Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Yodo (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

User:Yodo's vote should not be counted, even if he changes it to a vote in support. Yodo is obviously a sock of User:Bonaparte. Here is some of my evidence:

1) at 10:54 17 February 2006, User:Node ue votes in support of Alex Bakharev;
2)at 11:29 17 February 2006, Alexander 007 votes oppose for Bakharev's RfA.
3) at 12:01 17 February 2006, an anonymous IP makes this edit;
4) at 12:13 17 February 2006, User:Yodo appears again after over a month of silence (January 7, 2006).

The editor was probably trailing Alexander 007's contributions or trailing Node's contributions, or both (User:Bonaparte is known to have spied on both of them); then the editor comes across this RfA; then (not logged in) he posts a message at WP:RWNB. About 10 minutes later, he logs in as User:Yodo, exhibiting Bonapartian behavior. The conclusion is obvious. ---Alexander 007 14:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you think it'd be worth it trying one of these again. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 15:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I would say so. The timing is uncanny. 11/12 minutes after the post at WP:RWNB, User:Yodo reappears after over a month of silence, displaying Bonapartian tactics...Alexander 007 15:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow! What a conspiracy theory! But being serious, that accusation is not supported, at least for me, by your evidence. How do you know Bonaparte has been spying? --Neigel von Teighen 15:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I would rather not disclose email correspondance. Alexander 007 15:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Here we go again....let's just promote him so we don't have to go through all of this once every month! :)Gator (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
By the way Bonaparte, since you are reading this: I turned you in because your edit behavior under these various IP's and accounts is highly disreputable, and in fact damages what you are trying to improve. Not to mention that about a week or two ago you swore up & down to me that you are not sockpuppeting... don't lie to me. Alexander 007 15:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, User:Yodo indeed has has all the signs of being a User:Bonaparte clone. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoever doubts, see [1] and this. The way to go, is to check whether IP used by Yodo is an open proxy. I bet the bottle of any beverage of your choice that it is. --Irpen 19:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, some anon coward, pbbly a proxy, is posting messages to Ukrainian and Polish boards. Disgusting! --Irpen 19:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure? If you mean the boards in the English Wiki, I didn't notice any recent anon activity. Maybe I missed it... Alexander 007 20:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Postscriptum: Bonaparte did indeed read this page; he sent me an email yesterday. He understood about me thinking it was him, but he denied the anon IP for sure, and I think (he wasn't clear) that he denies the User:Yodo account. He told me, "It is Irpen!" (but he didn't say which is Irpen: the anon IP, User:Yodo, or both; but we already know the anon IP is not Irpen, and I don't think Yodo is Irpen either). He wrote this after I already made such allusions (which I withdraw but do not apologize for; this is a Spy Game after all). Alexander 007 17:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Alexander, I don't need your apology and I don't care about you "withdawing", or "insisting" on your alegations. This is totally clear to me. Yodo is a sock of Bonny, but an unprovable one because Bonny is using an open proxy. I back my statement with a bottle of any Cognac or Ţuică at the choice of anyone who bets against this mailed to an address of the winner. The statement is the following: The IP used by Yodo is an open proxy. If checkuser shows I am wrong, email me the address to send a bottle. I would also like the checkuser ran against me because trollish tong-in-cheak "withdrawals" is not enough to clear this up. Even if Yodo's a sock of any other user here (I don't know, just can't exclude this possibility) he is sure to be from an open proxy IP. --Irpen 17:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, no. I'm serious. I don't think you are behind User:Yodo. But I think Bonaparte does :-) Alexander 007 17:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enough questions

There's been enough and they're becoming way too obscure, irrelevant and personal. I for one call upon Alex not to answer anymore. Enough.Gator (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Why? I think my question about Holodomor is very relevant and not obscure. Sashazlv 15:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
If you think "Could you, please, briefly summarize your opinion about Holodomor as an event in Ukrainian history?" is not obscure and is relevant to an RFA proceeding, then I doubt I could ever change your mind. Nonetheless, I think there has been more than enough questions here and they should stop. That's all I'm saying.Gator (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
How is it relevant to his adminship nomination? If I, for example, don't know much about Holodomor or Rwandan Genocide, but nevertheless decide to express my personal views on these subjects based on the limited information I possess, all without getting involved into actual editing, does that make me less fit to be an admin? Expressing one's POV is everyone's right—it's pushing it while completely ignoring others when it it becomes a problem. I did not see Alex doing such thing, and he is entitled to his views just as anyone else is entitled to theirs.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Why do you deny me the right to ask questions? I want to cast my vote responsibly and for that I need to know a bit more than what I saw on the nomination page. Holodomor is relevant because our dear nominee has participated there. From his opinion I concluded that there is a chance he might abuse his potential admin authority when "touchy" issues related to Ukraine are concerned. That's why I asked for a clarification.
No one is "denying" you anything. If I had that power I would have already exercised it here. If you think it's relevant for your vote, then ask him on his talk page. By asking it on the RFA page you're saying that it's relevant for everyone to know his opinion on "about Holodomor as an event in Ukrainian history" and that everyone needs to see what he says about. It's just not an appropriate question on the RFA page is all. Take it to his talk page, please and any further questions (the line needs to be drawn somewhere). No big deal.Gator (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't've said it better myself. My point exactly.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
"If I had that power"... So you just want me to shut up. Great! Or is it a threat?Sashazlv 16:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah you got me, it was a threat and I all I want to do is try and censure you.....unbelievable. SeeWP:AGF and read it.Gator (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it is relevant here, not on his personal talk page. Besides, his opinion was already cited above and I want to get a clarification. Sashazlv 16:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we've said al there is to be said here and are about to go in circles. Keep your question, withdraw it and put it on his talk apge instead...it's up to you. But I think he shouldn't bother answering it (or some others) on the RFA page and am opposed to anymore. I think we're finished up here. Good luck.Gator (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
What can I say... Cynicism and hypocrisy. I was marginally in favor, but with such nominator and supporters I'd rather vote "no". Good job. Sashazlv 17:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind going in circles, I'm quite accustomed to it. So, as the question I asked is still unaswered, let me repeat it: How is it [question about Holodomor] relevant to his adminship nomination? Let me rephrase it, too: what do candidate's personal views have to do with him being (or not being) fit for adminship, as long as he is able to keep them in check and adhere to NPOV? You believe the place for your question is here, not on the candidate's talk page—fine by me, it's your right after all—but would you be so kind as to explain why? It's very easy to cry foul, to accuse someone of cynism and hypocrysy, and then walk away. Finally, a personal question (feel free to answer it at my talk/by emailing me, there really isn't a need for it to be public): what exactly did you mean by saying "with such nominator"? I am not in a habit of ignoring critical remarks aimed at me as they provide me with an opportunity to improve myself. Thank you.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 17:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Question: How is it [question about Holodomor] relevant to his adminship nomination?
Answer: The nominee's opinion that "Ukrainian Genocide" is a "lie" was referenced on the nomination page. Given that, I conclude there is a chance the nominee might abuse admin powers when dealing with touchy questions related to Ukrainian history. Therefore, I ask for a clarification of his opinion in public.
Question: what exactly did you mean by saying "with such nominator"?
Answer: Gator noted If I had that power I would have already exercised it here., which directly referred to denying my right to ask questions. You have sided with Gator: Couldn't've said it better myself. My point exactly. I perceive it as a threat and you are the nominator. Sashazlv 17:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the answers. That's all I needed—to hear your substantiation for your actions. I do not think you are correct in your assumptions re: question one, but I am neither in power nor willing to deny you your right to your own POV. My personal POV is that you are being too overcautios, and that your question is irrelevant. As for the answer to the second question, also thank you. That's what one gets for signing someone else's statements wholesale, and that teaches me a lesson. I admit I deserved it. Just to make it completely clear: I do not agree with that particular sentence the way you interpreted it, although I think that sentence is ambiguous, not very well written, and I am still not quite sure what exactly was meant by it (the way you interpreted it, it sounds pretty nasty). I was, however, in agreement with the rest of the Gator's statement when I dittoed it. Hopefully what I've just said is enough for us to close this conversation.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 17:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

See above. I've heard enough.Gator (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievable now there are 13 questions...all in an RFA that will likely fail. Enough already! If you didn't get enough info from the first 10 questions to make up you're mind, you're not going to get it from 3 more. Let him be.Gator (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

People just want to vote responsibly. Why are you upset?? Sashazlv 00:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Posting on Romanian Wikipedians' notice board.

It's interesting that someone mentioned that posting. It appears not to be posted by User:Bonaparte, but rather by an Ukrainian from Minnesota.

I did it. Taking into account that Romanian editors were active in the previous voting, I though they may still be interested in this voting. The announcement was rather written to suggest voting against the candidate.
This adminship voting was announced under "URGENT ANNOUNCEMENT" on the Russian portal. Alex actively edited country-specific articles (like "Genoside in Ukraine", the article is locked now) not only about Russia. His first adminship reqiest was announced on the Ukrainian portal. This time it was not. Taking into account Alex's interest in the over-politicized and country-specific topics, it seemed reasonable to me to announce this voting to wider community. Whenever there is an election, you can see all kind of advertisment all over around. Some of his supporters are also testing the limits. Nonetheless, the way I did you are likely to call the wrong one. I have to apologize for this.
I may go too emotional here again, but when I see all the fight on Holodomor page, with a discussion, should or should not the words Genocide in Ukraine be in bold, and when someone is counting the number of referencies in Google about "Holodomor" and "Ukrainian Genocide", insead of reading them, and saying it's highly understudied, then understudied academically, while not only articles, plenty of books are now published on this. And another user is claiming that if you want a vote then do realise you will immediately outnumbered at a rate of 10 people. Then, at the end, what the wikipedia is about? whoever gets more votes, regardless of what the facts are? If this is the rule, then I went by the rule. Russians are undernumbered in the world, so following this rule, I had to bring this vote in particular to the wider world community.
I realize that you are in rush to penalise me for some of my actions. Or in rush to find Bonoparte. Or in rush to keep this voting in secret. If Alex is such a good candidate (something that I don't see) then he should get overwhelming support. Is he really? Is there anything to hide? Why blanking the announcements instead of editing them? Whatever my penalties are, I will accept them. Uapatriot 00:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The IP address is registered to the University of Minnesota and it's not a proxy server, but simply part of a dynamic pool of IP addresses used from within the university.

Correct.

He also appears to be using Road-Runner, also from Minnesota, with IPs such as this.

This user did not call Romanians as Nazi. He called two particular Romanian contributors, Bonoparte and Annitas as Romanian Nazi, which was during a POV war over Republic of Moldova article (the article is now locked). The user was banned for a period of time, and he has not called neither these two Romanians nor anybody else as Nazi since that time.
So it was you... :-) Anyway, please don't call people Nazis anymore, as that is considered a personal attack and you probably know our policy on personal attacks.. :-) bogdan 11:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I ran a script to gather the wikipedia edits from the University of Minnesota and the result was this: http://i.am.home.ro/rez3.html . Those IPs appear to edit especially Ukrainian-related articles and names the Romanians "nazis".

Good work. Some of the edits are mine. At the time of the edits, I was not flipping between a Wikipedia account and IPs. As it turns I was flipping between IP adresses, because they are dynamic. Some blaimed Node_ue for some of the edits I did. For me, some of his edits on Moldova situation were valuable, and more close to the neutral view than those of Bonoparte, Duca, Annitas. The edits by Node_ue were reverted in minutes, with nasty comments and I supported him in a way I could. Uapatriot 00:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte said that he never used proxies since he was banned, so I expect this user also did at least part of the proxy-trolling, the trolling done without a proxy probably being 'slipped'.

BTW, is any voter from Minnesota or do we have to use the IP-check utility ? :-) bogdan 18:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Yodo is most likely the same as the one who posted at WP:RWNB. And User:Yodo is most likely User:Bonaparte. I have not changed my mind. If they are different people, then Yodo must be Bonaparte's Polish/Ukrainian brother separated at birth...Alexander 007 18:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I say we make an IP-check first and then draw any conclusions. bogdan 18:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh my :-) I know someone from Minnesota who voted, but I highly doubt that s/he has anything to do with it. What you are looking for is a Ukrainian in Minnesota. Bogdan is probably right that that IP is not an open proxy (is passes the test). Is Bonaparte doing a PhD? Where? --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
For sure, he's not in the United States. :-) bogdan 19:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
BTW, who should we announce for an IP-check? bogdan 18:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
You usually go to WP:RCU. That's where Bonaparte got canned. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
*yawn*. This check may reveal a new dimension to this conspiracy. But I'm not concerned about falsely accusing Bonaparte, if that turns out to be the case. If you act like a freakin' troll, expect to be confused with other freakin' trolls who behave in the same manner o n the same topics, editing the same pages. Whoever Yodo is, he's in the manner of Bonaparte, and ultimately may have to be perma-banned. Alexander 007 19:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's another suspected Bonaparte IP: User:161.53.50.60 (open proxy). I'll get some more. ---Alexander 007 19:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Here are some older suspected Bonaparte IPs, some pre-dating the User:Bonaparte account:User:203.160.244.229, User:195.175.37.38, User:195.175.37.8. Alexander 007 19:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
203.160.244.229 appears to be an open proxy. I'm not sure about the others. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 19:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Let me try to sum up the basic scenarios here: behind User:Yodo is the same person who operated User:Bonaparte; User:Yodo is a different person who just happens to behave remarkably like Bonaparte and edits in the same field; or, a conspiracy theory: User:Yodo is intentionally mimicking Bonaparte: but why? Alexander 007 20:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Do you care? He should be blocked and we can call it a day. There is the possibility that Yodo is unaffiliated to that anon. Remember, Boxero and Monor were confirmed Bonny socks. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 20:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the anon at WP:RWNB is not 100% User:Yodo; but I stated further up that most likely it is, and I still believe so. The timing is too much. Alexander 007 20:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, you can ask one of the users who can check [2].--Latinus (talk (el:)) 20:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
May do so later. In my emails with Bonaparte, after he denied the recent anon IP activity, I broached the concept of someone intentionally mimicking him. That scenario seemed plausible for some of the IPs, but for User:Yodo it seems like too much trouble, too elaborate. Yet Yodo acts too much like Bonaparte; similar edit history; so...if we accept Yodo is not mimicking, to say that he/she is a different person from Bonaparte strains credibility. Alexander 007 20:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Latinus, who's your buddy in Minnesota that you mentioned? Is it Irpen? Alexander 007 20:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This above and this edit summary warrants a response. Never ever before anyone at Wikipedia made any accusation against myself in any kind of unethical behavior. I mean it! Alexander 007, I absolutely urge you not to stop half-way by throwing this in my face and doing nothing leaving me accused and not convicted or cleared. Please do follow up with a request a check for my IP at WP:RCU and I will specifically comment at your note there that I don't object to the check by any editor the community found trustworthy enough to empower with m:Checkuser. While this is the worst thing anyone ever said about me, I am used to not be surprised. I do not request your apology and I do not need it. Please do not retract your statement either. Do start the proper procedure to check me up and I will help to make sure the request goes through. Thank you in advance for being decent and following up. One more thing, please no messages at my talk with what you meant or what you didn't mean and whether you were "just joking" or not. I would like this dialog to remain where it started. --Irpen 21:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No Alex, I wasn't thinking of Irpen. I was thinking of someone who voted on the RFA page and mentions Minnesota a lot on his/her userpage. Irpen, well done - that is the most decent response that could have been given in the circumstances. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 21:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Cool down! I don't what the hell am I doing here and why I kept this page on my watchlist, maybe because I had the feeling personal attacks would begin in the discussion. Please Alex, don't post silly comments that lead this into a mess. Irpen, well done, but the last time, don't answer him. Let's move on into the main discussion (which, by the way, I don't know exactly which it is, but I'm beginning to understand it slowly) --Neigel von Teighen 22:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's a summary:
  • Someone has been trolling through open proxies for a long time,
  • They were believed to be User:Bonaparte (who is known to live somewhere in Romania)
  • Yodo is a suspected sock of Bonaparte
  • An IP from the University of Minnesota (which in the past has pushed an Ukrainian POV and has called the Romanians Nazis) left a trollish note on the WP:RWNB
  • 10 minutes later, Yodo started trolling
  • The question is whether Yodo is one of Bonaparte's socks, whether that IP (which is not an open proxy and is not Bonaparte's) is the IP of someone who has been impersonating Bonaparte with the proxies (and forgot to use one this time) and if so, who is it?
--Latinus (talk (el:)) 22:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

To summarize:

  • Someone has been trolling through open proxies for a long time,
  • They were believed to be User:Bonaparte (who is known to live somewhere in Romania)
  • Yodo is a suspected sock of Bonaparte
No idea on that.
  • An IP from the University of Minnesota (which in the past has pushed an Ukrainian POV and has called the Romanians Nazis) left a trollish note on the WP:RWNB
Sorry, me. Again, I appologise. And I accept the penalty.
  • 10 minutes later, Yodo started trolling
  • The question is whether Yodo is one of Bonaparte's socks, whether that IP (which is not an open proxy and is not Bonaparte's) is the IP of someone who has been impersonating Bonaparte with the proxies and if so, who is it?
"that IP" is not Bonaparte's.

Uapatriot 00:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Nazis you say? Penalty! Alexander 007 07:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I made a mistake: Bonaparte did admit to one anon IP in the last emails, but a mild one. Alexander 007 07:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for the summaries! I'll try then to help however I can. --Neigel von Teighen 16:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yodo's reasons

  1. Oppose due to low use of edit summaries for major edits.
    Oppose because I'm not sure it was correct for you to solicit users on the Russian Wikipedia to come here to participate in this vote. [3] [4].
    Oppose Unfortunately the candidate did not seem to handle gracefully the powers of adminship. An administrator should be willing to explain and unwilling to provoke edit wars. Wishing the best to the Russian community of editors
    There are plenty of admin candidates; no point in taking a risk on one with this much controversy.
    Oppose Afraid, Alex Bakharev has got a POV on the national issues, which I wouldn't like to see in an admin
    My support to the policy of neutrality.
    You've been asked to elaborate: I'd consider that a necessitation.
    Yes, I would say it is always necessary to back up such a strong complaint with evidence of wrongdoing.
    Does the fact that Ghirlandajo wants Alex to be admin means that Alex will be pushing POV?
    Very Strong Oppose The candidate has strong POV, he supported an offensive Russian user Ghirlandajo that insulted and got to disputes with several other contributors based out of his dislike for their nationality[5] for example(Polish Mafia, rv idiotic Moldovan nationalism). #::Alex Bakharev went beyond pure support, but expressed an opinion that the user should have more rights than an anonymous trolls[6]. Supporting a known offender, involved in serious disputes with other contributors, and wanting him to posess more rights then other users(insulted as trolls), doesn't speak good for Alex Bakharev's neutrality.
    Here are a few edits by Alex Bakharev on Transnistria that Bonaparte may be referring to [7] [8]. —
    Oppose It's inappropriate to call other admins "stupid". Here it is: [9]. #:Auhh..that link does not lead to the word "stupid".
    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)
    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. &mdash
    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.
    Oppose per insulting an admin like that. Criticism is certainly welcome, but not hasty insults.
    Oppose - Nothing personal against the user, because I never directly interacted with him, but he took sides with some people who are very rude, while calling the rest of us for trolls.
    Oppose - Any attacking, especially Admin attacking is a very bad thing. And that one was fairly recent. Too many rude comments to other users.
    Very Strong Oppose Do we need a russian push-POVer? No.
    Oppose see my question for Alex and I against division editor on people first, second and third sort
    Strong Oppose. This candidate is clearly POV-pusher, and admin rights will help him to create non-neutral articles. Habit to insult people is not positive too.
    Oppose. Far too many doubts about this editor's calmness and balance at present. Needs to demonstrate with greater clarity that he'll be a safe pair of hands.
    Oppose. Basing on the above votes and the e-mail sent to me by Ghirlandajo, which reads "It's a shame that Russians do not have a single own admin here, while Romanians have four" I vote against just to keep NPOV on wikipedia. Besides, the statement that This user is able to contribute with an advanced level of English. seems a bit (only a bit, maybe lower it to en-2?) doubtful to me. Sorry Alex, nothing personal.

I moved the above list of reasons from the main RfA page, because it is simply a copypaste of oppose votes from the candidate's previous nomination.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 19:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yodo is a sock of Bonny going through an open proxy, see above. --Irpen 19:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I realize it may be the case. However, until it's proven through WP:RCU, the vote can only be discarded by the closing bureaucrat.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 19:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It not "may be" the case, it sure is the case. Please check the top section of this very page where I brought up some links. This needs to be dealt asap at WP:RCU. Also, same user is now cowardly posting inflammatory calls for action at Polish and Ukrainian boards as an anon through a third proxy. I have no time now to post it at WP:RCU. Please someone post evidence from ta this page to the appropriate board and alert editors with checkuser to act promptly! This is totally disgustingly new low of this troll. --Irpen 19:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser

I think I can do contact with User:Kelly Martin or User:David Gerard. Please, someone say me exactly what must be checked. --Neigel von Teighen 16:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Yodo vs User:Bonaparte and his known IPs, I guess. User:Uapatriot takes responsibility for the anon IP at the Romanian notice board, and his story rings true, so no need to check the anon IP. Alexander 007 16:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

No, checkuser on Yodo won't show Bonaparte, see this and this.

The way to go, is to check whether IP used by Yodo is an open proxy. I bet the bottle of any beverage of your choice that it is. Ask Kelly, he will certainly remember his last check.

Also, check myself up (user:Irpen) and show Anexander 007 that he was slandering. I've seen him enough and I don't need his apology, so don't bother, Alexander! --Irpen 16:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have sent a message to Kelly Martin and told her to reply on this page rather than in my user talk. Now, we should wait. If in a reasonable time he doesn't answers, I'll try with David Gerard (I hope he remembers me from my work as advocate of a case that he will surely remember). Ah, I posted a CheckUser request for Irpen so he can show Alex what he wants. --Neigel von Teighen 23:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A peace treaty suggestion

Ladies and gentlemen! This RfA has turned into a circus (which is already noticed by some other users). I was crucified an insulted, although it is Alex who is the only legal target here. But I'll live with it. What's more important, the whole discussion went in a very biased way. Three friends of nominee went discrediting virtually every user who voted "oppose". IT'S UNACCEPTABLE since irrelevant. If a given user is not a proved sockpuppet, nobody allowed to crucify him here. And nobody should turn the election into a topical discussion.

If this is not stopped, I see no ways for me but to interfere, politely questioning pro-Bakharev voters (although I don't know almost any of them). That we'll be a complete circus for sake of balance.

So, here is my peace suggestion (a road map:):

  1. Campaigners for Alex stop questioning "oppose" people
  2. Everybody stops asking questions for nominee
  3. We negotiate and implement a radical reshuffling of the comments to votes, e.g. I cut my comment, Irpen,Kazak and Ghirla delete their countercomments; we also edit our irrelevant questions to other voters; as a result, we vote on the edition on this talkpage
  4. If needed, someone negotiates bureaurats (sysops, Jimbo Wales or whatever) for pro-longing (not re-running!) the election

Do you think it's technically possible? I'm not very familiar with Wikirules hence asking Ukrained

For once I agree with you, that certain people (not mentioning any names) did turn this into a circus, and particulary the insults that I got from one certain nationaly-conscious clown (again not mentioning any names), makes point №3 very attractive. Although an apology would also be much appreciated - but if it means an insult to national pride of the insulter, well I can't force people to become more civil but my prayers go out to them ;). --Kuban Cossack 21:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Kazak, please ask somebody neutral (and normal) to read and explain you your own writing :))) Ukrained 08:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Believe me I am conscious of what it says and mean every word of it.--Kuban Cossack 10:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ukrained, I was very tempted to write a more broad response to your so called "proposal" but I decided not to. So, I will just address a couple of issues.

There is no way to close the vote. The procedure is set and the vote will go to the end according to the schedule.

I stand by my comments that characterize your behavior and would have repeated them all over, almost word to word. If you want to reduce this "dialog" at Alex' RfA page, you edit your comments and remove what you think was inappropriate to say once your head is cooled off. I will than revise my criticism of what you said. To give you an example. You assaulted user:Node ue without any reason that he gave you. If you remove your attack on him, I will remove my criticism of you on that issue. You clumsily tried to get Alex involved in the quarel to which he had no relation while I offered you my help should you have decided to proceed to the normal ways of resolving your dispute with Kuban kazak. I call this an entrapment and I stand by this opinion. If you moderate your accusations and/or remove them altogether, I will adjust my comments to your comments accordingly. And so on and so forth.

It seems to me that this nomination will succeed barring AndriyK or his likes again bring some absentee voters from outside forums, as was done in the past.

There is absolutely no way that Alex, as an admin, would pursue a pro-Russian POV agenda. Nevertheless, his mere being a Russian causes certain editors to do everything they can to derail the nomination, as they did last time (I do not mean editors who voted oppose for "too soon" or other similar reasons. I respect their reasons even though I disagree with them). That the imperialist policies of Russia in the last 250 years or so created in several E. European nations a sizable russophobic sentiment directed against any Russian person is an unfortunate but a well-known reality. I am proud to see that in my nation, the wisdom prevails, as the votes of active Ukrainian editors strongly lean towards a support of this candidate. It is mainly yourself and a Bonaparte's sock that made a circus out of this. You are welcome to moderate your rant and I will see what I can do afterwards. I don't see what else could be done now. --Irpen 01:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_adminship_Alex_Bakharev_2_a6bd.html"