Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/John Vandenberg/Questions

Questions from Sven Manguard
I decided to ask these questions after reflecting on an hour long conversation over the IRC with an editor that I hold in very high regard. I intermixed her concerns with my own concerns to form this short list of general questions. Please answer them truthfully, and draw upon whatever experiences or knowledge you possess. I apologize in advance for all the questions being compound questions. Thanks in advance, sincerely, Sven Manguard  Talk
 * 1) What is the greatest threat to the long term survivability or viability of Wikipedia? If the threat is currently affecting Wikipedia, what actions can be done to limit it? If the the threat is not yet affecting the project, what actions can be taken to keep it that way? What is the overall health of the project today?
 * A.
 * 1) What are the greatest strengths and greatest weaknesses of the project? What processes do we do well, and what processes fail? What content areas do we excel at and where do we need to improve?
 * A.
 * 1) What is your view on the current level of participation in Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia have enough active contributors today? Does it have too many?
 * A.
 * 1) Does Wikipedia do a good job at retaining its active contributors? What strengths and weaknesses within the project can you point to that affect retention? Are recent high profile burnouts indicative of a problem within the project or are they unfortunate but isolated events?
 * A.
 * 1) Do you believe that the project should prioritize on improving existing content or creating new content. Is there an ideal ratio of creation:improvement? For the purposes of this question, assume that you have complete control over where the community as a whole focuses their efforts. This is, of course, a hypothetical situation.
 * A.
 * 1) Do you believe that Wikipedia should allow people to contribute without making accounts?
 * A.
 * 1) If you could make one change to Wikipedia, what would it be, and why?
 * A.

Arbcom election questions from Rschen7754
Due to the changed format of this year's election questioning, I have removed all the questions that are covered by the general election questions (but please be sure to answer those thoroughly!) If you wouldn't mind answering the following brief questions that evaluate areas not covered by the general questions, that would be great!


 * 1) What are your views on a) WP:COMPETENCE  b) WP:NOTTHERAPY?
 * A: Those essays are jumbled assortments of ideas, and have consequently lost whatever usefulness they may have once had. They are unusable in any ArbCom setting.
 * 1) Do a group of editors focusing on a specific style guideline or convention have the ability and/or right to impose on other groups of editors their particular interpretation of the style guideline, or their own standardized convention, even if there is significant opposition?
 * A: My views on this topic can be found in Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Proposed_decision.
 * 1) Do a group of editors focusing on a specific style guideline or convention have the ability and/or right to impose on other groups of editors their particular interpretation of the style guideline, or their own standardized convention, even if there is significant opposition?
 * A: My views on this topic can be found in Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Proposed_decision.
 * A: My views on this topic can be found in Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Proposed_decision.

Thank you. Rschen7754 07:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions from Lar

 * Note to readers:
 * This is a copy of User:Lar/ACE2010/Questions. These questions were taken from last year and the year before and modified to fit changes in circumstance.


 * Notes to respondents:
 * In some cases I am asking about things that are outside ArbCom's remit to do anything about. I am interested in your thoughts even so.
 * Note also that in many cases I ask a multi part question with a certain phrasing, and with a certain ordering/structure for a reason, and if you answer a 6 part question with a single generalized essay that doesn't actually cover all the points, I (and others) may not consider that you actually answered the question very well at all.
 * It is also Not Helpful to answer "yes, yes, no, yes" (because you are expecting people to count on their fingers which answers go with which questions...) go ahead and intersperse your answers. We'll know it was you. No need to sign each part unless you want us to know which parts you answered when.
 * For those of you that ran last year (or the year before, etc.), feel free to cut and paste a previous year's answers if you still feel the same way, but some of the questions have changed a bit or expanded so watch out for that.
 * Where a question overlaps one of the standard questions I have tried to note that and explain what elaboration is desired.


 * The questions


 * 1) Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:
 * a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.
 * A: Broadly support. On a more practical note, we could add a note on AFDs(and maybe DRVs) asking living subjects to email OTRS with their preference and thoughts, and an OTRS agent could record this on the AFD. Then, their preference can be an element of the discussion, as in Articles for deletion/Lauren Hodges.
 * b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.
 * A: Broadly support, however I think requiring "clear consensus to keep" is a bit too strongly worded; it could be interpreted to mean a super majority is required. If the community is recommending that a BLP is kept, but not by a strong margin, those preferring to keep it should have three months to improve the article, after which is it automatically relisted for deletion, and then a clear consensus should be required.
 * c) "Liberal semi protection" - The notion that if a BLP is subject to persistent vandalism from anons it should get semi protection for a long time (see User:Lar/Liberal Semi ... we were handing out 3 months on the first occurance and 1 year for repeats)
 * A: ''Yes please. I never helped with the requests on User:Lar/Liberal Semi, however I've this rationale sporadically (e.g. here).  I also created Template:pp-semi-blp, and applied it to a large batch of blps so they were easier to track.
 * d) "WP:Flagged Protection" - a trial, which ended up being called WP:Pending changes instead. Please comment on the trial results as they specifically relate to the BLP problem. (there is another question about revisions generally) Would you do anything different in the actual implementation?
 * A: ''The trial was OK. For obscure BLPs, it is a boon.  Regarding implementation, I would have staged it, more deliberately focused on BLPs, applied firstly to BLPs with fewest watchers.  Looking at the design, which is appropriate given there has been significant development effort put into adapting it for enWP, it would be better if it was integrated into edit filters, allowing edit filter writers to create expression that automatically flag a revision for review, or put the page on flagged revs temporarily.  This idea was proposed in Deferred revisions.
 * e) "WP:Flagged Revisions" - the actual real deal, which would (presumably) be liberally applied.
 * A: I like the German implementation.
 * 1) Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:
 * a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?
 * A: Question 1 a is a question of implementation of content policy. I consider this to be within the realms of administrator discretion, to be reviewed by the community.
 * b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?
 * A: ArbCom has made steady steps towards requiring stricter compliance with our core content principles and policies where this gives greater protection for BLPs; ArbCom does this when other mechanisms have failed.
 * c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
 * Note: this question has some overlap with #5 and #6 in the general set but goes farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate.
 * A: I don't have a single secret recipe for changing stuff around here; key ingredients are diligence and patience, in varying degrees depending on the urgency of the need for change. It is important to know when to hold and when to fold.
 * 1) It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be? Consider the controversy around some election provisions... we had an RfC on the topic early this year, but by the election we still didn't have closure on some open questions. Does the recent adoption of Secure Poll for some uses change your answer?
 * Note: there may possibly be some overlap with #7 and #8 in the general set but it's really a different tack. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate.
 * A: ''My previous answer is still relevant, and I had hoped that WP:ACPD would help. The consensus based approach fails most spectacularly when it is used for (irreversible) admin decisions on noticeboards, such as community bans; the quality of the discussion degrades rapidly due to the talking heads and agendas. I think SecurePoll has helped ArbCom elections, and it may be useful in other big decisions (e.g. date delinking), but I would not like it to become a regular part of our decision making processes, especially those relating to content.
 * 1) Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions/Pending Changes. What did you think of the trial? Should we ultimately implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter? What is the reason or reasons for the delay in implementing?
 * A: I would like to see flagged revs implemented on a large percentage of the BLPs, especially where inappropriate modifications are likely to remain unrevised for weeks. I don't have a strong preference with regards to whether the 'flagged' revision is visible to the public or not; my reason for desiring this functionality is because I know that revision and new page patrolling results in problem edits falling through the cracks.  Software can manage the queue in a way that good contributions are automatically approved (e.g. User:JVbot/patrol_whitelist and the Autoreviewer permission which followed) and software can make sure that someone eventually checks each revision and each new page, even after it has dropped off everyones watchlist. I prefer the Flagged Revs implemented on German Wikipedia, however the English Wikipedia adaption has its strengths.  The many bugs in the English Wikipedia implementation caused unrest during the trial, but it is maturing.  ArbCom doesn't have an official role in this unless the community asks ArbCom to resolve the dispute, as was done for date delinking.
 * 1) Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.
 * a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?
 * b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?
 * c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?
 * d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?
 * e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C from 2008 in that it's more extensive)
 * f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?
 * g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D from 2008)
 * Note: this ties in with #3(d) in the general set but drills in a lot farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate but I expect just referencing it with no further elaboration won't be sufficient.
 * A: My previous answer is still good. I've more to add, but will come back to this.
 * Editing Wikipedia is a public action. It always has been.  As Wikipedia is designed to be extremely open and'' transparent, contributors need to be aware of how much information they make available to anyone interested in digging into the history.  Not everyone understands this when they first participate, and that can't be fixed without adding hurdles to the 'anyone can edit' process.  The people who understand it least are the 'anon' editors, yet we expose the IP address of their edits.  Another major problem is that our discussion pages are in DocumentMode and we recommend signatures after comments; this combination results in the IP address or screen-name of newbies being stored in our pages and becoming part of the history of the project, making WikiMindWipe and RightToVanish difficult.  I think that WMF funding for mw:Extension:LiquidThreads is money well spent, however I would also like anon editors to have 'Guest' named accounts (see last paragraph of this).  With those changes, 'anyone can edit' without providing identity hints to curious bystanders, and the username selection process can be deferred until the person has more time to consider the implications of selecting a personalised username.
 * 1) Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.
 * a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?
 * b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.
 * c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
 * d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.
 * e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?
 * f) Are there editors who overplay the stalking card? What's to be done about that?
 * Note: this also ties in with #3(d) in the general set but drills in a lot farther. Feel free to reference your answers there as appropriate but I expect just referencing it with no further elaboration won't be sufficient.
 * A: ''The WMF should continue to improve policies which require that projects take approriate action to remove inappropriate content and contributors, as they did with the wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, which is much stronger than the wmf:Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people. I'm hoping there will be improvements in this area. However I don't think the WMF should be offering aid to someone who is stalked or victimised, although this may be considered in extreme circumstances.  One solution may be to create a separate organisation that exists for the protection of Wikimedians.   Chapters would be able to financially contribute to this organisation, but the WMF probably would not.  An organisation like this would need to pick and choose carefully, especially when there are two contributors involved.  There are usually organisations that are better equipt to provide this type of assistance.
 * ''The WMF can be providing guidance for usage of their websites, and assisting subjects and contributors needing to locate legal assistance. However the Wikimedia chapters, community and projects should also be developing these resources.
 * ''ArbCom should take a hard line approach to people who are believed to be committing crimes on Wikipedia, in relation to Wikipedia, or even outside Wikipedia (such as pedophilia). Sometimes the evidence is clear; sometimes the situation is unclear and/or the risk of legal escalation is too great for ArbCom members to tackle it directly.  If done well, there is no need to malign the parties publicly, and it is often necessary to avoid making public statements which indicate why someone has been removed from Wikipedia.
 * ''If this type of problem escalates beyond what the community can deal with, it is appropriate that the matter should be taken to the court of the land, who can request information from the WMF. This raises ethical problems for the WMF, who may feel it is necessary to protect contributors from the oppressive regimes, but in most instances they should not interfere with the course of justice by withholding information from the courts.
 * ''I am mostly unimpressed by claims of 'stalking' of editors by editors. Usually this type of stalking is done by people with a genuine interest in fixing a perceived problem with anothers contributions.  Sometimes this is due to nationalistic disputes; sometimes it is low volume contributor who finds a 'problem' and is disturbed when they investigate the source of the problems, and not knowing our policies they set about fixing the problem; sometimes it is established contributors monitoring newcomers who look like potential trouble.  It is not the 'review' part which can be problematic; harassment isn't possible until someone starts disruptively editing the same set of articles as another.  A person bothering another over a long period is a pest, and should be remedied.  If constant interference is needed, it should be escalated so that the community can review the conduct and help resolve the situation.  In cases of established Wikipedian vs established Wikipedian, it is more appropriate to review only, not directly meddling, and follow dispute resolution.
 * ''Ultimately, all Wikipedia contributors have the right to leave if they feel that they are being inappropriately stalked on Wikipedia, and they have been unable to find a satisfactory resolution from the community and/or ArbCom. I often recommend that people being stalked move into a different content area, or refocus on a different WMF project, in order to find relief and also see whether the stalker follows, which is a good indicator that the stalking isnt appropriate.
 * 1) A certain editor has been characterized as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?
 * A: I'd be happy to go much further, deleting all of their past contributions. Where a person has violated core tenets of expected human behaviour, and continues to do so, it is a great disservice to the people who they continue to harm if Wikipedians are evaluating whether their content contributions were good or not.  We may not be able to fix the real world problems, and we may not be able to prevent these people from editing Wikipedia, but we can firmly say that they are not welcome.
 * My previous answer is still good wrt mass reversion for less serious cases.
 * 1) What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:
 * a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
 * b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
 * c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
 * d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not (in each case)?
 * e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
 * A: My previous answer is still appropriate, however I have started participating in Wikipedia Review since the 2008 election. Over those two years, I have made 190 comments.  At times I would like a bit more professional "review", but it is the best we've got currently.
 * ''Ultimately, all Wikipedia contributors have the right to leave if they feel that they are being inappropriately stalked on Wikipedia, and they have been unable to find a satisfactory resolution from the community and/or ArbCom. I often recommend that people being stalked move into a different content area, or refocus on a different WMF project, in order to find relief and also see whether the stalker follows, which is a good indicator that the stalking isnt appropriate.
 * 1) A certain editor has been characterized as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?
 * A: I'd be happy to go much further, deleting all of their past contributions. Where a person has violated core tenets of expected human behaviour, and continues to do so, it is a great disservice to the people who they continue to harm if Wikipedians are evaluating whether their content contributions were good or not.  We may not be able to fix the real world problems, and we may not be able to prevent these people from editing Wikipedia, but we can firmly say that they are not welcome.
 * My previous answer is still good wrt mass reversion for less serious cases.
 * 1) What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:
 * a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
 * b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
 * c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
 * d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not (in each case)?
 * e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
 * A: My previous answer is still appropriate, however I have started participating in Wikipedia Review since the 2008 election. Over those two years, I have made 190 comments.  At times I would like a bit more professional "review", but it is the best we've got currently.
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
 * A: My previous answer is still appropriate, however I have started participating in Wikipedia Review since the 2008 election. Over those two years, I have made 190 comments.  At times I would like a bit more professional "review", but it is the best we've got currently.
 * A: My previous answer is still appropriate, however I have started participating in Wikipedia Review since the 2008 election. Over those two years, I have made 190 comments.  At times I would like a bit more professional "review", but it is the best we've got currently.


 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with vested contributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * A: ''My previous answer is still appropriate.
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * A: There is a bit of factionalism, but it is most prevalent among groups that are full of extremists. The factionalism itself can be a problem, but usually it is sufficient to focus on the inappropriate actions by people in the faction.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)
 * A: Same as last time, gold.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :) If you answered this question last year, has your answer changed? :) :) :) If so, why? :) :): ): :)
 * A: Same as last time, gold.

Submitted 04:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC) by ++Lar: t/c


 * Answered. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions/comments from Ncmvocalist and responses from John Vandenberg
If it's not inconvenient for you, I'd like it if you could respond directly under each question/comment. Thank you in advance. Ncmvocalist (talk)
 * Arn't these supposed to be on the Questions talk page? This talk page should be for discussion about my statement. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved to Questions talk page; sorry, it seems I was in a bit of a rush to get those questions in within a reasonable time in case I want to ask follow ups. Ended up ono that page...somehow. :S Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * no worries. I'll give quick answers now, so you have more time for follow ups. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Q1. In your opinion, are unblocks more harmful than blocks? Why? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Administrators


 * A: It depends. "preventing harm to the encyclopedia" always sounds good, and liberal use of the block button is part of that.  The harm to the blockee can be minimised by talking to them as a person, rather than templating them, but it is often obvious that they are unready to participate in a productive way.  Unblocks can be moderately harmful to the community and the content, due to opportunity cost, but not giving people a second chance affects who we are as a community, which can result in tarnishing of our reputation.  Looking at it from another angle, unblocking someone can result in more of their time being wasting, especially if it is expected that they are not going to fair well, compounding their dissatisfaction.

Q 2-3 relate to the following scenario: "A request for arbitration is submitted concerning an administrator who: (1) is territorial over their admin actions - refusing to permit their peers to modify their actions in any way, (2) has a history of threatening their peers with arbitration requests, and (3) appears to generally view their role on the project as a combination of cop, prosecutor, and jury (in favour of convictions via blocks) rather than the actual role that many Wikipedians expect of admins. The admin in question spends a lot of time in AE, praising and defending AC, as well as statements that you have made as an arbitrator. This request is filed at a time where AC is still the only body capable of desysopping an admin. Assume that a request for comment on user conduct has resulted in mixed responses, but the admin in question has refused to heed any requests to change his approach."

Q2. How would you deal with or respond to this situation? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A: ''I'd be trying to understand why they haven't changed their approach. It could also be that the RFC was filled with disgruntled users who were dealt with appropriately at AE.  Otehrwise, it could be obstinance, a false sense of assurance that ArbCom will protect them, or that the administrator is in a rutt.  If there was cause for concern, I'd hope that a temporary desysop would bring them back refreshed and a little humbler, and would also result in new administrators taking up the slack in their old haunt.  This approach doesn't make many people happy, but it is relatively painless and efficient.  I'd also support a case, as the conduct of the admin (and their friends) during the case would be revealing.

Q3. {placeholder}

Questions from EdChem
1. In this comment, Arbitrator Roger Davies was responding to criticisms of the findings of fact in the recent Climate Change case. He wrote that: "Their purpose is not to build a watertight case against someone, nor to convince the sanctioned editor of the errors of his/her ways, but to give other arbitrators a flavour of the problem." Do you agree with this comment? To what extent should Findings of Fact be persuasive of editors watching a case, the editors directly involved, and the non-drafting Arbitrators? Is it sufficient for non-drafting Arbitrators to base their views primarily on the drafted Findings? Please note, the intended focus of this question is not the specific Findings about which Roger was being criticised but rather the general issue of your view of the purpose of Findings of Fact.


 * A: I like the findings of fact section to describe the problem, as accurately as possible, and in as much detail as is appropriate, but agree it doesn't need to be all inclusive, and more importantly it shouldnt be seen as the basis of the remedies. Non-drafting arbitrators should not be merely reading the findings of fact; they should be agreeing that those are the facts which accurately frame the case.  In addition, arbitrators need to look at a lot of other factors when deciding on the remedies.  Sometimes the facts/diffs provided directly point to an outcome.  Often times there are obvious and unstated influences, like whether the contributor being new to the topical or administrative area, or it is uncharacteristic behaviour, or if the contributor has since taken another path.

2. There have been situations during cases where groups of editors have been calling for, or even pleading for, clarification of arbitrators' views. Some examples include: I could list other examples, but these are sufficient (I believe) to illustrate my questions, which are: how should / do arbitrators go about handling the need to reveal information that is in the community's interests to know as opposed to information that is instead only of interest to the community. How would you respond to the idea of a mechanism by which questions could be posed to the committee where arbitrators would be obligated to provide a direct and timely response?
 * In Mantanmoreland, when it was unclear whether statistical evidence was persuasive, and whether further evidence would have been useful.
 * In Climate Change, when it was unclear whether arbitrators recognised the flaw in the statements relating to Scibaby false positives.
 * In Matthew Hoffman, when it was unclear how arbitrators viewed the controversial actions of some of their colleagues.
 * In the OrangeMarlin incident, where a desire to provide a unified ArbCom position left the community unclear on the views of individual arbitrators.


 * A: There are already mechanisms for questions, including user talk pages, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, the case talk pages, Arbitration/Requests/Clarification, etc. I doubt whether adding another will help, but wouldn't object to it.  In my experience, the problem is finding time and motivation to provide satisfactory responses to the community.

3. In the fallout from the Randy outing accusations and the subsequent AUSC report, Giano was blocked by Coren and quickly unblocked by you. In the RfAr that followed, you wrote "As other members of the Committee know, there have been prior incidents of Coren taking action without strong Committee backing. It is my opinion that this most recent block of Giano was another such example of poor judgment on Coren's part." and also that "Coren wisely does not want to name me as part of this "spat", and would like us all to disregard the context. That is not going to happen folks." This clearly adds to the perception that ArbCom closes ranks to protect its own. What about this incident has not been revealed that the community has a right or expectation to know? Have there been other situations where you felt that the community had a right or need to know something, but that has not been disclosed for reasons of protecting an individual arbitrator or ArbCom as an institution? How important is protecting the reputation of ArbCom itself?


 * A: I cant say much more about that case as one of the players has since exercised their right to vanish, and therefore isn't here to defend themselves, or at least act very cranky with me. The communities need to know the specifics of this episode has diminished.  I was person who un-suppressed the 'Randy' outings, and I was on the audit subcommittee investigating it, but resigned before the report.  This is one situation where I felt the community needed to know more of what had been uncovered by the audit subcommittee, in order that the community could make a decision on whether this type of 'outing' allegation should be acceptable.  Clearly bogus oversight/suppression requests should not be acceptable, especially from people in charge.  Note the similarity to the problem of David Gerard rushing to breaking the oversight policy for FT2's edits, and then those in power agreeing that it was done with the best of intentions, and avoiding to answer the questions directly, succinctly and honestly.
 * There are quite a few other situations where I felt that the community could be better informed, but they are not disproportionately due to protecting an individual arbitrator. It is more spectacular when it involves a person with a high profile, which means that the information often leaks, and we remember these well.  When the committee agrees to handle a matter privately, it is because we believe that a problem can and should be fixed without destroying someone in public.  Most of the time the committee gets this right, but there are times when the problem comes back to haunt ArbCom.  These are the cases we all remember.  As a result, the reputation of ArbCom takes a battering every year.  While there is some room for idle speculation about an ArbCom which has a reputation worth protecting, it has been elusive so far.  At the same time, it has done the job required of it, both in the public and private matters is resolves.  In order to do its job, we need arbitrators.  To this end, it is sometimes necessary for arbitrators to protect each other, or at least not publicly reveal their faults which are learnt due to close contact.  We all have bad days, and do things we wish we didn't.
 * For the most part, I have spoken up where I have felt something should be released, and others have done the same, but at the end of the day it is a committee decision, and sometimes there is too much going on to even attract like minds to also speak up. "Will it become important?" is obvious in hindsight.  The committee ends up seeing a lot of details that are required to be kept private.  Decisions to release information are almost always done by committee, which brings with it an opportunity cost, but prevents mistakes.  All these factors result in Arbitrators erring on the side of caution, and rightly so in the vast majority of cases.  In the year that I was an arbitrator (2009), most of the important problems were revealed, so I am happy with that record.

4. Knowing both Giano and Coren, do you think ArbCom could function successfully if Giano were elected at this election?


 * A: ''If Giano is elected, I think this would be the first time that a blocker and blockee would be on the Arbitration Committee together. The same question could also be asked of FT2, who has blocked Giano three times, and Stephen Bain, Sandstein and Georgewilliamherbert have all blocked him twice.


 * ''They are all grown up men and, if asked to serve together, I am sure that they will quickly find a way to work together. They will likely grow to appreciate either others strengths in a way that is not easy when two people have started on diffent 'ends' of the project.  There would probably be some ALL CAPS in emails before and after that point, but this wouldn't be the first time that has happened.  Where there are intractable differences, the public voting will likely end up with predictable divides, but hopefully also some good debate about the merits of remedies. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Four little questions by Fedayee
I am posting this in the talkpage since it is longer than the allowed questions. First I have to put context to my questions because, well, they do have context behind them. You are probably aware of a recent arbitration case on the Russian Wikipedia involving about two dozen editors. I am of course refering to this one. It is about an Azeri mailing list shedding light into their activity on the Russian Wikipedia with the result being that a lot of these same users were banned. In the mailing list, your name was brought up as a good/great friend of two users involved in the list (one of the two being the leader of the group), also claiming that you helped them a lot against the Armenians and the Persians. They also mention a mailing list they have for the English Wikipedia. So my first question is:

1) Were you involved in the English mailing list?


 * A: No I was not involved in the list, and did not know it existed. I first learnt of it when I was told about the Russian Arbcom case.  I had reason to suspect that there was an Azeri mailing list, in some language, but I also have reason to suspect there is an Armenian mailing list.

I am asking you this primarily for one reason (and another reason as well, but that won't be brought up... at least not now) because the articles that were targeted (which concerned so-called Armenian terror) in the mailing list on the Russian Wikipedia were also targeted in the English Wikipedia during the same dates/time-period that they were brought up in the mailing list, and that you also edited some of them during the same period. For instance, your edits here, etc. Some of your connections during your last election were also brought up, like the editing time interval after the person who calls you a good/great friend. Other evidence of such actions do also exist after the election, such as this,. 12 minutes interval for a dispute on an article which at the time you did not even edit nor edit its talkpage. You went even further by suggesting that the active members of one side of the dispute all be restricted to no reverts at all. Which brings me to the second question:


 * A: ''As you mention the Feigl, I will show you the timeline. I am not sure you will believe me, but maybe my information will help you.
 * ''On 15 May 2009, I was covertly told that a new user, Xaghan, was having problems. I wanted to find out what the problem was, so I started researching Erich Feigl.
 * ''While looking at this, I made my first edits to that article at 23:20 The following day (UTC) 05:23 I created Tereggi Medal and I posted my comments to the Feigl talk page a few times on the same day
 * ''After that, at 07:41, I told Xaghan how to be unblocked because it appeared he was able to be a good contributor if he slowed down a bit.
 * ''This was mentioned at Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive541 and for reasons I cant quickly recall, I did not address the problems mentioned about the talk page of Auguste Carrière. I have done it now.
 * ''And this all came up again at User_talk:John_Vandenberg/Archive_9.


 * A: ''In regards to the Moses of Chorene case, I recused as soon as it seemed like Grandmaster had finished. The fact that I was recused on all Azeri-Armenian issues was quite well known.  I provided a statement and left it at that.  I never once said anything to any arbitrator about the case.  I have also recused on anything to do with user:Nishkid64, including discussions about whether or not he should be an oversighter.  The arbitrators are my witness.  You can ask them.

2) Why should we assume that you will not interject yourself trying to influence the other members of the committee to accept a case which has no merit to be accepted? (since all the other members of the committee rejected it).


 * A: I provided a statement as a member of the community, as everyone else does. My statement was public, and I said nothing further behind closed doors.
 *  In regards to that case, it is obvious that my public attempts to influence my fellow arbitrators was useless. Do you agree with that?  Perhaps that will encourage you to believe me when I say that my reasons to be on ArbCom have nothing to do with your battles, and that my recusal pledge is not a trick.
 *  In regards to other cases, where I am acting as an arbitrator, you may review Requests for arbitration/Statistics 2009 to determine for yourself whether I made the right decision in each instance.

Coming to my next point, it is my opinion and some other users as well that you do not give damn about accuracy when articles cover AA matters. In the last election during which you were a candidate, examples were provided. I will only give one recent example, here you again take sides by reverting Divot, and go on revert warring. ,. Again reverting for the person who considers you his good/great friend. This was done while a picture of it was presented and it was clear that the description was innacurate... yet you reverted. Divot got a block, and you again did not revert to include accuracy but again you intervened for the same user (note that the user was the leader of the mailing list in question) which you were accused of blindly supporting prior to the other election. So goes my next question.


 * A: I did not revert "for" anyone. I reverted because Divot was removing the source because he couldn't find it. Talk:Khojaly_Massacre/Archive_5  He was blocked because he kept believing it couldn't be real, and he kept reverting and reverting and reverting.  Once he had been blocked, the discussion was able to focus on improving the description.  I was also improving the article, and participated in discussion.  The sources in dispute were also discussed at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_66.  As you can see from the history of the article, and I did not revert anyone other that Divot and   Special:Contributions/67.81.190.223 who was acting very much like Divot, and only did this because their rationale was flawed.  I could have accused them of being WP:MEAT-puppets then and had Divot blocked.  The description of the image was improved by others.

3) On Wikipedia, what is more important, article accuracy or friends?


 * A: Article accuracy, and a collegial environment. I am sorry that your topical area is plagued with both actual and perceived accuracy problems, but I think you will find it becomes a lot more accurate if you stop playing games with each other and maintain a collegial environment.  I will continue to watch and try to help whenever and whoever I can, both to improve the content and prevent the disruptive games.

This last question seems provocative, but it does not only concern you. Users very often do seem to support each other based on friendship.

Finally, you promised to not use CU when it concerns AA matters. So my last question is the following:

4) a) Did you ever use CU on users editing on those subjects? This also includes the period after you ended your terms. b) Did you ever suggest or ask another CU to run them for you or have you ever checked logs of already run CU?


 * A: I never used CU on any user editing any AA topic, nor have I suggested or asked another CU to run checks privately. I vaguely recall a few emails relating to AA which were sent to the WP:functionaries-en and WP:arbcom-l mailing lists, and I think I may have provided some additional information once or twice where it was expedient to do so, however I always added to my email that I was recused on the topic and there was never a complaint about the type of detail I was providing.
 * I don't trawl through the CU log without an appropriate reason. I always use very precise query strings in order to get what I need, and avoid all sorts of information that I don't want to know.
 * Finally on this point, I can appreciate your concern here. I know both sides spend a lot of time trying to work out who their opponents are.  All I can say is that if I did ever unintentionally stumble across information like this, I would never share it with anyone who is not privileged to have that information.

Anyway, you don't have to reply to all or some of them if you don't feal like it.

Thanks. - Fedayee (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking. There is one thing I would like to point out, and that is that my name came up on the Russian Azeri mailing list because of something related to Wikisource.  I quote the two relevant bits here:

.., что у вас за проблемы в wiki source с John Vandenberg? Это очень хороший человек, мой большой друг, много раз нам помогал в английской вики. Его интересует, являются ли общественным достоянием материалы ... Он поставил сейчас на ваш материал шаблон, запрашивающий дополнительную информацию. Надо показать, что мы имеем право копировать в википедию материалы этой организации. Человека надо понять, он делает свою работу, если будет выявлено нарушение авторских прав, то ему достанется. Он всегда рад помочь, поговорите с ним. Если надо, я вам помогу с ним общаться. Я с ним поддерживаю постоянную связь через чат. Джон очень хороший парень и много нам помогал против армян и персов.
 * The second quote is the one where your "against the Armenians and the Persians" quote comes from.
 * I have already given an account of this at User:John Vandenberg/AA involvement, where it is clear what type of help I gave. I have also helped Armenians against the Turks and Azeri many times too.  I've probably even helped the Turks against the Persians and Persians against the Turks, and other permutations.  Each time it was because I believed it was the right thing to do due to the participants behaviour and the state of the content.  It is never because someone else asks me to do it.  If someone asks me to do something, I look at it until I'm comfortable with my own edits and actions.  I also tell a lot of people that I can't help them, either because I think they are wrong or because I don't have time to come up to speed. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 13:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, please feel free to ask more questions about content I added or actions I have taken, or my answers above. I will make time to answer additional questions about my AA involvement, and will apologise if you can convince me that I have mishandled something. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up questions from Carcharoth
A few follow-up questions, some related to your answers to the existing questions:
 * In your answer to general question 5, you say: "When a community developed and endorsed solution arrives, it should overrule the ArbCom solution." In some instances, there is little movement on a community-developed and community-endorsed solution. What role do you think ArbCom should play (if any) in such cases?
 * Answer: ArbCom can, and does, add remedies that ask the community to address the gap. Sadly these solutions are 50-50 ArbCom-community for a long time, until the community has rewritten it a few times.  WP:ACPD anyone? ;-)
 * In your answer to general question 8, you say "Incoming mail handling is likely to still be a major burden; I was developing software solutions to assist this workload in 2009, and I expect that they are still needed." Such solutions are still needed, as far as I can tell, but how much time would you have to devote to this sort of task?
 * Answer: I've more spare time in 2011 than I did in 2009.
 * Given that questions have been raised about the time you have available, would you consider taking up a one-year term if elected?
 * Answer: I wouldn't object to that.
 * On a more general note, would you be able to expand on why you think a well-qualified candidate with not so much time available should be preferred to a candidate with more time available, but maybe lacking the judgment needed to be an arbitrator? My view is that rather than have all arbitrators available lots of the time, there should be room for arbitrators with less time available, who can still make good contributions to discussions and cases. i.e quality, not quantity. Where do you think the balance should be struck here, and what is the minimum number of highly-active arbitrators needed to keep ArbCom going, and what is the minimum amount an individual arbitrator should contribute to take a meaningful share of the workload?
 * Answer: Arbitrators who lack judgment and foresight create an awful lot of internal and external work for the rest of the committee, in order to keep the committee functioning and in restoring respect in the community.
 * ''I agree with your view. I added some columns to the 2009 stats which I think demonstrates your point.  We had quite a few arbs who didn't provide a lot of motions, but they have an amazing ability to have the right motion up their sleeve at the right time.  Pure quality. :-)  Try and guess who they were before you look at the stats.  There were other areas where other arbs excelled.  There is also a lot of research and discussion to be done before those motions can land, and the auxiliary tasks also need doing.
 * '' I'll stab in the dark and say that five highly-active arbitrators are needed to keep ArbCom going. I found that if I wasn't giving between 6-8 hours per day, I wasn't doing my share.
 * Finally, in terms of sharing the workload, how important do you think it is that candidates and sitting arbitrators keep their colleagues informed about potential absences?
 * Answer: Unexpected absences can be disruptive, especially when there are motions on the table with complete support from those who have voted, but unable to obtain a majority because members have disappeared. We passed Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_3 to help resolve that, but it did not go far enough to prevent it.  There is also tasks assigned that are left in limbo, and other arbs needing to scramble to do the task for them.  In this day and age it is very unusual to be unable to inform people that you've going to be unavailable for seven consecutive days without any notice.  Of course there are occasions when it is unavoidable, but there should be a good explanation.

Thanks for standing as a candidate in these elections, and thanks for taking the time to answer these questions. Carcharoth (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Great questions. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Question from Offliner
Do you believe the nationalities of Wikipedia's editors are fairly represented in the current ArbCom? Could you please reveal your own nationality? If you do not wish to reveal your exact nationality, could you at least state whether you are from an anglophone country? Offliner (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Answer: Over the last two years, the nationality of ArbCom has trended towards becoming more representative of the English Wikipedia community and the English speaking world. It appropriately favours people where English is the primary language used throughout the education system.
 * I am Australian, with Dutch heritage. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up by Fedayee
Thanks, just a follow-up. You write: I had reason to suspect that there was an Azeri mailing list, in some language, but I also have reason to suspect there is an Armenian mailing list. Can you clarify on what those reasons are, and which language Wikipedia are you refering to?
 * Answer: I am referring to English Wikipedia. The long standing reason I've suspected that there were Wikipedia mailing lists in all sides of the AA conflict is that I see levels of coordination that are typical of groups who have private email lists for that purpose.  There have also been things said in public and private, by AA people and people unrelated, that suggest this, but I haven't seen the evidence.  Administrators' noticeboard/Possible ethnic block voting in ArbCom elections was also a good sign that the interwebs off Wikipedia were alive.

Regarding your comment on Eric Feigl, the problem is that you're only actively involved when there are fishy things going on.
 * Answer: ... or you see something fishy every time I am involved. If you're concerned, start an RFC - at least two of you have tried to work this out with me on my talk page, and failed, so I will ensure that it isnt rejected due to insufficient attempts to engage in dispute resolution.

Also, the context, I remind you about the report user:MarshallBagramyan filed about possible socks a few hours before Grandmaster filed that arbitration request, later on a CU revealed a sockfarm of about two dozens of sock working their way through that Armenian terror subject which was brought in the Russian mailing list about the same time.
 * Answer: Is this the report you are referring to?
 * If he wanted to have some socks investigated, he should have filed an WP:SPI report. His report at ANI was way to confusing for most admins to bother with.
 * ''It is comical that MarshallBagramyan complained about socks when he also mentioned his own sock in the report.
 * None of the usernames in that report mean anything to me, except for Xaghan and I have provided an explanation about that above.

Regarding your reply to the second remark, that's besides the point, regardless of your failure to convince other fellow arbitrators, it does not change the fact that you did attempt to have a case which had no merit to be accepted.
 * Answer: ''As an involved member of the community, you can be sure I will try to be persuasive when I try to convince the committee to accept a case that I think needs to be addressed. I am surprised you are overly concerned that I attempted to have that case accepted, especially when the committee was not persuaded.
 * Have you considered the possibility that ArbCom is less likely to accept any case where an arbitrator is involved? Depending on how involved the arbitrator is, it can be quite messy to have an arbitrator as a party, and potentially destablising.
 * As an arbitrator, I have an excellent history of voting to accept the cases that the ArbCom eventually accepted. 100%.

Regarding your comment on the Khojaly 'massacre', Divot was not removing a source... that is what you claimed, but he was not, you can check the diffs again. He clarified and certainly had a valid argument to do so; from the link you provided, he had provided a schedule of that day from the House of Representatives.
 * Answer: ''If you look at the history link I gave you above, Divots first edit to the article was to remove a source, and the sentence which accompanied it. Is that the distinction you were trying to make?  "sourced" vs "sourced sentence".
 * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7.
 * Divots argument was "reasonable" for an amateur, but it was not valid or sound, because he did not have a good understanding of the resource he was trying to be an authority about, and he was trying to prove non-existence.
 * ''If Divot had only reverted once or twice, that would have been reasonable. Every person who edits Wikipedia regularly strays into areas where they are an amateur, and sometimes they make mistakes.  I've done it.  You've done it.  Everyone has done it.  It is not a sin.  This project survives because we fix each others errors, and we build this project by combining all of our knowledge together.
 * However Divot then goes on to add original research, and his edit was provably wrong.
 * At this point, Divot is blocked, because he had continued reverting beyond reason and sounds arguments on the talk page.

Also, note that user:Brandmeister posted a link to that claimed resolution on May 2 which clearly documents it being a citation provided by a member of the House. You reverted well after that and you left an intriging comment: ''Why is this being disputed? Divot is removing it because it doesn't exist in one place he is looking, yet it has been reported in the media. We don't get to choose whether we believe it or not. If someone believes it isn't authentic, please cite someone reliable.'' Divot provided the official House schedule not simply a place to look for.
 * Answer: Did Divot have any basis for believing that this would be published in the document he had found? No, it was just a guess.  A logical assumption, but wrong all the same.  He should have stopped reverting when this was pointed out to him.

Plus, like I said, he was not even the one who removed it, so your justification on the talkpage was inaccurate.
 * Answer: Like I said, he removed it many times, and could be called a meat-puppet.  My comment on the talk page was not referring to the edit made by 67.81.190.223; it was referring to the seven times previously that Divot had removed it, the edit summaries he used, and the posts he made on the talk page, all claiming that this was impossible.  It turned out that he was wrong.

Also, one more addition of yours here... you added this in the International Reaction section, and you even failed to mention that it was a Turkish-Azeri conference thereby making it seem like it was some international independent conference as a consequence.
 * Answer: I explain how that happened at Talk:Khojaly_Massacre/Archive_5. Do you have a problem with my explanation?

Of course, it could maybe be just another mistake, but why are these mistakes always happening in favour of one side? So, as you can see from the contexts provided, your reply to question 3 was unsatisfying, since not only does it seem like you are always with user:Grandmaster and his friends on each and every major conflict (diffs could be presented) but according to the Armenian editors, you have systematically taken sides when your intervention was clearly affecting the accuracy of articles negatively.
 * Answer:

On your remark on question 4, you wrote: I don't trawl through the CU log without an appropriate reason. Should I assume that there were instances where you thought there were reasons for you to check those logs?
 * Answer: You will probably assume it anyway, but you would be wrong. You would also be wrong to assume that your locations and identities are something I even want to know.  Frankly, that type of information is useless to me.  I'd much rather spend an evening having a discussion with you; it is easier to get to know someone via communication and reviewing their publicly listed contributions.
 * An appropriate reason isn't one I concoct to please myself. An appropriate reason is one which does not break my recusal pledge, and one which is part of the job I am doing.  For example, when I was on WP:AUSC, we were expected to wrap my head around thousands of checkuser actions by a specific checkuser; to do this, the checkuser log form has a parameter where I type in one username, and it returns all of their actions.  This investigation was requested by WP:ARBCOM and resulted in this announcement.

Regarding your last comments, I'd like to point something out which was brought up during the last election. It was remarked that besides the Armenian-Azeri topic, there were no content based conflicts you were directly involved with in the talkpages, or discussed significantly in the talkpage. What I mean by this is that except for one instance in a talkpage where you provide some indirect form of paid editing on an Australian related subject, you have never in any other circumstance (other than AA subjects) used the talkpage to significantly exchange or provide relevant information.
 * Answer: It is always dangerous to say there are none. See Talk:Bakers Delight, Talk:Phineas Gage, Talk:W. H. R. Rivers, Talk:Antonio Arnaiz-Villena and recently Talk:Tom Van Flandern.
 * How many more examples would you like before you can accept that your theory needs a bit of work?

Another interesting fact is that you never considerably returned on subjects for which you have created content, your return on same-subjects seems to be concentrated on AA issues.
 * Answer: Again you use "never", which is easily disproven.
 * While it is true that I rarely return to content pages which I have created, there is nothing atypical in this regard about Middle East pages that I have created. Even Talk:Khanate of Maku was a quick discussion to sort out a few problems, and I haven't returned to it since.
 * The explanation is that my new articles are often about very obscure topics, so it is very rare that another editor shows an interest, and quite often my interest doesn't stretch beyond writing a good basic article about the topic. I am thrilled when others edit my articles, usually because the know much more about the topic than I do.  When someone knowledgable turns up, I usually have little to add, so I welcome them and help them a bit, but the majority of the topics I write about are not contentious.  Even very boring AA topics are contentious on Wikipedia, in ways that would stun most readers.
 * Can you show me some articles relating to the Middle East that I created and latter came back to extensively discuss or improve the article?
 * On the contrary, Bakers Delight, Technology One, List of the first 32 women ordained as Church of England priests are articles that I helped with when they re-appeared on my watchlist.
 * I can provide many more examples.

You did, during the last election, claim that you show some interest in the Middle East etc. subjects, but your edits show only specific interest in subjects relating to Armenian-Iranian-Azeri matters.
 * Answer: ''Please read User:John_Vandenberg/New_pages, and take note that many of the topics listed there are about the Middle East. See also ar:شركة نفط البحرين and the rest of my edits on Arabic Wikipedia.
 * As I've said above, these are usually non-controversial topics. I get enough controversy from AA topics, so I have never tried to get involved in IP as well.

In fact, here goes another Question: I can think of your participating of the drafting of this case which did concern the Middle East, or the one concerning Jay. So I assume, contrary to your admitted interests in the Middle East, you don't feel like recusing on any other subjects than the AA. Right?
 * Answer: I participated in those cases because they do not fall into my very broad recusal pledge, which states that cases relating to the Middle East must be a) of national interest to a country in the region, and b) a party asks me to recuse within 24 hours of the case being opened.
 * Asmahan was not a topic of national interest to any country in the region.
 * Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria could be considered a topic of national interest, however I explicitly informed the parties that I would recuse if they asked me to, and they didn't request it. Please see Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria.
 * ''My recusal pledge on cases that relate to AA does not have those caveats. I have stated without qualifiers that I will recuse on any case that relates to AA.  Nice and simple.
 * If I break my recusal pledge, I doubt you'll be the first person to mention it. There are more influential people who would like my head.  It keeps me honest.

I don't think that what is contained in your last reply is at all that satisfying for one, for me it seems to be like relativising things. We are, after all, talking about a user who was systematically helped by you on several occasions, and this within minutes after he edited. Also, how is it so that you just happened to help every side, and that, a user who was banned on AA1, writes on that mailing list that he considers you to be a great friend. We'd expect such a user to at least be neutral about you. Yet not only such a user considers you a great friend but the two other groups (Armenians and Persians) mentioned did systematically oppose you during the last election, while you got systematic support from the Azeris. So in short, not only did the Armenians and Persians felt you were supporting the Azeris, but the Azeris felt that you were helping them. Of course, you could provide here a diff of some sort of you helping the two groups but those were already seen and are considered superficial, at least to me. Note that every other admin that was involved was either hated or liked by the two sides.
 * Answer:

Also, the Russian quote you provide is rather funny, given that you did yourself start articles by copypasting content, failing copyvio which you have so long tried to enforce. One example I already gave you was this, which you had nothing to say about.
 * Answer: As I have pointed out here, that article was created using Wikipedia content. This was attributed in the article creation commit log, which I think is the customary thing to do: "spawn from Qajar dynasty".
 * Where did you previously ask me about this article?
 * Do you have any other examples of my copyright violations. You appear to have looked through all my edits, so I am surprised that you selected one which was not a copyright violation.

I also expect you to reply to this and I mean really reply to what I reported on your actions which appeared to be unacceptable provocation of Persian members.
 * Answer:

No hard feelings though, this year everything should go smoother for you as the major opposition was based on giving you access to CU and the arbitration mailing list and since you already have access to that and that there probably won't be any new cases (unless someone gets into the English language Azeri mailing list) in the near future. - Fedayee (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

One more question: When you resigned from the committee, you made it seem like it was the result of a particular controversy. Now you make it seem that the major reason was a lack of time. Why have you not clarified then that the controversy was rather an occasion and not the main reason why you resigned? Have you made it public anywhere that the time constraint was a major factor in your resignation and if not, why? The question is relevant, in the sense that you were viewed by many as a victim, a casualty. - Fedayee (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Answer: My resignation was a complicated and heated situation with around 500 emails in 30 mailing list threads within a three day period, and probably as many auxillary discussions happening off the side. I had a brief chat with a three people prior to simultaneously informing arbcom and David Gerard of my decision, and posted it publicly a little less than a day later.  I have not previously given a breakdown of the factors involved in my decision to resign, nor has anyone asked me to do so in public.  The people who know are the people who needed to know.  I don't see any reason to put any further details onto the public record about this, especially as I don't know how it concluded, and have limited my private correspondence on this matter to correcting any misconceptions they might of had about the affair and my reasons for resigning.


 * On the point you make about being perceived to be a victim or casualty, the community can review it again with fresh eyes, if they want to take it into consideration at all. If you look at the voters guides, you will see that some have seen it differently, or more deeply, including concerns about a lack of staying power, and the ridiculousness of it.


 * At no time have I said that "a lack of time" or "time constraints" were one of my reasons for resigning, but I can see how you came to that conclusion, so I will clarify this. The 20+ people who received private correspondence from me about this can correct me publicly if I said anything remotely along those lines.  Of course resigning meant I had a lot of extra time, but if you look at my contributions, you will see I put a lot of that time back into other areas of English Wikipedia.


 * Time and energy were issues, but not in the way you are relating them to my resignation. They were a contributing factor in the mistake I made, but had little to do with my decision to step down.  Had it merely been due to my work pressures and time, I could have wrapped up the Asmahan with minimal effort and gone inactive for a while.  I had done this earlier in the year.  I had taken on the Asmahan case unexpectedly in October, and was still highly active on all arbitration areas.  It is quite possible that I would not have made the next project milestone had I stayed on Arbcom, but that would not have been a major problem.  At the time of my resignation, I was still a good eight months away from the project delivery date, with the previous milestones being met.  The pressure at work had been high in November primarily because I work for a university and most staff go into hiberation or on leave over the majority of December and January.  There were a lot of varied tasks that needed to be done, after which there was a slack period in our project timeline because it is hard to get anything done when the place is running on the minimum staff, and I was taking a decent slab of leave in January.  If necessary, I could also have cancelled my leave to catch up on my parts of the project.  I also did this earlier in the year.


 * I was making time, but I was 'tired', and looking forward to a batch of freshly minted arbitrators jumping out of the gate.


 * I have mentioned time constraint factors in my candidate statement and recent comments as a year in ArbCom is a long time, and I now know how November and early December turns out for me.

More from Fedayee
Thanks for answering. John, so you have no evidence at all of any mailing list from both sides of the conflict. This attempt at relativising things does not hold water. Most suspicious accounts from one side of the conflict have been blocked as sock-puppets of existing users, the rest were users contributing on the Russian Wikipedia who followed their opponments on to the English Wikipedia. I can think of AA1, which was the consequence of revert warring initiated by three users (reason for Dominic's filing of the case) and an obvious indication of coordination. The Ehud Lesar case was also caused by the fishy nature of the account, who soon after the case just disappeared! On one side of the conflict, the suspicious accounts are not connected to a known blocked or existing user. Baki66, Kheo17 and all those unique users jumping their way through those articles. The uniqueness of each user has suggested a high level of coordination and that of course was confirmed by the discovery of the Russian mailing list with 26 different users, not 5, 10 or 15 and also the mention of the existence of an English one. The only thing Armenian users ever had was a forum for pasting JSTOR and other database documents, and it was closed a long time ago when only three users were active and they all ended up having access to those databases. But we know now that an Azeri English mailing list does exist. As for your election as evidence, Azeri and Turkish users systematically supported you. That's really no evidence at all!


 * Answer: I have never seen any evidence of any Azeri or Armenian mailing list before the Russian ArbCom case.
 * I didn't say that Administrators' noticeboard/Possible ethnic block voting in ArbCom elections was evidence of a mailing list. I said it was a good sign that there was off-wiki coordination.  On that point, I will point out that the Azeri and Turkish votes did not start coming until after the coordinated oppose vote.
 * Wrt to Ehud Lesar, that user was no more fishy than many Armenian users. But more to the point, there was credible evidence that the suspicions were wrong, so the ArbCom case could have been avoided.

And about your claim that I see fishy things everytime you are involved... I see something fishy where there is something fishy. You've been there during each and every major controversy, evidence was provided in the past and that continued after your election. RfC is fruitless, since everyone could have strong opinions, if that was workable nearly all users on Wikipedia would be blocked. That only reveals a strong bias from your part but nothing here is workable. The Ottoman Bank takeover was added by you here with the following diff, which was an addition of an IP. That subject was part of the editing on Armenian terror and that article happened to be a target of the user who used two dozen socks editing about Armenian terror. Regarding your instance on getting the case filed by Grandmaster to be accepted, your reply is besides the point. You had absolutely no contributions in the talkpage but I knew you were closely following the subject by checking your contribution on Wikisource when you scanned a book which was supporting Grandmaster's position and then proceeded to create its author's Wiki article Auguste Carrière, an orphan article for a year+ now. Then you jumped to involve yourself a few minutes after Grandmaster had completed filing his request and if I remember it was your first edit that day. This is still called fishy.


 * Answer: ''I have not been involved in every major controversy. There are many instances of AA battles which I never saw nor participated in.
 * I saw, and I wanted to put it on Wikisource.
 * You're claiming there is something fishy going on because I created s:fr:Livre:Nouvelles_sources_de_Moïse_de_Khoren.djvu and Auguste Carrière on 20 April 2009? I first heard about this when Nishkid64 locked up the article because of the "edit warring".  You know I talk to Grandmaster.  So I started researching.  Why does this surprise you?  Why is it fishy?  I like sources.  Do you have a problem with my edits to the article?  Is this not an example of a dispute where I did not get involved!! ;-)  My only involvement in this spat was as a spectator.  I did not confront Nishkid64 at the time, though I could have.  When you guys couldn't work it out, and an RFAR was filed, I thought it would be a good case for the committee to work on in order to resolve the long standing AA problems, like they have done in other topical areas.
 * Perhaps you might like to explain how Nishkid64 learnt about my orphan in 26 hours. Was he also watching my Wikisource contributions?  I found that fishy. ;-)  He appears to have had second thoughts about mentioning that again, so I am a bit surprised you want to bring it up again.

Regarding Divot, you are not replying to my point. You reverted the IP back to Brandmeister's version and accused Divot of removing it after reverting, then, so at that time, what Divot did on the article prior (when he removed it) became irrelevant. At that time, your comment was not accurate and your claim that he was engaged in original research wasn't either. It was true that it was according to the Azeri media... it was confirmed that Divot's version was more accurate than your blind revert, since the term adopted was not accurate and was only claimed by the Azeri media. You claim that Divot assumed but that is not accurate since the journal of the House would include in its list all adopted (implying votes) resolutions. Also, just like Divot should not have edit warred, gang reverting him (in which you participated) was also not acceptable. As the imposing admin wrote :''Grandmaster: I hesitate to punish one editor because he is a minority. That is, unless anybody actually pursued the assistance of an uninvolved administrator when they saw an edit war developing? '' Since at the time Divot did not remove but changed it, that IP could not be accused of meatpuppeting for him.

Regarding the question about your use of CU. I am not assuming anything, I asked a simple question and I'll ask it again : ''Should I assume that there were instances where you thought there were reasons for you to check those logs? '' An answer in the form of a yes or a no will more than suffice.
 * Answer: No. You should assume that I will keep my recusal pledge.

You give examples of exchanges in other subjects... that's true, but only when you interpret my reply in a way that it was not supposed to be interpreted in. Notice that none of those exchanges were prior to the election of 2008, and all but one are dated (unless I missed something) 2010. But regardless, I don't think you got my point. Let's remove all your article renamings, redirects... and all those stubs you have created, all your reverts of vandalism by IPs or socks, or one time reverters and editors and then we'll find what I have described. The examples you gave are not really related with each other..., the only remaining interaction in the talkpage of several articles which could be related to the same issue was AA. Don't you agree? That was my point!

Regarding your question about copyvio..., point taken, I checked and the examples I recall were in fact paraphrasing but were quite often based on single sources, which you have paraphrased. This being the case, they were unencyclopedic and might be considered to be an author's opinion.
 * Answer: Would you please provide evidence of this.

Lastly, on my comment about your recusal on Middle Eastern subjects, you assumed much more than I implied. In fact, I can say that you were off the mark here. My reason for asking that question was not to show a possible failure to respect your engagement. My point was that you will only recuse automatically on AA matters, regardless of your justification of involvement during 2008, which was that you are someone interested with the Middle East. My point was that your involvement is a little more specific than the Middle East.
 * Answer: I was worried you were accusing me of breaking my recusal pledge. My apologies for the assumption.
 * My recusal pledge was written specifically to allay the fears of Armenians, and then when Iranians started showing concerns I decided to broaden it as much as possible, so that anyone in this area could ask me to recuse, and everyone in that area would know I wouldn't Checkuser anyone if I had crossed paths with them in content.
 * I agree that my involvement has been much more focused on AA and Iranian topics, but that doesn't mean my interests are restrained to those areas. In the 2008 election, I was being accused privately of being another "John Vandenberg" who was extremely political and controversial, and I was attempting to show that I don't have any agenda within that region of the world, and my contributions to Wikipedia are good evidence that I have a very broad interest in the region, with a specific bent on literature.

I wish you had answered the other points. They are more relevant, particularly my example of your actions which provoked Iranian users. - Fedayee (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Answer: I intend to answer them all, but I hope you can appreciate that the ones containing accusations of misconduct, or even strong hinds, are the ones that I feel I must answer first.
 * ''The one that interests me the most is User_talk:John_Vandenberg/Archive_9. I did not answer it at the time because it was a melting pot of accusations that I know have little basis.  I can understand some of the reasons for asking about it, but we talk past each other too much.  I didn't know where to begin answering it, and had given up on talking rationally with you.  Our discussion here has given me hope; I hope it has given you a little as well.  I would like to start a fresh discussion with you about it, using bite sized responses so we don't get so far ahead of each other in our assumptions.  If you like, I can start it on your talk, my talk, at User talk:John Vandenberg/AA involvement, or in a new subsection here on this talk page.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 11:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

And more from Fedayee
I have never seen any evidence of any Azeri or Armenian mailing list before the Russian ArbCom case. Again, why are you including Armenian here, there was no evidence of an Armenian mailing list at the Russian ArbCom, only Azeri and it was not only evidence but confirmation.


 * Answer: I have said all along that I suspected that both Azeri and Armenian mailing lists exist. Perhaps another time I can ask you questions that might satisfy some of my suspicions, but for now I will continue to worry that offsite coordination of inappropriate behavior is happening.  I hope it isn't, and will not accuse anyone of it until evidence appears and surprises us all.

And the chronology of who voted first during your election does not mean anything because it was expected that the opposition would show up first and the Azeri users will only check if you needed any support. Since you were there during every controversy (Khatchkar destruction, Paytakaran, Ehud Lesar case etc.), the slightest announcement of the election of such a user to the Armenian users would have prompted a massive opposition. The same for the Iranian users. But check your own request for your adminship, which was prior to a lot of the controversies, here. Grandmaster was one of the first to know of that election and voted sixth. Grandmaster never voted on any prior election but one (Bobak). Two other Azeri users voted as well and both had never voted in any other admin election. If we're going to use statistics like you have done during the 2009 elections, let's use them also for request for adminship.


 * Answer: My point regarding the previous ArbCom election is that bloc voting tends to cause more bloc voting. I wish none of the bloc voting happened, mostly because it was harmful and hurtful to write such things in public without evidence and a proper opportunity to respond underneath the votes.  This ArbCom election is much better, as we are discussing the problems this time, and even fixing a few.
 * '' With regards to my RfA, I do not know how Grandmaster learnt of it; it wasn't from me or anyone I know. I did put up a notice on my user page.  I also don't know how the other two Azeri chaps found out about it; mysteries that will only be solved by asking someone other than me.

You claim that Ehud Lesar was no more fishy than many Armenian user. If many Armenian users are fishy, then they should be dealt with individually, the fishyness of other users does not make Ehud Lesar any less fishy. You are just making some bold statement to excuse fishyness. But this disproves your claim. He reappeared after two years of inactivity to jump right in to revert or remove. You write: But more to the point, there was credible evidence that the suspicions were wrong, that's your opinion, mark it as yours.


 * Answer: You know I can show you many users, from all sides, who jump back into English Wikipedia in fishy circumstances. Oftentimes they become blocked, not always incorrectly.  I did not have a problem with Ehud Lesar being blocked for being "fishy".  It only became a problem when there was sufficient grounds to conclude that they were not a sock, and the block was not overturned.  This is not merely my opinion; it was the considered opinion of ArbCom, leading them to overturn the block without finding fault.  A little bit of trust then would have avoided the time wasted.

You claim : There are many instances of AA battles which I never saw nor participated in. I said major, not every battle. Let's exclude the current NK article, that would be everything surrounding it. Also, some form of involvement by you on so-called Armenian terror is where you've shown particular interest too. You saved WhiteCat's list of ASALA attacks by working on it, then when Grandmaster, other users, and the user who ran two dozen different socks launched that exposition of Armenian terror, you were also indirectly involved. Eric Feigl is one example, your vote on Weems' RFD was another. Note that you failed to reply to Dominic then. Also, from what I gather from another user, you did discuss with Grandmaster privately about those articles. Also of relevance is the evidence from the Russian mailing list that was prepared off-Wiki! About the Ottoman takeover, whether your intention was to add that on Wikisource is not that important... what is more interesting is that you found that particular news of the time to add on Wikisource, which was news about Armenian terror and the same source that those users who used those sockpuppets expanded on that same article. Don't forget that you deny biases, my point here is that you are biased leaning to one side of the conflict, not that you did anything which could justify RfC. Of course except for having blocked me, when at the time of the block there was sufficient evidence that you were taking Grandmaster's side, which made you an involved admin. But those are not all, there are many other tiny examples, like your working on the article of the major think-thank in Turkey aiming at denying the Armenian Genocide and presenting them as terrorists, or other things like when you requested the merging or redirect of an Armenian historic place currently in Turkey to its current article of the current city in Turkey.

Regarding your claim on August Carrière; there is nothing fishy about researching, what is fishy though is that you always find your way researching through material supporting Grandmaster. Let's post the content of your article on August Carrière : Auguste Carrière (Luneray, 1838–1902) was an orientalist, historian and professor. You were at the time Admin and Arbitrator, you could (I hope) not have been unaware that the article of course qualified for speedy deletion. And regarding your comment on Nishkid64, frankly, I don't know how he found it. But let's make an educated guess; he locked the article and an Armenian user might have shown him to get his sympathy. But it does not seem that it changed anything, as Marshal was blocked as well as the Diamond Apex, were they not? As for your comment on him appearing to have a second thought... John, it is clear to me why he removed it, it appeared that he was picking at you and he might have found his own comment a little bit childish. Was he also watching my Wikisource contributions? I don't see any evidence of that, do you know something I don't?


 * Answer: I have created many articles that a could be speedy deleted if an admin was so inclined. I only cared about Auguste Carrière sufficiently to put together a basic stub.  Maybe one day I will read more about this controversy.
 * I doubt that my research always supports Grandmaster, but can't contest that easily. I appreciate that you find it fishy, but all you should conclude from it is that Grandmaster and I often discuss topics and share sources.  I am accountable here for my actions, and I do not get involved in every major dispute.  If I provide a list of the major disputes which I have not been involved in, would you start to trust me?
 * ''With regards to Articles for deletion/Samuel Weems and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenia: The Secrets of a "Christian" Terrorist State, we should have an article about this topic, and I have a slight preference for a bio rather than an article about the book because the content of the book is of less interest than the author.
 * As you will recall, I wrote UN genocide exhibit removed and put on hold after Turkey objects (please note the objection on the talk page), I created Faiz El-Ghusein and I transcribed Martyred Armenia (with user:Jack Merridew). I don't understand why you continue to assume I am anything but supportive of Armenia on this issue and those around it.

Regarding your last reply, you wrote : had given up on talking rationally with you. Shall I remind you again that you blocked me at the time where there was enough evidence that you were too involved to block me? Also, the accusions I made regarding Borders of Azerbaijan were direct and the material added was some obscure source which was first brought by Malikbek, remember? He was brought during the Ehud Lesar case. The thing you never explained also was how you found Kangarli's obscure source pushed by a nationalist group who have claims and ambitions of uniting Northern Iran with Azerbaijan?

I hope you will answer my comment about Divot, do you agree now that Divot's version was not really original research and that he was not the one who removed it at the time you accused him?


 * Answer: Absolutely not. Divot's edit is original research; in that edit he is trying to discredit reliable sources with his own research, asserting that the document did not exist.  He used a primary source, and he used it incorrectly.  As yet, there has not been a reliable source which says this document does not exist.
 * He had removed it many times previously, and was continuing to assert that the document didnt exist. I told him that his assertions were wrong, yet he continued.  He should have researched it some more, in which case he would have found that the document did exist.

You also write about the paraphrasing from one source : Would you please provide evidence of this. One example was brought during the last election..., if you want another, Baku Polytechnicum is another example. Note that you also wrote : 1887 in Baku, Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan? In 1887? You use one source and then retrieve that info to write an article. If that was about an uncontroversional fact then okay, but for something which involves history?


 * Answer: ''With regards to Baku Polytechnicum, my text was not a paraphrase of any source. My revision consisted of the introductory sentence, two sentences lifted from Azerbaijan_State_Oil_Academy with cn added, and another sourced fact.  I believe you are taking issue with this last sentence, where the source says
 * "In December 12.1920 National Education Committee announces special decree about the foundation of the institute. The decree stated that, in connection with the foundation of Baku Polytechnical Institute Baku Polytechnicum was liquidated and its teachers' staff was to be free from their duties."
 * and my text says:
 * "In December 12, 1920 the National Education Committee announced a special decree stating that Baku Polytechnicum was liquidated and its teachers' staff were to be free from their duties."
 * I have not (yet) seen a copy of this special degree, however many sources reproduce this same summary in Azeri, Russian and English, with very little variation in the wording. It would have been inappropriate to put it in quotes as it is not an exact quotation from the special decree, but I would welcome any improvements in how this is presented.
 * With regards to describing 'Baku' as 'Azerbaijan' in 1887, I think that is the easiest way to inform the reader where it is, as most people won't know where Baku is. However I have now changed the prose to explicitly indicate that it was under Russian rule at the time of establishment.  There is so much history missing.  All of our articles which mention Baku Polytechnicum focus on the way it was terminated rather than the years it existed.

Also, I do not wish to continue elsewhere, we're both adults and there is no problem here, is there? Both of us seem at a stage of concluding our reply and the election is coming to its end. Let's continue and finish what remains to be said here so that all those voters during 2008, who thought that there was some sort of ethnic block voting without the slightest sign of rationality behind those opposes, understand that there were understandble concerns.

I am ready to close this chapter and move on if you accept that you might be biased (knowingly or unknowingly) by leaning on one side of the conflict. - Fedayee (talk) 04:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Answer: We both may have a selection bias.
 * I choose to get involved in a dispute on occasions where I know enough to get involved, which typically means both sides have been already fighting for weeks, allowing me to research the dispute.
 * You see me getting involved in your own topical area, and you take offense at times when I have an opposing view to your own, do something on Wikisource which worries you, or when I make a minor mistake on Wikipedia which can be easily corrected.
 * Would you be less concerned if I was voluntarily placed under the restrictions of the AA and AA2 case?
 * Do you want me to not edit AA topics at all? It would not bother me in the slightest.

Apologies for the late reply, hectic week. Again, you have failed to provide any evidence of the existence of an Armenian mailing list. One even strongly plays against you. While the ratio of involved new Azeri users vs blocked is very high, the ratio between new Armenian users vs blocked is almost zero. Had there been any off-Wiki Armenian coordination we'd simply expect to observe a similar ratio between both. Making the same mistakes as getting blocked for each new account strongly suggests a lack of coordination.

Regarding block voting, you are giving undue weight to this particular block voting. What is the difference, for instance, if Lar was campaigning and sent emails to influential members to vote for you then? Does it only become block when someone can tag ethnic motivation?

Regarding Ehud Lesar's case, I don't think citing the Arbcom conclusion supports you. You had suggested meatpuppeting to excuse that account at the time, remember? You had in fact no way of dismissing the fishyness described so you resorted to the meatpuppeting excuse. Also, shall I remind you what other arbitration case was moving forward during the Ehud Lesar case and which has shown that it was practically impossible to prove without any reasonable doubt that two users are the same without a CU confirmation? In fact, other things during the Ehud Lesar proceeding have suggested that the case was not even serious. For instance the wording, which at the time had considerable votes, was in the effect that Ehud Lesar was not Adil Baguirov, not that there was not enough evidence. Second, it claimed not only this but that there was no connection between both. The arbitrator at the time who criticised that wording preferred to not even provide a position. Second, another arbitrator from his comment has shown that he was not even voting for the proposed wording, when he specified that he does not think they are the same... while the wording was beyond that and included any connection. In fact, given the existence of the English mailing list, we know now that the claim that they are not connected is very unlikely when there was considerable evidence of at least meatpuppeting, which you were forced to suggest yourself.

You reply : I have created many articles that could be speedily deleted if an admin was so inclined. How can you justify creating articles which can be speedily deleted? With regards to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Weems and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenia: The Secrets of a "Christian" Terrorist State, we should have an article about this topic,... does not change the fact that Dominic had provided evidence that he was self-published and that there was no significant evidence of notability. You have offered no answer to him. Articles should not be kept according to we should have an article about this topic, it should be kept when its existence can be supported by the policies and guidelines we process.

Regarding Faiz El-Gusein and Martyred Armenia, why would you bring that up? You did that during the 2008 elections, are you to claim the timing was a coincidence?

Regarding Divot's edit, I clarified that and you choose not to answer to it but you reply by maintaining your position. First you did not address the fact that you reverted him by claiming he was removing it in the talkpage, while he did not at the time. Secondly, the claim that it was adopted implies a voting process was claimed by the Azeri media... his addition clarifying that was not original research. Thirdly he added that the journal of the house has no information about that and provided a link to the relevant material. Both versions were not encyclopedic, while the version you've reverted to was the most inaccurate as it made a claim of an adopted document which was plain inaccurate and without attributing the claim. You have never addressed that but resorted to claiming that Divot's edit was not acceptable without addressing the fact that the version to which you have reverted to was even less acceptable.

About Baku Polytechnicum, sorry but you missed my point completely. My point was that I have observed a tendency from your part to create articles which are charged and deal with a controversial subject by using a single source. Anyone doing that is forced to paraphrase the info since anything he can write would be retrieved by that single source. By doing such, you can't do anything other than providing the thesis of the author from whom you are copying from.

On your conclusion, your reply was unsatisfying. Tagging that as a selection bias does nothing to justify the observed problems. The behaviour of the most ruthless POV pusher can also be explained by a selection bias.

Regarding my involvement, I have never claimed to not be biased. After all, I am an Armenian and interested in those subjects. My possible bias, more than useful, is countered by the Azeri users. You on the other hand denied any bias and that was the difference. And if you think that I want you to be restricted from AA and AA2 articles, sorry to say that but you have entirely missed the boat. The only thing I wanted was for you to admit possible bias without any excuses by attributing it to some sort of selection bias. Are you ready to do that? Note that a simple glimpse of your block log from the beginning to the election of 2008 would show that nearly all blocks relevant to the AA case were one sided and that a very considerable part of your use of the blocking tool concerned the AA matters. - Fedayee (talk) 06:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)