Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:03, 6 January 2006

Alex Bakharev

[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev|action=edit}} Vote here] (17/3/2) 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

Support as a nominator.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support three words: moderated, logical, polite–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?)
Support Node 00:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wholeheartedly support. Ambi 03:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Neutrality^talk 06:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. -- Phædriel 06:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Snakes
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]
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]
Support good editor and I'm unimpressed with opposition.Gator (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Kefalonia 15:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None of the oppose reasons change my mind that this would help Wikipedia. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
King of All the Franks 23:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
Support one of the best editors I've seen on Wikipedia. Fisenko 03:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Terence Ong ^Talk 14:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

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]
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]. — TheKMan^talk 01:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Oppose. It's inappropriate to call other admins "stupid". Here it is: [3]. --Just a tag 11:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tag tu es kazut la tieni bonapartului... but then, nu am ajdatit kum diferit! --Node (This is a personal attack on user Just a tag made by Node ) 07:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auhh..that link does not lead to the word "stupid".Voice of All^T|@|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

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]

Neutral, leaning towards support. En-wiki needs good Russian admins, but I'll need to look closer at it. --Wojsyl ^(talk) 10:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I'll need more time to evaluate the candidate's activity. Ukrained 21:10, 5 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]
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 am happy that we are not in the conflict with each other. I suggest, we discuss my editing of the Transnistria on the Talk:Transnistria, but if this suit you better, we can of course discuss it here as well. abakharev 07:39, 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)

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]

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]

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) --Wojsyl ^(talk) 10:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. comment at User_talk:Wojsyl#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, Wojsyl, 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 the final decision should be of 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@@ Line 91: / Line 91: @@
 : '''6.''' There is some personal information on your page. How many years were you exposed to the western civilisation? --[[User:Vasile|Vasile]] 15:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
+::What does this question have to do with Alex's adminship run?  Not to mention that Russia ''is'' a western civilization.&mdash;[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)]] 16:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 : '''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. --[[User:Vasile|Vasile]] 15:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
-:'''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. [[User:Bonaparte|<font color="#FFFFFF" style="background: maroon;"> Bonaparte </font>]] [[User talk:Bonaparte|<small>talk</small>]] 16:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)