Thu 4th December 2008, 3:22am
I will be answering this and what has been addressed on WP because this is becoming rather intimidating. The ''Armenian Block'' claim is totally ridiculous, over half of those users already knew even before John was to run that he was going to run and were waiting to oppose. Both Iranian opposes and Armenian opposes have nothing or very little thing to do with each others.
On the CU request, those who are close to the topics know that most users there are legitimate (I cannot say all, because I didn<t know the existance of many of them), rejecting members just because they happen to be Armenian, Iranian, is the very same reason why this has degenerated this far, because the problems concerning those issues have been very badly handled and tagged by the ethnicity of the contributors.
I had decided to not dig John participation because I did not want others to think that that was vendetta but the way things are handled as if this is a baseless concern force me to.
See this edit here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=156399477
John is requesting to throw the article for deletion or redirecting it(which in this case will be equivalent to delete). Let’s see when he requested it; this was the state of the article when he requested it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=157370321
The 19 footnotes in question were in reference to his ethnicity. If you check the history of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history
You will find out the several socks (organized by Adil Baguirov) who fought on this claiming him to be Albanian. As a result 19 sources were provided to stop the edit war. After providing that much references, not only does John request it deletion by also claim to write ‘’Armenian or Albanian’’. The period which he wrote (the author which the article is about) Albanian (Caucasian Albania, nothing to do with current Albanians) was indicative of the region of Albania rather than an ethnicity. John other contributions suggest that he knew that, the article created about Caucasian Albanians shows this. The article was created by Haji, while there were some legitimate concerns about the article itself given the hasty way it was build, the subject was legitimate and Haji was working on it to address those issues. Grandmaster comes and continues the vote, 14 minutes later John vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...asian_Albanians
A group of users which Grandmaster is part of have done everything to prevent any articles about the term Caucasian Albanians which would require to add about the fact that after the 5th century the term Albanian was rather referred to individuals from the region of Caucasian Albania than an ethnicity. They rather created articles about the Udi, they even forked the article and created nearly two identical articles about the same thing. When one of the two copies was posted for deletion they opposed in mass. An administrator deleted it obviously because it was a copy.
The request for deletion which John engaged in, and his comment there shows a particular understanding from his part of the position of the lobbying group run by Adil Baguirov and another member (name to be disclosed privately) of Wikipedia, Atabek. See more here his reply. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=165621208
Those who don’t know the subject will find nothing here, but this is on the surface. What is behind that reveals more. The same lobbyist group advance the theory that all Albanian books (to explain why those books were written in Armenian during that period) were destroyed and burned after being translated in Armenian. Probably the last volume was written by another person indeed. But the fact is his knowledge of this particular information which is used by the lobbying group to question the original language and the person why wrote it. First part, written mostly by an ethnic Albanian, then an Armenian taking the first part translating it, destroying the original and finishing it. That basically sums the claim.
There are many things which links John with this group (which presence like I repeat is documentable). For now I don’t have time to type the rest, I will be doing it bit by bit, including why Iranian members oppose John (concerns which are legitimate too)
I advice those who throw stones and make baseless charges to wait... before throwing stones.
I will also ask to ChrisO to step down at commenting about something which he totally ignore about and not make this as vendetta because he had conflict with Iranian users. The reason those users oppose to John, has nothing to do directly with articles or actions by John directly relating to their contribution.