Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alex Bakharev (talk | contribs) at 17:32, 6 January 2006 (4.1 and 6 questions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Alex Bakharev

[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev|action=edit}} Vote here] (18/6/3) ending 00:24 January 12, 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Support

  1. Support as a nominator.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support three words: moderated, logical, polite–Gnomz007(?)
  3. Support Node 00:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wholeheartedly support. Ambi 03:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Neutralitytalk 06:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. -- Phædriel 06:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Snakes
  9. Support, as per his level-headed comments in response to my "neutral" vote. Matt Yeager 06:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support 212.26.133.82 07:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:212.26.133.82 has vandalized my user page. I suggest this vote not to be taken into consideration. Bonaparte talk 07:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am afraid the anonymous users are not allowed to vote. Please sign in first. Thank you anyway for your support. abakharev 07:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. We've been working together at the Russia Portal, and I found Alex to be a very productive and, what's more important, balanced individual. KNewman 08:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support good editor and I'm unimpressed with opposition.Gator (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. --Kefalonia 15:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. None of the oppose reasons change my mind that this would help Wikipedia. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. King of All the Franks 23:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. 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]
  16. 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]
  17. Support one of the best editors I've seen on Wikipedia. Fisenko 03:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support --Terence Ong Talk 14:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Very Strong OpposeThis in the case he accepts the nomination. He was involved in page Transnistria and he deleted important references, so he didn't convinced me as a good Admin. Bonaparte talk 16:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to elaborate (in the "Comments" section below)?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Only when and if it's neccessary... Bonaparte talk 21:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been asked to elaborate: I'd consider that a necessitation. jnothman talk 00:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I would say it is always necessary to back up such a strong complaint with evidence of wrongdoing. Raven4x4x 01:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are a few edits by Alex Bakharev on Transnistria that Bonaparte may be referring to [1] [2]. — TheKMantalk 01:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Opppose per too few edit summaries (sorry, Alex). As far as the vote by Bonaparte above, one may check his blocklog before considering how much weight to give to that vote. (Although my vote should not carry to much weight either, I hope Alex suceeds.) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The blocklog has nothing to do with my remark. It's still valid. All remember that mikka was out of line but since mikka is gone now for good, well...I guess is just a history now isnt't it? Bonaparte talk 06:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. It's inappropriate to call other admins "stupid". Here it is: [3]. --Just a tag 11:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    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 AllT|@|ESP 17:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhm, you probably were not careful enough, I quote: It is not Ghirlandajo's fault that the admin was incompetent and/or stupid --Just a tag 17:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is only "that the admin was incompetent and/or stupid"Bonaparte
    Ahh..I see it now :).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 17:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Although adminship is no big deal, admins should always follow WP:NPA to a T. The diff provided by Just a tag is unconscionable. There is no excuse for personal attacks on Wikipedia. —BorgHunter (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose although Alex is much more balanced, tolerant and polite than his friends Irpen and Ghirlandajo, he sometimes help them in their Russian POV-pushing or queezing out their opponents from the community. I am afraid, his admin power will not always be used for the good of the community.--AndriyK 16:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per insulting an admin like that. Criticism is certainly welcome, but not hasty insults. RFA later ad I will support.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 17:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  • Neutral I'm leaning towards support; however, I have a question first. You claim to have an "advanced" level of English only. I have no problem with that; however, I'd like an assurance that you won't act rashly and ban people (for, say, personal attacks) when you're not exactly sure what they meant. In addition, I'd like an assurance that you wouldn't be overly protective of "your" version of a page if other users made changes (or suggested changes to protected pages) to the sentence structure, spelling, grammar, etc. This probably sounds silly, but as you can see at WP:LAME, we've had edit wars over silliness like this, and as I don't personally know you, I don't know whether or not you'd do that sort of thing, which is what an admin (well, any user, but especially not an administrator) should definitely NOT do. Matt Yeager 01:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I was often accused in going too far in my search for the compromise, not in the opposite. I have around 5K edits here + 1K on the commons and never remember having a fight over language problems. Of course, it is my opinion of myself that maybe different from the opinions of the people around me 02:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    I am not exactly sure, if this point is valid. Since self-evaluation of advanced level of English is a clear statement: he does not think he is perfectly fluent. Therefore if he claimed say professional level but sometimes messed up grammar, this is when we should be afraid of such type of problem. Am I making sense with my En-2?–Gnomz007(?) 03:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, that's good enough for me. Admins don't need perfect grammar, and as Gnomz points out, it's much, much better to be aware of your weaknesses than to try and hide them. Thanks for answering. You'll make a great administrator, I'm sure. Matt Yeager 06:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. WP:LAME is some good reading material. I'll be perusing that for a little while. JHMM13 (T | C) 17:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral, 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]
  2. Neutral. I'll need more time to evaluate the candidate's activity. Ukrained 21:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral See Question for the candidate --Yakudza 16:32, 6 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 think here is better since you made your statement here. Bonaparte talk 07:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not Alex Bakharev, but in my opinion user:Bonaparte is a Romanian nationalist, who is abusing Wiki by promoting the idea of "Great Romania" over all possible wikipages. Bonaparte badly damaged Moldova article basically claiming that Moldova, which is now an independent country should be a part of so called "great romanian territory". Bonaparte also wrote in Talk:Moldova that he will do whatever is possible to prevent User:Alex Bakharev becaming a wiki admin, based on Alex's opinion on Moldova. Thus, I advise all to be aware when taking into consideration comments by user:Bonaparte and his romanian nationalistic buddies like user:Just a Tag, etc. (unsigned by an anon)
  1. This user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:212.26.133.82 has vandalized my user page. From his only 5 edits three are against me. This is sockpuppet. Bonaparte talk 11:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Have a checkuser performed before making such an accusation. Accusing him of sockpuppeting is serious business. —BorgHunter (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Provocative WP:Point question at RFAdm

Before Alex answers, let me just say that this is a highly POV phrased question that pretends to describe a certain real situation which it does falsly. Having said that, the answer to this provocative question (No) is obvious and was known in advance and nothing else can be expected and this is a transparent WP:Point on the par with the usual meaningless questions at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the President's court nominees. --Irpen 10:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is provocative, but I would like to know if the future admin would be neutral or not. A number of ppl, including yourself, expressed their views that experienced editors should be immune to wp rules. --Wojsyl (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is false. I never said that. I called for discretion, yes. That is if one is reverting edits from anon open proxies that obviously come from one and the same editor within minutes from Chinese, Taiwanese and Australian IPs. Or restoring a POV tag, whose removal is a vandalism. In rush the admin may forget to check such things and dealing with established editors requires the admin to first make sure that nothing like that was happening. Ronline's first admin action since elevation being blocking Mikka who was simply not decisive enough to block open proxy IP and revrerted them, makes Ronline remembered for a long long time. If the cost of that would be Mikka's indeed never coming back, and only due to the itch by Ronline to get a fame by being the first one who would have blocked Mikka without bothering to check, and lack of courage to admit and apologize, which he refuses so far, he would be remember all too well. --Irpen 11:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As if you did not know, I was not referring to Mikka's case, of course. --Wojsyl (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You put the words in my mouth (about immunity) that I have never said. I only condemned Mikka's block. --Irpen 11:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you Irpen to stop it. If you really have some issues you may act in another way. Otherwise stop it. And don't speak about Ronline or other editors like that I don't allow you. Everybody has the right to ask any question there. It was a good question. I know to what user it was adressed. It is a russian one and his name begins with G. Bonaparte talk 11:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bonaparte, I express my opinion to Wojsyl when I feel like it. Your "not allowing me" to do things the way I see fit is irrelevant yet. Once you earn some respect, I will gladly take your opinions into consideration. Judging from your tone and behavior you haven't yet started your your quest towards the "Best wikipedian ever" that you suggested may happen one day and I feel confident that whatever cognac I buy, I will enjoy it myself [4] or with my other firends. --Irpen 16:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You did spoke about Ronline and sometimes about me also on other user's talk page. That's called .... Bonaparte talk 16:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, can you please bring the rest of this discussion elsewhere ? --Wojsyl (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did, Bonaparte, and didn't try to say it in a foreign langauge and I stand by every word I said. If you view whatever I did unethical, I will welcome an RfC on the issue to bring it to the attention of the wider community. --Irpen 16:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I think your question and what followed made a mockery of the process. But it is also has a good side, because it exposed better the people who try by any cost to derail the adminship of one of the most worthy candidates around with unquestionable personal ethics. Wikipedia needs such admins, but some people care more about pushing certain POVs. The way you acted upon this RfAdm surprized me, I must say, but my personal perception of this is irrelevant. --Irpen 16:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be so kind not to speak in terms of "most". You guys are always speaking in term of "most". The "most M.", the "most G." and so on... are you guys serious or what? try do edit in a neutral way and that's all, nobody will say anything against you. But I already saw how you removed the explanation of the split of Bukovina. Is this your "most"... ? and you're right your perception is simply personal irrelevant. Bonaparte talk 17:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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]
Thanks for the extensive response. While I do not agree with you on this, I understand that this is not the place, to discuss it. Let me only state that being a power editor does not necessarily mean having good judgement and also that I believe rules are to be respected by everyone. Rules can be changed of course, but until they are, they should not be ignored, regardless of how grand one feels. Let me however ask another question (4.1) instead. --Wojsyl (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4.1. If you are an admin and see another admin blocked your favourite Hero of Wikipedia for a blockable offence, like 3RR violation, what would be your reaction ? Would you unblock him ? Would you be openly criticizing the other admin ? --Wojsyl (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the blocking admin also deserves the benefit of doubt, thus, I would try to get an explanation from the blocking admin first. If I disagree with the reasons I would try to get a third, fourth opinion, etc. I would also try to avoid a situation e.g. then we have a conflict between Romanian and Russian editors, then Romanian sysop blocks the Russian editor and a Russian sysop unblocks the Russian and blocks a Romanian, etc. Even perception of such a situation is harmfull. Thus, in such a situation I would try to find some non-Russian sysop to unblock, preferrably a Romanian.
Admins seems to be supposed not to critisize each other in front of mere users. I am loyal enough to obey this rule and use e-mails, closed IRC-channels, etc. abakharev 17:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5.Why did you react like that in the case of Transnistria? I will describe a little bit the situation also for other readers. He entered into a revert war without knowing any clue about the issue as he recognize himself, then he immeadiately applies labels to the others, then he continue to speak about I don't know what Russian POV of his. When I ask him to read a little bit and only then to edit and to state his opinion he said that I have a conflict with him. I told him that I don't have a conflict with him but I ask him to read, documentate, research first. It looked very bad his approach on that page. Certainly not fit for sysop. Bonaparte talk 11:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting who facts of life can be seen from the other side. OK my story. It was 3am in my time zone. I went onto RC-patrol intending quickly scan through the recent changes pages and to stop working. I have noticed that an unknown me previously user (who happend to be User:Bonaparte) reverted User:Mikkalai on the article Transnistria. I happen to have a high regard for User:Mikkalai, not because, he is Russian, as might be alleged ( BTW he is not, as far as I know), but because I saw quite a number of his edits and have not saw a single cotraversial one). Thus, I regarded any revertion of Mikkalai's edits as an incident worth to check. It also so happen that on the same RC page there was an obviously frivoius report of a vandalism by the same previously unknown to me user, this somehow affected my opinion about quality of judgment of the user. In the added part of the dif there were repeated phrases, poor English. History of edits shown an allegations of copyvio for the branch pushed by Bonaparte. In this circumstances I did that appear to be a right thing - just reverted to Mikkalai. Frankly, I would did just the same , in the circumstances if I would find that a Romanian user whose judgement I respect, e.g. User:Wojsyl or User:TSO1D was reverted by a Russian user with a history of poor judgement (lets not put concrete names here). Immediately, I recieve a message from Bonaparte asking explanations for my revert. I answered that I find the Mikkalai's version to be better English and less POV and promised to help clean up the article.
In two days I started, as I promise to clean up the article. The article looks like it is a victim of a revert war and also copy-pasting from the different sources without bothering to put the pasted phrases into the logical order, there were fragments literally repeated twice within a single sectin, etc. The copyvio problem is more difficult to judge as the alleged originals are paper articles not urls. Some users (like User:Node ue) admantly state that two large fragments are copyvios by User:Bonaparte, some other (e.g. User:Bonaparte himself) state that the framents have diverged enough from the original. I suspect that many people judging the copyvio status have not seen the alleged originals and make their choice based on their presumption of the trustworthiness of the parties involved in the dispute. Obviously the originals are copyrighted and could not be put on Wikipedia or mass mailed. I have asked Bonaparte (who obviously have the originals) to send copies (pdf or scanned files) to User:Wojsyl for the evaluation of the copyright problem (I am trusting the judgement of Wojsyl and I guess Bonaparte trusts him as well. Meanwhile, I decided to be neutral to the edit conflict of Node ue and Bonaparte (if the argument had been about a Russian-related or Australia-related I would insisted, the alleged copyvios been removed from the article unless evaluated by a third party).
I belive my edits,revised by TSO1D and later Woysyl improved the article but there are many things to be done. Most of my edits were general improving of the article, putting things in logical and chronological orders, etc. I have improved and extended the section on prosecution of dissident Ilasco. My changes are objectively against Transnistrian government and their sponsoring by Russia, but these are facts not opinion and deserve to be in the article. There were also unrelated improvements of the article at the same day performed by User:Zscout370 and User:Phil Boswell and an edit war between Node ue and two anonymous users over the allegedly copyvioed fragments. Node ue did bother to include all the edits of that day to his edit and the anonyms did not, wholesale reverting all the work of five different editors (including me). Thus, I twice reverted the anonymous reverters, keeping all other editor's changes in, include Node ue's. It does not mean I am endorsing or disendorsing removing of copyvio's paragraphes - before either me or Woysyl would see the originals I intend to be neutral in this regard. And if the anonyms would only restore the problem fragments or revert Node ue I would not interfere. Unfortunately the anonym revrted the work of five different good people and deserved to be reverted him( or her) self. Woysyl also informed me that Node ue's changes were not simple removing the alllegedly copyvio's and improving of wikilinking as it was stated in the summary, but that he also reverted a few of Woysyl's noncontraversial edits (It looks like Node ue did not have time to fully explain his changes in the edit summary). Thus, by keeping Node ue's edits I also reverted good Woysyl's edits. I already said sorry to Woysyl and would like to have an opportunity to say sorry again. Anybody interested in the details of my edits on the article are welcome to see the history of the Transnistria article, its talk page and the talk pages of me, User:Wojsyl and User:Bonaparte abakharev 16:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. There is some personal information on your page. How many years were you exposed to the western civilisation? --Vasile 15:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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]
I consider Russia an indeniable part of Western Civilization, so you may simply ask how old am I. I am 41 and never lived in Eastern Civilization. If you are asking how lonag have I lived outside of Russia, then I went to USA (Central Illinois) in 1992, since 1996 I live have been living in Australia. I went once back in Russia for two weeks, went to Finland/Sweden/Denmark for three week trip and lived a few days in Canada and Austra. abakharev 17:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, welll...I guess everybody had seen your western civilization here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FAlex_Bakharev&diff=34120518&oldid=34120195 when you deleted my valid question. Bonaparte talk 16:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I am not sure how question 8 got deleted when I posted my comment—a glitch, perhaps? I certainly did not intend to delete anything. If it makes you feel any better, I apologize for not re-checking my edit after I posted it. Anyway, I am still interested in hearing about what "western civilization" has to do with Alex's admin run. Vasile?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not able to see your (Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)) interest here. Meanwhile, I still waiting for Alex Bakharev answers as I think it is neither civilized nor fair to ignore the questions that you don't like just because you have eventually managed to make enough friends to vote for the position. --Vasile 16:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My interest is that of a nominator. I happen to highly regard Alex, his occasional mistakes nonwithstanding (show me a human being who never made mistakes). Furthermore, considering the extent of Alex's answer to the Wojsyl's question above, I think it's unfair to accuse him of "ignoring" the questions. I am quite sure he is now thinking the rest of the questions over and preparing extensive replies to them. Let's give him time, shall we?
In any case, I strongly urge you to withdraw this question of yours as irrelevant. It's your right to wonder about things like him belonging to western or any other civilization, but, please, ask it elsewhere. His western exposure has just as much to do with his prospective adminship as the number of cats he owns or whether or not he excersises regularly.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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]

How dare you to delete my question? Do you want to be de-sysoped???

8.Tell us about your self proclaimed "russian POV approach" that you intend to apply for the paragraph of russian troups withdrawal from Transnistria as NATO, USA, European Union, Romania asks. Bonaparte talk 16:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. I think highly of yours as one of the most tolerant and balanced editors. Still, I have a question to you. Ghirlandajo is known for his ruide behavior with respect to other editors. He was blocked several times. His behaviour was also

discussed in the request for comment. Arbitration Committee is currently voting to warn him for his ruidness. In the same time you honored his activity with St. Vladimir Barnstar "in recognition of his leadership on Portal:Russia project". Do you feel yourself comfortable in the community having such leaders? Do not you think that the Russian wiki-community should react differently to such kind of behaviour of their members instead of encouraging them? -- Yakudza 16:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alex_Bakharev&oldid=34130923"