Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Alex Bakharev

edit

Final (70/23/2) ending 00:24 January 12, 2006 (UTC)

Alex Bakharev (talk · contribs) – Alex is a delightful bilingual editor who has been a Wikipedian since June 2005. During this time, he contributed a great deal of information on Russia and Ukraine (both topics still vastly underrepresented in Wikipedia), as well as on science and technology. He is an active participant of Portal:Russia, creating and copyediting content and performing cleanup tasks an equal measure. From what I noticed in my dealings with him and in his dealings with other editors, Alex is always calm and polite, acting in good faith, willing to initiate constructive discussions on matters of disagreement, and striving to bring the best to Wikipedia. Considering all this, I believe Alex would make a perfect administrator.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes, I accept the nomination abakharev 23:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support as a nominator.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support three words: moderated, logical, polite–Gnomz007(?)
  3. Support Node 00:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wholeheartedly support. Ambi 03:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Neutralitytalk 06:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. -- Phædriel 06:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Snakes
  9. Support, as per his level-headed comments in response to my "neutral" vote. Matt Yeager 06:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support 212.26.133.82 07:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:212.26.133.82 has vandalized my user page. I suggest this vote not to be taken into consideration. Bonaparte talk 07:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am afraid the anonymous users are not allowed to vote. Please sign in first. Thank you anyway for your support. abakharev 07:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. We've been working together at the Russia Portal, and I found Alex to be a very productive and, what's more important, balanced individual. KNewman 08:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support good editor and I'm unimpressed with opposition.Gator (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. --Kefalonia 15:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. King of All the Franks 23:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. support, of all my past support votes, this is one of my most wholehearted support votes on par with such unquestionable candidates I supported in the past as MichaelZ and Zach. Wikipedia needs admins. Anyone willing to do the work should get the tools except when there are questions of the potential possibility of one using them unethically. Absolutely no way for this extremely decent and committed wikipedian. Go Alex! --Irpen 23:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support seems like a generally good editor who only has to watch his language from time to time =) Sciurinæ 01:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support one of the best editors I've seen on Wikipedia. Fisenko 03:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support --Terence Ong Talk 14:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. I don't believe that the oppose votes carry much weight, and the one insult found was a particularly minor example. I would like the user to be remember that we can't be editors and administrators at the same time, however, and so not to allow partisan beliefs to influence his admin decisions. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 17:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing it out, indeed I completly agree with you. I still believe that sysamins should try to keep away from the general public their criticisms of administrative actions of other sysdmins. But I believe the users have the right to criticise sysdmins and I am not a member of the club yet. abakharev 07:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support, mostly for the patience in dealing with individual questions in this voting :-). My advice, or wish, if I may, when you become an admin: (1) be more careful with your language ;-) (2) try to distance yourself from your national prejudices, it's never enough ... even when you think you're neutral. --Lysy (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, seems like a good level-headed editor. -- DS1953 talk 18:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, agree with Lysy. Olessi 19:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, seems like a good and busy editor. Everybody slips up and makes a personal attack once in a while, so that's no biggie to this editor. Lord Bob 20:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support--Nixer 21:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support—good-natured, good contributor. —Michael Z. 2006-01-7 06:57 Z
  25. Support. No shade of doubt. Alex is a knowledgeable, good-natured, hardworking, well-balanced person. Trustworthy indeed. - Introvert  ? @ 08:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 19:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Trapolator 04:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I have been opposed before for reasons similar to those found below, and all of the opponents are forgetting the hope of reform. I am not convinced that supporting him would not help Wikipedia. I came here to help edit an encyclopedia, and the RfA process has turned that (and doing more so lately) into a political process. When I want to run, or participate, in politics, I'll stand behind a podium, not a computer screen. For this reason, I change my vote from neutral to strong support εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 07:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Goood editor. --Khoikhoi 07:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Да How do you say "support" in Russian, I wonder? ;-) --Chris S. 09:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In Russian - "Поддерживаю".
  31. Support. Absolutely. --MaxSemtalk 10:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. mno 11:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. He deserves the admin’s title more than do many who were granted it. Ramir 11:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Suppot Quite civil despite the acrimonious nature of the topics he often edits, and quite knowledgeable. Wikipedia needs more strong content editors as admins. 172 12:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Support very strongly. Alex Bakharev is making a great contribution in the Wikipedia Russian and Ukranian projects. He is very supportive for new wikipedians. He will fight against vandals. His admin will make Wikipedia stronger. We need more good admins. Vald 16:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support I support Alex Bakharev. He is quite devoted to making sure that articles remain NPOV. --Eupator 01:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. I don't often vote, but this is one where it looks like it could matter. When it comes to WP:NPA, I would disqualify a candidate for a pattern of problems, or for an egregious and unambiguous attack, or for a refusal to apologize for an attack. Alex falls into none of these categories, and he's a trusted and unbiased editor. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 06:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - I first came across this user when I was involved in a dispute with Ghirlandajo, and he acted very politely and professionally in that case, showing that he is calm and worthy of being an admin.    Ronline ✉ 06:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Poulsen 11:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support AGP 11:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User AGP (talk · contribs) has a history of 6(six) edits. Strongly request a m:Checkuser--AndriyK 17:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, if you suspect some account of being a sock of another user, you should say what user you suspect. This wikipedian has been active in ru.wiki (see ru:User:AGP) since May and probably came to know Alex there. After as many votes as you forged in the past, your present sockpuppeting paranoia is exhilarating. --Ghirla | talk 17:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC) & Irpen 00:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. support --Zserghei 12:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. support -- mikka (t) 18:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support --CodeMonk 21:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support I'd like more edit summaries, but on the whole seems like a good editor. It's not reasonable to blame someone for comments made by their acquaintences. -Colin Kimbrell 22:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. (Count this one.) DIG 01:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. I am usually quite picking in supporting an adminship candidate. I have read through every oppose vote and have not seen a reason to vote against. -- JamesTeterenko 03:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Sarah Ewart 03:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support --Gene s 07:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support --Ghirla | talk 15:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support -- Arseni 15:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)t[reply]
  51. Support -- Brandmeister 18:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. I like how he explains his actions in detail. I think he will be accountable administrator. Mukadderat 18:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Excellent resourcefulness, lots of contributions. Ability to settle disputes rather than start them. An excellent choice to administer wikipedia! -- Kuban kazak 19:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support A very diplomatic user who has good organisational abilities, as well as lots of knowledge on many topics. No doubts that he will by a worthy admin. Voyevoda 19:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Everyone who edits controversal topics has a risk of being involved in an edit war. Putting such wars outside is unacceptable. MvR 21:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Kirper 23:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User Kirper (talk · contribs) has a history of about 30 edits. Strongly request a m:Checkuser--AndriyK 11:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that this user has been active in Wikipedia for more time than AndriyK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) himself and contributed more good to the project than AndriyK as well. Albedo (talk · contribs), for example, also has a history of several dozens edits, appearing in English Wiki to follow AndriyK's vote when opportunity strikes (see below for his opposing vote and his contributions). Wanton sockpuppetry allegations should be strongly frowned upon. --Ghirla | talk 11:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I just suggest that both "Support" and "Oppose" votes should be treated similarly. If very litle edits is a reason to apply the m:Checkuser to an "Oppose" vote, why not to do the same for "Support" votes? Do not you accept the idea equel treatment?--AndriyK 13:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So what? I write a lot in Russian Wikipedia as Solon, there is мy main work place. Why do you think, that I have not the right to vote here? --Kirper 14:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Read carefully. Where did I say anything about your right to vote here?--AndriyK 15:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Very little edits" by itself is not a reason to suspect sockpuppetry. Oppose votes that where revealed as sockpuppets (by Checkuser tool) were noted for combination of few edits and the exact same pattern of editing. To compare the editors you frivolously accused in sockpuppeting with Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Yodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Monor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Boxero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is just plain ridiculous. Go ahead and post a note at WP:RCU and see what the results will be! What a shame! --Irpen 00:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support --Mitrius 23:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support --EncephalonSeven 23:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Collaborated and mentored on my first "...did you know?" article. I found him productive and easy to work with. Durova 04:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support and the 3 votes oppose by puppeteer and his puppets should be discounted.--MONGO 04:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    At least 4 opposes should be discounted. Yodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is obviously of the same Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) farm as Monor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Boxero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Compare their contributions or just read this where I compared them for you. That the maluser messed up only with two out of his three socks that made them visible is no reason to count Yodo's vote. I bet you Yodo is from the same pack. --Irpen 05:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Wholeheartedly support - we collaborated on a number of articles, a pleasure to work with. For months Alex actively participates in the (rarely noticed and usually thankless) upkeep of the Russian project which badly needs knowledgeable and intelligent admins. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support MaxiMaxiMax 05:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support — Monedula 06:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - Grandmaster 08:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Stepanovas 09:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support nobody's perfect, but I've worked with Alex productively and think that overall his adminship will advance Wikipedia's goals. Wesley 14:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support --Kaganer 15:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support seems like a good user whose nomination has unfortunately been beset by an inordinate amount of sock puppetry. Please use edit summaries more often, though.--Alhutch 17:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. I think he would be a fine admin. NoSeptember talk 19:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. I think none of the issues put forward by those opposing are serious. However, I violently disagree witk Alex' statement "Admins seems to be supposed not to critisize each other in front of mere users. I am loyal enough to obey this rule and use e-mails, closed IRC-channels, etc." below and I'd like to urge Alex to challenge admins on their talk page whenever he disagrees with their decisions. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Very Strong OpposeThis in the case he accepts the nomination. He was involved in page Transnistria and he deleted important references, so he didn't convinced me as a good Admin. Bonaparte talk 16:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please pay attention to the fact that the greatest anti-Alex crusader has been blocked from editing Wikipedia indefinitely.--Ghirla | talk 16:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to elaborate (in the "Comments" section below)?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Only when and if it's neccessary... Bonaparte talk 21:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been asked to elaborate: I'd consider that a necessitation. jnothman talk 00:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I would say it is always necessary to back up such a strong complaint with evidence of wrongdoing. Raven4x4x 01:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are a few edits by Alex Bakharev on Transnistria that Bonaparte may be referring to [1] [2]. — TheKMantalk 01:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    PROVEN SOCKPUPPETRY INVOLVED IN THIS VOTE. See link. --Irpen 02:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Opppose per too few edit summaries (sorry, Alex). As far as the vote by Bonaparte above, one may check his blocklog before considering how much weight to give to that vote. (Although my vote should not carry to much weight either, I hope Alex suceeds.) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The blocklog has nothing to do with my remark. It's still valid. All remember that mikka was out of line but since mikka is gone now for good, well...I guess is just a history now isnt't it? Bonaparte talk 06:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. It's inappropriate to call other admins "stupid". Here it is: [3]. --Just a tag 11:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reworded my comment a little bit [4]. Indeed it created an appearence of a personal attack against User:Ronline, although it was a critisism of a concrete action and not of Ronline anyway. My appologies to User:Ronline if he understood it that way. BTW I do not know the name of the admin who blocked Ghirlandajo, nor seek this knowledge. abakharev 07:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I know it wasn't against Ronline, but rather against David. --Just a tag 11:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Tag tu es kazut la tieni bonapartului... but then, nu am ajdatit kum diferit! --Node 07:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC) (This is a personal attack on user Just a tag made by Node ) unsigned comment by User:Bonaparte 11:53, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What Node ue is partially incomprihensible, but it cannot be a personal attack, or at least, in no way can Bonaparte know that it is a personal attack. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose it's "Tag tu esti cazut la ??? bonapartului ... but then, nu m-as fi ??? la altceva", he probably wanted to use the russian word "ojidat'", but since he doesn't know russian he came up with "ajdatit" :) as for "tieni", that's just another new word from Node_ue that noone knows about. Node, when will you stop pretending to know romanian/moldovan? --Just a tag 11:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretending? Please. I have better command of Moldovan than you do. You pretend, but really at the end of the day, you're a Romanian man living in Chisinau, who is pretending to be Moldovan. Otherwise, you'd know the meaning of words like "tieni", "ajdatit", and you would agree with User:EvilAlex about Eminescu -- even the most unionist of Moldovans does not agree with the Romanian POV about Eminescu. --Node 08:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In the moldovan 1989 law regarding the languages, moldovan language is stated to be linguistically identical to Romanian. I know Romanian, therefore I know Moldovan. Now you say I'm a Romanian, yet again saying that I don't have a good command of Moldovan, therefore implying I do not know Romanian, care to evolve on that ? I don't see much logic in what you say. As for your funny words, they are so used that poor google doesn't know at all about them ajdatit and [5] (the only matches being something in italian). Ask your friend serhio (who says himself that we speak Romanian) if he knows what "tieni" is and what "ajdatit" is, if you think he's more of a moldovan than I am. Funny, how someone who was never even to Moldova pretends to know about Moldovans and what language they use. As for Eminescu, he said himself "Suntem Romani si punctum", I emphasized that because they were arguing over who Eminescu was without considering his own opinion. --Just a tag 16:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait remind me again, in 1989 weren't laws in Moldova still Soviet? Yeah! So now you're pro-Soviet? You don't really know Moldovan, you just pretend. You say, "Since I'm Romanian and I knnow a few words of Russian, of course, now I know Moldovan!", but it's false. I'm sorry, but even I am more Moldovan than you will ever be. --Node 14:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and rgd Google... it doesn't find bircii but we both know that's a Moldovan word. --Node 14:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm... how can you tell it's a personal attack when you don't know what it means? Srsly Bonaparte... nu vorgheshti maldavianeshti, b/c if you did, you'd know that's not a personal attack, and if it were, it's more on you than him. --Node 08:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone please tell this JEW - not Moldovan, but JEW - that he doesn't know Moldovan, but is only protending to speak the language? You do not speak Moldovan, JEW! --Anittas 08:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Anittas, this statement is totally unacceptable. I'm going to start an RfC about it immediately. --Node 08:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This above user should be banned for some days for ethical slurs. I find that saying "JEW" in such a harsh tone/implication is really incivil. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 08:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't feel that such remarks should stand unopposed. User talk:Anittas#Formal warning didn't help. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anittas#More offensive remarks by Anittas. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Auhh..that link does not lead to the word "stupid".Voice of AllT|@|ESP 17:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhm, you probably were not careful enough, I quote: It is not Ghirlandajo's fault that the admin was incompetent and/or stupid --Just a tag 17:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is only "that the admin was incompetent and/or stupid"Bonaparte
    Ahh..I see it now :).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 17:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)'[reply]
    I am not defending Personal attacks, but I think one hole in this argument is that the admins may have been incompotent or stupid or whatever for the job. If it is true, it is simply true. I suggest we investigate the problem, see the light of this comment for Alex's eyes, and then judge him. The whole problem with this "civility" policy of Wikipedia is that, while have a good goal, it simply defies general conduct of natural people (or at least those I know). Don't expect to banter around bad behavior and silly actions only to receive nice remarks as a result of doing such in the real world. Unfortunately, people on Wikipedia think that they should be spoken (written) to in a certain amount of dignity, despite what action that they may have taken. Also note that "incompotence" is NOT a personal attack, and to a degree this could be argued for "stupid" as well... if they can't do the job right that is what they are. Let me consult the dictionary: Inadequate for or unsuited to a particular purpose or application. [6]. Perhaps it would be better for us to investigate the action of the particular admin. and then we may see accuracy in Alex's comment. Descriptions, even at times as thoroughly harsh as Alex's, should not be restricted to admins. Mind you that admins. are just as human as the vandals, trolls and spammers on this site and should be judged by their actions accordingly. Maybe saying that they were stupid wasn't the best thing, maybe saying their actions are - hell, Alex may have meant to say the latter - but in my opinion the theory of an admin. being stupid is not far fetched, so I don't see this as a reason to oppose him. His honesty vindicates him! I wonder how many people will disagree with me on this one! I also want to note that I, and probably Alex also, have not come to Wikipedia to play politics and be put on the stage like this, we came to edit an encyclopedia. Rude remarks to others were probably spurred by rude actions, and I find it difficult to comprehend a system where vandals and other malactors (and by the latter I do mean some admins.) are to be treated with respect, editors are often abused, and a slip-of-the-tongue to either supposedly warrants opposition to a a dignified user when he is trying to get a few more tools to help edit an encyclopedia for free. Don't bother to add anything under this, becuase I am not coming back here. I can only forsee chaos after I write this comment, because apparently the truth is attacked here as "incivility." εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 08:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Although adminship is no big deal, admins should always follow WP:NPA to a T. The diff provided by Just a tag is unconscionable. There is no excuse for personal attacks on Wikipedia. —BorgHunter (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose although Alex is much more balanced, tolerant and polite than his friends Irpen and Ghirlandajo, he sometimes help them in their Russian POV-pushing or queezing out their opponents from the community. I am afraid, his admin power will not always be used for the good of the community.--AndriyK 16:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please pay attention to the fact that the second most active anti-Alex crusader is about to be banned from Wikipedia by ArbCom.--Ghirla | talk 16:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per insulting an admin like that. Criticism is certainly welcome, but not hasty insults. RFA later ad I will support.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 17:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Nothing personal against the user, because I never directly interacted with him, but he took sides with some people who are very rude, while calling the rest of us for trolls. --Anittas 18:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure whether this vote is valid, as it is not based on the appraisal of the nominee, rather on Anittas' discontent with myself. --Ghirla | talk 16:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - Any attacking, especially Admin attacking is a very bad thing. And that one was fairly recent. Too many rude comments to other users. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Very Strong Oppose Do we need a russian push-POVer? No. Yodo 13:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless evidence is provided, please leave this decision to the closing bureaucrat. Guettarda 15:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Valid vote or not but check the contributions of Yodo (talk · contribs). Sciurinæ 10:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User Yodo (talk · contribs) has a history of 19 edits. Of this 19 edits, 9 edits are to Romania, 2 to his userpage and remaining 9 edits are RfAdm votes. Strongly request a m:Checkuser --Irpen 20:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Very Strong Oppose Monor 19:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User Monor (talk · contribs) has a history of 11 edits. Of this 11 edits, 3 edits are to Romania, 1 to Bulgaria, 2 to his userpage and remanining 5 edits are RfAdm votes. Additionaly, vote cast next to the previous vote, both likely sockpuppets with a very similar pattern. Strongly request a m:Checkuser.--Irpen 21:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    PROVEN SOCKPUPPETRY by bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IS INVOLVED IN THIS VOTE. See link. --Irpen 02:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Oppose Excaliburo 19:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Any particular reason for a "strong oppose", gentlemen? It's customary to provide a reason to assist other potential voters to make up their minds.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 19:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For few edit summaries, hasty insults, too many rude comments to other users. Excaliburo 19:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Valid vote or not, I suspect this user to be the fourth, though more advanced, sock puppet here. Sciurinæ 10:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be careful with using WP:SOCK here Excaliburo (talk · contribs) is only a couple of edits short of 100-edit guideline, but I find his rationale rather boilerplate (besides it is inherently incompatible with mine)–Gnomz007(?) 21:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Very Strong Oppose hasty insults, too many rude comments to other users. Boxero 07:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User Boxero (talk · contribs) has a history of 12 edits. Of this 12 edits, 6 edits are to Romania, 1 to Tourism in Romania, 1 to his userpage and remanining 4 edits are RfAdm votes. Additionaly, identical pattern to Yodo (talk · contribs) and Monor (talk · contribs) above. All three are likely sockpuppets with a very similar pattern and sockpuppets of some other user . Strongly request a m:Checkuser. --Irpen 21:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    PROVEN SOCKPUPPETRY by bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IS INVOLVED IN THIS VOTE. See link. --Irpen 02:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Very Strong Oppose The candidate has strong POV, he supported an offensive Russian user Ghirlandajo that insulted and got to disputes with several other contributors based out of his dislike for their nationality[7] for example(Polish Mafia, rv idiotic Moldovan nationalism). Alex Bakharev went beyond pure support, but expressed an opinion that the user should have more rights than an anonymous trolls[8]. Supporting a known offender, involved in serious disputes with other contributors, and wanting him to posess more rights then other users(insulted as trolls), doesn't speak good for Alex Bakharev's neutrality. --Molobo 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose see my question for Alex and I against division editor on people first, second and third sort --Yakudza 11:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong Oppose. This candidate is clearly POV-pusher, and admin rights will help him to create non-neutral articles. Habit to insult people is not positive too. --Monkbel 13:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please pay attention that no evidence of the candidate's POV-pushing has ever been presented either on this page or elsewhere. Not a single person "insulted" by Alex surfaced as well.--Ghirla | talk 16:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. Far too many doubts about this editor's calmness and balance at present. Needs to demonstrate with greater clarity that he'll be a safe pair of hands. -Splashtalk 13:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. Basing on the above votes and the e-mail sent to me by Ghirlandajo, which reads "It's a shame that Russians do not have a single own admin here, while Romanians have four" I vote against just to keep NPOV on wikipedia. Besides, the statement that This user is able to contribute with an advanced level of English. seems a bit (only a bit, maybe lower it to en-2?) doubtful to me. Sorry Alex, nothing personal. --Anthony Ivanoff 14:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the fact that Ghirlandajo wants Alex to be admin means that Alex will be pushing POV? MaxSemtalk 15:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I know it myself how difficult it is to vote against the peer pressure. Thanks for doing it for the sake of Wikipedia and on my RfA. OTOH, I would appreciate if you would look through the history of my edits and see if there were some POV-pushing. I, personally, consider them to be fairly neutral, but it is difficult to judge myself. I do not want to put words into Ghirla's mouth (especially since I have not seen his e-mail), but the fact that there are no administrators who are at least half-time involved in the Russian-related articles is indeed harmfull for Wikipedia. Personal attacks and uncivility go unchecked, articles that should be protected are not protected in time. Some admins hesutate to use their administrative powers so to avoid a perception of an anti-Russian bias, whilst some Russian users still strongly suspect anti-Russian bias of Wikipedia administration just based on the numbers of admins related to diffirent Wikiprojects. I do not know what Ghirlandajo plans, but I do not intend to use administrative powers for any POV-pushing and would go a long way trying not to create even a perception of a such abuse. abakharev 23:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Anthony Ivanoff, You are entitled to vote as you wish of course. However, did you base your vote on an advertizement from a third party that you didn't likerather than the candidate's strength and weaknesses? In the latter case, I would encourage you to study the candidate's contributions, statements and opposition. --Irpen 23:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Reluctantly Oppose Unfortunately the candidate did not seem to handle gracefully the powers of adminship. An administrator should be willing to explain and unwilling to provoke edit wars. Wishing the best to the Russian community of editors.--Andrew Alexander 02:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. There are plenty of admin candidates; no point in taking a risk on one with this much controversy. —Cleared as filed. 03:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Afraid, Alex Bakharev has got a POV on the national issues, which I wouldn't like to see in an admin --ashapochka 06:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Opppose My support to the policy of neutrality.--Albedo 07:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Dpotop 11:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per AndriyK, Andrew Alexander, and Molobo. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose because I'm not sure it was correct for you to solicit users on the Russian Wikipedia to come here to participate in this vote. [9] [10]. -- Curps 23:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you think about people placing notices on talk pages of WikiProject when somebody involved with that project is running for adminship? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, here is a translation of the Russian text from quoted by Curps: "Care to take part, anyone?" and next, "... Vote is ending 00:24 January 12, 2006 (UTC). A reminder note for those people who were planning to vote." - Introvert  ? @ 01:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose due to low use of edit summaries for major edits. Johntex\talk 01:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  • Neutral I'm leaning towards support; however, I have a question first. You claim to have an "advanced" level of English only. I have no problem with that; however, I'd like an assurance that you won't act rashly and ban people (for, say, personal attacks) when you're not exactly sure what they meant. In addition, I'd like an assurance that you wouldn't be overly protective of "your" version of a page if other users made changes (or suggested changes to protected pages) to the sentence structure, spelling, grammar, etc. This probably sounds silly, but as you can see at WP:LAME, we've had edit wars over silliness like this, and as I don't personally know you, I don't know whether or not you'd do that sort of thing, which is what an admin (well, any user, but especially not an administrator) should definitely NOT do. Matt Yeager 01:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I was often accused in going too far in my search for the compromise, not in the opposite. I have around 5K edits here + 1K on the commons and never remember having a fight over language problems. Of course, it is my opinion of myself that maybe different from the opinions of the people around me 02:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    I am not exactly sure, if this point is valid. Since self-evaluation of advanced level of English is a clear statement: he does not think he is perfectly fluent. Therefore if he claimed say professional level but sometimes messed up grammar, this is when we should be afraid of such type of problem. Am I making sense with my En-2?–Gnomz007(?) 03:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, that's good enough for me. Admins don't need perfect grammar, and as Gnomz points out, it's much, much better to be aware of your weaknesses than to try and hide them. Thanks for answering. You'll make a great administrator, I'm sure. Matt Yeager 06:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. WP:LAME is some good reading material. I'll be perusing that for a little while. JHMM13 (T | C)     17:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral. I'll need more time to evaluate the candidate's activity. Ukrained 21:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral See Question for the candidate --Yakudza 16:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Neutral I'm new here. Once I met Alex somewhere and saw him "collaborating" with Ghirlandajo in his attacks. Other time I had usefull and fair comments from Ahim. I do not want to make any premature conclusions and need more time to see him.--Bryndza 03:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please recheck and look up the links to be sure you are not confusing things here. Alex as well as many others did collaborate with Ghirla in working on the articles but I am pretty sure he never collaborated with Ghirla in attacks. Alex addressed that issue well in question 9 just below. --Irpen 04:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned, I'm new here and need more time to see around. I'm not agains Alex, but also can not vote withought reason for him. If Neutral=Oppose, then I remove myself from the voting.--Bryndza 04:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. --Ahonc 14:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 37% for major edits and 53% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and Talk namespaces. Mathbot 01:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit summary report, and namespace report. --Interiot 18:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alex said " I got an impression that User:Bonaparte is in conflict with me ". Now I want him to explain me his statement please. IMHO I have no conflict with him, so, I'm interested to see his opinion. It looks like he very easily missundestand some things. From his point of view deleting valuable sources it means also "cleaning". Bonaparte talk 07:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think here is better since you made your statement here. Bonaparte talk 07:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not Alex Bakharev, but in my opinion user:Bonaparte is a Romanian nationalist, who is abusing Wiki by promoting the idea of "Great Romania" over all possible wikipages. Bonaparte badly damaged Moldova article basically claiming that Moldova, which is now an independent country should be a part of so called "great romanian territory". Bonaparte also wrote in Talk:Moldova that he will do whatever is possible to prevent User:Alex Bakharev becaming a wiki admin, based on Alex's opinion on Moldova. Thus, I advise all to be aware when taking into consideration comments by user:Bonaparte and his romanian nationalistic buddies like user:Just a Tag, etc. (unsigned by an anon)
  1. This user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:212.26.133.82 has vandalized my user page. From his only 5 edits three are against me. This is sockpuppet. Bonaparte talk 11:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Have a checkuser performed before making such an accusation. Accusing him of sockpuppeting is serious business. —BorgHunter (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provocative WP:Point question at RFAdm
Before Alex answers, let me just say that this is a highly POV phrased question that pretends to describe a certain real situation which it does falsly. Having said that, the answer to this provocative question (No) is obvious and was known in advance and nothing else can be expected and this is a transparent WP:Point on the par with the usual meaningless questions at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the President's court nominees. --Irpen 10:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, the answer to this openly provocative question was not "No", as you may check for yourself below. --Lysy (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is provocative, but I would like to know if the future admin would be neutral or not. A number of ppl, including yourself, expressed their views that experienced editors should be immune to wp rules. --Lysy (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is false. I never said that. I called for discretion, yes. That is if one is reverting edits from anon open proxies that obviously come from one and the same editor within minutes from Chinese, Taiwanese and Australian IPs. Or restoring a POV tag, whose removal is a vandalism. In rush the admin may forget to check such things and dealing with established editors requires the admin to first make sure that nothing like that was happening. Ronline's first admin action since elevation being blocking Mikka who was simply not decisive enough to block open proxy IP and revrerted them, makes Ronline remembered for a long long time. If the cost of that would be Mikka's indeed never coming back, and only due to the itch by Ronline to get a fame by being the first one who would have blocked Mikka without bothering to check, and lack of courage to admit and apologize, which he refuses so far, he would be remember all too well. --Irpen 11:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As if you did not know, I was not referring to Mikka's case, of course. --Lysy (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You put the words in my mouth (about immunity) that I have never said. I only condemned Mikka's block. --Irpen 11:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you Irpen to stop it. If you really have some issues you may act in another way. Otherwise stop it. And don't speak about Ronline or other editors like that I don't allow you. Everybody has the right to ask any question there. It was a good question. I know to what user it was adressed. It is a russian one and his name begins with G. Bonaparte talk 11:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bonaparte, I express my opinion to Lysy when I feel like it. Your "not allowing me" to do things the way I see fit is irrelevant yet. Once you earn some respect, I will gladly take your opinions into consideration. Judging from your tone and behavior you haven't yet started your your quest towards the "Best wikipedian ever" that you suggested may happen one day and I feel confident that whatever cognac I buy, I will enjoy it myself [11] or with my other firends. --Irpen 16:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You did spoke about Ronline and sometimes about me also on other user's talk page. That's called .... Bonaparte talk 16:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, can you please bring the rest of this discussion elsewhere ? --Lysy (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did, Bonaparte, and didn't try to say it in a foreign langauge and I stand by every word I said. If you view whatever I did unethical, I will welcome an RfC on the issue to bring it to the attention of the wider community. --Irpen 16:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Irpen, for putting wrong words in your mouth but I believe you know what I meant.

Lysy, I knew your intentions and I know what you meant. The distortion, deliberate or not, put this whole thing on the wrong track. I opposed that particular Ghirla's block as well because he was blocked for restoring a tag over an article. It is long agreed that tag removal qualifies as vandalism. Should there have been reports of other clear violations posted to the board that lead to his block, it would have been a different story. You claim you caught him too at different times and never reported. So did I with Halibutt and, probably, for the same reasons.

I also know I'm asking difficult questions and I'm not asking them because I intend to confude Alex, but because I think they should be answered, as an admin should have good judgement of situation. --Lysy (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your question and what followed made a mockery of the process. But it is also has a good side, because it exposed better the people who try by any cost to derail the adminship of one of the most worthy candidates around with unquestionable personal ethics. Wikipedia needs such admins, but some people care more about pushing certain POVs. The way you acted upon this RfAdm surprized me, I must say, but my personal perception of this is irrelevant. --Irpen 16:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be so kind not to speak in terms of "most". You guys are always speaking in term of "most". The "most M.", the "most G." and so on... are you guys serious or what? try do edit in a neutral way and that's all, nobody will say anything against you. But I already saw how you removed the explanation of the split of Bukovina. Is this your "most"... ? and you're right your perception is simply personal irrelevant. Bonaparte talk 17:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merry Christmas, Orthodox way Today is an important holiday for many (but not all) Orthodox Christians. I would like the opportunity to wish everybody the Merry Christmas if they feel it is applicable to them abakharev 06:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm suspecting that the latest four opponents (No. 7-10) are sock puppets and should be investigated by a bureaucrat. Sciurinæ 10:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC) This goes for the latest supporter (Sine Qua Non) as well, only he is the least advanced sock puppet of them all. Sciurinæ 14:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need to investigate SNQ case. Sine Qua Non 22:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems "least advanced" because it is not. DIG 22:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Misinforming the community by Alex Bakharev during this vote
    I reminded Alex his conversation with Irpen, were he proposed to "go into the edit war"[12]. He answered:
    "The story you telling related to my first months on Wikipedia."
    In fact, it's not true. The conversation with Irpen took place on 9 October 2005, while Alex Baharev started to edit under this name on 11 June 2005 [13]. So the story took place in the end of his fourth month on Wikipedia. At that time he considered an edit war as a way to solve a dispute. Does somebody believe that three month more could change him so much that he can be trusted and be appointed an admin?--AndriyK 11:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AndriyK, if you use the word misinformation, you state that he made an incorrect statement. He said "first months" which might be a point of view whether you deem the forth month one of the first months or not. Therefore it cannot be considered an incorrect statement. Consequently, your claim that he gave an incorrect statement to the community is an incorrect statement itself and therefore you're the one misinforming. Also please take into consideration that your comment is defamation. He already responded to your questions and statements about the edit war you and he had three months ago. And please let go of attention-grabbing rants. The methods of you, Bonaparte and Molobo might be counterproductive. Sciurinæ 14:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I am on of a few crazy peoples who are trying to go through the whole list of Special:Newpages checking the articles that interests me, fixing that is require fixing, referring that is relevant to Portal:Russia/New article announcements, Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements, Wikipedia:New articles (Australia), etc. Often working in this role I am finding articles that require an administrative attention (speedy deletes, blocking vandals, removing redundant images, moving articles, protecting and unprotecting, etc.) It would be more effective, if I could use the administrative power. It also looks like there are simply not enough administrators in my corner of wikiuniverse that sometimes lead to frustrated administrators using their administrative power to the articles they were involved as editors. This obviously lead to a conflict of interests and possible allegations of the abuse and simply can be alleviated by having more administrators.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I have put a list of the articles I was the major contribution to in User:Alex Bakharev#New articles and major contributions; please look. I am proud of series of articles about Russian painters (e.g. Viktor Vasnetsov), I think the List of schools in Victoria, Australia according to 2005 VCE results is a usable reference information that many parents are looking for and that was not available on the internet before, I like my unfinished series on Polymer rheology (e.g. Maxwell material or Kelvin material), I like the series on scientists and engineers (e.g. Henri Tresca and Rubin Design Bureau).
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I was a party of the conflict over a few Ukraine-related issues with User:AndriyK and a couple of his friends especially about his attempts to put blatant copyvio into the Ivan Kotlyarevsky. The issue is described in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK. As everybody, I had a few minor editing issues, mostly related to vandalism or breaching the 3RR. Usually the issues were resolved by negotiation and compromise. I had to report a few times into Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (usually after the 5th-7th reverts) and Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress but frankly did so infrequently that I had to dig for these addresses. In a recent few days I was trying to improve the Transnistria article and I got an impression that User:Bonaparte is in conflict with me (I am certainly not in the conflict with this user). I intend to write to him and ask for the explanation of his grievances. I am certain that the compromise is possible.
In all cases I usually trying to understand the point of view of the other side (assuming the good faith) and find a neutral edits that suits the both sides and the Wikipedia policy. In all cases I am for the separations of the facts and opinions. If the facts are dubious they should be sourced, the opinions should be attributed and (if possible) balanced by the other opinions. In almost all cases it works. If my edits are not accepted I am trying to get the third opinion on a board I am participating in or of an editor I trust. If there appears a certain case of a bad faith, I am trying to contact the administrators (it happened only a few times during my history of wikiediting). Usually, when working on an article I am trying to forget the history of the relations with the other editors elsewhere and doing what I consider the best for the article. As I said, I had a few conflicts with e.g. User:AndriyK resulting in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK, but I was trying to support all of his edits that I believe were in good faith and compatible with the Wikipedia policies. abakharev 23:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Alex, please do not misinform our colleaugues. You did not have any conflict with me concerning copyvio in the article about Ivan Kotlyarevsky. I restored copyviolating version only one time by mistake (I did not understand the subtle difference between free distribution in general and free distribution in terms of GFDL that time.) Then I got a message from Zscout370 (not from you!)[14] and did not touch the article any more. You did not have even conversation with me concerning this copyvio.
What you really did, you used this minor incident in your statement against me in two months (!) after the problem was solved. It's a clear example how you, Russian guys, use legal Wikipedia procedures to squeez your opponents out of the community.
I can immagine the nightmare of you being an admin.--AndriyK 21:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other specific questions to provide guidance for voters:

4. Do you believe that active Russian editors with large volumes of edits should be immune to wikipedia rules, including the 3RR ? (I'm sure you know which case I'm addressing. This is a highly provocative question of course, but still the response is important to me, and probably to others as well) --Lysy (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. comment at User_talk:Lysy#Provocative_WP:Point_question_at_RFAdm. --Irpen 10:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested to hear his answer here. I did told him also above to answer here but he ignore it. Bonaparte talk 11:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Lysy, for striking out the word Russian in your question. The rules are the same for all the users, despite their ethnicity and POV. I think the users with large number of good edits, the heroes of Wikipedia, should not be immune to the wikipedia rules, but deserve the benefit of doubt and the benefit of courtesy. To make a point, suppose my RfA was successful and the next day I went into a RC-patrol and found that User:Jimbo Wales made 4 reverts. Should I block him on the spot by sending a standard template? I think I first should to ask by the talk page and wikimail: "What do you think you are doing? Why do you violate 3RR?". Suppose, I got the answer, that this was reverting of vandalism and so 3RR is not applicable, but I do not see vandalism here, only the content disagreement. I think I should ask the 3d opinion as well as probably ask a few questions to Jimbo Wales. If everybody agree that it was a clear cut unjustifiable 3RR violation then I should indeed block the user, but not only put a standard template, but write in my own words that I respect him, but have no other options but to block him, as the revert war should be ended and I cannot issue a block only to the other party without creating impression of discrimination. If it so happen that the other party has the same POV as me, I would be especially careful to get the third opinion from somebody with a different POV.
There is also the question of the rules. There is always a balance between been friendly to newbees and anons and showing appreciations to the heroes of wikipedia, people who spent literally years of their life working for free to make wikipedia to be what it is now. It appears to me that currently the balance is shifted to the friendliness to the newbees and the heroes feel themselves underappreciated. This especially true for the workaholic editors, who do not seek to be admins (like e.g. User:Ghirlandajo). I think it must be changed by some adjustment to the rules. One of possible ways is indeed an adjustment of the 3RR. Anonymous editors and users with very small number of edits (as filtered by semi-protection) can have their number of allowed reverts reduced (e.g. to only one allowed revert). I think editors with a long history of poor judgment as seen from the blocklist, should also be treated as anonyms. Exceptional editors with huge number of good edits, who create a number of FA articles, and other remarkable articles, might have their number of allowed reverts increased or even set to unlimited (e.g. for the User:Jimbo Wales). BTW, I do not think that the number of edits alone can be a good measure of the quality of editor, as it is easy to artificially increase it ( e.g. by single robot-assisted change from BC to BCE or vice verse, somebody can achieve quite a number of edits without any benefit to the Wikipedia). I would speculate that to qualify for an exceptional editor, somebody should have at least 10-20K edits, but this should only be one of the prerequisites, the final decision if a user quavilify for the rights on additional reverts should not be an automatical, but made by Wikipedia board or via a voting procedure. There are many other possible solutions to the problem of showing appreciation to the exceptional editors. abakharev 14:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the extensive response. While I do not agree with you on this, I understand that this is not the place, to discuss it. Let me only state that being a power editor does not necessarily mean having good judgement and also that I believe rules are to be respected by everyone. Rules can be changed of course, but until they are, they should not be ignored, regardless of how grand one feels. Let me however ask another question (4.1) instead. --Lysy (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4.1. If you are an admin and see another admin blocked your favourite Hero of Wikipedia for a blockable offence, like 3RR violation, what would be your reaction ? Would you unblock him ? Would you be openly criticizing the other admin ? --Lysy (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the blocking admin also deserves the benefit of doubt, thus, I would try to get an explanation from the blocking admin first. If I disagree with the reasons I would try to get a third, fourth opinion, etc. I would also try to avoid a situation e.g. then we have a conflict between Romanian and Russian editors, then Romanian sysop blocks the Russian editor and a Russian sysop unblocks the Russian and blocks a Romanian, etc. Even perception of such a situation is harmfull. Thus, in such a situation I would try to find some non-Russian sysop to unblock, preferrably a Romanian.
Admins seems to be supposed not to critisize each other in front of mere users. I am loyal enough to obey this rule and use e-mails, closed IRC-channels, etc. abakharev 17:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm supporting your RFA, I'd like to make sure you realize one very important matter: Admins are mere users. If (or when) you become an admin, please don't consider yourself above any other user, either in terms of importance or weight of your opinions. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 17:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the patience in aswering my questions. --Lysy (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5.Why did you react like that in the case of Transnistria? I will describe a little bit the situation also for other readers. He entered into a revert war without knowing any clue about the issue as he recognize himself, then he immeadiately applies labels to the others, then he continue to speak about I don't know what Russian POV of his. When I ask him to read a little bit and only then to edit and to state his opinion he said that I have a conflict with him. I told him that I don't have a conflict with him but I ask him to read, documentate, research first. It looked very bad his approach on that page. Certainly not fit for sysop. Bonaparte talk 11:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting who facts of life can be seen from the other side. OK my story. It was 3am in my time zone. I went onto RC-patrol intending quickly scan through the recent changes pages and to stop working. I have noticed that an unknown me previously user (who happend to be User:Bonaparte) reverted User:Mikkalai on the article Transnistria. I happen to have a high regard for User:Mikkalai, not because, he is Russian, as might be alleged ( BTW he is not, as far as I know), but because I saw quite a number of his edits and have not saw a single cotraversial one). Thus, I regarded any revertion of Mikkalai's edits as an incident worth to check. It also so happen that on the same RC page there was an obviously frivoius report of a vandalism by the same previously unknown to me user, this somehow affected my opinion about quality of judgment of the user. In the added part of the dif there were repeated phrases, poor English. History of edits shown an allegations of copyvio for the branch pushed by Bonaparte. In this circumstances I did that appear to be a right thing - just reverted to Mikkalai. Frankly, I would did just the same , in the circumstances if I would find that a Romanian user whose judgement I respect, e.g. User:Lysy or User:TSO1D was reverted by a Russian user with a history of poor judgement (lets not put concrete names here). Immediately, I recieve a message from Bonaparte asking explanations for my revert. I answered that I find the Mikkalai's version to be better English and less POV and promised to help clean up the article.
In two days I started, as I promise to clean up the article. The article looks like it is a victim of a revert war and also copy-pasting from the different sources without bothering to put the pasted phrases into the logical order, there were fragments literally repeated twice within a single sectin, etc. The copyvio problem is more difficult to judge as the alleged originals are paper articles not urls. Some users (like User:Node ue) admantly state that two large fragments are copyvios by User:Bonaparte, some other (e.g. User:Bonaparte himself) state that the framents have diverged enough from the original. I suspect that many people judging the copyvio status have not seen the alleged originals and make their choice based on their presumption of the trustworthiness of the parties involved in the dispute. Obviously the originals are copyrighted and could not be put on Wikipedia or mass mailed. I have asked Bonaparte (who obviously have the originals) to send copies (pdf or scanned files) to User:Lysy for the evaluation of the copyright problem (I am trusting the judgement of Lysy and I guess Bonaparte trusts him as well. Meanwhile, I decided to be neutral to the edit conflict of Node ue and Bonaparte (if the argument had been about a Russian-related or Australia-related I would insisted, the alleged copyvios been removed from the article unless evaluated by a third party).
I belive my edits,revised by TSO1D and later Woysyl improved the article but there are many things to be done. Most of my edits were general improving of the article, putting things in logical and chronological orders, etc. I have improved and extended the section on prosecution of dissident Ilasco. My changes are objectively against Transnistrian government and their sponsoring by Russia, but these are facts not opinion and deserve to be in the article. There were also unrelated improvements of the article at the same day performed by User:Zscout370 and User:Phil Boswell and an edit war between Node ue and two anonymous users over the allegedly copyvioed fragments. Node ue did bother to include all the edits of that day to his edit and the anonyms did not, wholesale reverting all the work of five different editors (including me). Thus, I twice reverted the anonymous reverters, keeping all other editor's changes in, include Node ue's. It does not mean I am endorsing or disendorsing removing of copyvio's paragraphes - before either me or Woysyl would see the originals I intend to be neutral in this regard. And if the anonyms would only restore the problem fragments or revert Node ue I would not interfere. Unfortunately the anonym revrted the work of five different good people and deserved to be reverted him( or her) self. Woysyl also informed me that Node ue's changes were not simple removing the alllegedly copyvio's and improving of wikilinking as it was stated in the summary, but that he also reverted a few of Woysyl's noncontraversial edits (It looks like Node ue did not have time to fully explain his changes in the edit summary). Thus, by keeping Node ue's edits I also reverted good Woysyl's edits. I already said sorry to Woysyl and would like to have an opportunity to say sorry again. Anybody interested in the details of my edits on the article are welcome to see the history of the Transnistria article, its talk page and the talk pages of me, User:Lysy and User:Bonaparte abakharev 16:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. There is some personal information on your page. How many years were you exposed to the western civilisation? --Vasile 15:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I consider Russia an indeniable part of Western Civilization, so you may simply ask how old am I. I am 41 and never lived in Eastern Civilization. If you are asking how lonag have I lived outside of Russia, then I went to USA (Central Illinois) in 1992, since 1996 I live have been living in Australia. I went once back in Russia for two weeks, went to Finland/Sweden/Denmark for three week trip and lived a few days in Canada and Austra. abakharev 17:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does this question have to do with Alex's adminship run? Not to mention that Russia is a western civilization.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, welll...I guess everybody had seen your western civilization here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FAlex_Bakharev&diff=34120518&oldid=34120195 when you deleted my valid question. Bonaparte talk 16:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have not deleted any questions. Would you mind to repeat it again abakharev 17:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alex, Bonaparte was actually talking about me deleting his question (number 8 below, which you already have answered). I believe I now know how it happened, but it's of no interest for the purposes of this RfA.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I am not sure how question 8 got deleted when I posted my comment—a glitch, perhaps? I certainly did not intend to delete anything. If it makes you feel any better, I apologize for not re-checking my edit after I posted it. Anyway, I am still interested in hearing about what "western civilization" has to do with Alex's admin run. Vasile?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not able to see your (Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)) interest here. Meanwhile, I still waiting for Alex Bakharev answers as I think it is neither civilized nor fair to ignore the questions that you don't like just because you have eventually managed to make enough friends to vote for the position. --Vasile 16:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My interest is that of a nominator. I happen to highly regard Alex, his occasional mistakes nonwithstanding (show me a human being who never made mistakes). Furthermore, considering the extent of Alex's answer to the Lysy's question above, I think it's unfair to accuse him of "ignoring" the questions. I am quite sure he is now thinking the rest of the questions over and preparing extensive replies to them. Let's give him time, shall we?
In any case, I strongly urge you to withdraw this question of yours as irrelevant. It's your right to wonder about things like him belonging to western or any other civilization, but, please, ask it elsewhere. His western exposure has just as much to do with his prospective adminship as the number of cats he owns or whether or not he excersises regularly.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment to the question: This questions seems extremely insensitive on the borderline of racism. The condenscending attitude from the question author whose considering himself a part of the Western civilization doesn't prevent him from using the such extremely "western civil" edut summaries like [15], [16], [17] is neither justified nor appropriate. --Irpen 19:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here we talk about reaction of Alex Bakharev not about Vasile. Here is the RfA of Alex Bakharev not other person. Don't forget this. Bonaparte talk 19:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about a specific question posed at this RfA, highly inappropriate and with racist overtones. I am not talking about Vasile in general. His behavior here as well as his edits talk about him well enough so far. --Irpen 19:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment to question #6: I too believe this question from Vasile is irrelevant and inappropriate, to say the very least. - Introvert  ? @ 09:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Your very recent self-declared "POV Russian" edits on Transnistria were intended to increase your chances into this adminship race? Although you seem to reach enough votes, it will be great to have you answering these questions. --Vasile 15:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No I already described the history of my involvement in the article by answering the question 6. I have heared that User:Ezhiki is preparing my RfA, I had no idea the date it suppose to be. If I knew it would concide with the RfA I might want to avoid involvement into the contraversial editing for a few days. abakharev 17:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe is a coincidence because your edits on Transnistria brought you more negative votes. At the moment of your edits, no POV was controversial in that article, but an alleged copyvio. --Vasile 00:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


How dare you to delete my question? Do you want to be de-sysoped???comment by User:Bonaparte 16:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8. Tell us about your self proclaimed "russian POV approach" that you intend to apply for the paragraph of russian troups withdrawal from Transnistria as NATO, USA, European Union, Romania asks. Bonaparte talk 16:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, there are facts and there are opinions. I want all the facts to be present and all opinion to be attributed. I am probably more sensitive to the opinions related to Russia and most Romanian editors to the opinions related to Romania. I would refer the interesting to the talk:Transnistria. abakharev 17:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


9. I think highly of yours as one of the most tolerant and balanced editors. Still, I have a question to you. Ghirlandajo is known for his ruide behavior with respect to other editors. He was blocked several times. His behaviour was also discussed in the request for comment. Arbitration Committee is currently voting to warn him for his ruidness. In the same time you honored his activity with St. Vladimir Barnstar "in recognition of his leadership on Portal:Russia project". Do you feel yourself comfortable in the community having such leaders? Do not you think that the Russian wiki-community should react differently to such kind of behaviour of their members instead of encouraging them? -- Yakudza 16:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ghirlandajo is a brilliant editor, but he is one of the most impolite editors I met on Wikipedia (trolls exluded). I gave him the barnstar not for his politeness but for his contributions. Rude edit summaries, sometimes crazy comments on talk pages are indeed a problem. One of the possible benefits for me if this RfA would fail is that this will be somebody else's problem not mine. If the RfA succeded it will be mine problem and I am thinking how I will try to fix it. Just now I have a more immediate problem though - to return him back to Wikipedia at all abakharev 18:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think that the ruidness of Ghirlandajo is the only problem? What do think about his Russian chauvinist POV-pushing that have been provoking conflicts between East-European users for sveral times? What do you think about renamin Miedzymorze to Polish imperialism? What do you think about his moves of the articles about Ukrainian cities like Putyvl, Ochakiv? Does it make him a brilliant editor in your view? --Yakudza 15:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yakudza, I hope that you do away with your vandalizing habits before casting votes next time. --Ghirla | talk 16:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Yakudza, sometimes improvements to civility are better to start from oneselves. Lets start with appologizing to Ghirlandajo for vandalizing his userpage abakharev 19:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10.Dear Alex, I would like to remind you your conversation with your friend Irpen on his talk page. You admitted that your knowlege of Ukrainian history does not go beyond Soviet school textbooks [18]. So you knowlege were not sufficient to judge who is right in the dispute. Still, you decided to start an edit war agains me[19]. Why do you think that an edit war is a better solution than a fair discussion? Are you going to use your admin power to "win" the edit war agains your and your friends' opponents?unsigned comment by User:AndriyK 22:50, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
The story you telling related to my first months on Wikipedia. Now I would probably advise Irpen to start an RFC or ArbCom process instead of having a revert war. I might be not such a good expert on the Ukrainian History as you or Irpen but I consider myself to be a quick learner and reasonably good in Internet search and evaluating the sources. I am also relatively good in searching for compromise. If you can give me an example of my lack of expertise in Ukrainian history hampering the editing of an Ukrainian-related article please give it here and I will bring you my appology. abakharev 01:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that you can learn quickly and would appreciate your interest to Ukrainian history. If you get deaper into the subject, you'll see that Irpen is not such a great expert in Ukrainian history as he pretends to be.
Your lack of experience in Ukrainian history is what you admitted your self, it's not my judgement. This would not be a big problem, if you would start a fair discussion, instead of blindly following Irpen's instructions and "go into the edit war" as you wrote [20]. If you would like to have an exaple, please look at your reverts of Ukrainian language in October. I tried to expand a section about the origin of the language to desribe all opinions available in the scientific community, Irpen prevented me from doing it by continuous revert wars and messing up my edits. And you helped him. This is like people of your community act: you push your POV by "brutal forth", i.e. using the fact that there are more Russian users then, for instance, Ukrainian or Romanian.
And the comments of your friends below, that propose to ignore my question, demonstrates once more that peole from this community are not ready to a fair discussion.
This sre your common activities with these peope that made me to vote against your appointment.--AndriyK 14:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment: for the sake of full disclosure, the context of this needs be given. It will take a little time for me, to dig out some old edits and, possibly, emails but I will provide them here soon. Please be a little bit patient. --Irpen 23:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment: AndriyK's question is rhetorical because it presumes agreeing with his point of view (that the candidate would "think that an edit war is a better solution than a fair discussion"). The candidate complained against AndriyK at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK, which could clarify his objection. Therefore, this "question" should be entirely ignored. Sciurinæ 00:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment to question #10: second that conclusion; these questions from User:AndriyK can't be asking for any orderly answer. - Introvert  ? @ 09:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11. You stated that user Ghirlandajo known for his offensive remarks towards other nationalities on Wiki, and pushing extreme views[21] should be given special rights agains people you called "trolls"[22]. How may we see this ? How will you pursue your promise to give Ghirlandajo special rights that will allow him to be above other editors ? Or do you retreat from this position of yours. Why do you believe people who oppose Ghirlandajo edits are simple "trolls". Does it mean you agree with his remarks, comments and edits he has been pushing forward against opposition from editors of other then Russian ethnic group  ? --Molobo 21:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the users who create quality content like Ghirlandajo or e.g. User:Halibutt should enjoy greater respect than the users who are on Wikipedia to socialize, enjoy disruptive behavior POV-pushing or vandalism. You may want to look into my answer to question 4.
Talking about Ghirlandajo, some of his personal attacks or uncivility deserved stern warnings and/or short-time blocks. The actions would be more productive if issued on the spot, not weeks later (that is by somebody who monitor the articles in his Universe) and by somebody who would not be immediately accused of an Anti-Russian bias. As I said in the answer to question 9, if the RfA would go through I would consider Ghirlandajo occasional uncivility to be a problem of mine, otherwise let it be somebody's else. abakharev 23:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answers.They didn't change my position regarding your candidacy, but I respect that you took your time.
--Molobo 00:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alex, I don't know why you make a point of proving to these trolls that you are not my alter ego. Do you think this would win any additional points? With all due respect, I find the whole discussion sickening. That fabled "incivility" of Ghirlandajo became the main subject of the current page as too many wikipedians connived the transformation of this page into a playground for trolls. Just like AndriyK attempted to direct his own RfAr against me, Bonaparte, Molobo and Co managed to turn Alex's RfA into the umpteenth discussion of User:Ghirlandajo, percieved by them as the greatest problem of Wikipedia. This is called personal attack, it's as simple as that. The only people complaining of my "incivility" are inveterate trolls whose aim is to disrupt Wiki by promoting their nationalist agenda, the Great Trinity as I call them: user:Bonaparte (blocked indefinitely by now), User:AndriyK) (about to be banned for a month due to wide-scale fraudulent activities), and User:Molobo (corroborated as a troll by dozens editors from many countries on his recent RfC). My only hope is that the new ArbCom will eventually ban these three together, so they could devote more time to their favourite usenet soc.culture.* groups, in which they could post any sort of nationalist drivel uncensured. These three campaigners share a number of characteristics perhaps worthy to become a subject of Wikipedia:Trolls, e.g., neither of them contributed a single new article to this project. I'm surprized that you have fed all these trolls for so long. My golden rule - "don't feed the trolls" - therefore I communicate with them as little as possible and recommend the same to you. --Ghirla | talk 16:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ghirla, What I said on this RfA I said not out of some wikipolitics bit because I meant it. You know I like your edits and also appreciate your great effort you put into this RfA. Still I am asking for the mop and bucket not out of a personal vanity or to use them as weapons. I want to make our corner of wikiuniverse to be cleaner and more productive environment. It means more comfortable place to you for writing your articles, but also more comfortable place for e.g. User:Bryndza for writing his. I would like you both to have a polite discussion on the talk pages of the relevant articles not a mud-fight. In general, I would rather feed a troll than intimidate a productive user. Lets discuss what we can do after this RfA will finish one way or another abakharev 19:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the second time on this page that you, Molobo, show Ghirlandajo's RfC, like he was the one voted on. Mind your own one.
  • Your question n°1 is a leading question and your question n°2 is a loaded question or is there a prove that Alex made such a promise?
  • Question 3 is a loaded question which tries to point out that your summary of his position was correct and no°4 is a loaded question because again you presume something (when did the candidate say that he'd believe all opponents of Ghirlandajo are trolls?).
  • Question 5 is a loaded question insulting Ghirladajo as a POV pusher against other nationalities Sciurinæ 00:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sciurinæ-I never knew you were the second account of Alex Bakharev, and have a need to answer questions for the candidate.On the other hand if you feel you have enough time to answer questions for him, you may perhaps take time to answer an of mine towards you[[23] --Molobo 00:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against such questions being posed to enforce your point of view. As for your ad hominem question about me, Molobo, you asked them twice already to defame me and deflect from the relevant topics and you've long got your answer[24] and your constant insistance on it might go straight into an RfAr against you. If you like to ask the candidate a real question and not to simply try to paint a black picture of him (and of me now), go ahead. Sciurinæ 00:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sciurinæ-if you have a problem with me post on my talk page(without using personal attacks or insults of course)-but please don't mess up the RfA of Alex with your personal disputes. Have a Good Day. --Molobo 01:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alex_Bakharev&oldid=1146804955"