Alex earlier account (talk | contribs) m →[[User:Alex Bakharev|Alex Bakharev]]: erase Yodo's copy paste |
my edits will remain |
||
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
Why? For this: '''Oppose''' due to low use of edit summaries for major edits. |
Why? For this: '''Oppose''' due to low use of edit summaries for major edits. |
||
'''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. [http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%A4%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BC&diff=664395&oldid=664189] [http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%A4%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BC&diff=675297&oldid=675292#en:Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship.2FAlex_Bakharev]. |
'''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. [http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%A4%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BC&diff=664395&oldid=664189] [http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%A4%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BC&diff=675297&oldid=675292#en:Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship.2FAlex_Bakharev]. |
||
'''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 |
|||
There are plenty of admin candidates; no point in taking a risk on one with this much controversy. |
|||
'''Oppose''' Afraid, Alex Bakharev has got a POV on the national issues, which I wouldn't like to see in an admin |
|||
My support to the policy of neutrality. |
|||
You've been asked to elaborate: I'd consider that a necessitation. |
|||
Yes, I would say it is ''always'' necessary to back up such a strong complaint with evidence of wrongdoing. |
|||
Does the fact that Ghirlandajo wants Alex to be admin means that Alex will be pushing POV? |
|||
'''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[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ghirlandajo] 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''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGhirlandajo&diff=33838163&oldid=33835704]. 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. |
|||
#Here are a few edits by Alex Bakharev on [[Transnistria]] that Bonaparte ''may'' be referring to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=next&oldid=33468672] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=33835505&oldid=33831831]. — |
|||
'''Oppose''' It's inappropriate to call other admins "stupid". Here it is: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGhirlandajo&diff=33696567&oldid=33675972]. #:Auhh..that link does not lead to the word "stupid".''' |
|||
#Uhm, you probably were not careful enough, I quote: ''It is not Ghirlandajo's fault that the admin was incompetent and/or stupid'' --[[User:Just a tag|Just a tag]] 17:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
#'''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. &mdash |
|||
'''Oppose''' although Alex is much more balanced, tolerant and polite than his friends [[User:Irpen|Irpen]] and [[User:Ghirlandajo|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. |
|||
'''Oppose''' per insulting an admin like that. Criticism is certainly welcome, but not hasty insults. |
|||
'''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. |
|||
'''Oppose''' - Any [[WP:NPA|attacking]], especially Admin attacking is a very bad thing. And that one was fairly recent. Too many rude comments to other users. |
|||
'''Very Strong Oppose''' Do we need a russian push-POVer? No. |
|||
'''Oppose''' see my question for Alex and I against division editor on people first, second and third sort |
|||
'''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. |
|||
'''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. |
|||
'''Oppose'''. Basing on the above votes and the e-mail sent to me by [[User:Ghirlandajo|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. |
|||
'''Neutral''' |
'''Neutral''' |
Revision as of 12:47, 17 February 2006
[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev 2|action=edit}} Vote here] (9/7/4) ending 19:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Alex Bakharev (talk · contribs) – This is the second adminship nomination of Alex Bakharev. The first nomination took place in January 2006. Its outcome (70/23/2) was interpreted as lack of consensus, and as a result Alex was not promoted.
Alex is a delightful bilingual and multicultural contributor who has been with Wikipedia since June 2005. During this time, he made valuable contributions on subjects of Russia and Ukraine, as well as science and technology, and participated in a number of clean-up and organizational activities. He is an active participant of Portal:Russia, and he regularly takes part in the new page patrol—a task that not too many existing admins find particularly enjoying. Alex strives to be calm and polite with other editors, and his behavior under pressure is nothing short of remarkable. He always assumes good faith first, and his approach to problem resolution is always methodical and based on logic instead of emotions. Considering his undeterred commitment to Wikipedia, the scope of his contributions, and his willingness to perform administrative tasks I urge voters to support Alex’s nomination one more time, this time with a better margin. Access to administrative tools will greatly improve Alex’s efficiency and in the end will help make Wikipedia a better place.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 14:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
- Yes, I accept the nomination abakharev 19:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Support
- Support as a nominator.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- May I suggest to change your vote?--Yodo 12:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support normally, I'd like to see longer time between noms, but given the sockpuppetry issues, I will make an exception to the general rule with this nomination.Gator (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Supporting him you support GHIRLANDAJO and others trollers like him--Yodo 12:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support and I hope there will be
noless trolling this time. --Irpen 21:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC) - Support. I'd have preferred it if Alex waited a bit, but I was not impressed by the arguments from the opposition last time and I was very surprised that Alex was not bestowed admin duties then. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- PS: My comment should not be read as a criticism on the b'crat closing the previous RfA but as a criticism of the Wikipedia community who voted on the RfA. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. One of people whose edits I can safely skip when checking. Pavel Vozenilek 00:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Jusjih 00:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support a valuable contributor. --Scott Davis Talk 03:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Da (Yes, I support). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 05:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Impressed with answers to candidacy questions. Olessi 06:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. What I know of him is thath is edits are always working towards building a better encyclopedia and he is unfailingly friendly, polite and calm. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Because I am an anti-Romanian, soviet ex-KGB smirnovist Russian irredentist anti-semitic stalinist vandal, I obviously support this candidate. Just kidding. But I do support. --Node 10:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- Weak Oppose I realize the last nomination was flawed by puppetry, but this is still to soon afterwards for the valid concerns of several objectors to have been adequately, fully addressed. Xoloz 19:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose Signing all above-said about Mr.Bakharev as a contributor, I doubt that he would use the administrator rights properly and neutrally. To be exact, I'm afraid of his possible passiveness in reacting on pro-Russian POV-pushers and trolls. E.g., Mr.Bakharev is closely co-operates with renown and warned trolls Ghirlandajo and Kuban Kazak, paying (I think) no attention to their attcks on Ukraine and Ukrainians. Recently I directly requested his help and position over such an attack. He answered with a very doubtful statement that IMHO reveals his readiness to cover trollism. I don't need such an admin. Neither do all of you. BTW, do we have any non-admin WP position for such a good contributor? Expert or something? I mean adminship is a responsibility, not an award. Ukrained 22:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Ukrained you can say whatever you want about me here, I am a fair game, but I would appreciate if you WP:AGF, follow WP:NOP and withdraw personal attack against other users, even if their POV is somehow different from yours. For the problem mentioned I urge interesting parties to look to the link provided by Ukrained. The situation is here: during editing the Khreschatyk article User:Kuban_kazak allowed a personal attack against User:Andrew Alexander. Later he publicly apologized to everybody, but the attack is obviously stays in the history of the article. According to Ukrained his apologies were not strong enough. When User:Irpen suggested to co-sign the RFC about the matter, Ukrained refused. Indeed Ukrained asked me "to clear my name" and help him against the Kuban Kazak. I wish I could help Ukrained with his grievances, but I simply do not know how as a user I can help him. Irpen already proposed Ukained his expertise to help with a possible RfC. As an administrator I could possibly warn Kuban Kazak that the next time in a similar situation I might apply a short block against him (and even this would be controversial, I would probably have to ask a third opinion about the matter). I am sorry, Ukrained, but that are the rules, at least Kuban Kazak appologized for his attack, and you AFAIK no. abakharev 22:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Not satisfied with your reply, Alex. People, please read my references, not only their summary done by nominee. This is your election, Alex, not mine. Sorry for judging you so hard, I know I promised not to address you again. But this is WP politics: you did accept the renomination and became public (I thought you wouldn't). BTW, feel free to take any actions against any of my edit or discussion post - but not here. Willing to end this conversation or move it elsewhere (at the bottom of this page?) Ukrained 23:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Checking the links above is worthy a look. Alex Bakharev's summary is totally accurate. The original remark by Kuban kazak[1] made on Jan 28 at 12:39 was indeed inappropriate. I promptly told him so[2] on the same day at 20:13 although he directed it against the editor, with whom my own experience was very bitter[3]. In any case, my warning to Kuban kazak was already at his talk when Ukrained started to run around other people's talk "challenging" them to "act" against Kuban kazak. If he wanted others reprimand K.k. this wasn't necessary already. What he wanted is to embarrass Alex Bakharev[4] leaving him a "challenge" which was belated by then anyway.The rest of discussion is available here. Soon after, Kuban kazak issued an apology [5] (at 20:41) for his inappropriate remark. Ukrained, OTOH, continued his crusade and I left him a message telling him that if he is not satisfied, he is entitled to an RfC and this is the right way to pursue the issue rather than running to talk pages of uninvolved users in order to embarrass them. I even offered Ukrained that I will agree to certify the basis of the dispute for the RfC [6] which is required for an RfC to be valid because although I thought the issue is addressed by apology, I had no problem to confirm its existence, should Ukrained have wanted to proceed. Ukrained chose to abandon this or simply calmed down and now he resurrects it again simply in an attempt to derail an RfA of one of the most ethical and worthy Wikipedians for the job. Too bad if others will fall into this trap. What I mean is that "too soon", "not enough summaries" and other technicalities are valid (while strange IMO) conserns and voters are entitled to them. But if anyone is "alarmed" but this issue, please care to check the links above. --Irpen 01:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Ukrained you can say whatever you want about me here, I am a fair game, but I would appreciate if you WP:AGF, follow WP:NOP and withdraw personal attack against other users, even if their POV is somehow different from yours. For the problem mentioned I urge interesting parties to look to the link provided by Ukrained. The situation is here: during editing the Khreschatyk article User:Kuban_kazak allowed a personal attack against User:Andrew Alexander. Later he publicly apologized to everybody, but the attack is obviously stays in the history of the article. According to Ukrained his apologies were not strong enough. When User:Irpen suggested to co-sign the RFC about the matter, Ukrained refused. Indeed Ukrained asked me "to clear my name" and help him against the Kuban Kazak. I wish I could help Ukrained with his grievances, but I simply do not know how as a user I can help him. Irpen already proposed Ukained his expertise to help with a possible RfC. As an administrator I could possibly warn Kuban Kazak that the next time in a similar situation I might apply a short block against him (and even this would be controversial, I would probably have to ask a third opinion about the matter). I am sorry, Ukrained, but that are the rules, at least Kuban Kazak appologized for his attack, and you AFAIK no. abakharev 22:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose-abakharev supports giving Ghirlandajo special rights placing him above other users. His support for contributors with strong nationalistic bias like Ghirlandajo who have been warned several times, speaks poorly about his objectivity as a moderator.--Molobo 23:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Just for the record, I am not advocating special rights for Ghirlandajo, I am not advocating special rights for anyone, I indeed stand for extra caution and extra politeness when dealing with people who enormously contributed to Wikipedia, icluding User:Ghirlandajo, User:Halibutt, User:Gmaxwell, User:SlimVirgin, User:Oleg Alexandrov, User:Jimbo Wales, etc., etc., etc. I would think this is a common sense. The issue was beaten to death in my first RfA and I refer everybody interested there. abakharev
- Oppose, without prejudice Even taking the puppets into account, too soon. Withdraw, wait a few weeks and reapply, and I (and many others) will vote for you in a second. But this soon implys that you really really want these powers, which is unsettling and pushes me towards thinking you'll eventually abuse them, or that you dont understand some basic policies, such as 'Adminship is no big deal'. -AKMask 01:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- It so happened that I talked to Alex before nominating him, and it's probably my fault that I pressed him into accepting re-nomination so fairly soon. For one, I believe the first one was extremely flawed. I also, however, believe, the sooner Alex becomes an admin, the better for the project. By denying him adminship for some abstract "shoulda, woulda, too soon anyway" reasons, you are basically denying Wikipedia an extra pair of custodial hands. Considering what cleanup activities Alex pulls and their scope, waiting "a few weeks" means a an accumulation of few weeks worth of slime, grime, and dirt that could have otherwise be cleaned up and sorted out. If the "too soon" argument is your only objection, I strongly urge you to reconsider.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 01:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Up to some degree I was supportive in your first nomination. And I certainly agree that in some areas you are a valuable contributor. In the same time in the recent Talk:Holodomor you stated that you "personally feel the Genocide theory is a lie, since there was not published a single document requiring preferential treatment of Russians over Ukrainians, but the theory is so well published that we have to somehow mention it"[7]. I certainly don't want to affect your feelings but the United States Congress Commission on the Ukraine Famine in their findings stated that "Joseph Stalin and those around him committed genocide against Ukrainians in 1932-1933"[8], and I trust the U.S. Congress Commission, not your feelings. And I know that my grand-grand-father died during the famine, quite early for his age. As an admin, you need common humanitarian qualities. I am not sure that you have them. Uapatriot 02:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, This is my personal opinion on the matter. On ther other hand, it was me he proposed a workable compromise that included in the opening sentense both Ukrainian Genocide and Ukrainian Holocost see Talk:Holodomor#suggestion? and Talk:Holodomor#Suggestion, version 2, despite strong objection of the moderate party. I would think that introducing a compromise aginst somebody's personal opiniones is a sign of neutrality. I do not think that the substance of the Holodomor argument is not particulary relevant here. abakharev 02:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Stick to facts, not to personal opinions. This is what encyclopedia is about. Uapatriot 02:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Good suggestion, that is why I stronlgy support inclusion of this Congress desicion into the article. abakharev 02:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Uapatriot, facts of this matter are highly understudied and in the politicized climate are often twisted by all sides. In no way Alex was imposing his personal opinion on the article. To the contrary, in order to find a compromise, he offered a version that went against his personal opinion. This speaks much of his neutrality. I am afraid you are approaching this article through an emotional perception. My family was also directly affected by this catastrophe. When I edit that article, I try not to think about it. But in any case, it is especially inapropriate to bring personal emotions over one of the articles into an RfA. Sorry for being harsh. Please do not take this as an offence. --Irpen 03:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- highly understudied? This is what some wish it to be and to stay this way. Type Holodomor or Ukrainian Genocide in Google. Very well studied and documented as of now. It's rather the willingness to face the facts. Uapatriot 11:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, This is my personal opinion on the matter. On ther other hand, it was me he proposed a workable compromise that included in the opening sentense both Ukrainian Genocide and Ukrainian Holocost see Talk:Holodomor#suggestion? and Talk:Holodomor#Suggestion, version 2, despite strong objection of the moderate party. I would think that introducing a compromise aginst somebody's personal opiniones is a sign of neutrality. I do not think that the substance of the Holodomor argument is not particulary relevant here. abakharev 02:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. --Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 03:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. *yawn*... rather unimpressive. Charges of Russian nationalism, etc., not something we need more of. Alexander 007 11:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Your best friend User:Bonaparte destroyed the previous nomination with his trolling and socks, and now you are here to take his place?.. *yawn*... rather unimpressive. --Ghirla | talk 11:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I found this page when I clicked on User:Node ue's contributions. I voted oppose after reading the numerous complaints and objections on this page... *yawn* I don't have time to sift though these charges, and it is safer to vote oppose with such users. ---Alexander 007 11:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- I have always suspected that you and Bonny are socks, but your trolling here makes my suspecions speed-rocket. OK, I won't be feeding trolls on this page any more. --Ghirla | talk 12:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Who is trolling here, Ghirlandajo? Nobody except you. I voted oppose, gave a reason, and moved on. I really do not care about monsieur Bakharev's nomination enough either way to go further into this. Regards, Alexander 007 12:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's a shame that we allow suffrage to those people who "don't care". I don't have time to sift though their contributions and determine whether they are trolls or not, but it's better not to count such votes. --Ghirla | talk 12:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Ghirlandajo, you are being ridiculous :-) I am not the only one here who voted to oppose, and I voted oppose after reading numerous objections in this RfA, as well as recalling the numerous objections in the previous RfA. Stop whining. Alexander 007 12:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's a shame that we allow suffrage to those people who "don't care". I don't have time to sift though their contributions and determine whether they are trolls or not, but it's better not to count such votes. --Ghirla | talk 12:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Who is trolling here, Ghirlandajo? Nobody except you. I voted oppose, gave a reason, and moved on. I really do not care about monsieur Bakharev's nomination enough either way to go further into this. Regards, Alexander 007 12:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- I have always suspected that you and Bonny are socks, but your trolling here makes my suspecions speed-rocket. OK, I won't be feeding trolls on this page any more. --Ghirla | talk 12:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I found this page when I clicked on User:Node ue's contributions. I voted oppose after reading the numerous complaints and objections on this page... *yawn* I don't have time to sift though these charges, and it is safer to vote oppose with such users. ---Alexander 007 11:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Your best friend User:Bonaparte destroyed the previous nomination with his trolling and socks, and now you are here to take his place?.. *yawn*... rather unimpressive. --Ghirla | talk 11:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- VERY STRONGLY OPPOSE--Yodo 12:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I will explain why I voted like this:
Why? For this: Oppose due to low use of edit summaries for major edits. 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]. 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
There are plenty of admin candidates; no point in taking a risk on one with this much controversy.
Oppose Afraid, Alex Bakharev has got a POV on the national issues, which I wouldn't like to see in an admin My support to the policy of neutrality.
You've been asked to elaborate: I'd consider that a necessitation.
Yes, I would say it is always necessary to back up such a strong complaint with evidence of wrongdoing.
Does the fact that Ghirlandajo wants Alex to be admin means that Alex will be pushing POV?
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[11] 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[12]. 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.
- Here are a few edits by Alex Bakharev on Transnistria that Bonaparte may be referring to [13] [14]. —
Oppose It's inappropriate to call other admins "stupid". Here it is: [15]. #:Auhh..that link does not lead to the word "stupid".
- 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)
- 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. &mdash
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. Oppose per insulting an admin like that. Criticism is certainly welcome, but not hasty insults. 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. Oppose - Any attacking, especially Admin attacking is a very bad thing. And that one was fairly recent. Too many rude comments to other users. Very Strong Oppose Do we need a russian push-POVer? No. Oppose see my question for Alex and I against division editor on people first, second and third sort 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. 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. 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.
Neutral
- Neutral. I think you may have taken the "at least one month between nominations" guideline a little too literally in creating another request for adminship. More time is needed before requests, I personally feel. Therefore, I am neutral to this request. Deskana (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- The guideline asks for "at least one month", and it was not previously challenged. How can you blame someone for being too "literal" when following the rules accepted by the community?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 19:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- The guideline asks for at least a month for a reason; if you have observed RFA in the past, you will know that (although nominations after only the bare one month minimum are not disallowed), quicker reapplications tend to be treated less favorably. It is a matter of discretion. Xoloz 21:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- That's exactly what pisses me off about that wording. If one month wait is almost always going to be considered insufficient, then why not re-phrase (or at least clarify) the guideline to make it less misleading. I am just ranting, although I seriously hope you'll reconsider, given the circumstances under which the previous nomination failed.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 22:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- I was merely pointing out that guideline incase you weren't aware of it, no offense intended. It still seems too soon to me. My point was not that you are breaking regulations, since you're not, but that it's a bit soon. Besides, that's my opinion on the matter, I don't think rewording the guideline would be good based on simply my opinion. Either way, I've not got an opinion on whether the candidate should be promoted or not. Deskana (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- That's exactly what pisses me off about that wording. If one month wait is almost always going to be considered insufficient, then why not re-phrase (or at least clarify) the guideline to make it less misleading. I am just ranting, although I seriously hope you'll reconsider, given the circumstances under which the previous nomination failed.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 22:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- The guideline asks for at least a month for a reason; if you have observed RFA in the past, you will know that (although nominations after only the bare one month minimum are not disallowed), quicker reapplications tend to be treated less favorably. It is a matter of discretion. Xoloz 21:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- The guideline asks for "at least one month", and it was not previously challenged. How can you blame someone for being too "literal" when following the rules accepted by the community?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 19:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral. Last nomination was a month and several days ago. Would be good to wait a bit more before submitting again. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral I don't really think it is too soon, particularly given the circumstances of the last nomination, but the diffs given by Curps on the Russian Wikipedia in the last nom leave me feeling very uncomfortable. Campaigning here is discouraged, but going elsewhere to do it seems much worse. –Joke 23:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Campaigning discouraged? I would be interested to see where and by whom. Does it mean "you don't like them and discourage them"? In the link provided by Curps there was no campaigning at all. It was simply an info that there is an RfA. Nothing else. We encourage people to broadcast this info by placing a template about the RfA at their user page, which Alex did. I mean you could vote as you wish and your opinion that users should not tell anyone of their RfA is OK to have. But pls explain what's really wrong with this. Maybe at the talk page. --Irpen 00:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think it means that the consensus on RFA seems to be that advertising your RFA outside your Talk and User pages (e.g. on other users' talk pages, on IRC, etc...) is not encouraged. As best I can tell, those edits were at the Russian Village Pump, which seems a little disturbing for an editor that has been accussed of pushing the Russian POV (whatever that means). –Joke 01:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- A single diff proving that Alex "pushed a Russian POV" is more than welcome. So far opposers in both nominations failed to produce a single meaningful diff. --Ghirla | talk 11:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think it means that the consensus on RFA seems to be that advertising your RFA outside your Talk and User pages (e.g. on other users' talk pages, on IRC, etc...) is not encouraged. As best I can tell, those edits were at the Russian Village Pump, which seems a little disturbing for an editor that has been accussed of pushing the Russian POV (whatever that means). –Joke 01:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Campaigning discouraged? I would be interested to see where and by whom. Does it mean "you don't like them and discourage them"? In the link provided by Curps there was no campaigning at all. It was simply an info that there is an RfA. Nothing else. We encourage people to broadcast this info by placing a template about the RfA at their user page, which Alex did. I mean you could vote as you wish and your opinion that users should not tell anyone of their RfA is OK to have. But pls explain what's really wrong with this. Maybe at the talk page. --Irpen 00:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral per Oleg Alexandrov. Of 800+ admins, only one is Russian. Let the Russia-related topics stay "unadminstered", so to speak. It's more fun as it is. The mechanical oppose votes by Uke-Polish nationalists are both amusing and disgusting, as usual. As a sidenote, the last nomination was turned into a clownshow by socks and bureaucrats but no apologies were brought as yet. I fail to see what's the point of accepting the nomination under such circumstances. --Ghirla | talk 08:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Why neutral when you can vote against him? Would be quite funny. --Yodo 12:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Comments
- Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 19:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- See Alex Bakharev's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
- During previous nomination, a concern was voiced about Alex Bakharev's lack of edit summaries in many cases (37% and 53% correspondigly). Please note the improvement.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 19:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer 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 one 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. Currently I have more than 3200 articles on my watchlist that I am trying to protect. I suspect that I am the only one watching some of these articles. If I had an access to the Unwatched articles special page I could drop some articles from my watchlist that are watched by somebody else and watch something Unwatched instead. abakharev 19:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. Well, since my Wiki-birth, I am trying to produce one or two new B-grade level articles per week. The list is in User:Alex Bakharev#New articles and major contributions. Some of them are reasonably good. 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). My contributions to the FA-level articles are not extensive, but I like my Napoleon's theorem originally contributed to the Napoleon I of France#Legacy section. As a regular New article watcher I have reviewed, wikified, linked, categorized and announced on the relevant New article announcement board literally thousands of articles. I think it is usable as otherwise many of these articles would be just a dark matter. abakharev 19:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- 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. Yes, I have been in a few conflicts in the past (see the summary in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev). I do not think I am in the new conflicts of the same scale. It is difficult to see myself from the outside but I precept myself as reasonably neutral, seeking for compromises wherever it is possible and using the formal conflict-resolution means as a last resort. I consider myself as reasonably immune to the personal attacks against me but sometimes overreacting to the attacks against the others. abakharev 19:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes he did, he supported also user:Ghirlandajo with his trolling and socks.
--Scott Davis Talk 03:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- 4. What is NPOV? Should NPOV be based solely on facts, or be obtained by averaging personal opinions? As a particular test case, what would you possibly do (if anything) to support NPOV in an article “Genocide against Jewish in the WWII”? What if the majority of active editors of the article are Germans? Thanks for answering. Uapatriot 11:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- 5. Could you, please, list a few articles related to Ukraine that you have contributed to recently? Preferably, if the contribution has not just been a minor edit, but a few sentences or a paragraph. (Your contribution list is very long and I can't possibly separate the articles I want in reasonable time.) Sashazlv 11:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- 6. You failed once do you want to happen again? --Yodo 12:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- 7. Some users here allege that you are a supporter of Ghirlandajo, a user who has been warned about "incivility or personal attacks" [16]. I am concerned about that. Could you, please, elaborate on the allegation? Sashazlv 12:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)