== Azerbaijan-Armenia-Iran-Turkey ==

'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Khodabandeh14|Khodabandeh14]] ([[User talk:Khodabandeh14|talk]]) '''at''' 09:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===

<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->

*{{userlinks|Khodabandeh14}}, ''filing party''

*{{userlinks|Orartu}}

*{{userlinks|saygi1}}

*{{userlinks|Ilgar Khankishiyev}}

*{{userlinks|Iksus2009}}

*{{userlinks|Kurdo777}}

*{{userlinks|Ebrahimi-amir}}

*{{userlinks|Cekli829}}

*{{userlinks|Emperyan}}

*{{userlinks|Supermæn}}

*{{userlinks|AnBinava}} ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AnBinava]) (yes User has one contribution which is a vote)

*{{userlinks|Goktr001}}

*{{userlinks|NovaSkola}}

*{{userlinks|Atabəy}}

*{{userlinks|Neftchi}}

<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orartu&diff=prev&oldid=454849569] (user Orartu notified)

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saygi1&diff=prev&oldid=454849641] (user saygi1 notified)

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ilgar_Khankishiyev&diff=prev&oldid=454850882] (user Ilgar Khankishiyev notified)

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ebrahimi-amir&diff=prev&oldid=454853372] (user Ebrahimi Amir notified)

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIksus2009&action=historysubmit&diff=454853291&oldid=394190169] (user Iksus2009 notified)

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cekli829&diff=prev&oldid=454860069] (user Cekli829 notified)

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emperyan&diff=prev&oldid=454930419] (user Emperyan notified)

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAnBinava&action=historysubmit&diff=454931733&oldid=454930576] (user AnBinava notified)

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Goktr001&diff=prev&oldid=454931227] (user Goktr001 notified)

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Superm%C3%A6n&diff=prev&oldid=454931037] (user Supermæn notified)

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NovaSkola&diff=prev&oldid=454978960] (user NovaSkola is made aware)

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atab%C9%99y&diff=prev&oldid=455097979] (user Atabəy is notified)

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neftchi&diff=prev&oldid=455098062] (user Neftchi is notified)

;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried

<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->

*[[WP:ARBAA]]

*[[WP:ARBAA2]]

=== Statement by Khodabandeh14 ===

Dear Arbcomm Members,<br/>

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

Here are just a few amongst many that has occurred recently:

<br/>

1)

<br/>

I can also point out to massive voting due to nationalistic reasons here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flag_of_South_Azerbaijan]

Meatpuppetting like this had already banned some of the users once: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ebrahimi-amir].

<br/>. '''Please note [[User:AnBinava]] has only one contribution and that is a single vote in here:'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flag_of_South_Azerbaijan]. This is clear giveaway. Similar patten with [[User:Superm%C3%A6n]], [[User:Goktr001]] and [[User:Emperyan]] who just happened to showup and vote. [[User:NovaSkola]] also is the same issue (showing up and voting).

2)

*{{userlinks|Orartu}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Orartu]

**[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azarbaijani_Kurds&action=historysubmit&diff=454559357&oldid=454558928] “Please don't write your dreams .Here is not dreams' book.Azerbaijan belongs to Azerbaijani people not Kurds”

**"Persian people's writings about Iran are not neutral. Bring western sources”[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Farah_Pahlavi&diff=prev&oldid=454720093]

**[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Orartu/Azerbaijani_Genocide_in_Iran] (user claims Assyrians, Kurds and Pahlavi dynasty committed Genocide based on weblogs and partisan non-English articles)

**User warned by others. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Orartu#Categories] "Do not add categories accusing people of perpetrating genocide unless there are reliable sources cited in the article that say that. It is an extremely serious accusation, and must be backed up with sourcing. Please read WP:V as well. LadyofShalott 13:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)"

2)

<br/>

*{{userlinks|Iksus2009}}

**“I hope the US and Israel bomb Iran sometime soon. Not because I hate Persians or Iran. I just think it would be good to bring some humility to Persian chauvinism”[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANizami_Ganjavi&action=historysubmit&diff=394092832&oldid=394082298]]

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

<br/>

3)

<br/>

*{{userlinks|Ilgar Khankishiyev}}

**[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ilgar_Khankishiyev]]. Adds bogus numbers from nationalistic websites to various non-Azeri speaking cities claiming them 100% Azeri. But in his edit title, uses the racist statement: “Persian Vandalizm?”. A look at his source that he had spammed numerous articles with should be sufficient ground for banning in my opinion.

5)

<br/>

*{{userlinks|saygi1}}

**Which I suspect is the same as this user: [[User:Agasalim]] (simiular messagee on talkpage and writing style) and ultimately goes back to this user: [[User:AdilBaguirov]] (in AA1 and banned for a year) who incidentally was the founder and head of a lobbyist organization (USAN) mentioned recently by wikileaks: [http://azerireport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2926&Itemid=53]. The lobbyist organization was setup exactly to advance the government of Azerbaijan’s position in propaganda and now obviously affecting Wikipedia. Please note this as well: [http://azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/ai143_folder/143_articles/143_wikipedia.html] where the head of the lobbyist organization[http://www.usazeris.org/] mentions using wikipedia . I am convinced based on pattern and behaviour (and style of writing and arguing) that Sayig1 is that user (given his quotes from USAN and his expertise in Wikipedia in no time). Either way, Wikipedia has been a target for lobbyist group (as the Russian mailing-list mentioned below shows) and one needs an effective mechanism to deal with this issue, since by nature, lobbying for a cause is diametrically opposed to neutrality.

**Some violations [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azerbaijani_American]] which are more like [[WP:NPA]]. 1) “if you and your friend (or anyone else who decides to suddenly pop up to play a bad cop, a meat or a straw man) stop your bad faith edits and stop removing that info while unilaterally placing an unsubstantiated so-called "dispute" tag.” 2) “And once again, for a genuine dispute to be, one has to articulate what he is "disputing" with facts and references, not just throwing a bunch of accusations and bring in his "friends" to revert and basically edit war.”. Also violation of [[WP:synthesis]] (despite repeated talkpage request mentioning this) stating the various opinions of Azeri officials quoted in VOA, UCLA or etc. as the opinion of these news organizations.

6)

{{userlinks|Ebrahimi-amir}} and {{userlinks|cekli829}}

*Both were banned for nationalistic edit warring and meatpuppetting. Ebrahimi-Amir comes back and re-inserts the same sources (which are quoting nationalistic sources) without discussion (which was the condition for him to not get banned again). Even in Turkish Wikipedia, any mention of Iranian origin of Medes was removed by users {{User|Ebrahimi-amir}}) and {{User|cekli829}} (showing disagreement with mainstream scholarly opinion and claiming the Medes as Turks)[http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tart%C4%B1%C5%9Fma:Medler]

:[http://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tart%C4%B1%C5%9Fma:Medler&limit=500&action=history There do not exist:)] --►[[User:Cekli829|'''<font face="AzPresident"><font color="blue">Safir</font> <font color="red">yüzüklü</font> <font color="green">Cekli</font></font>''']]^{[[User talk:Cekli829|mesaj]]} 09:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

7)

<br/>

{{userlink|Atabəy}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive88#Atab.C9.99y] (note user was just sanctioned recently in May 2011 after wasting tremendous time in a talkpage by simply denying mainstream scholarly [[WP:RS]] sources)

I had already reported him for Arbitration enforcement. Off-line evidence has also been sent. It should be note that the 2010 Russian list had messages from the same author. Current problem in [[Azerbaijani Americans]] as well as [[anti-turkism]]. Several other ethnic-nationalist related articles can also be mentioned. I would like to note that the user has been sanctioned many times and this shows the ineffectiveness of the current system. How many chances do people get? I would like to draw attention to this sort of inflammatory comment: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAnti-Turkism&action=historysubmit&diff=454962520&oldid=454638496]. Indeed how many times does the community have to deal with this? See also Third Statement by Khodabandeh[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Third_Statement_by_Khodabandeh] where I have mentioned that the user in Turkish wikipedia has gotten rid of any mention of Armenian church (something that would not occur in Russian Wikipedia). I would also like to draw attention to this comment: ". There is no conclusive study which says that Sumerians were not related to Turks, when linguistic similarities between Sumerian and Turkic vocabularies do exist. So your case that anybody claiming similarity between Sumerians and Turks must be discarded, simply does not hold water." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAnti-Turkism&action=historysubmit&diff=455072108&oldid=454998079] . How does Arbcomm expect me to even reason with such weird theories? (note these users usually link up fringe websites such as these which has wrong words, wrong pronounciations and wrong etymologies)[http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi37.htm][http://www.polatkaya.net/Part-2_Sumerian_Turkish.html][http://arutkural.tripod.com/sumstudies/sum-as-arch-tamil.htm]

8)

{{userlink|neftchi}}

The user simply reverts on some topics without discussion. However, I would like to draw attention to this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sumqayit&action=historysubmit&diff=455051866&oldid=454514289]. (he claims it is "sourced" but it is not). Furthermore, as shown in the talkpage [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sumgait_pogrom], what he claims to be "sourced" is actually an official position of the government of Azerbaijan. Similarly, we can see such nationalist comments as these: "If this flag isnt allowed then the Kurdish flag should also be removed for the same reason. Why this double standard against ethnic Azerbaijanis?"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FFlag_of_South_Azerbaijan&action=historysubmit&diff=455064088&oldid=455061006]. I have explained to the user that [[WP:RS]] sources are needed for a flag (which exists for Kurdish flag but not for that article). Bad faith assumptions: ""Funny how suddenly "Lezgi" based accounts pop up and start editing this page, an example is this new user who suspiciously supports everything Yerevenci mentioned."" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALezgistan&action=historysubmit&diff=451745823&oldid=451699548]

<br/>

9)

<br/>

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

</br>

Consequently, I am suggesting an additional addenum based on the experience of Russian Wikipedia to AA1 and AA2 to hopefully avoid further Arbcomms. We can either make another arbcomm (which will include a longer list including some from the former AA1 and AA2, including formal evidence of the Russian/English Wikipedia list, and waste the communities time) or I suggest we use the experience of Russian Wikipedia. Due to nationalistic upbringings and the increase usage of English, the problem from users of these regions will only increase in English Wikipedia. However, in Russian Wikipedia, '''after 30 member Azerbaijani nationalist Wikipedia list was found off-line''' (with some of the users from that list active in English Wikipedia and complete mass voting), the admins setup a committee of expert admins/users not from the region to decide on each controversial matter. [http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%97%D0%B0%D1%8F%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6/%D0%A3%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B3%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BC%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%84%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B0#.D0.A0.D0.B5.D1.88.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.B8.D0.B5]

[http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%9A_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D1%83/%D0%90%D1%80%D0%BC%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%84%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%82]

Incidentally the archives of the Russian list are here: [http://ananun.am/] [http://vs.ananun.am/]. Again some of the faces on that list are active in English Wikipedia.

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

*[[User:Folantin]]

*[[User:Dbachmann]] (he can be abrasive at times, but equal opportunity abrasive and once he reads the material, has excellent decision making capabilities. This has made him my faviorate neutral user on topics.)

*[[User:Kansas Bear]]

*[[User:Dougweller]]

*[[User:Golbez]]

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

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

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

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

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

<br/>

'''As experience has shown, banning users and limiting their account functions has not really helped'''. They resurface again. But once matters on controversial items are decided (based on scholarly sources and correspondence with expert scholars in the field), then that would be the end of an issue. In this way, the Russian Wikipedia has succeeded in decreasing and virtually eradicating nationalist bickering (in AA related items) while the English Wikipedia’s method has failed. The problem is not one or two users, but complete nationalistic mythology and nationalistic cruft being thought at an early age in some of these countries (e.g. in Turkey where even Kurdish children must chant : "Happy is he who can say he is a Turk" or the this from Government Embassy [http://www.azembassy.it/browse.php?lang=eng&page=0002] where the history starts with Summerians, Akkads and Zoroastrianism becomeing Turkish.) For an excellent critique and exposition of nationalistic rewriting of history in Transcaucasia, see: Victor A. Shnirelman (2001): ‘The value of the Past: Myths, Identity and Politics in Transcaucasia’, Osaka: National Musuem of Ethnology"). So the problem is at a state level which educates new minds.

<br/>.

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

===Second Statement by Khodabandeh14===

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

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

was the same as 2010, if not greater. The mechanism in Russian wikipedia encourages positive participation and in the end, it will reduce the waste time of the

wikipedia community considerably. For example, massive voting has no effect on conflict nationalistic items in the Russian-Wikipedia mechanism. Or the same articles

are not constantly messed with, once final decision is made by involved admins/users on its controversial issue. Any vandalism of that decision results in severe sanction

and ultimate banning.

*Two of the countries (Armenia/Azerbaijan) are in a state of '''semi-war'''. Recent poll shows: "In response to the question to name countries that they consider as enemy to Azerbaijan 91.8% of the respondents named Armenia, 20.4% said Iran, 16.4% said Russia, 7.4% pointed at US and only 1% said Turkey. "[http://tert.am/en/news/2011/10/01/azer/]

The situation might not be better say between Kurds and Turkey. So based on these statistics, one can agree that a good percentage of the average users from these countries

have been (unfortunately) influenced by state or political propaganda. Heck just look at the people that voted above, and the azerbaijani wikipedia. Everything historically Armenian and a great deal of Iranian (Medes, Atropatene, Javanshir, Mihranids, Parthians) are protayed as Turks (the Armenian ones are portrayed as Caucasian Albanians which is then turned into Turkish) in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia. The same users then come on this Encyclopaedia to engange in nationalistic editing. Currently, English

Wikipedia lacks a mechanism to deal with this.

*War introduces propaganda and falsification. So the problem is at a national level and consequently, it cannot be confined to a few users. A quick example: "Scholars should be on guard when using Soviet and post-Soviet Azeri editions of Azeri, Persian, and even Russian and Western European sources printed in Baku. These have been edited to remove references to Armenians and have been distributed in large numbers in recent years. When utilizing such sources, the researchers should seek out pre-Soviet editions wherever possible. Robert Hewsen. “Armenia: A Historical Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001, p. 291".

*All these conflicts manifest themselves in approximately 50-100 articles, with old users resurfacing and new users being brought to various off-line wiki-list (example given above).

*Large number of new users come (some resurfaced accounts) and violate the same sanctions, thus wasting more time for the community. The obvious rationale. Why be a sanction account? Just create a new user name and use 3rr instead.

*The discovery of the massive off-line wikipedia email list was not considers in AA1 and AA2 (part of this list has to do with ENglish Wikipedia). Furthermore, the vote result above shows such a list exists.

*Most importantly, users (old timers) do not have time to waste on constatly reporting misbehaviour (like the massive vote canvassing mentioned above).

*I would like to mention some of these articles with constant ethno-ntionalist bickering right now:

**[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lezgistan]

**[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Turkism]

**[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gandzasar_monastery]

**[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azerbaijani_people]

**[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azerbaijani_American]

**[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Turkmens]

**[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Karabakh]

**[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Tuscumbia]

**[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malibeyli_and_Gushchular_Massacre]

**[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:G%C3%BClabl%C4%B1]

**[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dashalty]

**Note an innocent article [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Osroene]] about 220 A.D. being a battle of nationalistic editing.

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

That means that ethno-nationalist bickering which wastes tremendous time and effort can be stopped effectively using their methodology. No more wasting the

communities time for 5 or 10 or 50 years on the same subject. However, the English Wikipedia constantly brings about new users and ips to make the same old edits. The off-line wikipedia coordination list greatly wastes the time of the community. Why would I want to waste time in Wikipedia with such an atmosphere of falsehood (specially with relation to AA topics?)

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

efforts have their primary goal in rewriting history. The Russian wikipedia mechanism stops this. However, to know that lobbyists are rewriting history in Wikipedia (specifically

in Azerbaijan related articles) is greatly discouraging and induces a very discouraging atmosphere for editing. It is a dark negativity cloud which the Russian wikipedia mechanism on these selected regional articles stops. I ask the Arbcomm members to clearly see this.

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

can partially see this mechanism introduced here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Caucasian_Albania]

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

===Third Statement by Khodabandeh===

Dear Arbcomm Member,

<br/>

*The list was active till at least 2010 [http://ananun.am/] (note English articles are discussed in this list several times and a head of the lobbyist group has written some of the messages). The other list you saw was only partial version till 2007 (or 2009?) (the rest did not seem to have been obtained). However, the voting above shows there is another list.

*As per failure, check the sanction list in 2011. Yet there is so many articles in AA topics which are currently the subject of nationalistic bickering. Please note that no good-intentioned user who has come in touch with such topics wants to waste time and constantly write reports, and argue the same thing in the same article 100x. Please put yourself in the shoes of the users that have had to deal with this. For example writing a report like this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=427237989#Atab.C9.99y] took me hours in order for the admins to finally do something (which was a very temporary fix). And how many oppurtunities do misbehaved users get to push POV?

*Also per failure. Why should authors who use scholastic sources waste time writing hour long reports about misbehaviour? The misbehaviour has to do ultimately with POV pushing. Users are not happy that their biased propaganda POV is not in the article, and consequently misbehave. In the Russian mechanism, a dispute based on content is solved within days. In the ENglish mechanism, it is likely never solved (see below). But the POV pushing (on contensted issues) can easily be solved by the Russian mechanism which will solve the problem of writing hour long reports about misbehaviour of users. Do you really expect me to write reports on each of the individual users (some new accounts created) that voted in the above? Or do you think lobbyist groups work in good faith? How come the current mechanism cannot stop all these new accounts and lobbyist groups? Because, users do not have the time to write hour long reports (and then see new accounts pop up the next month pushing the same POV). This is exactly what is mentioned by lobbyist organizations here: "In "wiki world", it seems that the person who prevails '''the most vigorously''' is the one most likely to '''win out'''."[http://azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/ai143_folder/143_articles/143_wikipedia.html] (user is active in the 2010 list).

*Dear Sir,. Do you really expect that people who work and have jobs; want to waste hours writing long reports about misbehaviour (then see a whole set of new ips and users comeout pushing the same POV) or do you think lobbyists with numerous resources (ips, new user names and lists) will "win out"? I would put my bet on the lobbyist (since non-involved users from the region do not care) and they have more resources. I am not going to waste time writing hour long reports about each misbehaviour to see new ips and users come pushing the same POV. Rather, my responsibility is foremost to my family, and not honesty for Wikipedia. But the Russian Mechanism will help normal users become equal with lobbyist/POV pushers by letting a group of expert admins (not from the region) make a decision on a contested topic.

*I have shown you proof of lobbyist in AA (At least two of the most active users), and host of new accounts, and mailing lists. The current mechanism is still in favor of the latter and not the normal user who does not have hours or mailing lists. No one wants to waste time (hours) writing misbehaviour reports and asking for third opinions (which never usually comes, and is seldom listened to). That is why there is tens of heated discussion page (with many users being sanctioned and many of them misbehaving)(see examples above), and finally no results. I guess the lobbyists think they will win out (which although hurts the integrity of Wikipedia, it is not the real world in the end, and the dynamics of world events is extremly non-linear and unpredictable).

*I think you should also seek the suggestion of established non-regional users like Dbachmman, and see what he thinks of the Russian mechanism. The Russian mechanism has now controlled the AA bickering near zero (thanks to the responsible admins there) while the English wikipedia simply turns off the honest users. --[[User:Khodabandeh14|Khodabandeh14]] ([[User talk:Khodabandeh14|talk]]) 05:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully. --[[User:Khodabandeh14|Khodabandeh14]] ([[User talk:Khodabandeh14|talk]]) 05:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

**ps. For example, lets look here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandzasar_monastery]. The nationalist-POV pusher users in English wikipedia believe they can get away denying the Armenian heritage of the monastery. Due to lack of uninvolved admins/users (and sometimes lack of expertise), the nationalist POV pushers have a free hand to be vigorous and admins would naively think it is a "content dispute"! Just look at the number of hours certain users have to waste [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandzasar_monastery] arguing with likely lobbyists, and there is no result in the end (it will come up again and again). The topic has no experts involved obviously, and a non-involved non-expert person would think the POV pushers have a point. In the Russian Wikipedia they would not dare [http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%80] to pull this cruft as they would be banned (expert admins would get involved and would resolve the matter). Indeed there is a separate article [http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%B2_%D0%90%D0%B7%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5#cite_note-.D0.A8.D0.BD.D0.B8.D1.80.D0.B5.D0.BB.D1.8C.D0.BC.D0.B0.D0.BD-13-2] documenting the distortion (exposing the politics behind the denial of the Armenian heritage of the monastery). However in Turkish wikipedia, one of the most sanctioned users in English Wikipedia (Atabəy) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Atab%C9%99y] makes an article [http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandzasar_Manast%C4%B1r%C4%B1] erases any name of Armenian for the monastery and conflates geographical term with ethnic terms (things that only a careful and attentive user would know). The same in Azeri wikipedia [http://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C9%99nc%C9%99s%C9%99r_monast%C4%B1r%C4%B1]. Persian wikipedia is correct (like the Russian) [http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B5%D9%88%D9%85%D8%B9%D9%87_%DA%AF%D9%86%D8%AC%E2%80%8C%D8%B3%D8%B1]. As I said, this POV pushing would not fly for a second in Russian wikipedia due to the mechanism mentioned. In English wikipedia, with current limitations and lack of neutral and non-regional expert committee, normal users have to waste hours with new ips/lobbyists, and accomplish nothing in the end.--[[User:Khodabandeh14|Khodabandeh14]] ([[User talk:Khodabandeh14|talk]]) 05:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

===Fourth statement by Khodabandeh14===

Quick statement on the list. An Arbcomm member asked for a list. Incase you wanted one related to English Wikipedia , there is a lot from the 2010 Russian list [http://www.google.com/search?q=English+wikipedia+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fananun.am%2F&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images]. Here is a message on why John Vanderbergh is not currently involved in AA Topics in Arbcomm [http://ananun.am/azwikisru/td/af1979097611996c.html]. Here is an example of 2009 message [http://ananun.am/azwikisru/td/a7fad3255dda6b1f.html] mentioning negatively the current active [[User:Takabeg]]. Note there are active users [[User:Brandmeister]]) from that list with the same wikipedia name, but others have a different wikipedia name (one within this Russian list is mentioned and I sent information to Arbcomm several months back on that). By the way, these are just the English language stuff of the Russian list mentioning English Wikipedia. The list probably has more in Russian (but I am not fluent in Russian) mentioning English Wikipedia. --[[User:Khodabandeh14|Khodabandeh14]] ([[User talk:Khodabandeh14|talk]]) 07:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

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

===Fifth Statement by Khodabande14===

I would like note that in the current Azeri wikipedia, [[Caucasian Albanians]], [[Medes]], [[Summerians]]( it mentions that "many scientists consider them proto-Turks"),[[Parthians]], [[Scythians]], [[Sarmatians]]..etc are mentioned as Turkish groups. Even the [[Gutian people]] is mentioned as a "Tarixi türk dövlətləri" (historic Turkish government). Same with [[Lullubi]], [[Cimmerians]], [[Manneans]], As noted, the Azerbaijani republic embassy mentions Sumerians, Akkadians, ZOroastrianism as Turkish [http://www.azmissioncoe.org/eng/about.shtml][http://www.azembassy.it/browse.php?lang=eng&page=0002][http://www.azembassy.nl/?options=content&id=27&pid=2][http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.azembassy.at/en/conf_history.htm&sa=U&ei=eUCUToLLFPTI0AGk4-23Bw&ved=0CBgQFjAE&usg=AFQjCNF4iltwv6B1imH2cTfnVqzsoWbHFg].

Consequently, the number of nationalists produced by the state is significant, and given the lobbyists behind the scene, and off-line group lists mentioned, the Russian wikipedia developed a good mechanism to suppress wasting the time of normal users who do not have hours to make reports or fight new ips/ids (many of them resurfacing of banned users). If Arbcomm members can put themselves in others shoes, then I wonder if they like doing this for couple for couple months (after learning the history of the region)? How long before they leave the project after numerous ids/ips come and push the same POV? Thank you. --[[User:Khodabandeh14|Khodabandeh14]] ([[User talk:Khodabandeh14|talk]]) 13:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

===Sixth Statement by Khodabandeh14===

'''As an example, user Orartu canvassed votes from the Azerbaijani wikipedia [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/az/w/index.php?title=Vikipediya:K%C9%99nd_meydan%C4%B1&diff=prev&oldid=1817382] in the following article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flag_of_South_Azerbaijan]. Note the translation of the text: "Please vote on this".''' Now if there was an effective mechanism like the Russian wikipedia, then the first thing to note is what [[WP:RS]] sources mention such a flag? Instead it is users by voting from off-line wikilists and nationalist controlled wikipedias (see fifth statement above) who get to determine what is correct or not. Such massive voting cannot be revealed everytime by useres trying to dig into other wikipedias or finding off-line wiki-lists. Also how about the hours of reporting such votes to admins? The Russian Wikipedia mechanism again would ensure such abuse does not take place, nor it wastes hours of communities time. --[[User:Khodabandeh14|Khodabandeh14]] ([[User talk:Khodabandeh14|talk]]) 13:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

===Seventh Statement by Khodabandeh14===

I would like to quote Kurdo777 here from Riskers page. "these topics involve complicated abuses/gaming, most admins will not touch them with a 2-foot pole because they appear on surface as content disputes, when in reality it's something else. That though escapes most admins who are not familiar with these subjects, which is why the committee of expert editors/admins from OUTSIDE the region, is the only permanent solution to this problem that is compromising the integrity of Wikipedia as a reliable source. I say this, because this idea has worked on Russian Wikipedia, while the same time-consuming nationalist bickering in this topical area persist on English Wikipedia. Another importnat issue here is the "turn off" factor, meaning that most expert/neutral editors are simply overwhelmed and turned off these topics due to the nationalist bickering , and simply leave these topics and go on with their lives, while the nationalists stay to carry on with their "duty" for their country/lobby group. If there was a mechanism in place to prevent nationalist disruption in this area, that would not happen". Please note that most of the nationalist bickering in many of the topics I listed would not be considered "content dispute" in Russian Wikipedia, since admins there are now aware of what is a "content dispute" and what is a "POV nationalist push". That is why 10+ of topics right now have unresolved disputes while users in Russian wikipedia enjoy contributing to different topics knowing that the nationalist/lobbyists cannot harm the project. In English wikipedia though normal users are left alone against lobbyist efforts and lobbyist created mailing lists. They do not want to waste hours filing reports, and getting nothing accomplished, and then seeing new users/ips pop out of no where doing the same thing. The Russian wikipedia mechanism has stopped this in full and that is why for example, not a single of these nationalist POV pushers dares to touch an article such as Gandzsar monastery. --[[User:Khodabandeh14|Khodabandeh14]] ([[User talk:Khodabandeh14|talk]]) 13:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

===Eight Statement by Khodabandeh14===

I believe I provided sufficient evidence that the current mechanism does not work.

*'''Hours of time''' is wasted reporting users who push POV. Then if sanctions occur, it is usually minor and those users resurface with new ids/ips (evidence provided above). Do you think I should waste hours of my time report the 6 users that were canvassed to vote above? And what will be the result? One day suspension? Or full suspenction (and then these users will come back with new accounts and abuse the system which as shown is a recurrent pattern). If a group of expert admins make a decision on the issue, then it saves tremendous time. If not, then the ethno-nationalist propaganda version usually wins.

*Many of the POV pushers are in a mailing list, making it impossible for decent users to uphold honesty against mass voting and multiple accounts.

*'''There are now currently dozens of article that in conflict''', many of them for months if not years.

*Most of the stuff pushed by the POV pushers are not "content" dispute. They are blatant nationalistic propaganda (e.g. Just right now for example, currently, [[User:Neftchi]] has free time to push the official Azeri government propangda on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sumqayit&action=history], claiming that the massacare of Armenians in Sumgait was instigated by Armenians [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sumqayit&action=historysubmit&diff=455051866&oldid=454514289]. See the actual article here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumgait_pogrom] where this was debunked.)

*The average user does not want to waste hours of time arguing. Please look at his talkpage. I should not waste hours of my time arguing against such user, whereas a group of admins can settle the issue once and for all. See this for example:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Neftchi#Ethnic_cleansing]. This is not just one user, but at least 10x+ of them with such mentality. These are not "content dispute" but POV pushing due to the fact that the current mechanism has failed to severly sanction such users. Do you honestly believe that when such users write: "The first specimen of Azerbaijan mythology is included in works of Herodotus, which were the reflection of people's literary thinking concerning the reasons of collapsing Medes, an ancient Azerbaijan state, and its occupation by Iran" and " The resultant discord mirrors the ancient conflict, which in Azerbaijani mythology is related on the Zoroastrian concept of the dual emanation of Ahura Mazda. Spenta Mainyu is the source of constructive energy, while Angra Mainyu is the source of darkness, destruction, sterility, and death. Notable villains include Div, which always represented as devil or the enemy.". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijani_folklore&oldid=409779958] How can Zoroastrianism become Turkish mythology and be put in the same article with [Book of Dede Korkut]? DO you think these are actually "content disputes"? Or ethno-nationalistic nation building propaganda.

*I showed direct proof ties of some users with lobbyist organizations of Azeri government. These were also sent to Arbcomm a while back and I can resend them. The head of one lobby organization clearly states: ""In "wiki world", it seems that the person who prevails the most vigorously is '''the one most likely to win out'''.""[http://azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/ai143_folder/143_articles/143_wikipedia.html]. The users name appears in the off-line mailinglist (for both English and Russian wikipedia) The current loophole allows for abuse of system. Putting the Russian mechanism has shown that these lobbyist organizations do not win out in Russian wikipedia. That is why virtually all of them became silent after the mechanism was put in place and are inactive. '''English wikipedia should not become a place for ethnic-lobbyist propaganda'''.

*Currently, many articles are problematic, but the list of sanctioned users in 2011 in AA is very minor (although still large, and these are just slaps on the wrist for users who have had multiple bans, and cannot stop the bad behaviour) to what is actually occuring right now in several articles (which is out of hand).

*If a mechanism is setup where a group of non-involved admins/experts from outside the region decide on the issue (and this will break lobbyist propaganda head on), then the problem of ethnic/nationalistic bickering in AA issues will go to zero. If it is not setup, the normal users will simply stay away from such articles (I will for sure), and let dishonesty and propaganda (pushed by lobbyist) win the day. Arbcomm members whose task is minor relative to users who deal with these problems may possibly think that these are "petty content disuputes" while they are actually coordinated propaganda effort (as discovered by the massive 30 group-list in Russian wikipedia which also touches upon English Wikipedia). However, if the Russian Wikipedia mechanism is setup, one user with [[WP:RS]] sources would not be even deterred by 100+ nationalist users who push POV. The proof that such a mechanism is needed is in the results. The Russian mechanism has ended these sort of ethnic bickering where-as many users will attest that the two AA1/AA2 has not stopped the POV pushing in many articles (many articles in this area are currently POV ethnic nationalist dispute, almost all bad behaviours are aresult of these POV pushing).

The Russian mechanism is exactly the addenum that is needed which will complement AA1/AA2, and put an end to the waste of time of average users and the community at large. It was drawn up from similar experience (AA1/AA2) and it has worked wonderfully. If such mechanism is not setup, then obviously lobbyist groups, wikipedia coordination lists and etc., intend to overwhelm normal users in AA English wikipedia. --[[User:Khodabandeh14|Khodabandeh14]] ([[User talk:Khodabandeh14|talk]]) 16:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

*And a side note, normal users have time constraint. I will seriously decide leaving wikipedia for good if a mechanism is not setup to help normal users against government-backed lobbyist propaganda which use multiple accounts, ips, mailing lists and push POV. This is because Wikipedia has not setup the right atmosphere in AA related items for normal users to write articles in. One cannot expect normal users to waste hours of time reporting a fake id that will disappear in a month. Or having endless discussions with nationalist POV pushers. However, I am hopefull that in the end, most users will say enough is enough and a mechanism like the Russian wikipedia will be setup for AA related articles (broadly construed). Even if it does not occur now, it will eventually occur. --[[User:Khodabandeh14|Khodabandeh14]] ([[User talk:Khodabandeh14|talk]]) 16:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

*The AA1/AA2 is simply a '''band-aid''' that punishes bad behaviour once in a while (if necessary reports which take a long time are made). '''But it has not stopped the source''' of the bad behaviour which is lobbying, POV pushing, mailing lists, nationalist bickering and countries which nationalistim/hatred is thought at an early age. Without a neutral third party commision (like that of Russian wikipedia) the problem will continue. Users who do not want to constantly report bad behaviour, POV pushing , etc. simply get turned off and leave. Consequently, the lobbyist group types win which is a double failure. I urge arbcomm members to adopt the Russian model which has stopped the problem. There are now many issues that can be solved by such a proposed commitee. Only POV pushers would be opposed to the mechanism that was setup in Russian wikipedia. Thank you.--[[User:Khodabandeh14|Khodabandeh14]] ([[User talk:Khodabandeh14|talk]]) 22:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

===Ninth Statement===

Here I would like to point out (which was sent to Arbcomm few months back) on what one of the lobbyist for the Azerbaijani government who is currently active in Wikipedia has stated about other groups:

*Also you should be the last person talking about racism, since I can forward that information I sent t--[[User:Khodabandeh14|Khodabandeh14]] ([[User talk:Khodabandeh14|talk]]) 15:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)o Arbcomm to Dbachmann and Folantin which you made the following statements:

**"Come on guys, I hate Armenian infection ever more passionately as many of you do. But there are certain bounds of diplomatic reason and logic in dealing with enemy, «toporniye» approaches result in what Turks are suffering from today with allegations of armocide."

**"Turkic people were always glorious in their history, ruled many kingdoms and were masters of Armenians, Persians, Greeks and others. «Turk is a master of his destiny», the old saying goes."

**"You and others know well that I support tough stance on Armenians, until they leave not only Karabakh but also territories of former Iravan khanate. They have historically proven not to be a trustworthy nation, should always be kept as servant/dependent people, and not allowed to resettle in any other part of Azerbaijan."

These statements which were made by you that were sent to Arbcomm. No action were taken since these are from 2007. So please no crocidle tears about "racism".

Now when I run to such lobbyists and I know their username, is it expected that I act neutrally and assume good faith? The objectives of such users is simply to push POV, not to improve Encyclopaedia. Wikipedia needs a formal mechanism of expert admins like Russian wikipedia so that the main source of the conflict (which is POV pushing which leads to edit wards and other statements) is dried out. --[[User:Khodabandeh14|Khodabandeh14]] ([[User talk:Khodabandeh14|talk]]) 14:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

===Tenth Statement===

*Again I note that this is not about sanctions but rather a supplementary measure for AA1/AA2 to establish a group of neutral admins (outside the region) to resolve many of the ethno-centric related bickering in AA related articles.

*Furthermore the proof of lobbyists, mailing lists, and etc., shows that such committee is needed.

*I urge the admins again to read about the Russian mechanism. The implementation of the Russian mechanism will ultimately will save the community hundreds of hours while making articles reliable. Thank you--[[User:Khodabandeh14|Khodabandeh14]] ([[User talk:Khodabandeh14|talk]]) 15:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

*@Takabeg: No the proposal to develop the Russian mechanism to deal with AA issues in order to stop the dozens of ethnic bickering AA articles from wasting the communities time. It is basically to solve the problem from the root as the Russian wikipedia has done and has basically reduced the AA related conflicts to the minimal level possible --[[User:Khodabandeh14|Khodabandeh14]] ([[User talk:Khodabandeh14|talk]]) 15:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

*'''So in short, I am asking based on all the above reasons for Arbcomm to pass only one measure (forget about sanctioning the users above) which is to formally establish such committee for this problematic AA related area. The Russian wikipedia has solved this problem as I noted.''' I am personally discouraged by the atmosphere of Wikipedia and I will leave if no such mechanism is established. Since I know I am wasting my time bickering with nationalistic POV pushers who would use fake ips, mailing lists and etc. to push POV. Thank you --[[User:Khodabandeh14|Khodabandeh14]] ([[User talk:Khodabandeh14|talk]]) 15:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

===Elevent Statement===

I would like to bring the Arbcomm members attention to this statement after I seeked dispute resolutions through non-involved admins from the region:

"Folantin, instead of pandering to Khodabandeh14's nationalist [[WP:POV]] and attempting to insult me, note that the fact that modern Supreme leader of Iran is ethnic Azeri, does not cease discrimination against that ethnic group in Iran. So claim that just because some ignorant Turkic ruler liked reading Shahnameh, does not exclude the fact that it was professing anti-Turkish feelings at their core. And before calling Khodabandeh14's lengthy [[WP:FORUM]]s on talk pages as sensible writing.."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADbachmann&action=historysubmit&diff=455228116&oldid=455227507]

This is an attack on a nuetral [[User:Folantin]] because the above person is an ethnic lobbyist (I have sent relavent proof to Arbcomm). That is I asked for a 3rd opinion, and instead the user attacks the third opinion party. This user has been sanctioned by numerous Arbcomm measures but the bad behaviour continues. This is not the way Wikipedia can work. Rather if the Russian mechanism is put in place, all such bickering will end as users cannot continously attack and bicker about the final verdict of neutral admins not from the region.--[[User:Khodabandeh14|Khodabandeh14]] ([[User talk:Khodabandeh14|talk]]) 16:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

===Twelfth (and likely Final) Statement===

*Again I will emphasize that I am not asking for a whole new big case. But rather a supplement to AA2 where a group of experts decide on contentious matters due to the fact that users from the region are enganged in nationalistic bickering. Arbcomm just needs to give the verdict for such a group to be established formally. Then the right candidates (such as the ones I proposed) should join the committee.

*'''The Arbcomm did not consder lobbying cases.''' I gave an example. As noted, one of the users [[User:AdilBaguirov]] who was part of the secret Russian/Wikipedia list[http://ananun.am/][http://vs.ananun.am/2007/02/07/504/504/] and AA1, who wrote the following article about wikipedia:" "In "wiki world", it seems that the person who prevails the most vigorously is the one most likely to win out.""[http://azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/ai143_folder/143_articles/143_wikipedia.html] is the head/founder of the lobbyist organization USAN (US Azeri Network) [www.usazeris.org/]. I am very certain the numerous ids I mentioned are just a reincarnation (sayig1/aghasalim being one of them). According to wikileaks:

**[http://www2.azadliq.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8540:wikileaks-what-are-the-activities-of-azeri-diaspora-organizations&catid=347:meqaleen&Itemid=545]

**[http://www.armenianweekly.com/2011/09/20/wikileaks-azeri-turkish-diasporas/]

**It should be noted that USAN (US Azeri Networks) which was formed by Adil Baguirov has the purpose of : “'''to advocate for Azerbaijan’s interests''' with their host government (United States)" [http://www.armenianweekly.com/2011/09/20/wikileaks-azeri-turkish-diasporas/]

*So my question to you Arbcomm commitee members is that are you not concerned with lobbyist organizations with massive amount of money distorting the truth in AA (broadly construed) topics? This is one of the reasons the Russian wikipedia mechanism is excellent as no amount of lobbyist can influence such topics. What does lobbyist mean? It means money from oil rich governments, which means numerous ids,ips and also paid users who do not have an 8-6 job and family to tend too. Or worst, who earn money off writing propaganda for Wikipedia and other places to enhance ethnic interest (by nature which means advocating non-neutrality. Wouldn't be better to have such a mechanism to stop this?

*It is my responsibility and civic wikipedia duty as a user to advocate for the formation of neutral (and not from the region) committee to pass judgments on so called "controversial matter" (which is not controversial but simply POV pushing by lobbyist organizations).

*I have also sent information previously about another lobbyist organization (working for the same government of republic of Azerbaijan).

*As a personal matter, I advocate the rights of groups to join/secede. For example Kurds in Turkey ( I am sure they would secede), Lezgins/Armenians in Azerbaijan (they would secede) and Azeris in Iran (although I am 100% confident in a free vote, the overwhelming majority would stay) should have this right. I am not tied to any government or any group. But I do not like lobbyists (from the A of AIPAC to Z of whatever) who promote ethnicities/groups. Specially, I am concerned about it in Wikipedia which should dry out the root of lobbyist groups by having the right mechanism in place (like Russian wikipedia does).

*If wikipedia does not add this additional supplement, then the lobbyist will be happy. I as a normal user find a site which can be influenced by lobbyism (due to much more resources) in AA topics (broadly construed) as disgusting. I am going to go away if this supplement is not added as I feel wikipedia does not care about honesty and does not take the threat of lobbying seriously. A lobby induced atmosphere is disgusting whether it is in Wikipedia or in Washington DC. --[[User:Khodabandeh14|Khodabandeh14]] ([[User talk:Khodabandeh14|talk]]) 04:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

In the end, I am confident that the Russian mechanism will be adopted, wether it is in AA topics or other nationalist bickering topics. Once it is implemented, it will extend to AA topics and from there, Wikipedia will become a healthy place. I wish I knew Russian instead of English, so I can contribute there instead. But I am very sure that if not now, eventually the Russian mechanism will be adopted. It is a matter of time. --[[User:Khodabandeh14|Khodabandeh14]] ([[User talk:Khodabandeh14|talk]]) 04:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

*The frivilous charges by Sayig1 made me laugh because they are untrue. However, if my charges were untrue, he would have laughed along. But the fact that it was taken seriously exactly shows why Arbitrators should be concerned.

*The problem is lobbying which by nature means POV pushing. As we can see the problems are not solved by AA2, and the Russian mechanism would help deal with the problem greatly. *I am not a lobbyist and I'll be happy to prove that to any admin. However, the last several statements but the previous user shows that there is lobbying going on in Wikipedia and lobbying is being execused as a norm. After the discovery of Russian list (which my name was mentioned in it), I found out that some users are tied to lobbyist groups of foreign governments. This is unacceptable (and simply disgusting) for an Encyclopaedia whose principle should be the spread of knowledge based on neutrality. Also all the information I mentioned are on popular websites (wikileaks, a off-line wikipedia list or etc.). Lobbying by nature means POV pushing (whether in Washington or in Wikipedia). It looks like I am going to be banned for 6 months and as I said, I will not come back because I am not going to be writing for any Encyclopaedia with a lobbyist atmosphere. I do not like classical history to become dirtied by politics. I will make my last edits tommorow, and I am very diasppointed with the arbitrators for not accepting my auggestion. If they did, none of the other problems would occur as all the problems stem from POV pushing. POV pushing is the root of the problems in AA conflicts (broadly construed to include Kurdistan, Iran and Turkey). If there was a formal mechanism of group of neutral admins on topics that have been dragging for ages (and will continue to drag as more regional problems occur), then all this drama would end. Well I will make some more edits before Ocotober 16 and leave for good. I just hope oneday the Russian mechanism is copied to end this nonsense. None of this matters in 10 or 50 or 100 or 10000 years. --[[User:Khodabandeh14|Khodabandeh14]] ([[User talk:Khodabandeh14|talk]]) 04:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by [[User:Orartu]] ===

Dear Arbcomm Members,please notice these user's comments ,he wants to poison the atmosphere against new comers.They accuse users (who do not agree with their views) on nationalism.

*{{userlinks|Kurdo777}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Orartu]

This user has posed unfounded claims against me:

The user who has created this page, appears to be on disruptive ultra-nationalist Pan-Turkist editor, trying to blame the victims of the well-known well-documented Assyrian Genocide and Armenian Genocide by Turkey, for a fictitious genocide against "Turks"... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Genocide_of_Azerbaijani_people_in_Iran]--[[User:Orartu|Orartu]] ([[User talk:Orartu|talk]]) 06:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

*{{userlinks|Khodabandeh14}} distort the Azerbaijani-related articles against Azerbaijanis both in English and (Invalid and non-academic) Farsi wikipedias and he also encourages other users to do same things as he has done (e.g:Here he wanted this user[http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A8%D8%AD%D8%AB_%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%B1:Persia2099], to translate some articles against Republic of Azerbaijan to promote ethnic hatred.He also report the contributions of users of English wikipedia with whom he has different views [http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A8%D8%AD%D8%AB_%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%B1:Persia2099] to admins of non-academic Farsi wikipedia to create fruitless tensions between users there too.He also cannot bring even a neutral source about his edits in Azerbaijani-related articles, but forcibly emphasis on his false claims[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Genocide_of_Azerbaijani_people_in_Iran].I have siad in my user page that I am a female user but these two users [[User:Khodabandeh14]] and [[User:Kurdo777]] intentionally use he instead of she, to humiliate me and my activities.There is also paradox between originality and category in this article[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei], the immigration does not change the originality of a person, but these two users [[User:Kurdo777]] and [[User:Khodabandeh14]] do not pay attention to this paradox and forcibly want to impose their view.They want to propagate the ethnic hatred model of invalid Farsi wikipedia here. --[[User:Orartu|Orartu]] ([[User talk:Orartu|talk]]) 06:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

**Seeking mass canvassing vote is forbidden. Please take a look here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MarshallBagramyan], and here[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flag_of_South_Azerbaijan] I think [[User:Khodabandeh14]] needs warning.He has already sought mass canvassing vote in another Wikipedia [http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A8%D8%AD%D8%AB_%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%B1:Persia2099] for this article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_Azerbaijani_people_in_Iran]--[[User:Orartu|Orartu]] ([[User talk:Orartu|talk]]) 06:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

** Pease take a look at unfounded claims of [[User:Khodabandeh14]] against Azerbaijani people [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Genocide_of_Azerbaijani_people_in_Iran&diff=455211546&oldid=455192279]--[[User:Orartu|Orartu]] ([[User talk:Orartu|talk]]) 06:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

** This usre's [[User:Khodabandeh14]] unfounded claims and threats against other users.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Genocide_of_Azerbaijani_people_in_Iran&diff=455085640&oldid=455085396]--[[User:Orartu|Orartu]] ([[User talk:Orartu|talk]]) 06:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by User:Kurdo777 ===

As mentioned above, the main issue here is the involvement of a lobbyist group headed by Adil Baguirov ([[User:AdilBaguirov]]), which is involved in recurring Azerbaijani nationalists to promote/advertise Azerbaijan's national interests on Wikipedia. This is done through one-day seminars in universities for expat Azerbaijani students, or writing articles in Azerbaijani media teaching people how to get around Wikipedia NPOV/RS rules and use it as a "savvy tool" to promote Azerbaijan to the world.[http://azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/ai143_folder/143_articles/143_wikipedia.html]. The person behind all this, is Adil Baguirov, who is an Azerbaijani lobbyist/oil consultant in the United States, and runs a foreign lobby group in the States, named U.S. Azeris Network (USAN) with millions of dollars at its disposal. [http://www.usazeris.org/] The recruited individuals are then added to a secretive mailing list, and are instructed to take part in edit wars or "fix" AfD votes for the cause of Azerbaijan. (Here is a recent example of obvious Votestacking [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flag_of_South_Azerbaijan&diff=prev&oldid=454609451]) This mailing list, was recently compromised by a former member who exposed these activities by releasing the e-mails in question, and this exposure and subsequent controversy led to a new ArbCom case in Russia Wikipedia which permanently solved this problem by forming an oversight committee for this topical area.

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

=== Statement by User:Eraserhead1===

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

=== Statement by User:NovaSkola ===

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

=== Statement by User:MarshallBagramyan===

I think that Khodabandeh14 has advanced a creative and sound proposal on ensuring the quality of articles in this field. It's quite possible such new measures may have the desired effect of curbing the edits war and keeping the discussions relevant and on-topic.--[[User:MarshallBagramyan|Marshal Bagramyan]] ([[User talk:MarshallBagramyan|talk]]) 16:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by User:Atabəy ===

The case requested by [[User:Khodabandeh14]] (also known as [[User:Nepaheshgar]] in past), attempting to involve all contributors with whom he disagrees, holds no merit for consideration. First and foremost, because [[User:Khodabandeh14]] has not sufficiently explored other means of achieving consensus (RfC, board discussions, third party opinions, etc.). Secondly, his edits at [[Talk:Flag of South Azerbaijan]], [[Talk:Anti-Turkism]], [[Talk:Azerbaijani people]] resemble [[WP:BATTLE]] with occasional usage of [[WP:PEACOCK]] words, such as deliberately labeling authors of certain opinion/background as ''nationalists'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azerbaijani_peoplee&curid=699262&diff=455082001&oldid=455072573], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAnti-Turkism&action=historysubmit&diff=455080886&oldid=455072108]. Instead of [[WP:AGF]], [[User:Khodabandeh14]] is disputing every source that does not fit his [[WP:POV]], without demonstrated qualifications to do so, pushing his [[WP:POV]], frivolously reporting contributors and accusing them of making "inflammatory comments". Therefore, this ArbCom case would be an unnecessary waste of administrative and editing resources, and given [[WP:AA2]], [[User:Khodabandeh14]]'s editing behavior should be discussed in the context of that arbitration case. I have otherwise been contributing in a constructive manner, discussing my edits on talk pages, including with [[User:Khodabandeh14]], researching references. But I am rather disturbed by his disruptive intimidation, just look at how much time he dedicates researching contributors instead of focusing on topics. I really prefer to edit articles and discuss on talk pages instead of spending time on boards discussing these. [[User:Atabəy|Atabəy]] ([[User talk:Atabəy|talk]]) 22:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

* I would like to note a repeated violation of [[WP:HARASSMENT]] by [[User:Khodabandeh14]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADbachmann&action=historysubmit&diff=455212884&oldid=455211567]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADbachmann&action=historysubmit&diff=455213808&oldid=455213567] as a way to force his [[WP:POV]] in Wikipedia article and on user talk pages. I kindly ask ArbCom to take note of the disruptive behavior of [[User:Khodabandeh14]]. [[User:Atabəy|Atabəy]] ([[User talk:Atabəy|talk]]) 15:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by User:Neftchi ===

I was surprised to find that I was included in this case. Especially because the reasons given by Khodabandeh14 are not valid at all. He accuses me of editing without discussion? I have discussed almost every edit I have made. In fact it is Khodabandeh14 himself who made little attempt to discuss his edits [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lezgian_people&action=historysubmit&diff=455067424&oldid=454970118 ]. I practically had to start the discussion myself [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALezgian_people&action=historysubmit&diff=455040785&oldid=453267395 ]. The examples given by Khodabandeh14 are cherry picked and out of context at best. And why? All because I voiced my opinion in the voting proces of Flag of South Azerbaijan article? I am entitled to vote and voice my opinion, that is all I did. For this I have to get dragged into this? The example of bad faith assumption is highly out of context. I actually worked together with Yerevenci and came to a consensus. I have worked with good faith with contributors of different point of view in the past and I intend to continue making contributions to Wikipedia in constructive manner. [[User:Neftchi|Neftchi]] ([[User talk:Neftchi|talk]]) 23:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

:My request for a username change, which I asked days ago, has now been fulfilled. My new username is Mursel, thus not to confuse anybody. [[User:Mursel|Mursel]] ([[User talk:Mursel|talk]]) 09:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

::What Im basically trying to say is that I dont see a real reason for my inclusion in this case. Furthermore I dont really understand why other options were not attempted before opening this case. [[User:Mursel|Mursel]] ([[User talk:Mursel|talk]]) 09:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

===Statement and question by User:Takabeg===

As long as I understand, these problems are caused by differences in worldview between [[Iranian nationalism|Integrative nationalism of Iran]] (sometimes Persian ethnocentrism) + some [[Kurdish nationalism]] and [[Azerbaijani nationalism]] (sometimes Pan-Azerbaijani irredentism). At least, I couldn't find any serious tendency in edits of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Goktr001 Goktr001],[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Emperyan Emperyan]. The common point between two users is to ''vote'' keep the article '''[[Flag of South Azerbaijan]]'''. Was this arbitration requested only for the purpose of ''winning'' at the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flag of South Azerbaijan]] ? [[User:Takabeg|Takabeg]] ([[User talk:Takabeg|talk]]) 08:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

===Statement and question by User:Saygi1===

users Khodabandeh14 and Kurdo777 are violating multiple rules of Wikipedia and clearly reveal that they have axes to grind and are acting in extreme bad faith. These users have a very long histry of disputes and pushing Iranian government POV, acting in the interest of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its government, which probably empowers them to spend so much time on Wikipedia for so many years, and which is now sending its terrorists to the U.S. (incidentally, user Khodabandeh14 showed in his edits recently [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iranian_American&diff=452116514&oldid=452116224] that he lives in Washington DC area (based on IP address 108.18.222.120), same place where Iranian government activated its terrorists to kill the Saudi Ambassador just this week [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/12/MNK31LH2IB.DTL]) Let's further borrow from Khodabandeh14's book: Washington DC is home to NIAC - National Iranian American Council [http://www.niacouncil.org], a widely-described Iranian government lobby organization led by Dr. Trita Parsi about whom you can read at length here: [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/13/exclusive-did-iranian-advocacy-group-violate-laws/print/], [http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2009/me_iran0230_03_19.asp], [http://english.iranianlobby.com/],

[http://iranpoliticsclub.net/politics/NIAC-congress/index.htm], [http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=25959].

Anyways, I've read a whole lot of unsubstantiated wild claims and some ridiculous slander and attacks by these users. It's interesting that Khodabandeh14, who I've learned here used to use several other usernames, brings up a bunch of claims, that are unrelated to any of the articles and matter at hand. If the best "attack" (?) he and Kurdo777 can come up with is to state that I am somehow user:Agasalim or user:AdilBaquirov or whatever other past, inadctive or even presently active user(s), I don't see any violation (and still don't see how's this relevant). I also don't see what any organization, whether lobbyist or not, has to do with any of this, although a quick check shows that the organization Khodabandeh14 and Kurdo777 mention (USAN) is not a lobbyist organization (although nothing wrong with that, I guess, law permits anyone to lobby, including Google, Facebook, and Wikipedia). It's described in all media as a grassroots and diaspora organization. Although doesn't matter - none of this has anything to do with this prposed Arbcom.

Although, even if I were user AdliBaquirov (a real name of a living person) or user Agasalim (also a real living person?) or any other user, then users Khodabandeh14 and Kurdo777 need to be blocked immediately for violating privacy, right to vanish, [[WP:HARASSMENT]], libel, advertising, [[WP:BLP]], and violating other Wikipedia rules for such edits as '''throughout''' this page or here by Kurdo777 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Turkism&diff=prev&oldid=453153079] and here again by Khodabandeh14 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iranian_American&diff=454731106&oldid=454472810]

Additionally, someone needs to notify the innocent users that their lives are in grave danger, since Iranian terrorists represent a clear and present danger in U.S. and other countries. I feel terrible that because of various fantasies against me here, the innocent people could suffer, that their safety and security, very lives are potentially in danger from such fanatics as Khodabandeh14 and Kurdo777.

Anytime user Khodabandeh14 remembers to say something of substance and related to this proposed Arbcom, answers can be found on the respective Talk pages of the articles he alleges. If not, then just ask - for example, when Khodabandeh14 brings up a quote from Dr. Robert Hewsen to not use sources printed in Baku, he does not mention that Dr. Hewsen is Armenian - and hence under Khodabandeh14's own criteria he outlined above, should not be admissible, either. Both of these users, Khodabandeh14 and Kurdo777, who act in concert, along with several other of their "friends" (as they like to refer here in Wikipedia in Persian, ''doost-e man'') who are listed here (such as [[User:Xashaiar]] or [[User:Scythian77]]) have been aggressively pushing pro-Iranian, anti-Azerbaijani, anti-Turkic, anti-Arabic, anti-American propaganda. They have been harassing regular users like myself, attacking, terrorizing and now violate even more rules and laws.

Their groundless attacks on other users here are the same as their attacks on me. Khodabandeh14 and Kurdo777 should be banned for clearly violating multiple rules of Wikipedia, then this place will become a safer and less hostile environment for normal, regular users like me, who don't have Iranian government's money bankrolling them to spend 24/7 on Wikipedia. I will refer this matter to FBI to investigate users Khodabandeh14 and Kurdo777 for their harassment here in light of massive threat from Iranian government-sponsored terrorists here in U.S. --[[User:Saygi1|Saygi1]] ([[User talk:Saygi1|talk]]) 00:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

:'''''Note''': I will address the allegations made above directly with this user. No response to them on-wiki by any user is necessary.'' [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 01:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

=== Statement by Tznkai ===

I've topic banned both Khodabandeh14 and Atabəy under existing discretionary sanctions as seen [[Wikipedia:AE#Result_concerning_Atab.C9.99y|here]]. The thread is still open as additional users may fall under consideration.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 01:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

=== Clerk notes ===

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

:Noting [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Atab.C9.99y|this Arbitration Enforcement request]] which seems pertinent to this request for arbitration. --[[User:AlexandrDmitri|Alexandr Dmitri]] ([[User talk:AlexandrDmitri|talk]]) 00:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/7/1/1) ===

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

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

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

::::'''Decline''': On consideration, I do not see the value in adopting a system that is essentially identical to the existing arbitration enforcement system, with the exception of tying down specific administrators. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 17:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

*recuse per [[User:John Vandenberg/recusal#AA]]. Thanks Eraserhead1. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] ^{'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''}</span> 02:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

*Awaiting further statements, but my initial comments are in agreement with Risker's above. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 02:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

**'''Decline at this time'''. The essence of this case request is the suggestion that editing disputes arising from the real-world conflicts between Armenia and Azerbaijan are so intractible and so poisonous to the ability of many editors of Armenian and Azerbaijani background to edit properly in accordance with the policies and guidelines that govern all the rest of Wikipedia, so that an entirely new set of rules and procedures to govern the pages affected by these disputes is required. Some of the allegations that have been made here are very serious, and administrators active on these pages should have their eyes wide open, but at this point I will join my colleagues in concluding that another case on this topic-area is not currently required. If problems persist and an explanation for why the existing discretionary sanctions regime is not sufficient, I would be open to a new request in due course. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 01:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

*Per Risker, mostly. We need more evidence that other steps have failed. <font color="#cc6600">[[User:David Fuchs|Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs]]</font>^{<small>(<font color="#ff6600">[[User talk:David Fuchs|talk]]</font>)</small>} 15:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

* I have concerns that the back and forth in the statement above shows a very unhealthy area, but there are discretionary sanctions available at AE. An ounce of AE prevention is worth a pound of ArbCom cure.. since there hasn't been evidence that previous steps such as AE has failed, I am voting to '''decline''' at this time. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 15:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

* Decline per now, per SirFozzie and Risker. &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] ^{[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]} 17:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

* '''Decline'''; ArbCom involvement can only be considered if and after already existing discretionary sanctions have failed to fix the problem. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;^{[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]} 14:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

* '''Decline'''. This request doesn't explain why the current situation with discretionary sanctions is unsatisfactory. In other words, if editors' conduct has been problematic, they can be reported to the [[WP:AE|Arbitration Enforcement]] noticeboard. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 15:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

*'''Decline''' and encourage any filing party to produce a ''succinct'' request for a case. The argument here should be clear and direct, expounding on the problem rather than trying to argue the case in the request itself. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 03:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)