Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Alex Bakharev[edit]

final (88/14/9) ending 19:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Alex Bakharev (talk · contribs) – This is the second adminship nomination of Alex Bakharev. The first nomination took place in January 2006. Its outcome (70/23/2) was interpreted as lack of consensus, and as a result Alex was not promoted.

Alex is a delightful bilingual and multicultural contributor who has been with Wikipedia since June 2005. During this time, he made valuable contributions on subjects of Russia and Ukraine, as well as science and technology, and participated in a number of clean-up and organizational activities. He is an active participant of Portal:Russia, and he regularly takes part in the new page patrol—a task that not too many existing admins find particularly enjoying. Alex strives to be calm and polite with other editors, and his behavior under pressure is nothing short of remarkable. He always assumes good faith first, and his approach to problem resolution is always methodical and based on logic instead of emotions. Considering his undeterred commitment to Wikipedia, the scope of his contributions, and his willingness to perform administrative tasks I urge voters to support Alex’s nomination one more time, this time with a better margin. Access to administrative tools will greatly improve Alex’s efficiency and in the end will help make Wikipedia a better place.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 14:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Yes, I accept the nomination abakharev 19:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support as a nominator.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    May I suggest to change your vote?--Yodo 12:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You most certainly may.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please refrain from soliciting votes, Yodo. SushiGeek 02:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's alright, SushiGeek. Yodo was merely being sarcastic of my solicitation efforts (below).—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 02:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, OK. It's still...ugh, though. SushiGeek 02:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support normally, I'd like to see longer time between noms, but given the sockpuppetry issues, I will make an exception to the general rule with this nomination. Also, should have been promoted last time.Gator (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support and I hope there will be no less trolling this time. --Irpen 21:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. I'd have preferred it if Alex waited a bit, but I was not impressed by the arguments from the opposition last time and I was very surprised that Alex was not bestowed admin duties then. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: My comment should not be read as a criticism on the b'crat closing the previous RfA but as a criticism of the Wikipedia community who voted on the RfA. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support: Because admin should be no big deal right? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. One of people whose edits I can safely skip when checking. Pavel Vozenilek 00:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support--Jusjih 00:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support a valuable contributor. --Scott Davis Talk 03:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I thoght adminship is not an award for contributors. If I was wrong, I will nominate troll Kuban kazak and filthy-mouthed AlexPU. They are notable contributors as well. Ukrained 21:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say I was rewarding him. I said he is a valuable contributor. My measures of value include that I believe he is capable and prepared to make an article represent a neutral point of view even if that view is not the one he personally holds. I also believe he will not misuse the additional abilities granted to admins. --Scott Davis Talk 09:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Da (Yes, I support). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 05:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Impressed with answers to candidacy questions. Olessi 06:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. What I know of him is thath is edits are always working towards building a better encyclopedia and he is unfailingly friendly, polite and calm. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Because I am an anti-Romanian, soviet ex-KGB smirnovist Russian irredentist anti-semitic stalinist vandal, I obviously support this candidate. Just kidding. But I do support. --Node 10:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "There's a bit of truth in every joke"... Ukrained 21:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support--MONGO 14:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong support I didn't quite get why his previous request for adminship failed despite 76% support and nor did some others. It could be seen as one of these exceptions where bureaucrats might as well "call for a revote if this will make the consensus more clear."(About RfA) 43 days after he had accepted the last nomination, he would sign this revote, a second nomination. That's little more than one month but according to About RfA ("If your nomination fails, please wait a reasonable period of time – at least a month – before nominating yourself again or accepting another nomination.") it's enough. Shortly after his first nomination had been crushed, I told him that he would certainly manage to become an administrator if he considered the fair comment such as more edit summaries. He did and his contributions have, if anything, only improved. I see no reason why he should be wronged once again. Sciurinæ 14:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is "wronged" in these RfA's. There is never any obligation to promote anyone. Given Bakharev's heavy involvement in matters involving conflicts of national interest (Russian vs. Ukrainian, Russian vs Polish etc.), promoting him is not something to be done hastily. Sometimes contributors here act like over-eager schoolgirls, eager to pass out the cookies. Alexander 007 14:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support A good editor. Siva1979Talk to me 14:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong Support An excellent editor, one that never involves in conflicts. --Kuban Cossack 14:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. 'Support (weak support, but still). Despite some earlier grievances and conflicts, Alex proved to be a sensible guy and definitely one of the most cool-headed Russian contributors to wikipedia. Especially his recent comments to various articles impressed me as quite balanced and constructive - a rare merit nowadays. I'm still not entirely convinced that he's going to be as impartial as an admin should be (especially in case of a conflict with some Russian contributors), but in this case I'm willing to give Alex the benefit of a doubt. Halibutt 15:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong support after reviewing a large number of his edits, chosen at random, to see if there is some merit to the opposition that came out of the woodwork. This is a good editor. Jonathunder 15:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Weak support. I am very tempted to vote neutral. I will continue to support your adminship because I do believe that you will use the admin functionality wisely. What makes we want to vote neutral is that you (and your supporters) seem to be trying too hard to make this succeed. Your ability to contribute to this encyclopedia will not be significantly impacted by the success or failure of this nomination. I think you are losing sight of that. -- JamesTeterenko 16:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support.  Grue  19:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Supported him last time; haven't changed my opinion since. -Colin Kimbrell 20:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. support - as per negative of various oppose votes William M. Connolley 21:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - he's a saint for deciding to go through with this! --Latinus (talk (el:)) 21:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - for the work on "Naming conventions/Ethno-cultural labels", even if I prefer not to use any labels when in doubt, and address the nationality/ethnicity issues in a separate paragraph, to keep the rest of the article free from ugly edit wars. --Matthead 22:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - A very level editor; stays cool when the editing gets hot; good answers to questions below. +sj + 22:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - mikka (t) 22:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Changed from neutral. I would have liked Alex to wait at least one more month before submitting this nomination (for a total of two months since last RfA), I also don't quite like when people are campaining for their RfA, but all in all, it seems that Alex is a sane voice in the midst of a lot of passions caused by nationalistic feelings. I trust that Alex will not use his admin privileged in disputes, and will not get invloved in furthering any POV agendas. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Looks good. Krashlandon (e) 22:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Changed from neutral, per Oleg. –Joke 22:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Kusma (討論) 23:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Fisenko 01:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Mop and bucket is not a big deal. I only wish some people would realise it, instead of trying to turn some RfAs into warzones.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. KNewman 09:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. A great candidate for the role, respected by fellow editors. - Introvert ~? 10:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, I've reviewed most of his recent contribs, and I think he'll do a good job. I may not appreciate the POV concerns entirely, but I've seen that he's kept a good head on his shoulders in other disputes. I just hope this process doesn't affect him adversely. -- Samir ∙ TC 10:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support --Terence Ong 16:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. You keep your promises, I keep mine. Sashazlv 19:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong Support. Great editor, unlikely to abuse admin tools. -- Tvaughn05e (Talk)(Contribs) 20:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support very good editor.--Alhutch 21:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. When I just started with Wikipedia (end of 2005), Alex was helpful fixing mistakes in my first edits, showing by example what a good edit was. This made we feel welcome into the community. These are the qualities I would expect from an admin. Wikiolap 23:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Constructive user, no need to limit their capacity to be constructive. Ridiculous, irrelevant reasons cited for opposition. // paroxysm (n) 23:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support per Oleg Alexandrov above. Trapolator 01:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support: Yes. --Bhadani 07:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. I am well impressed by his contributions. Since I gave him my support last time, I'll be coherent with my own principles and say "yes" again. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 16:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support; impressive contributions and experience, likely to be a good admin. Antandrus (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Good, consistent contributer. joturner 00:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Good contributor. I carefully considered my support for this second nomination. Although I don't 100% share Alex's opinions, his thoughtful response to the Holodomor question below helped me decide to support his adminship again. Good luck. —Michael Z. 2006-02-20 04:22 Z
  49. Support fit for the job –Gnomz007(?) 06:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Kmorozov 06:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Very good editor. --Khoikhoi 08:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - again. I think he is fully qualified and don't understand the "too soon" argument. Please don't make this political. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - Bobet 12:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Bases for opposition appear insubstantial, and on my own knowledge of him I doubt he will abuse the new buttons. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support --DDima 21:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Ambi 03:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support MaxiMaxiMax 05:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Grandmaster 07:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support I like his articles, and I like his way of handling complicated POV situations.Arseni 07:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Поддерживаю (huh, impressed with my command of Russian ? I Support) for a number of reasons. Alex is a good man, whom I've met in a conflict situation. En.wiki needs Russian admins. My support for Alex's adminship is not an endorsement of his views as we can often have very opposing POVs. BTW: Apparently, I'm a Russophobe ;-) --Lysytalk 08:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Have enough faith in him. DaGizzaChat © 09:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Pro Experience and respected editor --ajvol 09:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support level-headed editor Agnte 09:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Confirm Support from the previous vote. Mukadderat 10:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support --Nekto 10:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support, he can really make non-POV pages. DenisRS 11:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. MaxSemtalk 15:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support, seems like a nice bloke. Thumbelina 16:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Mjal 21:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support version 2.0 Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. Kazak 04:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Kazak may be a sockpuppet of Kuban kazak (who already voted "Support" with suspicious changing of his usual signtaure - see above). The two are on correspondence regarding this vote, share the same opinions etc. . I want this issue to be thoroughly investigated by admins ASAP! Ukrained 12:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    RCU made. Ukrained 23:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a new low of user:Ukrained who took over the role of trolling over this page. I've been communicating with both user:Kazak and User:Kuban kazak in the past and, unless we have a split personality case here, these are totally different users which anyone can see by comparing their contributions. However, such unwarranted public spitting in someone's face would be inexcusable if it is not followed up by some meaningful steps. Sockpuppetry, especially at RfA, is one of the most serious offences and if user:Ukrained has any decency left in him, he should follow up on his request at WP:RCU and report the result of an investigation here (or to admit that his accusations were found without merit at WP:RCU and hence, ignored). Of course an apology is another option the user:Ukrained has but expecting an apology from this particular user is unrealistic. --Irpen 16:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I would request the "accused" parties to take it easy. This is so clearly a BS bad faith desperate attempt to find some way to derail the nomination, that it is totally unworthy of getting oneself mad even despite being accused in such an unethical thing as vote fraud. --Irpen 16:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Irpen, let them check our IPs and prove to this little...shall we say disturbance that they are of completely different origin. As for correspondence, its called Cossack solidarity to one another. --Kuban Cossack 17:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm simply appalled. No comments. Kazak 01:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Checkuser performed and accusation proven false. --Irpen 03:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Again. -- Eddie 05:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support--Nixer 06:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Strong Support. MvR 08:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support per the strange and worthless reasons for opposition. That being said, the level of incivility in the responses to objections to this RfA is similarly disconcerting. Proto||type 11:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. — Monedula 17:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Strong support --Eupator 17:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support for various reasons -- apparently sockpuppeted at last nomination, weakness of opposition arguments, appears to be a decent editor, we need Russian editors. Herostratus 18:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. --Interiot 22:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. I can't say so far, that I feel respect to him. But I think, he is a valuable editor. And as was mentioned above, we need Russian admins - as to my experience, there are too many POV issues concerning Russia and the Soviet Union. And nobody seems to deal with them. Cmapm 00:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support - Seems a good contributor, and the opposition seems built upon meatpuppetry and failure to produce real evidence of problematic edits. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. SushiGeek 02:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. --EncephalonSeven 02:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support --Terence Ong 03:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Oops....I voted twice.[reply]
  85. Support as per above. Bobby1011 04:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support per Piotrus and Halibutt. --Ghirla | talk 09:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. Will be a good admin. NoSeptember talk 18:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Candidates should be judged on their own merits (and by all appearances this is an excellent candidate). --Steelviper 20:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Weak Oppose I realize the last nomination was flawed by puppetry, but this is still to soon afterwards for the valid concerns of several objectors to have been adequately, fully addressed. Xoloz 19:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Oppose Signing all above-said about Mr.Bakharev as a contributor, I doubt that he would use the administrator rights properly and neutrally. To be exact, I'm afraid of his possible passiveness in reacting on pro-Russian POV-pushers and trolls. E.g., Mr.Bakharev is closely co-operates with renown and warned trolls Ghirlandajo and Kuban Kazak, paying (I think) no attention to their attcks on Ukraine and Ukrainians. Recently I directly requested his help and position over such an attack. He answered with a very doubtful statement that IMHO reveals his readiness to cover trollism. I don't need such an admin. Neither do all of you. BTW, do we have any non-admin WP position for such a good contributor? Expert or something? I mean adminship is a responsibility, not an award. Ukrained 22:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ukrained you can say whatever you want about me here, I am a fair game, but I would appreciate if you WP:AGF, follow WP:NOP and withdraw personal attack against other users, even if their POV is somehow different from yours. For the problem mentioned I urge interesting parties to look to the link provided by Ukrained. The situation is here: during editing the Khreschatyk article User:Kuban_kazak allowed a personal attack against User:Andrew Alexander. Later he publicly apologized to everybody, but the attack is obviously stays in the history of the article. According to Ukrained his apologies were not strong enough. When User:Irpen suggested to co-sign the RFC about the matter, Ukrained refused. Indeed Ukrained asked me "to clear my name" and help him against the Kuban Kazak. I wish I could help Ukrained with his grievances, but I simply do not know how as a user I can help him. Irpen already proposed Ukained his expertise to help with a possible RfC. As an administrator I could possibly warn Kuban Kazak that the next time in a similar situation I might apply a short block against him (and even this would be controversial, I would probably have to ask a third opinion about the matter). I am sorry, Ukrained, but that are the rules, at least Kuban Kazak appologized for his attack, and you AFAIK no. abakharev 22:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not satisfied with your reply, Alex. People, please read my references, not only their summary done by nominee. This is your election, Alex, not mine. Sorry for judging you so hard, I know I promised not to address you again. But this is WP politics: you did accept the renomination and became public (I thought you wouldn't). BTW, feel free to take any actions against any of my edit or discussion post - but not here. Willing to end this conversation or move it elsewhere (at the bottom of this page?) Ukrained 23:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Checking the links above is worthy a look. Alex Bakharev's summary is totally accurate. The original remark by Kuban kazak[1] made on Jan 28 at 12:39 was indeed inappropriate. I promptly told him so[2] on the same day at 20:13 although he directed it against the editor, with whom my own experience was very bitter[3]. In any case, my warning to Kuban kazak was already at his talk when Ukrained started to run around other people's talk "challenging" them to "act" against Kuban kazak. If he wanted others reprimand K.k. this wasn't necessary already. What he wanted is to embarrass Alex Bakharev[4] leaving him a "challenge" which was belated by then anyway.The rest of discussion is available here. Soon after, Kuban kazak issued an apology [5] (at 20:41) for his inappropriate remark. Ukrained, OTOH, continued his crusade and I left him a message telling him that if he is not satisfied, he is entitled to an RfC and this is the right way to pursue the issue rather than running to talk pages of uninvolved users in order to embarrass them. I even offered Ukrained that I will agree to certify the basis of the dispute for the RfC [6] which is required for an RfC to be valid because although I thought the issue is addressed by apology, I had no problem to confirm its existence, should Ukrained have wanted to proceed. Ukrained chose to abandon this or simply calmed down and now he resurrects it again simply in an attempt to derail an RfA of one of the most ethical and worthy Wikipedians for the job. Too bad if others will fall into this trap. What I mean is that "too soon", "not enough summaries" and other technicalities are valid (while strange IMO) conserns and voters are entitled to them. But if anyone is "alarmed" but this issue, please care to check the links above. --Irpen 01:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I must say that the conflict was not the result of my comment which I take full responsibility of, but a result of when I asked Ukrained to adhere to a more manly attitude and to stop, what I, Irpen, and Alex saw, as a totaly pathetic argument, now if an apology was not enough for him I do not what is it he demands of me, but whatever it could be, it is a matter between me and Ukrained personally and bears no significance to Mr. Bakharev becoming an admin in one way or another. --Kuban Cossack 15:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Gentlemen, if you prefer discussing me here instead of the nominee, who am I to refuse. I wasn't setting traps for anybody, especially for Alex - moderate hard-working editor. But suddenly I was told that Russian editors form a cabal preventing everyone from taking Wikiactions against one of them (DO READ THOSE LINKS). And that was the second or third such statement I heard from Russian in this project. Being in a fury, I suggested Mr.Bakharev (whom I knew from my previous voting on his RfA) to demonstrate that he is not in. He could just angrily say it at the talk of Mr.Kazak, or ... file an RfC on Kazak just to make a point, or whatever. And Mr.Bakharev failed. I have no hard feelings towards him as a user at all. But he appeared as a nominee here. So was it a trap (or rather his self-trap)? I mean if the politician was caught on something unappropriate for some of his voters (however legal), and failed to be elected later, was the election a trap? Irpen? Now, back to my actions if you wish. Yes, there was no RfC on Kazak so far. Reasons: 1.I was absent on WP for a week (busy in my real life). 2.I realized that I would lose that RfC anyway (as long as there's a cabal). 3.IMO, Mr.Kazak commits RfC-worth acts every day of his Wiki-life (like here). There can be many RfC's for him ahead. In this sense, he (not Bakharev) is in my constant trap indeed. BTW, has any single RU user been ever banned from English Wikipedia? Best wishes, Ukrained 21:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ukrained, this is a shameless twisting. You tried to set a clumsy trap by getting the unsuspecting user involved into a conflict to which he had no relation. This was an entrapment and I advised alex to ignore your inapropriate rant. If you needed Kazak reprimanded, he already was reprimanded by then. Your "challenge" was totally improper. (see above). --Irpen 01:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Oppose-abakharev supports giving Ghirlandajo special rights placing him above other users. His support for contributors with strong nationalistic bias like Ghirlandajo who have been warned several times, speaks poorly about his objectivity as a moderator.--Molobo 23:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, I am not advocating special rights for Ghirlandajo, I am not advocating special rights for anyone, I indeed stand for extra caution and extra politeness when dealing with people who enormously contributed to Wikipedia, icluding User:Ghirlandajo, User:Halibutt, User:Gmaxwell, User:SlimVirgin, User:Oleg Alexandrov, User:Jimbo Wales, etc., etc., etc. I would think this is a common sense. The issue was beaten to death in my first RfA and I refer everybody interested there. abakharev
  4. Oppose, without prejudice Even taking the puppets into account, too soon. Withdraw, wait a few weeks and reapply, and I (and many others) will vote for you in a second. But this soon implys that you really really want these powers, which is unsettling and pushes me towards thinking you'll eventually abuse them, or that you dont understand some basic policies, such as 'Adminship is no big deal'. -AKMask 01:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It so happened that I talked to Alex before nominating him, and it's probably my fault that I pressed him into accepting re-nomination so fairly soon. For one, I believe the first one was extremely flawed. I also, however, believe, the sooner Alex becomes an admin, the better for the project. By denying him adminship for some abstract "shoulda, woulda, too soon anyway" reasons, you are basically denying Wikipedia an extra pair of custodial hands. Considering what cleanup activities Alex pulls and their scope, waiting "a few weeks" means a an accumulation of few weeks worth of slime, grime, and dirt that could have otherwise be cleaned up and sorted out. If the "too soon" argument is your only objection, I strongly urge you to reconsider.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 01:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (Disclaimer: I voted support). That's rather weak justification for hurrying things up. The first adminship had its flaws, but there were just too many oppose votes to ignore. And at least for appearance's sake, restarting an adminship just after one month may give people the idea that nothing has been learned from the previous adminship, that the candidate beleives he/she was not promoted for phony reasons, and so on. Might as well be true, but such an attitude never helps. The longer one waits between RfA's, the more likely it is that the new RfA will not just be a replay of the old one. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Up to some degree I was supportive in your first nomination. And I certainly agree that in some areas you are a valuable contributor. In the same time in the recent Talk:Holodomor you stated that you "personally feel the Genocide theory is a lie, since there was not published a single document requiring preferential treatment of Russians over Ukrainians, but the theory is so well published that we have to somehow mention it"[7]. I certainly don't want to affect your feelings but the United States Congress Commission on the Ukraine Famine in their findings stated that "Joseph Stalin and those around him committed genocide against Ukrainians in 1932-1933"[8], and I trust the U.S. Congress Commission, not your feelings. And I know that my grand-grand-father died during the famine, quite early for his age. As an admin, you need common humanitarian qualities. I am not sure that you have them. Uapatriot 02:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, This is my personal opinion on the matter. On ther other hand, it was me he proposed a workable compromise that included in the opening sentense both Ukrainian Genocide and Ukrainian Holocost see Talk:Holodomor#suggestion? and Talk:Holodomor#Suggestion, version 2, despite strong objection of the moderate party. I would think that introducing a compromise aginst somebody's personal opiniones is a sign of neutrality. I do not think that the substance of the Holodomor argument is not particulary relevant here. abakharev 02:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Stick to facts, not to personal opinions. This is what encyclopedia is about. Uapatriot 02:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Good suggestion, that is why I stronlgy support inclusion of this Congress desicion into the article. abakharev 02:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Uapatriot, facts of this matter are highly understudied and in the politicized climate are often twisted by all sides. In no way Alex was imposing his personal opinion on the article. To the contrary, in order to find a compromise, he offered a version that went against his personal opinion. This speaks much of his neutrality. I am afraid you are approaching this article through an emotional perception. My family was also directly affected by this catastrophe. When I edit that article, I try not to think about it. But in any case, it is especially inapropriate to bring personal emotions over one of the articles into an RfA. Sorry for being harsh. Please do not take this as an offence. --Irpen 03:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    highly understudied? This is what some wish it to be and to stay this way. Type Holodomor or Ukrainian Genocide in Google. Very well studied and documented as of now. It's rather the willingness to face the facts. Uapatriot 11:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please no transparent hints towards those some. Google counts are high because issue is an emotional one. It is also a politically charged one and therefore is hottly debated. It is understudied academically. Please see talk:Holodomor. You did not address my main objection about bringing emotions to WP, especially to the policy issues. While sticking to your vote, please at least don't bring the false accusations against Alex. There are enough of those made by trolls and socks (see talk of this page). --Irpen 19:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please no discussing of editing and topical issues here. As a voter, I don't care of Alex's historical opinions and knowledges at all (even if he hadn't any). Dear UaPatriot, if you want to actually support Bakharev's RfA, and spoil the discussion of possible pro-RU bias among admins , just vote "Support" :). Ukrained 21:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. --Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 03:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. *yawn*... rather unimpressive. Charges of Russian nationalism, etc., not something we need more of. Alexander 007 11:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your best friend User:Bonaparte destroyed the previous nomination with his trolling and socks, and now you are here to take his place?.. *yawn*... rather unimpressive. --Ghirla | talk 11:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Back to my peace suggestion. May I ask Ghirla and/or his friends to move the above comment and the whole thread after this vote on discussion page ASAP? If not, I will reproduce similar abusive and irrelevant thread after some of "support" votes! Just for balance, you know... If you're unsatisfied with bureaucrats that closed the first vote don't give them a new reason for questioning our consensus. Best wishes, Ukrained 05:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I found this page when I clicked on User:Node ue's contributions. I voted oppose after reading the numerous complaints and objections on this page... *yawn* I don't have time to sift though these charges, and it is safer to vote oppose with such users. ---Alexander 007 11:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have always suspected that you and Bonny are socks, but your trolling here makes my suspecions speed-rocket. OK, I won't be feeding trolls on this page any more. --Ghirla | talk 12:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is trolling here, Ghirlandajo? Nobody except you. I voted oppose, gave a reason, and moved on. I really do not care about monsieur Bakharev's nomination enough either way to go further into this. Regards, Alexander 007 12:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a shame that we allow suffrage to those people who "don't care". I don't have time to sift though their contributions and determine whether they are trolls or not, but it's better not to count such votes. --Ghirla | talk 12:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ghirlandajo, you are being ridiculous :-) I am not the only one here who voted to oppose, and I voted oppose after reading numerous objections in this RfA, as well as recalling the numerous objections in the previous RfA. Stop whining. Alexander 007 12:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    VERY STRONGLY OPPOSE--Yodo 12:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Permabanned sockpuppet/vandal's vote. Yodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s is now [9] permabanned for being a sock of user:Bonaparte, also permabanned earlier[10] for exactly the same malicious activity in the previous Alex's RfA. See this, this and this for details. --Irpen 01:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I will explain why I voted like this:
    Why? For this.
  8. Oppose. He came back too soon. bogdan 18:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Sorry Alex, per all the above. Moe ε 18:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose The previous nomination causes this vote.--Andrew Alexander 07:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak oppose. A little too early. As for Ghirlandajo and Irpen I think instead of helping Alex you're doing him "медвежью услугу", моё мнение, если бы не вы, шансов у Alex-a было бы на много больше. --Just a tag 08:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Per above.--Colle||Talk-- 00:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose - there is no need for controversial admins. There is already too much heat. Good contributor, though. Sorry. Renata 16:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What kind of controversialness do you have in mind, please? Controversies do exist. The issue is how a person handles them. What exactly you did not like? mikka (t) 19:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it have been better if I just said "per above?" At least I bothered to give a personalized reason. Renata 07:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - Per Ukrained --Yakudza 18:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. I think you may have taken the "at least one month between nominations" guideline a little too literally in creating another request for adminship. More time is needed before requests, I personally feel. Therefore, I am neutral to this request. Deskana (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The guideline asks for "at least one month", and it was not previously challenged. How can you blame someone for being too "literal" when following the rules accepted by the community?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 19:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The guideline asks for at least a month for a reason; if you have observed RFA in the past, you will know that (although nominations after only the bare one month minimum are not disallowed), quicker reapplications tend to be treated less favorably. It is a matter of discretion. Xoloz 21:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly what pisses me off about that wording. If one month wait is almost always going to be considered insufficient, then why not re-phrase (or at least clarify) the guideline to make it less misleading. I am just ranting, although I seriously hope you'll reconsider, given the circumstances under which the previous nomination failed.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 22:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was merely pointing out that guideline incase you weren't aware of it, no offense intended. It still seems too soon to me. My point was not that you are breaking regulations, since you're not, but that it's a bit soon. Besides, that's my opinion on the matter, I don't think rewording the guideline would be good based on simply my opinion. Either way, I've not got an opinion on whether the candidate should be promoted or not. Deskana (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral. Last nomination was a month and several days ago. Would be good to wait a bit more before submitting again. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Changed to support. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral I don't really think it is too soon, particularly given the circumstances of the last nomination, but the diffs given by Curps on the Russian Wikipedia in the last nom leave me feeling very uncomfortable. Campaigning here is discouraged, but going elsewhere to do it seems much worse. –Joke 23:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Campaigning discouraged? I would be interested to see where and by whom. Does it mean "you don't like them and discourage them"? In the link provided by Curps there was no campaigning at all. It was simply an info that there is an RfA. Nothing else. We encourage people to broadcast this info by placing a template about the RfA at their user page, which Alex did. I mean you could vote as you wish and your opinion that users should not tell anyone of their RfA is OK to have. But pls explain what's really wrong with this. Maybe at the talk page. --Irpen 00:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it means that the consensus on RFA seems to be that advertising your RFA outside your Talk and User pages (e.g. on other users' talk pages, on IRC, etc...) is not encouraged. As best I can tell, those edits were at the Russian Village Pump, which seems a little disturbing for an editor that has been accussed of pushing the Russian POV (whatever that means). –Joke 01:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A single diff proving that Alex "pushed a Russian POV" is more than welcome. So far opposers in both nominations failed to produce a single meaningful diff. --Ghirla | talk 11:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I always thought that advertising RfAs on WikiProjects is okay. RfAs involving editors active on maths articles are routinely posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and nobody has ever commented on that (of course, the ru: Village Pump is not an en: WikiProject). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For all that's worth, there is a difference betweeen somebody notifying people of your RfA at some widely read noticeboard, and you doing it yourself. But it is a minor thing either way. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral per Oleg Alexandrov. Of 800+ admins, only one is Russian. Let the Russia-related topics stay "unadminstered", so to speak. It's more fun as it is. The mechanical oppose votes by Uke-Polish nationalists are both amusing and disgusting, as usual. As a sidenote, the last nomination was turned into a clownshow by socks and bureaucrats but no apologies were brought as yet. I fail to see what's the point of accepting the nomination under such circumstances. --Ghirla | talk 08:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    May I ask Ghirla to specify if he finds all "oppose" votes mechanical and disgusting ASAP? If not, I will reproduce similar abusive and irrelevant comments after some of "support" votes! I mean И эти люди запрещают мне... to assume bad faith... :) Ukrained 05:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was under impression that I'm not the only one...  Grue  19:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why neutral when you can vote against him? Would be quite funny. --Yodo 12:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral per Ghirlandajo. The current Polish/Russian/Ukrainian/German controversies and edit wars are quite intense and I would use great caution before giving admin powers to any of the active participants. Balcer 13:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. I find the drama unfolding in this nomination discussion rather disturbing. If the nominee had distanced himself from the petty squabbling, I would have probably supported. This seems like it would be part of a larger problem, though, and arming one of the "sides" with admin powers seems very unwise. I will be following this nomination with interest, and may yet revise my vote. --Ashenai 14:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral per Ashenai. NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. Too much drama. pschemp | talk 04:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. Having reread the first request it appears there are doubts over POV pushing and personal attacks. I suggest it is too soon to have remedied such doubts. Hiding talk 13:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral mbuk
  8. Neutral per [11] (I voted oppose last time because of that diff.) The subsequent rewording [12] did not address the problem, either. However, the user seems like potential admin material anyway. I'd support in a month, but that diff is too recent to support yet. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral - --Candide, or Optimism 11:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments From what I've seen, it's natural for an aspiring sysop to try for a nomination again after they fail. However the nominee seriously needs to work on convincing the opposing users first or the results may never improve. -- Eddie 04:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 19:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Alex Bakharev's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
    • During previous nomination, a concern was voiced about Alex Bakharev's lack of edit summaries in many cases (37% and 53% correspondigly). Please note the improvement.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 19:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • He used to support user:Ghirlandajo which is very famous about his trolling and outrageous hate towards polish, romanians, ukrainians and any other people from the world.--Yodo 13:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the above replies, but then again we don't watch what these people do after each nomination's outcome unless there actions affect us. His opponents might not have been aware. Unless He can turn those oppose votes into support, His only honest hope is to get other people to support. -- Eddie 05:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I am one of a few crazy peoples who are trying to go through the whole list of Special:Newpages checking the articles that interests me, fixing that is require fixing, referring that is relevant to Portal:Russia/New article announcements, Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements, Wikipedia:New articles (Australia), etc. Often working in this role I am finding articles that require an administrative attention (speedy deletes, blocking vandals, removing redundant images, moving articles, protecting and unprotecting, etc.) It would be more effective, if I could use the administrative power. Currently I have more than 3200 articles on my watchlist that I am trying to protect. I suspect that I am the only one watching some of these articles. If I had an access to the Unwatched articles special page I could drop some articles from my watchlist that are watched by somebody else and watch something Unwatched instead. abakharev 19:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Well, since my Wiki-birth, I am trying to produce one or two new B-grade level articles per week. The list is in User:Alex Bakharev#New articles and major contributions. Some of them are reasonably good. I am proud of series of articles about Russian painters (e.g. Viktor Vasnetsov), I think the List of schools in Victoria, Australia according to 2005 VCE results is a usable reference information that many parents are looking for and that was not available on the internet before, I like my unfinished series on Polymer rheology (e.g. Maxwell material or Kelvin material), I like the series on scientists and engineers (e.g. Henri Tresca and Rubin Design Bureau). My contributions to the FA-level articles are not extensive, but I like my Napoleon's theorem originally contributed to the Napoleon I of France#Legacy section. As a regular New article watcher I have reviewed, wikified, linked, categorized and announced on the relevant New article announcement board literally thousands of articles. I think it is usable as otherwise many of these articles would be just a dark matter. abakharev 19:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. Yes, I have been in a few conflicts in the past (see the summary in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev). I do not think I am in the new conflicts of the same scale. It is difficult to see myself from the outside but I precept myself as reasonably neutral, seeking for compromises wherever it is possible and using the formal conflict-resolution means as a last resort. I consider myself as reasonably immune to the personal attacks against me but sometimes overreacting to the attacks against the others. abakharev 19:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he did, he supported also user:Ghirlandajo with his trolling and socks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yodo (talk • contribs) 12:36, 17 February 2006
4. What is NPOV? Should NPOV be based solely on facts, or be obtained by averaging personal opinions? As a particular test case, what would you possibly do (if anything) to support NPOV in an article “Genocide against Jewish in the WWII”? What if the majority of active editors of the article are Germans? Thanks for answering. Uapatriot 11:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is such thing as WP:NPOV outlining the NPOV requirements. For me NPOV means separation facts from the opinions. Facts should be sourced (at least if challenged) and the opinions should be attributed. All relevant facts should be present and all the academic opinions should be represnted roughly by the amount of support of the opinions in the scolarship circles or/and in the public life. If adopting these principles there is still usually some room for disagreement: which facts are relevant, what is the proportion of such and such opinions in the academic community, etc. etc. But the major framework for any article is there. If the sides are disagree on the NPOV and are trying to censor facts, present opinions as facts, censor widespread opinions (attributed as opinions not facts), etc., then the article is in trouble. The less editors adopted such approach the more productive and enjoyable is the wikipedia experience for everybody. Returning to your example on Holocaust. I would find a gross violation of WP:AGF policy to assume a bad faith from an editor just because of him been German. Besides there is no way to separate German wikipedian from Jewish-German wikipedians anyway. Also many prominent Holocaust - deniers like Norman Finkelstein are Jewish themself and obviously hundreds prominent mainstream Holocaust historian are Germans. I am not an expert in the area, but obviously it is a fact that millions of Jews died because of Holocaust, the opinion that there were six millions of dead is the mainstream one and the opinion that there were, say, two-four millions victims is a marginal one. Thus, the later deserves ony a brief note in the article. abakharev 13:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. Could you, please, list a few articles related to Ukraine that you have contributed to recently? Preferably, if the contribution has not just been a minor edit, but a few sentences or a paragraph. (Your contribution list is very long and I can't possibly separate the articles I want in reasonable time.) Sashazlv 11:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was the original author of the Stary Krym article, I was the author of the original Mirgorod article, later the basis for the Myrhorod article (merged with the previous stub). I wrote a few articles on double-cultured cultural figures like Dmitry Levitzky or Vladimir Borovikovsky, I probably forgot something. Also every day for half a year I was collecting new Ukrainian articles for the Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements looking through the tonnes of the Special\Newest Articles.

6. You failed once do you want to happen again? --Yodo 12:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not failed, I just offered my free help for the benefit of the community. It is up to community to accept or refuse my offer. Frankly, I do not care that much. I have a feeling that the community consultation was disrupted by some sock puppeets and other disruptive user. I will be happy to find out that this was not the case. abakharev 13:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7. Some users here allege that you are a supporter of Ghirlandajo, a user who has been warned about "incivility or personal attacks" [13]. I am concerned about that. Could you, please, elaborate on the allegation? Sashazlv 12:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a supporter of the comfortable environmebt for the productive work to everybody (and Ghirlandajo is one of the most productive users), I am not a supporter of any personal attack or uncivility whoever initiating them. abakharev 13:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8. Would you be so kind not to support any more trollers and vandals like user:ghirlandajo? --Yodo 12:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the previous question

9.Recently a member of the wikipedians with "tones" of edits made something terrible. What would you do if you find out that is user:Ghirlandajo? would you block him or say hello only? --Yodo 13:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I would block him. Just as a common courtesy I would try to figure out if it was him and why have he done it.

Yodo's comment Yes, nice answered Alex. If it weren't for Ghirlo I would have voted for you. I may reconsider my vote against you. An advice: get rid of trollers like Ghirlandajo, nobody needs extremists like him who attack the others just because they don't agree with him. --Yodo 14:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Could you, please, briefly summarize your opinion about Holodomor as an event in Ukrainian history? I found one of the references above very disturbing. Sashazlv 15:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]
IMHO this page should concentrate on acceptability of A. B. for adminship and not became arena for historical discussions. Edit history of the user is long enough to create an opinion. Pavel Vozenilek 21:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]
I have explained on the talk page why this particular opinion is essential for me to make a qualified judgement and cast my vote. With due respect, Sashazlv 21:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I realized that my question is dubious and may be interpreted as provocative. Therefore, I withdraw it. Sashazlv 04:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Provocative ot not provocative I will answer this question ( sorry I did not answered it earlier, I was away of my computer due to the demands of my family). Holodomor was a catastrophical famine that caused death of millions of people. It has nothing with the weather or other natural events. The same territories across the border with Poland where lived the same Ukrainian people, growing the same crops, using the same agricultural methods has no famine whatsever. If we make a closer look how the collectivization was organized in 1929-1930 you would ask not why there was a deadly famine in Ukraine, Kuban region of Russia and in Kazakhstan, but why the famine elsewhere in the Soviet Union was not as deadly. On the other hand, I do not believe that Holodomor was specially engineered to kill Ukrainians but not Russians, so Russians could migrate to their lands (as it seems to be proposed by some researchers and some editors). The reason is that in the era of open archives (especially in Ukraine) there was not published a single document I am aware of, showing any discriminating between Ukrainians and Russians during this catstrophe. There was no documents demanding to take e.g. three tonnes of wheat from Ukrainians and two tonnes from Russians or to have aspecially high food taxes from the Ukrainian-populated areas, etc. I personally have strong negative views against Stalin, so if somebody would provide a document that in 1930-1932 he specifically targeted Ukrainian peasants during Holodomor, I would feel vindicated. So far I believe it was a result of the social (class) not ethnical politics.

Regarding the Holodomor article I proposing to handle the opinions about the natural cause of the events the same way as the Holocaust denial - briefly mention as a marginal scolarship opinion and provide facts showing that this is untrue, I am in favor of keeping all the arguments for the ethnical theory (like the USA Congress decision), but to have the ethnical thery arguments as attributed opinions, not as proven facts.

This is my opinion as an editor, that I based all my suggestions on the talk page of the article (I never edited the main article BTW). As an author of a few proposals for the text of the article, and so involved in the editing, I would probably have to stay away from the article as a sysop, although I would certainly ask for help of uninvolved sysops, if I feel it is neccessary.

I hope I answered your question. It is already too long for the RfA, so I could discuss any additional suggestions for the article/ my views on the matter on the article's talk page, my talk page or by E-mail, whatever suits you. abakharev 08:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independent of any nation-attached opinions, Kazakhstan lost over 2 million people during the famine of early 1930s, as well as Russia and other regions lost millions. Overall, accurate researches report that 7.5-8 million people died, and the Ukraine had 40% (about 2.5-3 million) of that quantity. So there even can not be argument over the nationalistic fantasies that the Holodomor targeted Ukrainians specifically. DenisRS 12:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Optional additional questions from MarkSweep

11. Consider the following situation (hypothetical, but realistic). A user contacts you with a complaint about an article that was deleted after a controversial debate on AfD, with strong opinions for and against deletion, accusations of impropriety involving sockpuppets etc. Assume further that you're conflicted: on the one hand, the AfD was clearly controversial and had apparent irregularities; on the other hand, you believe that the article in question should have been deleted. What would you do in this situation?
A. If the irregularities are obvious, then I should list the article on the Deletions for Review. There is a real user involved and people are offended by the violation of the rules. If I am a newadmin and the irregularities are not obvious, it might be a good idea to ask the explanations from the closing admin first ( or get an opinion from a third party). abakharev 09:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. You're patrolling recent changes and you notice that an anonymous editor removed a sizeable chunk of text from an article about a minor celebrity, without leaving any edit summary. You're conflicted: on the one hand, the information that was removed was unflattering, and it was not backed up by any sources; on the other hand, it's hard to discern the motives of the anon, since they didn't leave any summary and may be engaged in a whitewashing effort. What would you do in this situation?
A. Well, removing an uflattering bio was probably done by either the celebrity itself ot his/her fun. OTOH, insertion of the unsourced unflattering bio staff may come from a bad -faith editing anyway. The rest dependent upon my interst about the celebrity. I can google myself the info trying to find the source of the omitted text. I can try to contact people asking for rewrite ( the anonim, the author of the unsourced bio, somebody who I think might have an interst in the article). If I have the reasons to believe the removed info is true, I could revert the blanking and put {{fact}} or {{dubious}} template over it. I could also put the removed piece of bio on the talk page asking to provide the sources. Obviously if the removed info is so unflattering that it is a possible subject of a lawsuit, or if it is unenciclopedic , it is better not to restore the info at all and if somebody would restore it, ask for sources/rewording. I must admit that if the celebrity is of absolute no interest to me, and I do not time at that moment, I could leave the matter to its natural course - I am not the only editor on Wikipedia.abakharev 09:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. You're patrolling new pages and you notice that a user recently created a new stub with no text except for an external link to some web site with more information. You speedy delete this article under the A.3 provision of WP:CSD. Fifteen minutes later the exact same stub has been recreated, and its creator has left a rude message on your talk page, accusing you of all kinds of nasty things. What would you do in this situation?
A. Well, I should answer in polite matter, providing pointers to the policies of Wikipedia and sending {{welcome}} template. Sometimes it is easier to create a stub by myself, than explain how to do it abakharev 09:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alex_Bakharev_2&oldid=1082476186"