I will be commenting on John Vandenberg's candidacy since you brought it and since John reply to the AA opposition in my point of view is very dishonest and more reason to oppose him. Lar brought John contribution on Wiki source so I'll take the occasion to bring it forth and explain John involvements.
John main interest for a while there was to work on the legislations concerning copyright laws instored in Azerbaijan, under which term about anything could be brought on Wikipedia from Azerbaijan and I will tell how this matters just now.
A group of lobbiest run by Adil Baguirov (the main cause of the Armenia-Azerbaijan I&II arbitration cas and the Ehud Lesar case) have decided to use Wikipedia to counter what they consider a massive control of encyclopedia content by the all powerful Armenians. You will find the conspirationist theories at a speech Adil Baguirov gave to the first Annual Azerbaijani American Youth Forum
here. For those too lazy to read, Adil Baguirov explains with good ''diplomatic terms'' how Western encyclopedia articles about the region are written by the bad bad Armenians. He then tell that in those works Caucasian Albanian scholars are being passed as Armenians (you'll see in a better light then how John helped push fringe theories).
He claims that Azerbaijani's were late at making their voice heard, basically it echo's Adil and his team need to make Azeris voice been heard. (nothing wrong there one would believe)
In case of Wikipedia, it would mean introducing materials which many are written in Azerbaijan. Since Azerbaijan's copy right laws are poorly understood, Wikipedia policies concerning free use as well as the use of copyrighted materials would have been a problem unless Azerbaijans legislations about copyright are introduced. I’m still assuming ‘good faith’ right? I am still not claiming collusion but just saying that John work on copyright in Azerbaijan on Wikisource is exactly what Adil Baguirov friends needed.
I am not going to develop more on this given the fact that he is not here and can’t reply directly. The last thing we need is him answering me from there and I from here. But of course I have many many things to say about his involvement on issues and his claim to have created articles without the help of anyone. I will not also venture on the creation of
this article particular article for example.
Lets just say that it would be irresponsible to give him CU access as well as access to the mailing list. On another matter which has nothing to do with AA, it will be sufficient to oppose any candidate who oppose most others. It’s claiming being better than others, those others who according to him, do not fit as arbitrators (some of whom will become his colleagues if he’s elected).
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 2nd December 2008, 3:23am)
QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 2nd December 2008, 8:13am)
QUOTE(Xidaf @ Tue 2nd December 2008, 8:38am)
With the way SV was depicted here, I'm surprised she supported him and even saying it's time for a change.
No matter how pro-status quo you might be, being on the wrong side of an ArbCom case will change your tune very quickly.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend? By the way, I wonder if she's worried about how well John Vandenberg's candidacy is going right now, considering
this and
this.
This post has been edited by Xidaf: