Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev

Alex Bakharev

[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev|action=edit}} Vote here] (3/1/1) ending 15:41 December 11, 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) Support[reply]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]