (talk) 03:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/1/2)

• While I continue to await further comments, I will point out to all participants here that this topic area has been under discretionary sanctions since January 2008. Discretionary sanctions very closely parallel the process that is being suggested by some here, while not requiring individual administrators to commit to longterm supervision of a topic area, and I would want to see some evidence that use of discretionary sanctions and arbitration enforcement have been unsuccessful. I should also point out to all participants that much of the information being disputed in the articles should be able to be addressed by our usual editing processes and notice-boards, in particular the reliable sources noticeboard when it comes to facts and figures. Risker (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I note the second statement of the initiator, but still do not see examples where the system has failed; I am seeing examples where the system was not used. Further, I am not prepared to initiate sanctions on people because of a mailing list whose most recent post is 2007, which is earlier than the last Arbcom case amendment in the same topic area. Risker (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Note additional discussion from Kurdo777 on my talk page, which references a different mailing list than I was previously aware of. As I note there, the only issues I am interested in are those that relate to edits on THIS project; the example given involves some other (undefined) project. Kurdo777, I urge you to bring your comments to this page. Risker (talk) 06:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• recuse per User:John Vandenberg/recusal#AA. Thanks Eraserhead1. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Awaiting further statements, but my initial comments are in agreement with Risker's above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)