User talk:Alex Bakharev

Archives:

• Archive1
• Archive2
• Archive3
• Archive4
• Archive5
• Archive6
• Archive7
• Archive8
• Archive9
• Archive10
• Archive11
• Archive12
• Archive13
• Archive14
• Archive15
• Archive16
• Archive17
• Archive18
• Archive19
• Archive20
• Archive21
• Archive22
• Archive23
• Archive24

New article

Could I ask you to please create a new article called Rifle Division (Soviet Union)?

If you choose to create this article, it should have the first three sections from the article List of infantry divisions of the Soviet Union 1917–1957, with the later having a link to the new article.

If you do this, please remove the words "'''rifle [[division (military)|division]]s''' ([[infantry]])" in the second paragraph of the third section, and replace with the link to new article (if you wish).

Please reply here and not at the IP talk page.

Спасибо --58.168.119.43 (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• I do not have good command on military history and I afraid to make stupid mistakes. Might be you can get an account and start such an article yourself? Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me Alex, this is banned User:Mrg3105 talking. I don't recommend cooperating with him, and I'm just about to block this anon IP. Regards Buckshot06(prof) 06:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, socks avoiding bans should be blocked; sorry, Mrg, go ahead, Buckshot06... I personally see no problems in making contributions on behalf of blocked users if I myself is convinced that those particular contributions are constructive and non-controversial. I could accept such suggestions by Email if needed Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not particularly convinced that this was an instance of straightforwardly abusive sockpuppetry and that the indefblock of the master account by an admin who had a conflict with Mrg was warranted. Clearly, this wasn't an instance of block evasion. Scrutiny evasion at most, and did he broke his editing restriction during that period? I am not sure. Colchicum (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)::

Well, formally it is a case of an abusive (avoiding arbcom restrictions) sockpuppetry (self-admitted). What I am not convinced is that this deserves a permaban. Mrg was blocked for a couple of months now, would somebody agree to help me in mentoring him? IMHO mrg is quite valuable for his expertise that over-weights his sins: over-combative attitude to things of low importance and low to medium level incivility. I think it would make a good case to ask Roger to unblock him Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

User Lida Vorig

Hello, I want to ask that, what can wikipedia do about armenian user who flags all normal articles about Azerbaijan? If you check this user:Lida Vorig history, she flags Azerbaijani articles for no reason and nominates without knowing the Wikipedia's policy.

Could you please help me, what to do?--NovaSkola (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have checked a few random contributions from the editor and they appear to be constructive and even hardly controversial. If there are specific disruptive edits please provide diffs. What worries me is that the new user has an unusually good command on wiki policies and jargon. It might mean that he is a sock of a banned or restricted user (because there are plenty of such users involved in AA conflict). If you have specific ideas who he might be please advise me or another administrator (you might use wikimail for more privacy). Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Alex, thanks for your reply. She puts small contributions but I found she is adding a lot of unrelevant info by disinforming the people.

1st case could be in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huseyn_Arablinski&action=history and writing comment that Seems to fit his personality 2nd case, writing that Shusha is not part of Azerbaijan, despite whole UN and world counts as this city is part of Azerbaijan. It is questioning country's soverigny. See for yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Latif_Karimov&action=history 3rd case, removing the word "Azerbaijani" from categories about Azerbaijani people by disinforming the nation http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masud_ibn_Davud&diff=prev&oldid=310307129 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahmud_ibn_Sa%27ad&diff=prev&oldid=310306985 4th case, adding again not notable info, saying Eynulla Fatullayev is kidnapped, actually this stuff never happened to him. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Kidnapped_Azerbaijani_people&diff=prev&oldid=310315717

This user is previously warned by user:CaliforniaAliBaba for adding speedy deletions to Azerbaijani!!

I think there is enough evidence to ban her from editing Azerbaijani articles.--NovaSkola (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• I am not sure that her edits are obviously bad faith, every edit you have mention does look as good faith, although probably biased toward Armenian view point. I can not act here singlehandly. If you think her behavior is covered by one of Arbcom Azeri-Armenian decision the please go to WP:AE, otherwise please start an editorial WP:RFC Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:InfoboxM

A tag has been placed on Template:InfoboxM requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 16:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Help

Could you look into this IP who is removing referenced info and shouting about it: [1]. Thanks!Faustian (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Bot on please?

Hi Alex, I don't know if you are back from your trip, but if you are, could you please get the fantastically useful User:AlexNewArtBot working again? It has been off for 2 or 3 days now I think. All very best wishes and thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• It should be back online now Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry to bother you but do you have any details on why this page [2]] was locked.

I can see that edit warring occured but wondered if there was any debate anywhere

The article seems to attract a lot of conflict (due to the obv problems associated with WW2 and the pogrom)

thanksChaosdruid (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• It was semiprotected because of disruptive IP editing and edit war (as requested by Faustin on my talk page atwo sections above). I think that articles during hot edit warring periods should be semiprotected to avoid sockpuppeting via IP editing, otherwise editors playing by the rules editors are often forced to violations of 3RR or excessive reversions. IP editing is good for noncontraversial by casual editors, editorial disputes are better left to registered users Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009

• Flagged protection and patrolled revisions: Misleading media storm over flagged revisions
• Flagged protection background: An extended look at how we got to flagged protection and patrolled revisions
• Wikimania: Report on Wikimania 2009
• News and notes: $2 million grant, new board members
• Wikipedia in the news: WikiTrust, Azerbaijan-Armenia edit wars
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 14:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Kiev (disambiguation)

Hi, remember this?

• 02:48, 31 July 2007 Alex Bakharev protected "Kiev (disambiguation)"‎ (disruptive editing by IPs/socks [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

As this was a couple of years ago I've started a review to see if it's still considered necessary. See the talk page. --TS 03:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ditto History of Kiev:

• 07:36, 2 August 2007 Alex Bakharev (talk | contribs) protected History of Kiev ‎ (attack of Kyivization puppets [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

See Talk:History of Kiev. --TS 04:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• To be honest I think the underlying conflict of spelling Kiev vs Kyiv is still here and its better to be solved by registered users. If you want to test unprotecting go ahead Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • After the second thought a positive contribution from IP editors to the History of Kiev is quite likely. I have unprotected the article Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

Good to see you back Alex. :-) If you could back the bot back up and running I know several of us would be very greatful. Thanks for all your hard work.Singingdaisies (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

InfoboxM documentation

I moved the doc page from infoboxM (which I deleted) to User:Alex Bakharev/InfoboxM/doc. Protonk (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, I have deleted it anyway as it is not particular usable. Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Dodolev, Evgeny

Could you be more specific regarding your tag? What do you suggest? To remove or to add smth? FHMRUSSIA (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)FHMRUSSIA (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Dudintsev, Not by Bread Alone

Thanks for the work. Totally stunned to see there were no articles on these. I came upon them through my work improving the Khrushchev article, and spent an evening distracted from that project to work on these!--Wehwalt (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Holodomor

Hello,

There is one editor who has made many statements at the Holodomor discussion page - however, apart from this person, nobody has ever questioned the POV status of the article. If anything, this article may very well be the epitome of various POV editors working together to create a balanced article with valid references - everything which remains in this article has stood up to all kinds of scrutiny. Could you please explain why a POV tag is needed now? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Well, for once I have not added the tag, I just deleted the other two of the tags, because I see no indications that they are warranted. I would not edit war to get the POV tag back. If you ask me I feel the article is biased. I do not like you removing the links to the Soviet famine of 1932–1933, I do not feel the translation of the word Holodomor is a correct Ukrainian or Russian. There are many other problems with the article. Alex Bakharev (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I did not say that you added the tags, but rather asked how I can improve the article so that the tag is not needed. Could you please point to some specifics, or even general things? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Biophys

I need a third opinion about this. As I've explained at Talk:Russian apartment bombings, Biophys has once again reverted the lead section to his favourite version, a version that is OVER A YEAR OLD.[3] I have criticised this version of the lead many times, made dozens of improvements on it (along with other editors), yet Biophys decides to ignore all this. Again, the version he reverted to is over a year old.

I hate to say this, but this isn't the first time Biophys performs a wholesale revert of something to his favourite version (regardless of how old that version might be.) He has done this many times on the apartment bombings article, and also on Alexander Litvinenko as well, for example. Could you please give him a warning that such behaviour is not acceptable? I think this is a clear case of article ownership. Constantly reverting to a year old version is completely unacceptable. If you don't want to do anything about this, can you at least please give me advice on what to do about this? He seems to be doing this over and over again. Offliner (talk) 05:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alex. Thank you for your participation in discussion. I would like to cooperate on various issues as much as possible, and I do not mean only this article. And in fact, I have been cooperative by not editing certain articles. But if others do not want to cooperate with me even on relatively minor issues, then what can I do? Any good advice from you would be very welcome. Thanks, Biophys (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that Biophys is a disruptive user who too often refuses to continue discussing issues and just reverts, which results in edit warring. His reverts are often sneaky; he writes one thing in the edit summary but does another, usually entirely reverting the article to his version.

For example, here on June 15, 2009 he reverted to his version from Nov. 3, 2008! As you can see here the versions are exactly the same (31 intermediate changes deleted). He hoped that no one would notice, and it worked until this week.

Talking to him proved a waste of time, as he would pretend to try, but then stop and continue to revert to his POVed version.

If you look at the history and talk pages of the Soviet human rights article, you can easily see what I mean.

Why should such users go unpunished? -YMB29 (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit history indicates you have an adversarial relationship with regard to Biophys' contributions, so you're not an objective party here. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  00:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well so does Offliner, so what is your point? Maybe you should look into why we have adversarial relationship with him? I have experienced the same problems with Biophys, so I said that I can confirm. -YMB29 (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Biophys did it again: [4]. It's the same version as before[5][6], only one sentence is altered (this is typical of Biophys: he tries to disguise his wholesale reverts as "compromise versions", which contain only a nominal change.) Can you please give him a warning to make him stop? Offliner (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Alex, I think we came to an agreement with ellol at the article talk page to use word "conspiracy" for defining the FSB involvement (please take a look), but as soon as we did, Offliner reverted everything in a few seconds, without even talking [7].I do not know if you can help, but if you can not (which is understandable), it seems that my effort towards the cooperation had failed.Biophys (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This second revert of yours is exactly the same as the first one (reversion of the lead to a year old version), take a look at the comparison: [8]. As I've said, such wholesale reverts are completely unacceptable. I don't see any "effort towards cooperation" in your second revert, just edit warring and the usual article ownership. Offliner (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Alex knows what cooperation I am talking about.Biophys (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't pretend to be fair and cooperative; your actions show that you are completely opposite of that. -YMB29 (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Article about the bombings

Alex, I noted criticism of the FSB involvement theory in the introduction, precisely as was proposed by ellol, but he simply reverted me without even talking. I will continue discussing various issues at the article talk page. But I am also going to edit a number of articles exclusively on this subject until it will be properly covered per WP:NPOV, something that I did not do for a long time.Biophys (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Human rights article

Biophys is continuing his antics in the human rights article. He still thinks it is his article and he can revert anyone's edits at will. He also again misuses sources to push his POV. Is something going to be done about this? His teammate or sock Bobanni is helping him. Is it possible to run checkuser on them? -YMB29 (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/First Roumanian-American congregation

Thank you for your supportive comments! Jayjg ^(talk) 06:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Abkhazia

Circassiankama (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)I am a new user but very well aware of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. I am in the process of rectifying several misleading and false statements on the Abkhazia page in Wikipedia. However, in the middle of my cleanup I was sent a message by you informing me that I have not bothered to leave links for my alterations. Please be aware that I am not yet finished and I can easily supply links that will support my edits. Please revert my editions back to what they were. I would greatly appreciate it. With kind regards, CircassianKama

• Well, your edits appear to be POV pushing. You are blanking a lot of referenced relevant info, change the neutral name Sukhumi into non-neutral Sukhum as well as introducing unreferenced or poorly referenced info. Remember that the status of Abkhazia is a subject of controversy, most countries consider it as a part of Georgia Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Circassiankama (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Oh, I see. Basically I cannot just leave the window open and add information without immediately including the links backing up this information. Is this correct? If so, then this is no problem. I understand that the issue of Abkhazia is a sensitive one, but no more sensitive than Taiwan, in my opinion. Furthermore, while I understand that Wikipedia strives for neutrality, I do not understand how pandering to the American/Georgian POV of Abkhazia will be considered a neutral point. Can we at least please allow BOTH POV's to be highlighted? I really regret seeing politics play a part in displaying accurate information here. Ah, you may smirk at this comment, but we can certainly try to prove or disprove "popular opinions" through accurate displaying of information (with links, of course) to back our sources up.

Cheers.

Circassiankama (talk) 06:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Why was my Gia Karkashvili link removed? Also, how is the Confederation of the North Caucasian states "self-styled"? Do you not see this as a rather prejudiced choice of words? I also want to know what terms that Youtube video of a Georgian general threatening to exterminate the entire Abkhaz nation violated. This article is attempting to show the Abkhazian people in an extremely unflattering and negative light. The Georgian army was the one to invade Abkhazia proper after they asked for basic and equal rights and broader autonomy, which (surprise, surprise) the Georgians are FINALLY offering today. Furthermore, the "ethnic cleansing" issue is well disputed and this can be proven as well. That is where my Karkashvili video comes into play. I guess it's ok if a Georgian writes about a mad Abkhaz murdering innocent Georgians, but when it comes to showing that the opposite did occur (and with documented proof), this is going against "POV"?? PLEASE, explain this.

Circassiankama (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)I am also reading through the entire article at length, and find several, several inconsistencies. I have articles and links which can disprove much of this information. Why is Wikipedia biased? If you are not biased, then why not allow me to contribute and show readers that there is more to Abkhazia than what pro-Georgian sources depict? I am disappointed that much of my contributions were deleted, especially the ones to which I DID add links to verify their content. This is not democratic and correct by any means. I hope that you will reply to me in due time and let me know what is your justification for these decisions. I respectfully request that you answer my inquiries. This is not good at all. You are blatantly displaying incorrect and incredibly biased information about my country of origin.

Circassiankama (talk) 07:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)In addition, I find these maps at fault as well. We have in our possession several accurate historical maps taken from several historical archives, museums, and texts from around the world which clearly depict Abkhazia as a sovereign state in the past. We also would like these maps to be posted on the page. I guess the main question here is this, Mr. Bakharev: who do you wish to aggravate more: Abkhazians and their supporters (this page is about ABKHAZIA by the way) or Georgians and their supporters (by the way, it is well known in Russia that Stalin commissioned writers to revise their historical texts, again a notion that can proven with links).

Wikipedia should not play favorites and should not be getting involved in political issues. I request that my comments be regarded or if anything that we are allowed to create a page on this site that we can display our information on and that would not conflict with what the current status quo displays. Thank you, and by no means do I wish to be disrespectful, but you surely do understand my grievances and annoyance towards this situation.

Circassiankama (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Mr. Bakharev, I have patiently waited for answers from you regarding my questions above. Can you reply to me, please? Or am I to assume that you cannot or will not? I do feel that my questions warrant a reply from Wikipedia and those who represent it. I do not understand why my edits cannot be accepted in the Abkhazia page, as they are also verifiable and portray a stronger view of what the Abkhazians (whose land is at the root of this dispute) themselves feel about their OWN territory. Thank you.

Circassiankama (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Mr. Bakharev, I have noticed that not only factual information about the Georgian invasion of Abkhazia was removed, but pro-Georgian information replaced it. Why was my entry about Gia Karkashvili deleted? Is it fair that this article clearly shows a pro-Georgian sentiment and the Abkhaz side is barely explained, if at all? I have yet to see a response from you. This is one of the most illogical, irresponsible, and unethnical sites I have come across. How can you allow such drivel to be posted about Abkhazia, clearly from a Georgian propoganda-driven perspective, yet not allow Abkhazians themselves to explain their side of this conflict?!?!?! Are you kidding me?!?! Do I need to take this matter to a higher up? Now I do feel like being rude because it is clear you do not care about rectifying this matter. If you are busy with other issues, I understand. But this is not cool at all.....definitely not cool.

Circassiankama (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Why is it that you can respond to other issues, but not mine? I can see now that it is not due to inability to not log on the Internet. I expect a proper response from you regarding why misinformation, propoganda, and drivel are allowed to be displayed on this page.

Your message

I have replied on my talk page. Nonetheless, perhaps you could give some answers here to the following questions -

• 1) In what way is the Israel Shahak page related to the ArbCom decision about Judea and Samaria? Beyond a simple assertion that it is, please.
• 2) Do you think it is acceptable to imply that a prominent Jewish academic is an anti-Semite and Nazi, and possible holocaust denier, on their Wikipedia page?
• 3) If someone tries to deal with the issue referred to at point 2), should any edit they make be randomly reverted, on the basis simply of the assertion made by one passing editor, as referred to at point 1)
• 4) If said editor does pass, might it not be better for them to actually dig a little deeper and look at the underlying issues, which would appear to be fairly serious?

Cheers, again, --Nickhh (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, Nick. Below are the answers to your questions:

1) According to the Israel Shahak page he was a prominent political writer on Palestine, violations of the human rights by Israeli government as well as a researcher in the Organic Chemistry field. You were editing (in fact blanking) part related to his political writings, not his achievements as a chemist. As such it is certainly related to Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the topic you are restricted from participation. The main reason you were not blocked but warned is because you might in good faith believe that you are not violating your Arbcom decisions

2) The information on the talk page is referenced to apparently reliable sources. It looks like there is a significant part of the users supposrting POV that the information is important. Usually, we do not establishing neutrality by censoring the information but rather providing facts and arguments supporting both sides.

3) I am not sure I have got your point. Blanking of referenced information require strong arguments on the talk page, otherwise it should be indeed reverted.

4) I am sure that if the issue is indeed serious then somebody who is not bound by Arbcom restrictions would make a strong point arguing towards the blanking of the info. I would not recommend you to press the matter onwiki since your restrictions (I hate then people are restricted from talk pages but it was not my decision) Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, in response to the response ..

1) I think most of the criticism that is/has been aimed at him was as much a consequence of his writings on Judaism rather than anything specifically about the Arab-Israeli dispute. And I'm not making any comment about whether anything he says - about chemistry, Judaism, contemporary Middle East politics or his favourite brand of chocolate bar - is right or wrong, I'm simply asserting that WP should not be relying on innuendo to suggest anyone is an anti-Semite, a Nazi or whatever - for whatever reason, unless they obviously are. The intention of the ArbCom restrictions was not to exclude involvement on any page that might have a vague link at some point to the dispute - that way I and everyone else who was scooped up in it would be barred from around 90% of pages here. Tanks? Used in the 1967 war. Jimmy Carter? Brokered the Camp David Accords. Olives? Palestinian olive trees are regularly uprooted by the Israeli army. Etc etc. The point of the ruling in respect of this sort of page was that none of us could edit at them where and when they did deal specifically with the conflict. You may or may not be aware that when another banned editor started extensively editing a page which is probably far closer to being caught in the ban itself, and furthermore took out material relating very directly to Israel, they were found to be acting within the bounds of the ruling. The problem is that wherever you draw a line, there is always somewhere just the other side of it.

2) Just because something can be sourced, it doesn't mean it has to be or should be included in an encyclopedia entry. There's all sorts of other thresholds to cross of course, about reliable sources, the relevance and significance of the material, due weight & neutrality, WP:BLP for article subjects who are still alive etc. If they want an article to say something pointlessly negative (or positive) about someone or something, any determined editor can usually find something online to chuck in, and argue that "no, I'm not saying it, Wikipedia's not saying it - we're just saying that so-and-so said it". That way Wikipedia just gets used as an echo-chamber for every real world smear campaign. Can you imagine what pages here about most politicians, or any vaguely controversial figures, would look like if we just shovelled in every sourced quote of criticism, however vitriolic, from every one of their political opponents? And then "balanced" it by including every sycopantic quote we could cull from the opposing view?

3) You reverted solely on the basis that I was banned from editing the article, according to your edit summary. That's simply an assertion, and a highly questionable one at that, as noted above. You didn't mention any issues with blanking per se, at least initially.

4) You would hope so, but unfortunately my experience is that people tend to hold out for this kind of thing to be kept. Plenty of editors in the past (and more recently) have taken issue with this material, but all it takes is for one or two others to veto any claim of consensus on the point, and once it gets in, it's never taken out.

Apologies, but that was longer than I intended when I started. --Nickhh (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

AlexNewArtBot stopped again

It was really nice to have it running again, but now it stopped once again, no new articles since Sept 11th. Thanks Alex for your time and attention, Best, Invertzoo (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• The bot is certainly working (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AlexNewArtBot). Maybe some search result is not upating due to the problems in the config file? Which search result you are concerned with? Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I see; I am sorry I said it was not working, but it works for us only on a on-again off-again basis. It is the listings for new Gastropod articles I am concerned with. Your bot's results are so extremely useful to us! We really appreciate them when we are able to get them! Many thanks for all your hard work. Invertzoo (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for mediating Litvinenko article. I am sure we can find a reasonable compromise about anything.Biophys (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Interview

Hi, Alex. I'm doing a study about Wikipedia (particularly about sysops) for my Masters in Communications and Media Studies at Monash Uni, and was wondering if you would be so kind as to take some time to talk to me. I'm contacting a few editors/sysops in hopes of hearing first-hand accounts of your day-to-day activities are and your relationship with other members of the community. If you're in Melbourne and can spare some time for a friendly talk (no more than 30 minutes), I'd greatly appreciate it :)

Please let me know if you're interested. Cheers, --In continente (talk) 06:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey

You've got mail. AdjustShift (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of plotting

Could you please release some more info about what was discussed on this list, especially regarding myself? (In your comment on AN/I, you focused on what the plotters were doing against Russavia.) What kind of plotting was there going on against me? Also, was Martintg a member of this group? I'm pretty amazed by all this, and I think someone should let me know (sooner or later) what exactly was going on there. Offliner (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Very important question

I have to ask you this and I'm going to trust that you answer this truthfully. Whom, in addition to Arb Com, did you give access, either directly or indirectly, to this purported "archive"? In your statement at ANI you said "I could provide it to any administrator I trust". Which ones? I think I have a right to know to whom my personal information which had been hacked from a private account and illegally distributed, was forwarded to. Was there any others in addition to "administrators you can trust"?radek (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• I sent the link to the Arbcom mailing list, 10 minutes prior to this I had given the link to a former Arbitrator as he requested additional info about my AN/I posting. That is all the people I have given the link. It is dead now. On the other hand I have an impression that many more people have received the link and downloaded the files. I guess that either the downloader him/herself shared the link with other people or they know a tool that allow search Rapidshare files. Later User:Deacon of Pndapetzim requested a copy of the archive. He is an admin who I trust and he has a legitimate business related to those archives so I intend to honor his request (I am actually in process of sending the archive to him). No other people were given the archive or the link to it. I hope this helps Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration case regarding the Eastern European mailing list

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.

You have been named as one of the parties to this case. Please take note of the explanations given in italics at the top of that section; if you have any further questions about the list of parties, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.

The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.

Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)