Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Kirill Lokshin

Questions are never indiscreet, answers sometimes are. —Oscar Wilde

Initial questions

 * 1) Can you describe how you will deal with the feedback and inputs of the general community of editors on different cases? What kind of role will such outside opinions play in your work as an arbitrator?  Rama's arrow  04:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I expect that I would deal with community input on arbitration issues in the same way I have dealt with it in general: by listening to and considering all comments very carefully. Beyond the obvious point that helpful suggestions are always appreciated—a good idea is a good idea, regardless of the source—there's a need, in my opinion, for Arbitrators to have a good sense of how the community at large views particular cases.  The ArbCom is a tool to resolve disputes for the benefit of Wikipedia, rather than in a vacuum; hence, it's necessary that Arbitrators be aware of the possible negative ramifications of certain resolutions on the community.  These tend to manifest as very vocal objections to certain proposals in cases, for the most part; while it's expected that some people would disagree with the ArbCom's decisions, there's sometimes a point where the disruption resulting from widespread community discontent with a decision would be greater than the disruption the decision was meant to adress in the first place.  (On the flip side, of course, satisfied editors rarely bother to comment, so the feedback of the community tends to be disproportionately colored by those who are unhappy with the proceedings.)
 * Having said that, the role of the ArbCom is obviously not to serve as merely a gauge of community opinion on an issue, but to make decisions which they consider to be in the best interests of the project. I would certainly take outside opinion into consideration when weighing issues, but it would only be one of many factors that I would look. Kirill Lokshin 05:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your opinion of ex-admins who have not voluntarily given up their sysophood? Do you think they should be resysopped at AC's will, or do you think that they should go through another RfA? What are your thoughts on the current re-adminship process for involuntarily-desysopped admins? – Chacor 11:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * RFA is quite hard on desysoped admins, but not necessarily unfairly so, in my opinion. The major point of RFA, fundamentally, is to determine whether we trust an editor not to do anything bad with the tools; a history of doing bad things—and one can't really get desysopped without one—is obviously a major detriment to that trust.  (More practically, our recidivism rate is atrocious; see, for example, the case of Guanaco, who managed to get desysopped again after getting his bit back the first time.)  Trust isn't something that can be regained by fiat; if a former admin hasn't demonstrated that they won't repeat the errors that got them desysopped, the community is quite justified in passing them over in favor of candidates that don't have a history of poor judgement.  (We are not, as a general rule, so pressed for admins that we need to take all comers.)
 * More to the point, a general trend of having the AC decide on resysppings would be a bad idea in practice, even if the principle were an acceptable one, as it's almost certain that the negative effects of the community's displeasure with such a process would significantly outweigh the benefits of having an extra editor with admin tools. Kirill Lokshin 14:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I will be asking the same three questions to every candidate. 'Arbitration' is a process of dispute resolution. If the parties to an arbitration, after it has gone to the committee, manage to resolve the dispute or any part of it themselves, would you continue the case or that part of it? If so, why, and if not, why not? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 12:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If the parties had reached a genuine resolution to their dispute (or parts of it), I would be inclined to drop the issue (or to reduce the role of the ArbCom to just acknowledging the resolution, rather than imposing a new one). This would be contingent, obviously, on the agreement reached by the parties being consistent with Wikipedia's fundamental principles; if two parties wanted to resolve a dispute by agreeing to ignore NPOV, for example, they wouldn't be taken seriously.
 * There are cases, of course, where this wouldn't be a practical approach. Some cases (most noticeably those concerned with the use of admin tools) are only incidentally based on a particular disagreement, and must address what is often an extensive history of disputes or misbehavior.  If the circumstances were such that there would be no reason to believe that the private resolution would actually do anything useful about such long-term issues (or where the history of the parties suggested that they would be unable to hold to the terms of whatever agreement they had reached), it would likely be appropriate for the ArbCom to consider additional or alternative remedies. Kirill Lokshin 14:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) What role do you believe private discussions between the parties should play in determining the outcome of Arbitration cases? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 12:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Private discussions among the parties should only have a bearing on the Arbitration process to the extent that they produce a workable resolution to the dispute (as in the question above). Beyond that, there really isn't anything more useful to them than to discussions between two other randomly chosen editors.  Certainly the typical shouting-match variety of "discussion" rarely improves the situation or results in any meaningful ideas for resolving it. Kirill Lokshin 14:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Take a look at Probation. Under what circumstances should users who have not had any restrictions on their editing imposed, be removed from probation? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 12:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that you mean that no restrictions had been imposed under the terms of the probation (which is itself an editing restriction, in a sense)? Broadly speaking, once a user has demonstrated that the issue which had led to the probation in the first place was no longer likely to be a concern—typically by a decent amount of harmonious editing (ideally in the same topic area or type of article where the problems had previously occurred)—then removing the probation could be considered.  (This tends not to happen too much, unfortunately; most of the editors placed on probation tend to get blocked or leave Wikipedia rather than trying to reform their behavior.) Kirill Lokshin 14:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) This is a standard question I'll be asking all candidates (and relates to an issue alluded to in your statement). What do you believe can be done to reduce delays in the arbitration process? Newyorkbrad 16:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The major factor in the delays seems to be the writing of the decision itself. Aside from a few unusual scenarios, most cases seem to burn through the bulk of the evidence submission pretty quickly (as, much of the time, the parties have evidence prepared well in advance), then sit essentially in limbo until somebody (usually Fred) puts together some proposals, and then move fairly rapidly through the ensuing voting/debate/closing/etc.  An obvious solution would be to get more people involved in writing the proposed decisions; this tends to occur to a certain extent when the workshop pages are heavily used (and this should be encouraged), but part of it would still hang on the presence of an ArbCom member to actually write up a draft.  I don't know that it would be feasible to insist on heavier participation in decision-writing per se (although it's certainly something I'd try to take an active part in); so encouraging extensive use of the workshop pages would probably be the most practical approach. Kirill Lokshin 17:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) (This is to improve my knowledge as much as to know yours) What do you think about the problem of several admins misusing their tools or behaving poorly with others? What guideline and method would you follow as an arbitrator (and would want ArbCom to follow) in correcting/punishing abusive admins in cases that may come before you? Rama's arrow  18:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Outright admin "abuse" (or, more specifically, the abuse of admin tools) is something that shouldn't be tolerated at all. I think desysoppings tend to be the most effective solution here (and hence the one usually imposed in practice); witness the decrease in wheel-warring following the Userbox case.
 * The other issue is admins "behaving poorly", but in ways that don't involve the use of the tools. In such cases, I think admins ought to be treated as any other (experienced) editor would be in similar circumstances; adminship does not make one any less culpable for gross violations of our social principles.  This need not involve desysopping, incidentally; if someone is incivil but a competent admin, something like a civility parole would presumably be a more effective remedy than a restriction on their use of admin tools. Kirill Lokshin 23:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm not sure if this is part of your job description, but what would you do to improve the enforcement of ArbCom decisions? What is your take on an ArbCom decision being read or not read as a precedent for similar issues that may arise? Rama's arrow  18:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In my experience, ArbCom decisions tend to be enforced quite well (with a few bizarre exceptions) once they're handed down; there are enough administrators around that any violations are usually noticed and dealt with in short order.
 * As far as using ArbCom decisions as precedents, there are some broad principles that can be extracted from them (behavior that's generally acceptable, behavior that's generally not, and so forth), but trying to adapt the exact remedies in a particular case to others isn't particularly productive, as the circumstances of the issue and the specific actions of the editors involved tend to be more relevant than the broad principles applied. Kirill Lokshin 23:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Brian New Zealand

 * I will be asking the same questions to every candidate thus they do not specifically target you


 * Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam etc) If so, would you recluse yourself from cases centred on these?
 * Nothing particular comes to mind. I would certainly recuse myself from any matter where I felt that my opinions might interfere with a fair decision, though. Kirill Lokshin 23:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How would you handle a case in which you were personally involved?
 * By recusing myself, of course; this is pretty much a no-brainer. Kirill Lokshin 23:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?
 * I generally have no problem with making my displeasure quite clear when I disagree with something being done. Having said that, I'm not a fan of either playing devil's advocate, or arguing merely for the sake of argument when I actually agree with something. Kirill Lokshin 23:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How many hours a month do you think you will need to be a good Arbitrator and are you really willing to put in the time?
 * More than ten and less than a hundred? For what it's worth, I usually spend at least three or four hours per day on Wikipedia in any case (much of that time not devoted to anything particularly productive, incidentally), so I think I'll have no problem with putting in as much time as is needed to get the work done. Kirill Lokshin 23:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 *  Do you think that someone who is critical of Arbitration Committee decisions is in violation of WP:AGF?
 * Not merely for being critical of them, no; legitimate criticism should always be welcomed. It's quite possible to violate AGF while being critical, though; there's a difference between arguing that the ArbCom is wrong and arguing that the ArbCom is trying to destroy Wikipedia, for example. Kirill Lokshin 23:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 *  If chosen, you will need to arbitrate on disputes arising from the creation or revision of articles. Experience of creating and revising articles yourself, particularly where it has involved collaboration, is very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants who come to arbitration. With reference to your own edits in the main article namespace, please demonstrate why you think you have the right experience to be a good arbitrator?
 * Well, I've written a number of articles (which are listed on my userpage, for anyone inordinately curious) that some people apparently decided were halfway decent. My main writing work tends to be on fairly quiet topics, though; most of my involvement in the more "colorful" forms of collaborative editing comes from being regularly invited to intervene in other editors' disputes.  (Judging from the lack of subsequent calls for my head, I can probably assume that my participation in them is not viewed too negatively.) Kirill Lokshin 23:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What are your views with regards to transparency of ArbCom decisions?
 * I think the decisions, at least in their final form, tend to be fairly transparent, and decisions that borrow heavily from the workshop pages even more so; any reasonable means to increase this transparency should be given due consideration, of course. Obviously, though, there will be some information that ought to be kept private (CheckUser results in particular come to mind), so total transparency isn't always possible. Kirill Lokshin 23:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you think that administrators should be treated differently to non-administrators in ArbCom decisions? Brian | (Talk) 19:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really (aside from the obvious point that additional remedies can be imposed regarding the use of admin tools). An editor's record of contributions and past behavior is generally a factor to be considered (long-term, productive contributors being cut more slack than people whose only activity is disruption), but this applies to anyone who has made useful contributions, not to administrators specifically (and not necessarily to all administrators in all circumstances, either). Kirill Lokshin 23:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional questions

 * 1) As functions assigned by ArbCom, describe your view on the assignments of Oversight and Checkuser permissions, including thresholds for (or even the possibility of) new applicants. (Question from —  xaosflux  Talk 03:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC))
 * Common sense suggests that, between Wikipedia's continued growth and the normal attrition of long-term contributors, there will likely be a perpetual—if slow—cycle of new applicants being granted these permissions. As far as who should get them, I think the main qualification ought to be an extremely high degree of trust, both from the community (as a perception that someone might be abusing these permissions would be extremely unpleasant to deal with) and from the WMF (not as much for Oversight, but certainly for Checkuser, which is properly a method for dealing with private information that's in the legal custody of the Foundation).  This will necessarily limit the potential applicants to a fairly small group (of which an even smaller proportion could be expected to have any interest in getting these permissions); the need to have demonstrable community trust, for example, would limit things mostly to long-term admins, bureaucrats, and other such groups, of whom only some portion may be able to meet any out-of-Wikipedia qualifications needed to deal with the WMF.
 * In practice, picking up a few new people on an ad-hoc basis each time that more are needed (based primarily on attrition, I would guess) seems to be the most reasonable approach. Kirill Lokshin 05:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) What sort of arbitration activities have you been involved in, in the past? Have you been involved in any ArbCom cases previously? Do you have any experience in settling disputes? -- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 06:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been a party to two arbitration cases (Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude and Requests for arbitration/Añoranza), and an uninvolved participant in a couple more (chiefly Requests for arbitration/Giano).
 * The bulk of my dispute resolution experience (such as it is) comes more in the form of the various informal mediation of article disputes that I tend to get pulled into through the Military history WikiProject. As I get requests to help resolve disputes on a fairly regular basis, I suppose that I am not entirely lacking in competence in this regard. Kirill Lokshin 17:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Ideogram

 * 1) Please describe a recent ArbCom decision that you felt was handled well, and why. Please describe a recent ArbCom decision that you would have handled differently.  --Ideogram 13:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with a lot of ArbCom decisions, particularly the less convoluted ones. For a particular example, we could take, say, Requests for arbitration/Pat8722: the issue was pretty straightforward and a remedy was imposed that's justified by the evidence and should be sufficient to resolve the issue if it should arise again in the future.
 * As far as a decision I would have handled differently, Requests for arbitration/Giano comes to mind. I think the ArbCom lost control of how the case was proceeding (to the point that parties were getting blocked over comments on the evidence pages) and spent too much time arguing over relatively unimportant points (e.g. the matter of John Reid) while not really trying to put forward any real resolution to the underlying issues that caused the conflict in the first place. Kirill Lokshin 17:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As you probably know, I got sucked into the Giano case with unpleasant results. I would like to hear more from you about what the underlying issues were and how you might have controlled the case better and resolved the issues.  If you feel this is too detailed to be discussed here, I would welcome email from you about this.  Thanks,  --Ideogram 09:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The question of controlling the case touches on the somewhat more general issue of parties' behavior within the arbitration case itself. I think there's a general community expectation that the parties can speak their minds on the arbitration pages without censorship (except at the discretion of the ArbCom, in any case) that wasn't met in this instance.  In general, I think that the occasional attacks and incivility on the arbitration pages themselves is an acceptable price to pay for avoiding the impression that particular parties are being prevented from making statements or presenting evidence in their defense.  It's important that justice be seen to be done; when this doesn't happen, we get accusations of favoritism or cabalism.
 * As far as the underlying issues of the case itself, there were a number (broadly divided into the questions surrounding the contested RFA itself, and the behavioral issues related to the subsequent debates), and the ArbCom covered most of the major ones in the principles and findings of fact adopted in the decision. However, most of these did not lead to any related remedies; the remedies that were adopted, on the other hand, weren't really tied to anything in the rest of the decision, except as a tacit acceptance of the status quo.  Without rehashing the entire case here, I think that somewhat more practical remedies (e.g. civility paroles) would have been a good idea; as it is, the decision didn't really resolve the dispute (except by sweeping it under the rug) or provide any means for dealing with any of problematic behavior in question in the future. Kirill Lokshin 21:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) What have you learned from being Lead Coordinator of WP:MILHIST that you would apply to being on ArbCom? --Ideogram 18:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm hesitant to draw too many parallels between the two; they are very different positions, and particular approaches that are effective for one will not necessarily be as well-placed for the other.
 * Having said that, a major point from one that's applicable to the other is the need to provide clear and coherent explanations for actions—particularly unusual or unexpected actions—being taken. This is implicit in ArbCom decisions to a certain extent because of the logical principle/finding/remedy structure; but, even there, there have been instances where the reasoning for particular rulings has been rather opaque.  (And, of course, a variety of other things, such as the acceptance and rejection of cases, and so forth, also generally need to have their reasoning made explicit.) Kirill Lokshin 05:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Mailer Diablo
1. Express in a short paragraph, using any particular issue/incident that you feel strongly about (or lack thereof) in the past, on why editors must understand the importance of the ArbCom elections and making wise, informed decisions when they vote.
 * There's a certain mistaken belief among some editors that the ArbCom is a body that deals exclusively with troublemakers. Obviously, this isn't really correct; ignoring, even, the cases where a dispute between two good-faith editors is presented, every case necessarily involves multiple "sides"—one of which, quite often, has done nothing wrong.  It's quite possible to wind up a party to an ArbCom case merely by minding one's own business on an article which then happens to get pulled into some broader edit-war, or by offering commentary on some dispute that escalates to that level; thus, every editor must view the composition of the ArbCom as a matter of personal importance—they might themselves at some point be depending on the good judgement of the ArbCom members in a very personal way! Kirill Lokshin 03:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Imagine. Say Jimbo grants you the authority to make, or abolish one policy with immediate and permanent effect, assuming no other limitations, no questions asked. What would that be?
 * Nothing at all. Policy by fiat is generally a bad idea (unless there are legal reasons for it, and that's something that should be left to the WMF legal team).  Things that may seem perfectly sensible to a single editor (like forbidding people from inserting the letter u into words that can be spelled perfectly adequately without it) could very well be regarded as absurd by a substantial number of others (and, even if it is not, they're still likely to be upset by the very act of imposition); unless the intent is merely to provoke conflict, policy must necessarily be created by a broad base of editors. Kirill Lokshin 03:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

2a. There are a lot of policies out there. Some claim that there are too many policies, therefore ignoring rules. Others think that because there are loopholes in policies that are subjected to gaming or abuse, therefore we should extend them. So, what's really going on?


 * I think there's a need for a certain balance to be struck between the two.
 * "Ignoring the rules" is not, in my opinion, a very useful description. What's really meant—beyond the point that one need not know the arcana of various policies to participate—is that we should be open to making (reasonable!) exceptions to existing policy or process when they get in the way.  Too often, IAR is used as a banner for those who actually want to ignore not only "the rules" per se, but also the collaborative spirit of the project as a whole; the comparison (whose originator I don't quite recall) to "ignore other editors" is unfortunately apt.
 * Conversely, some people try to take this to the other extreme by attempting to turn policy into a legalistic document, with paragraphs and sub-clauses, and pages-long enumerations of every possible loophole that might or might not ever occur to someone trying to be a pain. This leads both to an unchecked growth in the policy documents themselves, and an inflexible attitude towards making exceptions where needed ("We can't do that; §14, paragraph A, sub-paragraph 2, clause iii says so!").
 * The best approach, in my opinion, is to write broad, flexible guidelines oriented towards the reasonable, good-faith contributor; anyone not here to build a good encyclopedia won't pay much attention to them anyways—except when finding ways of gaming them!  A good policy should lay out the basic principles—how we approach the general case, in other words—and perhaps any major or recurring issues that editors ought to know about.  The obscure exceptions and detailed explanations of why some particular variant is or is not a good idea aren't really needed, though; reasonable editors will be able to come to a consensus on how to approach some particular strange case without the need for a formal policy document controlling their every move.
 * (There are, of course, a few cases—in particular, the policies outlining speedy deletion and blocking, neither of which is particularly amenable to extensive discussion beforehand—where an exhaustive listing of common cases can be useful; but these tend to be extremely limited in number.) Kirill Lokshin 06:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

3. It is expected that some successful candidates will receive checkuser and oversight privileges. Have you read and understood foundation policies regulating these privileges, and able to help out fellow Wikipedians on avenues (e.g. WP:RFCU) in a timely manner should you be granted either or both of them?
 * Certainly, on both counts. (Not that either of these seems to be particularly backlogged; but that's not really an issue.) Kirill Lokshin 03:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

4. What is integrity, accountability and transparency to you on the ArbCom?
 * Integrity, from a practical standpoint, means that Arbitrators must act fairly and in the best interests of the project (or what they believe to be those interests, in any case).
 * Accountability—beyond the ability of the community to merely make comments—implies that there are remedies that can be taken if an Arbitrator acts inappropriately. Clearly, the ArbCom has been willing to consider taking measures against its own members (e.g. remedy 3 in the Giano case) in cases of poor behavior; aside from this, I think it's reasonable to expect that an Arbitrator who did something particularly egregious would simply resign their position.
 * Transparency means that observers should be able to understand how—and why—the ArbCom makes certain decisions. This doesn't necessarily imply that everything must be public—obviously there are things (e.g. Checkuser results) that must be restricted to those that need access to them—but decisions should be supported by appropriate documentation of evidence such that the ArbCom's logic in coming to them is readily apparent. Kirill Lokshin 03:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

@ Thank you for your answers! :) - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Marskell
Kirill, you do a lot of fantastic work for the Military history WikiProject. While understanding the need for good people at ArbComm, I worry about losing good people in the mainspace. How much editing time do you feel you will need to devote to this if you were to take it on? Have you considered that you will not be able to devote as much effort to other projects?


 * As I mentioned somewhere above, much of the (considerable) time I spend "on Wikipedia" doesn't really entail editing. (Have you ever found yourself sitting there for hours just following links around and reading articles?  Wikipedia is quite addictive!)  I expect that this would be the main thing reduced by ArbCom involvement, and rather doubt that there would be any noticeable impact on the time I actually spend doing something. Kirill Lokshin 03:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from jd2718
Kirill, have you as an editor benefited from someone 'intervening in' (in any mode) an editing dispute you were having? Could you specify one or two instances?

What would the ArbCom lose by not having you on it?


 * As I mentioned (somewhere) above, I tend to get pulled into editing disputes from the outside rather than being in them from the start; the articles I mostly work with tend to be quite placid. I suppose the closest thing would be the Añoranza case, whose resolution had a certain impact on my own editing; but the extent to which my involvement there was "as an editor" isn't that clear either.
 * As far as what the ArbCom would "lose", I think it would be rather silly of me to insist that I had some particularly unique talent in this regard. I happen to think that I would make a good Arbitrator—I wouldn't be running, otherwise—but all I can really offer is my experience as a Wikipedian, my willingness to do the work, and my (hopefully) good judgement; even if I am not elected, I'm certain that there are any number of other editors who could provide the same. Kirill Lokshin 05:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Another question from Newyorkbrad

 * 1) Another standard question I'm asking everyone. If elected, do you anticipate being actively involved in drafting the actual decisions of cases? Do you have any writing experience that would be relevant to this activity? Newyorkbrad 03:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's definitely something I would anticipate participating in; as I mentioned in response to your previous question, I think that the decision drafting is a major bottleneck in the arbitration process. As far as writing experience, I suppose my project-space work on Wikipedia would likely be the most relevant thing; my off-Wikipedia writing experience has tended more towards technical pieces, which may not be too useful here. Kirill Lokshin 04:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from AnonEMouse
Warning: Most of these are intended to be tough. Answering them properly will be hard. I don't expect anyone to actually withdraw themselves from nomination rather than answer these, but I do expect at least some to seriously think about it!

The one consolation is that your competitors for the positions will be asked them too. Notice that there are about one thousand admins, and about a dozen arbcom members, so the process to become an arbcom member may be expected to be one hundred times harder. (Bonus question - do you think I hit that difficulty standard?) :-)
 * Not "tough" so much as "time-consuming to answer fully", I think. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 06:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) A current Arbcom case, Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy is concerned with the decision of whether or not a proposed policy has consensus or not, and therefore whether or not it should be a policy/guideline. Whether or not the Arbcom has or should have the power of making this decision is  hotly disputed. Does Arbcom have this power? Should it have this power? Why or why not?
 * It's obvious, I think, that the ArbCom must, at times, implicitly determine whether some proposal or policy enjoys community consensus in order to be able to rule sensibly on user conduct arising from such a policy. A (deliberately contrived) example: suppose that someone tacks a blocking clause onto WP:1RR, and an admin proceeds to block a few dozen people for making two reverts, claiming that the changed policy represented community consensus.  If (or, more likely, when) the admin's case were to wind up in arbitration, the ArbCom would need to decide if the claim of consensus was correct or not, as this would be a very obvious issue in determining if the blocks were an abuse of admin tools.  Whether this decision would be made explicitly or merely be implicit in the ruling on the blocks themselves seems something of a pedantic technicality.
 * In the general case, though—when there is no user conduct issue hinging on whether something enjoys consensus, in other words—there is no practical reason for the ArbCom to play judge. As I mentioned somewhere above, policymaking by fiat is usually a poor way of going about deciding things, and tends, on the whole, to produce more heat than light.  Truly bizarre cases will, as a general rule, manifest them as user conduct issues sooner or later; if they don't, then they aren't really a problem, and there's no pressing need to bypass the normal community consensus-building process.
 * The particular case you mention is somewhat in the middle. While there's no real reason to have the ArbCom rule on it now—the debate, while vigorous, doesn't seem to be beyond what would be expected for a proposal—the fact that the proposal concerned a disputed form of blocking means that it would likely wind up before the ArbCom anyways once it was put into action (this time as an admin abuse issue).  I would probably have rejected the case, in hope that further discussion would result in some useable consensus, alleviating the need for the ArbCom to interfere; but I can see why the arbitrators that accepted the case might have chosen to take the other route. Kirill Lokshin 06:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Similarly, a recently closed Arbcom case Requests_for_arbitration/Giano barely dodged the possibly similar issue of whether the Arbcom can, or should, determine whether Bureaucrats properly made someone an administrator. (Discussed, for example, here). The current arbcom dodged the question (didn't reach agreement one way or the other, and ended up leaving it alone by omission), but you don't get to. :-) Does the arbcom have this power? Should it?
 * (It should be pointed out that the ArbCom didn't really dodge this one: finding of fact #4 concludes that the RFA in question didn't achieve consensus; it's just that there wasn't an associated remedy.)
 * This one is a bit more straightforward than the first issue, in my opinion. Unlike the (rather vague) question of whether some abstract proposal has consensus or not, this is primarily a conduct issue: did the bureaucrat use their special tools appropriately?  The ArbCom is (with generally little controversy) expected to determine whether an admin has abused their tools; this could involve, for example, determining whether some deletion was inappropriate.  Similarly, if the ArbCom is to determine whether a bureaucrat has abused their tools, they must determine whether some use of those tools—making someone an admin, in other words—was inappropriate.  This would presumably involve determining whether a community consensus for making the user an admin actually existed.  (The alternative would be to say that bureaucrat actions, unlike admin actions, are somehow specially exempt from being reviewed; this would be quite bizarre, and frankly impractical.) Kirill Lokshin 06:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  Various arbcom decisions (can't find a link right now - bonus points for finding a link to an arbcom decision saying this!) have taken into account a user's service to the Wikipedia. Several times they have written that an otherwise good user that has a rare instance of misbehaviour can be treated differently than a user whose similar misbehaviour is their main or sole contribution to the Wikipedia. Do you agree or not, and why?
 * (I can't seem to find any case—at least from the ones after 2004—where this point has been stated explicitly, although it does seem to crop up on workshop pages and the like. There are some vaguely related principles, like "Good work on Wikipedia does not constitute an excuse for bad or abusive behaviour on Wikipedia. (Although many editors feel it has mitigatory value.)", but that might not be what you're thinking of here.)
 * I think the general point that productive contributors who exhibit occasional lapses ought to be treated differently from people whose primary activity is disruption is something of a no-brainer. The purpose of Wikipedia is fundamentally to create an encyclopedia; editors who make useful contributions towards that goal can be given more slack than those who don't, as it's beneficial to the project to retain the participation of the former group if possible (while the presence of the second group is entirely detrimental).  In particular, limited remedies—attempting to restrict some particular problematic behavior while leaving the editor free to contribute otherwise—make sense for editors who are productive outside of some particular area or incident, but not for those who are unproductive or harmful across the board.  This is not to say that valuable contributors get a free pass for any sort of harmful behavior, of course, but merely that they can expect to be treated with more forebearance than purely disruptive editors. Kirill Lokshin 06:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) If you agree with the above point, which service to the encyclopedia is more valuable - administration, or writing very good articles? For example, what happens when two editors, an administrator and a good article writer, come into conflict and/or commit a similar infraction - how should they be treated? Note that there are relatively the same number of current administrators and featured articles on the Wikipedia - about 1000 - however, while relatively few administrators have been de-adminned, many former featured articles have been de-featured, so there have been noticeably more featured articles written than administrators made. This is a really tough one to answer without offending at least one important group of people, and I will understand if you weasel your way out of answering it, but it was one of the issues brought up in the recent Requests_for_arbitration/Giano, so you can imagine it may come up again.
 * In this context, it doesn't really matter which service is "more valuable"; the above point merely states that editors who contribute something useful to the project—whether in the form of article writing, administrating, technical contributions, media uploads, or anything else—can, on average, expect better treatment than editors who don't do anything productive. Beyond this, the ArbCom should not be in the business of weighing precise contributions to determine who gets to disrupt more before being dealt with; an editor that's written four FAs doesn't get more leniency than an editor who's written three, for example.  (The real issue, once it's been determined that someone's participation is of value, is whether the problem is merely an isolated incident that can be overlooked, or a chronic concern that must be somehow remedied.)  Given similar histories, two "valuable" editors that commit similar infractions should expect to be treated in the same manner.  (They both ought to have known better, in any case.)
 * (Which is not to say that we couldn't have a long and interesting debate on which type of editor is more valuable; just that the outcome of said debate is entirely irrelevant to the decision-making of the ArbCom, in my opinion.) Kirill Lokshin 06:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) While some Arbcom decisions pass unanimously, many pass with some disagreement. I don't know of any Arbcom member who hasn't been in the minority on some decisions. Find an Arbcom decision that passed, was actually made that you disagree with. Link to it, then explain why you disagree. (If you don't have time or inclination to do the research to find one - are you sure you will have time or inclination to do the research when elected? If you can't find any passed decisions you disagree with, realize you are leaving yourself open to accusations of running as a rubber stamp candidate, one who doesn't have any opinions that might disagree with anyone.)
 * (I assume that by "decision" here you mean a particular ruling or principle, not the entire decision? Finding a case where one disagreed with the ArbCom on every point could be quite challenging.)
 * Off the top of my head, the "Policy, guideline and style guide" ruling in Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon comes to mind. The first part of it—the issue of exceptions from style guides—is fairly decent.  The second part—in particular, the extension of this potential exemption to "fundamental policy"—is something I don't agree with.  The stance of the ArbCom here is, at best, meaningless (as there could not, presumably, be any reason to deviate from fundamental policy to "fulfill the encyclopedic purpose of Wikipedia"), and, at worst, opening the door to all sorts of arguments that our fundamental principles can be ignored for some perceived gain to the encyclopedia, disregarding the point that Wikipedia is not merely an encyclopedia in general, but is largely defined by certain of its fundamental principles (in particular, the neutral point of view and the prohibition on original research). Kirill Lokshin 18:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) It has been noted that the diligent User:Fred Bauder writes most of the initial Arbcom decisions -- especially principles, and findings of fact, but even a fair number of the remedies. (Then a fair number get opposed, and refined or don't pass, but he does do most of the initial work.) Do you believe this is: right; neither right nor wrong but acceptable; or wrong? When you get elected, what do you plan to do about it?
 * I think (as I've stated a number of times above) that this is probably a practical concern insofar as Fred's time becomes a bottleneck to the entire arbitration process; many cases seem to sit for an extended period waiting for someone to put together an initial draft of a decision. Thus, I intend to take an active role in drafting decisions, in order to reduce the delays in the process.
 * (As far as the philosophical issue, I don't think that there's any particular problem with having any particular individual doing most of the initial drafting. So long as the draft is carefully considered and changed as needed by the entire ArbCom—and I think it's clear that this is the case—the draft's origin shouldn't be a significant issue.) Kirill Lokshin 18:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) For those who are administrators only - how do you feel about non-administrators on the arbcom? Note that while "sure, let them on if they get elected" is an easy answer, there are issues with not having the ability to view deleted articles, and either not earning the community trust enough to become an admin, or not wanting the commensurate duties. Or do you believe that non-administrators are a group that need representation on the arbcom?
 * In theory, I don't see any problem with having non-admins on the ArbCom. The election process itself provides an adequate check of community trust.  (Admin status is a bit of a red herring here, as many trusted users don't want the tools, or have given them up; and there's no particular reason why one's effectiveness as an arbitrator would be related to desire to wield those tools, in any case.)  The issue of deleted articles is a valid concern; but, as only a small proportion of cases concern deleted material, it's not one that I would consider particularly significant.  (Presumably a non-admin ArbCom member could just ask some admin for deleted revisions, should it become necessary.)
 * As far as "representation" is concerned, the ArbCom should not be a political body whose members are meant to represent the interests of certain "constituencies", as this would interfere with its role of providing fair dispute resolution. Kirill Lokshin 18:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Alex Bakharev
For a long time I have been astonished by the WikiProject Military history. Theoretically it should be a permanent flame feast as it deals with the most inflammatory material on Wiki. In reality it works amazingly smoothly. Do you think you as the chief coordinator of the project contributed to this miracle? Do you intend to use this experience in the ArbCom? Alex Bakharev 01:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe anyone's ever described the project as a miracle before; thank you! ;-)
 * I suppose I can claim to have played some (small!) part in getting the project to its current state, as I do handle much of the organization and day-to-day "running" of it. (It is obvious, I think, that the vast bulk of the credit must go to all the hundreds of members who've contributed, in whatever fashion; the project is clearly not something that can be considered the work of any particular individual.)
 * As far as using the experience from this work on ArbCom: I certainly intend to use any experience I have. To what extent the particular methods of WP:MILHIST are applicable there isn't entirely clear; within the project, we have generally proceeded very slowly with anything controversial, and the extreme length of the deliberations that's common there might not be too well-received by parties to ArbCom cases (or the committee itself!).  Having said that, I suppose that the experience with trying to find common ground between various opposing proposals would be quite useful in the ArbCom setting. Kirill Lokshin 04:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Llywrch
Kirill, I've noticed that you've been a valuable contributor to many parts of this project - such as the WikiProject Alex mentions above. And I've seen (& have been told) that the ArbCom is a black hole that will suck all of the time you will give it in return for the honor of putting an end to disputes, & will result with at least one party hating you. To state my question simply & honestly, do you think that working on the ArbCom is the best use of your time & talents? -- llywrch 07:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm of the opinion that working on the ArbCom would be a good (I slightly hesitate to say "best" here, as there are jobs I haven't tried yet) use of my time, and that I would make a good arbitrator; if I didn't think that, I wouldn't be running. Time is (hopefully) not going to be that big of an issue, I think; I have plenty of it to spare, and there are certainly current arbitrators that engage in significant activity on Wikipedia outside their ArbCom work.
 * (As for "at least one party hating you", I don't think it's impossible to resolve a dispute without garnering outright hatred from any of the parties; but, in cases where it's unavoidable, c'est la vie.) Kirill Lokshin 14:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetical from John Reid

 * Content dispute on Article X. Editor A ignites war with rude comment on User talk:B. New editor B sees this and reacts but A sneaky reverts himself before anybody else notices the instigation. Rude comments on Talk:X. Rude comments between Editors A and B on each other's talk. Admin C blocks A and B for a day. 12 hours later, Admin D sees the sneaky revert and unblocks B and, for good measure, extends A's block to 2 days. Admin C sees the unblock, doesn't understand/agree with the block sum, reblocks B and extends his block to match A's. He comments in good faith on User talk:D.


 * Admin D sees the reblock and reads the comment that reveals C's ignorance, reunblocks B, and leaves message on AN, explaining the sneaky revert. C reblocks again, leaves message on User talk:D complaining of 0WW violation. D replies on User talk:C, explains the sneaky revert, and unblocks both parties. Admin E (up to now uninvolved, stay with me here) comes to User talk:B to follow up on unrelated Article Y discussion; sees B complaining mightily but incoherently about being blocked. E reads through talk on X, A, and B and sees a lot of rudeness, blocks both editors for a day.


 * Editors M, N, P, and Q, friends or partisans of A and B, object loudly on talk to every turn of events; C blocks some of them, D blocks others. Meanwhile, C and D are trading insults on talk and Admin F finally steps in and blocks them for a week. Admin G unblocks everybody. Admin H discusses the situation offwiki with Admins J and K; H posts to AN with the stated intent to block all involved parties for 24 hours for violations of CIVIL and NPA. J and K endorse; H implements the blocks, which expire a day later. The case winds up at ArbCom.


 * I've already written my answer in detail, encrypted it, and uploaded it to a userpage. I'll give you a week to think about this case before revealing my solutions. 08:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (Is it worth noting that you haven't actually asked any explicit question here? ;-)
 * To begin with, there are a variety of details omitted from the description here that would be of import in an actual case. In particular, some critical things that aren't given:
 * The past histories of these editors. Have they been involved in similar incidents, or warned for incivility?  Are they productive editors, habitual troublemakers, or both?  Have they been involved in past Arbitration cases?  And so forth.
 * The actual content of the various comments made. Where on the scale from harsh but civil criticism to vile, ban-worthy attacks do each editor's remarks lie, in other words?
 * Having said that, there are a number of things that are probably appropriate, based solely on the level of detail that you've provided:
 * A and B should be reminded to be civil; but, unless they have a history of inappropriate behavior, it's not really necessary to employ any weightier remedy against an isolated incident of rudeness. (This depends, of course, on just what their comments were.)
 * C and D are almost certainly headed for desysopping; between the outright wheel-warring, the blocking of editors objecting to their behavior, and the general incivility, it's quite difficult to imagine how they could justify their actions.
 * E and G should be reminded to avoid stepping into wheel-wars, but probably don't need any other remedies.
 * M, N, P, and Q, assuming that their comments were indeed objections (if loud ones) rather than attacks, don't really need any action to be taken. This is contigent on the exact nature of their comments and any past problems in this regard.
 * F appears to have acted quite appropriately here.
 * H may have overreacted, depending on who exactly the "involved parties" he blocked were; without knowing that, it's impossible to determine whether his actions were appropriate or not.
 * J and K don't appear to be involved in the affair in any meaningful way.
 * Kirill Lokshin 23:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from maclean
Do you have dispute resolution experience handling cases in any of the following areas: Mediation Committee, Mediation Cabal, Third opinion, Requests for comment, or Association of Members' Advocates? In an answer above you mentioned you have informal dispute resolution experience on Wikipedia, did that experience lead you to desire a role in any of the formal Resolving disputes processes? If not successful with the Arbitration Committee, will you seek a position with the Mediation Committee? ·maclean 07:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've done a lot of work with Requests for comment (hasn't everybody?), but don't really have any experience with the formal mediation groups (Committee/Cabal). Most of my involvement in such aspects of dispute resolution has come from being personally asked to help mediate disputes, rather than in any necessarily formal role.  I suppose the experience is a fairly interesting one, and I may consider applying to the Mediation Committee in the future; but I have no concrete plans to do so at this point. Kirill Lokshin 14:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Ragesoss
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?


 * In practice, I don't think there's a particularly significant difference in how most topics would be approached. NPOV requires that significant views on a topic be presented in proportion to how widely-held they are; for the vast majority of topics to which SPOV could apply, scientific views could be expected to substantially predominate over non-scientific ones, at least in reasonably reliable published literature.  The few topics for which this isn't the case tend to be those where the resulting controversy is a highly significant topic in its own right, providing ample sources for a fair treatment of the issue.
 * (This is subject to how we define SPOV in the first place, of course; it's equally possible to require not only that scientific views be given priority, but that non-scientific views be entirely omitted, which would conflict with NPOV in a farily obvious way.) Kirill Lokshin 03:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Sam Blanning
You have put yourself in Category:Administrators open to recall, allowing Wikipedians "in good standing" to ask for you to have your adminship reconfirmed if they feel it necessary.


 * 1) Should all administrators be open to recall?
 * I think they ought to be, in general; but I believe that having admins do so voluntarily is far more useful than trying to coerce them into it. As a practical point, I think that attempts to force the issue and impose recall by force are likely to be quite counterproductive unless accompanied by cultural changes. Kirill Lokshin 02:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) If you became an Arbitrator, would you continue to be open to recall?
 * Yes, certainly. Kirill Lokshin 02:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If you answered "yes" to question 2, then:
 * 1) Given that in your answer to a previous question, you stated that you did not see a problem with having non-admins on the Committee, if you did lose your adminship due to recall, would you resign from the Arbitration Committee at the same time? Would you be open to being recalled as an Arbitrator separately? Or would you not be open to recall as an Arbitrator even if you lost adminship?
 * I would consider resigning if recalled as an admin—as it would quite possibly mean that I was no longer trusted by the community—but I won't make a blanket promise to do so without considering the circumstances of the recall and the extent to which the underlying issue there could be relevant to my work as an Arbitrator.
 * As far as recall from the ArbCom itself, I think the system used for admin recalls won't really work, for two major practical reasons:
 * It's not entirely clear how one could "reconfirm" their status as an Arbitrator in practice; we're not really in a position to have by-elections for ArbCom, after all. In the case of adminship, it's easy to use the same forum that was used for the original promotion, but that would be impossible here.
 * It's almost certain that getting the requisite "six editors in good standing" who would desire that an Arbitrator be removed would be trivial so long as at least six cases were open, leading to a continuous cycle of recalls.
 * (To a certain extent, CAT:AOR is a quick-and-dirty fix to the issue of what are essentially lifetime tenures for admins; as the ArbCom has explicitly fixed terms, I don't think the matter of recall is quite as urgent in that context, as ArbCom members must necessarily "reconfirm" their status at least once every three years.)
 * I don't object to the idea of recall from ArbCom in principle, in other words; but I'm not going to make a binding commitment to it until someone comes up with a practical method for it. Which is not to say that I would try to retain the position if I were regarded as unfit for it, of course; certainly, if Wikipedians whose judgement I respect—which is a bit smaller group than the "editors in good standing"—were of the opinion that I should resign, I would probably do so. Kirill Lokshin 02:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) If you would be open to recall from the Arbitration Committee, do you think all Arbitrators should be open to recall?
 * If/when we figure out the practical issues with doing so, I suspect that my answer to the first question above will reflect my opinion on this. Kirill Lokshin 02:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Giano
Members of the current Arbcom were recently openly discussing people involved in an Arbcom case on the IRC Admin's channel. What are your views on that, and  on Arbcom confidentiality. Giano 17:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I doubt the issue of "confidentiality" per se is relevant here. An arbitration case is a fundamentally public proceeding as far as both party comments and the opinions of Arbitrators are concerned.  While there are certainly some things that need be kept confidential (CheckUser results, confidential evidence, etc.), I don't see a general problem with Wikipedians—whether members of the ArbCom or not—discussing an ArbCom case in public.
 * The other aspect of this, of course, is the question of decorum. It is very important, in my opinion, that Arbitrators avoid making comments that bring the ArbCom into disrepute, or call into question its ability to fairly consider cases.  I have no idea if anything like that happened here; but the IRC channels, in general, tend to be somewhat problematic in this regard, as there certainly have been cases of ArbCom members making remarks there that were not, perhaps, entirely sensible or well-considered.
 * (I apologize for the necessarily over-broad answers; it's not entirely clear, from your question, what sort of discussion was actually taking place, so I'm unable to comment on the situation more specifically.) Kirill Lokshin 18:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But the IRC Admin's channel is not public, it is in fact an exclusive invitation only enclave of selected editors. Is IRC the proper place to discuss Wikipedia business, and for Arbcom members to air their views on other editors Giano 18:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * True enough, but I don't view that as a particularly significant issue on its own. There are a variety of semi-private channels of communication available—personal emails being the most obvious—and I don't think that the channel used for a discussion is necessarily a problem so long as the discussion itself is not of concern.
 * As far as the Arbitrators wanting to "air their views", that would depend on what exactly these views were, and how they were expressed. There are circumstances where an Arbitrator could legitimately be interested in the opinion of admins on some point; conversely, there are circumstances where the discussion was a breach of decorum.  Without knowing what exactly was being said (which is, admittedly, a major drawback of IRC), it's not really possible to judge whether the discussion was acceptable in nature or not.
 * (More generally, I tend to look quite negatively on the use of unlogged IRC for any sort of decision-making; but it's not entirely unacceptable as merely a place for casual discussion.) Kirill Lokshin 19:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Badbilltucker
Thank you for volunteering to take on this task, and for putting yourself through having to answer these questions. For what it's worth, these particular questions are going to all the candidates.

1. I've noticed that a total of thriteen people have resigned from the committee, and that there is currently one vacancy open in one of the tranches. Having members of the committee resign sometime during their term could create problems somewhere down the road. What do you think are the odds that you yourself might consider resigning during the course of your term, and what if any circumstances can you envision that might cause you to resign? Also, do you think that possibly negative feelings from others arising as a result of a decision you made could ever be likely to be cause for your own resignation?


 * Broadly speaking, the only reason I could see myself resigning from the ArbCom would be a general sentiment that I were unfit to continue as an Arbitrator. I would certainly hope that the chances of that are insignificantly small. Kirill Lokshin 19:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

2. There may well arise cases where a dispute based on the inclusion of information whose accuracy is currently a point of seemingly reasonable controversy, possibly even bitter controversy, in that field of study. Should you encounter a case dealing with such information, and few if any of your colleagues on the committee were knowledgeable enough in the field for them to be people whose judgement in this matter could be completely relied upon, how do you think you would handle it?


 * It's my opinion that the ArbCom should continue to avoid making direct decisions on content, which is presumably what such a scenario would entail. The inclusion or exclusion of a certain point from an article is something that's best decided by the article's editors, not by the ArbCom; the principal role of the committee in such a dispute would be to ensure that the discussion of the article took the form of reasonable debate, rather than any of the more disruptive forms of edit-warring available.  The ArbCom should thus limit itself to making judgements about the conduct of various parties to the debate, but leave the content dispute itself to be settled by the community's normal consensus-building process. Kirill Lokshin 19:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from Dakota
If elected to the Arbitration Committee will you continue active editing? Will you not lose interest in contributing to articles. Will you be available to any users who seek your help or advice.

-- Dakota 13:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly intend to continue actively editing (both in terms of direct article contributions and otherwise), and to remain available for anyone needing my help or advice.
 * (This seems to crop up a lot; pretty much the same question has been posed, in various forms, by Brian New Zealand, Marskell, and Llywrch above.) Kirill Lokshin 14:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from JzG
Open-mindedness and the ability to revise one's own position in response to new evidence seems to me to be an important factor in considering ArbCom cases. Can you please provide an example of a situation where your initial judgement of a situation turned out to be wrong, and show how you dealt with it? Guy (Help!) 14:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * One incident (of a sort) that comes to mind took place last December, and is mostly documented here (briefly: a user added another user—who had no contributions at the time—to a list of WikiProject members, and I, mistakenly assuming that the second user didn't exist, took it off, which apparently upset both users). I apologized and explained why I had made the mistake, which seemed to more or less satisfy everyone involved, and the matter pretty much ended there. Kirill Lokshin 19:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Torinir
I'm asking these questions all applicants:

1) How would you handle a situation where an error of judgment has occured, especially if evidence is provided to confirm that the position is incorrect?


 * (I'll assume here that some evidence has been provided; in the absence of any actual evidence of an error in judgement, this becomes merely an issue of second-guessing the original decision.)
 * This would depend mainly on the degree to which the error had some significant practical effect. If the error were substantial enough that the remedies adopted in a particular decision were incorrect, in other words, then the best approach would generally be a motion to withdraw them.  If the error were sufficiently minor as to be insignificant to the practical outcome, on the other hand, I would simply leave an informal note acknowledging it, but avoid any of the more procedural formalities.  (The ArbCom is not, fundamentally, a legal body; I think the occasional calls for things to be "stricken from the record" and the like to be a rather more legalistic approach than needed.) Kirill Lokshin 06:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

2) If a decision of yours, while technically a correct one, would knowingly be unpopular en masse, how would you present your decision?


 * That depends on what you mean by "en masse". It's expected that, for just about any decision, some editors will disagree with it; this isn't really an issue unless the scale of the protest is actually a substantial portion of the Wikipedia community.
 * On the other hand, a decision being unpopular with a substantial portion of the community generally suggests that it isn't the best one to make; the fact that it's technically correct isn't particularly relevant, as, given any situation, there are typically a variety of options available, all of which may be "correct", but some of which are presumably better than the others. As the level of community discontent rises, the probability that the decision is, in fact, one that ought to be taken (over the objections of what might be regarded as a vocal minority) goes down, as the disruption to the project that would result from imposing it begins to outweigh whatever problem it was intended to solve in the first place.  Truly widespread discontent with an ArbCom decision, in other words, should generally be interpreted as a sign of a poor decision on the part of the ArbCom.  (It should be pointed out, of course, that this sort of situation doesn't really seem to come up all that much in practice, even for small meanings of "widespread".)
 * (Fundamentally, the ArbCom's role should not require it to dictate policy to an unwilling community, since the principles underlying the decisions are supposed to have the support of the community to begin with. The few things that aren't really subject to community consensus—primarily legal matters and Foundation-level policy mandates—are generally either things that don't require ArbCom involvement, or such basic principles that I can't imagine any realistic scenario of a widespread rejection of them by Wikipedia's editors.) Kirill Lokshin 06:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

3) Place each of these policies/guidelines listed in order of precedence (to you) starting with highest priority. There is really no right or wrong answer. I'm interested in seeing what you would normally look at first when assessing an article.

WP:V WP:BLP WP:NOT WP:NPOV WP:NOR WP:C WP:RS WP:N


 * Let's see: WP:C, WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:N. Kirill Lokshin 06:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Sugaar
How would you deal with abuse of authority by administrators, meaning by this application of blocks as punitive measures and use of blocks in unclear PA cases, as per WP:BLOCK. Would you protect the sysop no matter what or would you defend policy above all? In other words, what do you consider more important: strict discipline or strict application of policy? Thanks.


 * The most important thing, of course, is the well-being of the project as a whole. While our blocking policy is pretty decent—and ought to generally be followed (as, even aside from the philosophical considerations, ignoring it usually causes more trouble rather than less)—it can, like any other policy, be gamed; in cases where this occurs, the exact wording of the policy at any given moment should not hamstring administrators from blocking someone who's being disruptive. Kirill Lokshin 23:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Anomo
1. Do you think there should be an age requirement for ArbCom? Anomo 12:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not unless there's some legal requirement to have non-minors; and I'm not aware of any. Maturity and good judgement do not always correlate with age; and the election itself is a better way of filtering out unsuitable (whether for lack of maturity or any other reason) candidates than any age cutoff would be. Kirill Lokshin 18:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

2. I have read on several websites (they even gave links to block logs) of Wikipedia admins who do things like indefinitely blocking accounts who have not edited for months, there was no CheckUser anything, no reports, and the admin didn't give any reason, just put personal attacks as the block reason (e.g. saying "troll"). Basically such cases seem done beyond punative, but just out of bullying. I saw at least ten of these, but so far I can only find one here. I don't feel like digging for hours, as I just want to ask your opinion of whether you support or oppose such admin activity because it's clear most support it. Anomo 12:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Bullying seems an unlikely explanation here; if the user hasn't edited for months, they've most likely abandoned the account (while there are people who return after such extended absences, they're a statistically insignificant minority), and thus are unlikely to really care one way or the other about being blocked.
 * By the same token, of course, it seems unnecessary to block accounts that are no longer editing without some pressing reason; even if blocking might be justified, there's time enough for it if or when they should ever return. (And, in any case, cryptic block summaries are an extremely bad idea; but this one seems fairly comprehensible, if not very detailed.) Kirill Lokshin 18:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

3. What is your view on the current policy often called "kicking them while they're down" of deleting the user and talk pages of people who are blocked? Anomo 12:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any such deletions being the custom, except for people who are indefinitely blocked; and, in those case, the practice is generally sensible. An editor who is blocked indefinitely has no need of a user page to aid their participation in the project (as there isn't any), and we're not in the business of merely providing non-participants with a free personal webpage; if they ever return, it's trivial to restore the pages, should that be needed.  (Plus, the vast majority of indefinite blocks are made on throwaway accounts that have no meaningful material on those pages anyways.)
 * (There are, admittedly, some cases where it may be useful to retain the user pages of the indefinitely blocked for historical value; but those are quite rare.) Kirill Lokshin 18:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

4. What is your view on the practice on Wikipedia where a person blanks out text on talk pages because the text mentioned something wrong the person did or defeated them in an argument? The text blanked usually has no reason given. When there is a reason given, it's only a fake reason. In rare cases, the text is not blanked, but the entire talk page is archived including discussions hours old, blanking it out. Anomo 12:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not a fan of removing anything aside from outright vandalism from talk pages. In practical terms, though, it may sometimes be more conductive to compromise and let someone save face by removing critical comments than to insist on keeping them in place at the cost of further aggravating whatever the original disupte happens to be. Kirill Lokshin 18:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

5. What is your view on the frequent practice of locking the talk page of someone who is banned to avoid communication with them? Anomo 12:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The whole point of a ban is that the recipient is no longer welcome to edit Wikipedia, in any capacity. There are a number of off-wiki channels available for anyone wishing to appeal their ban; other communication from them is unwelcome, and there's no reason why it can't be prevented via page protection in cases where the banned party is particularly recalcitrant. Kirill Lokshin 18:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

6. Why do you feel in the past when in a conflict in ArbCom between non-admins and administrators that ArbCom has always sided with the admins? Anomo 12:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's true, per se; in the Giano case, for example, the final decision wasn't really in favor of the admins involved.
 * Beyond that, misbehavior by an admin tends to attract attention from other admins; the majority of ArbCom cases that have ruled against admins, consequently, have had admins on both sides. (To a certain extent, if you can't get even a single admin out of more than a thousand to agree with you in a dispute, it's a fairly decent indication that you may, in fact, be in the wrong.) Kirill Lokshin 18:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from Dfrg.msc
In one sentence, what will you bring to the Arbitration Committee? Dfrg.m s c 1. 2 . Editor Review 23:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Avoiding, for the moment, the temptation to quote Churchill: I would bring integrity, diligence, dedication to the well-being of the project, experience as a Wikipedian (and a certain consequent understanding of what Wikipedia is all about), and—hopefully—good jugdement. Kirill Lokshin 00:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting in the elections
Hello, the ArbCom elections are coming up very soon and I was wondering if you would give your public assurance not to vote or comment on other candidates. I think this will help keep friction to a minimum. Imagine how ugly it would be if two people who vehemently publicly attacked and opposed each other both ended up sitting on the ArbCom together. I think, in the best interests of decorum, these kind of conflict of interest issues should be avoided. Do you agree? -- Cyde Weys 20:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I entirely agree, and have no intention of voting. Aside, even, from the basic conflict of interest, the format of the election (approval voting) means that votes in opposition will be interpreted as demonstrating a belief that the recipient is unfit to be an Arbitrator—which, having been made public, could certainly affect the ArbCom's ability to work constructively together if candidates who had opposed each other were to wind up on the committee together.  (It should be obvious, I think, that outright attacks on another candidate are out of line regardless.)  Given the circumstances, I think that it would be appropriate to refrain from commenting directly on other candidates, in order to maintain a proper level of decorum. Kirill Lokshin 00:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from DVD R W
Maybe this is more of an essay prompt than a question but I was wondering if you would like to write here about any issues from engineering, I could ask about specific issues but would rather hear what you think of. DVD+ R/W 03:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing comes to mind, actually. My Wikipedia work doesn't really relate to engineering (I don't edit engineering articles, and have no intentions of suddenly starting to do so); and I can't think of how engineering would be particularly relevant in the context of the Arbitration Committee, either.  Kirill Lokshin 03:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom Candidate Questions
1. As concisely as possible, please explain how you would continue with your stated commitment to the ArbCom process as an ordinary editor, should you NOT be "elected". Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.


 * My reasons for this question are three-fold.


 * First, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It's a powerful statement that has many meanings. It means that, among other things, any user has the power to do pretty much anything, should they wish it. I submit my own user contributions as evidence.
 * Second, one thing that's a constant is Wikipedia's GNU License. As an online-encyclopedia, the history of everything, every edit, every comment, every misdeed, every injury, and every achievement are readily available to anyone who wish to look at it. All they need is a computer, frankly, and they can dig away.
 * The third is merely a perception. Power is great, but when the entire history of your actions are utterly transparent, and anyone can do virtually anything on their first day here, it's really just a big illusion. I further submit that the more "power" you think you have, the more you have to "lose". You also have to more "work" and have less "fun".


 * I would likely continue to participate in the Arbitration process in the same fashion in which I've participated before: by commenting on cases and (hopefully rarely) being a party to them myself. Kirill Lokshin 23:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

2. What do you think about this "election"? What do you think about your fellow "candidates"? What do you think about "campaign banners" on an online, open-source encyclopedia? What do you think about your own "campaign"? Please answer as concisely as possible, preferably in 100 words or less. For reference, please see this: [WP:Wikipedia is not a Democracy]]?


 * Broadly speaking, I think the election has been proceeding quite smoothly. I've noted, above, my intention of not commenting directly on the candidates, so I won't do that here.
 * As far as campaigning is concerned, I think it ought to be kept to a minimum, to avoid politicizing the elections any more than necessary; but the "banners" I've seen so far have been fairly inoccuous. As for myself, I've avoided campaigning entirely; and I'm not aware of any efforts by others to campaign on my behalf. Kirill Lokshin 23:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

3. What, specifically have you done wrong in the past as an editor, community member, administrator, and human being trying to create a world-wide online open source encyclopedia on Wikipedia? For reference, see my own user contributions. Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.


 * I have—as has pretty much every editor, at one point or another—made mistakes and been in the wrong (see, for example, my reply to a similar question above); this is, in my opinion, pretty much unavoidable. Having said that, I think that my errors have been fairly mild; I don't believe I've ever done anything particularly egregious. Kirill Lokshin 23:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Do you apologize for your actions, and who are you apologising to, specifically? Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.


 * I tend to readily apologize to those involved when I perceive that I've acted incorrectly in some manner. Kirill Lokshin 23:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

5. Hypothetically, how would you deal with an explosion of editors and users behaving very badly because Wikipedia has just aquired a bigger "stick". For reference please see Soft Power.


 * I'm not quite sure what you mean here; are you considering the situation where disruption would increase because Wikipedia had swung towards the "stick" approach (by adopting harsher disciplinary policies, presumably)? I've commented above on the broader issue of making decisions that were massively unpopular.  Having said that, this seems like a fairly unrealistic scenario.
 * Or perhaps you meant something else? Kirill Lokshin 23:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

6. What, exactly do you want do on Wikipedia? Why did you come here, and why did you stay for more than a minute? What's fun for you here? What makes you happy here? Please be as concise as possible, preferably in 100 words or less.


 * Generally speaking, I want to take part in creating the best encyclopedia in the world; working towards this goal—in whatever fashion—is quite interesting (and fairly enjoyable, most of the time). Kirill Lokshin 23:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from LoveLight
Would you kindly evaluate and/or comment article 911. As a reader do you find that piece factual and accurate? As an editor do you find it satisfying (with regards to our fundamental Wiki policies and guidelines)? As future arbitrator how do you feel about status quo imposed on that and similar "ever burning" editorials? Lovelight 10:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert on that topic by any stretch of the imagination, so I'm not really in a position to evaluate the article in any meaningful way. In any case, as I've said a number of times above, the ArbCom's role is not to make decisions about the content of articles.  The state of the article, in other words, isn't particularly important; what matters, from the perspective of Arbitration, is how editors approach the (presumed) dispute over it. Kirill Lokshin 14:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from TomStar81
1. Given that you are already an administer and the lead coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject, do you believe in all fairness that you will be able to manage both being on the arbitration comittee and being the head of the WP:MIL, or do you feel that one of these two appointment will have be cast aside and/or undermined in favor of the other?


 * This one has been asked a number of times above; but, to reiterate: I see no reason why I would be unable to carry out both ArbCom work and MILHIST work. Kirill Lokshin 07:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Owing to the size of WP:MIL, I have no doubt that at some point in time an article from the project or one of its accompaning task forces will pass through the arbitration comittee. At such a time I understand that you have already voiced a position of recusing yourself; however, would you notify members of WP:MIL or its respective task forces of the arbitration in any way, shape, or form, and if so, why? TomStar81 (Talk) 06:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly have every intention of recusing in matters where I have some personal involvement, but I don't believe I've ever said that I would recuse from any case that touched on one of the (20,000+) articles in the project's scope; the topic of an article that's involved in a case is, in many cases, quite incidental to the actual conduct dispute being arbitrated, and I don't believe that I would be any less capable of being impartial merely because that topic happened to be related in some way to military history.
 * As far as notifying the project: I see no particular reason to do so unless the project as a whole were actually involved in the dispute; and I suspect, in such circumstances, the point would be largely moot as I would likely be a party to the ArbCom case myself (as happened, for example, in the Anoranza case—but, even then, I don't recall any notification of the project beyond the fact that the surrounding debate was taking place on the project pages). Kirill Lokshin 07:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from Zoe
What is your feeling concerning the potential vote to desysop User:MONGO? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Broadly speaking, the situation appears to have become rather messy (even more so than before).
 * Beyond that, I have earlier indicated my intention to avoid commenting on other candidates; and as MONGO was—and could again be (at least in theory), as Jimbo has now apparently informed us—one, I will not comment on the substance of the proposal itself here. Kirill Lokshin 04:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from Susan Lesch
Would you please explain the reasoning behind your edit that added a new article Ethiopian war in Somalia 22:00 8 December to the WikiProject Military history at 22:48? The article was of course redirected by others the next day to Ethiopian involvement in the Somali Civil War. I believe early in the edits the first sentence was "The Ethiopian war in Somalia began on 8 December 2006" which I don't think can be substantiated by English language sources even now four or five days later. Thank you in advance for your thoughts. You have many interesting and admirable contributions and I wish you the best. Susanlesch 00:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The tagging was a housekeeping action on my part; I often tag new articles on military topics that I happen to notice. I am not an expert on this particular topic by any means—it lies far outside the areas of military history that I usually work on—so I was in no position to judge what the content, structure, or title of the article should be; but merely marking it as being within the scope of a project doesn't really require that. Kirill Lokshin 02:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)