Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/Kirill Lokshin/Questions for the candidate

=General questions=
 * General Questions submitted by the users indicated. For more information, please see the guidelines posted here.

Arbitrators' skills
(1) Thank you for running, and good luck with your candidacy. What do you find to be the most important characteristic of a successful arbitrator on Wikipedia? This can be either a historic trait seen in one or more of the 53 arbitrators who have served since 2004, or an ideal trait that you would like to see in future arbitrators. (UltraExactZZ)
 * A: Industriousness. There is traditionally no shortage of good ideas among the arbitrators; but, until someone steps forward and actually does the necessary grunt work, nothing gets done.  Indeed, many of the long-standing historical complaints about the Committee—the extreme length of cases, the unresponsiveness to correspondence, the failure to interact with parties, and so forth—all boil down, on one level or another, to a lack of people doing the less exciting parts of the job. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(2) Please provide evidence of your ability to write concise, clear English. You may wish to refer to your ability to detect ambiguities and unintended consequences in text such as principles, remedies and injunctions. (Tony1)
 * A: I can't necessarily claim to be a master of prose—my writing style, particularly in articles, has been described as tending overly towards the ponderous. As far as the writing of arbitration decisions is concerned, however, I do have a significant level of experience, having drafted a number of decisions during my tenure:


 * WLU-Mystar
 * India-Pakistan
 * Occupation of Latvia
 * Lukas19-LSLM
 * Armenia-Azerbaijan
 * Billy Ego-Sandstein
 * Mudaliar-Venki123
 * Freedom skies
 * Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram
 * Falun Gong
 * Henrygb
 * TingMing
 * Badlydrawnjeff
 * CharlotteWebb
 * Piotrus
 * List of Republics
 * Attachment Therapy
 * Boris Stomakhin
 * Catalonia
 * Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson
 * Artaxerex


 * DreamGuy 2
 * Dalmatia
 * Giovanni33-John Smith's
 * Liancourt Rocks
 * Digwuren
 * Bharatveer
 * Alkivar
 * Commodore Sloat-Biophys
 * Ebionites
 * Sadi Carnot
 * Martinphi-ScienceApologist
 * Railpage Australia
 * Ferrylodge
 * Eyrian
 * Winter Soldier 2
 * Privatemusings
 * Asgardian-Tenebrae
 * Macedonia
 * Anonimu
 * Episodes and characters


 * RodentofDeath
 * John Gohde 2
 * Zeraeph
 * Dbachmann
 * Palestine-Israel articles
 * Waterboarding
 * Episodes and characters 2
 * September 11 conspiracy theories
 * Strider12
 * CAMERA lobbying
 * Footnoted quotes
 * Homeopathy
 * Giovanni33
 * Yorkshirian
 * Alastair Haines
 * SlimVirgin-Lar
 * Kuban kazak
 * Eastern European disputes
 * Ireland article names
 * West Bank - Judea and Samaria


 * While their quality does vary, I think that these decisions are, on the whole, reasonably clear and well-written. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(3) Bearing in mind your individual skills and interests, your familiarity with the arbitration process, and your other on- and off-wiki commitments, which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator:
 * (A) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and drafting proposed decisions for consideration by other arbitrators;
 * (B) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions drafted by other arbitrators;
 * (C) Reviewing and voting on new requests for arbitration (on the requests page) and for the clarification or modification of prior decisions;
 * (D) Reviewing and helping to dispose of appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users, such as by serving on the Banned User Subcommittee or considering the subcommittee's recommendations;
 * (E) Overseeing the granting and use of Checkuser and Oversight permissions, including vetting candidates for these privileges and supervising elections for them, and/or serving on the Audit Subcommittee or reviewing its recommendations;
 * (F) Drafting responses to other inquiries and concerns forwarded to the committee by editors;
 * (G) Running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to checkuser if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;
 * (H) Carrying out oversight or edit suppression requests (arbitrators generally are given oversight privileges also);
 * (I) Internal tasks such as coordinating the sometimes-overwhelming Arbcom-l mailing list traffic, reminding colleagues of internal deadlines, and the like;
 * (J) Assisting with policy- and procedure-related discussions, such as working to finalize the long-pending revision of the Arbitration Policy;
 * (K) Other arbitration-related activities (please explain). (Newyorkbrad)
 * A: I've done all of these in the past—although I was never particularly active with (G) and (H)—and am prepared to do any or all of them in the future, as needed. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Challenges of being an arbitrator
(4) As an arbitrator you will find that most of your work is done away from enwiki, either on mailing lists or on the private Arbitration wiki. How will you cope with the tension between the community desire for openness and the need for confidentiality for personal information about parties to arbitration decisions? (Sam Blacketer)
 * A: Personal information is personal information; there are clearly limits to how much the Committee can reveal about certain matters. At the same time, this does not, and should not, mean that the Committee should strive to be opaque about what it's doing, even if not all the details can be made public.  I think we were on the right path with many of the transparency-oriented reforms earlier in the year–the public agenda, the open designation of drafting arbitrators, and so forth–and I think it's unfortunate that some of these have subsequently fallen by the wayside.  Certainly, the Committee can be open about most of the matters it's dealing with without crossing the boundary into unduly revealing privileged information. Kirill [talk] [pf] 21:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(5) Sociologists have spotted that individual members of groups of people sometimes suppress independent and dissenting thoughts which they think may be unpopular with the other group members. As the Arbitration Committee depends on the cohesion of its members, and has to take controversial decisions, do you believe that there is a need to take steps to avoid this approach of 'groupthink'? If so, what steps would you take? (Sam Blacketer)
 * A: In my experience, the extent to which such "groupthink" affects the Committee's discussions is negligible; it is perfectly routine for arbitrators to engage in quite heated arguments over various matters, and I've seen no evidence that any arbitrators are reluctant to speak up when they disagree with some proposed course of action.
 * On the other hand, it's important for the arbitrators as a group to avoid falling into an "us versus them" mentality with regard to everyone not on the Committee. The best way to ensure this doesn't happen, in my opinion, would be to maintain highly open and informal channels of communication between the Committee and the rest of the community.  Unfortunately, while we've had limited success with formal requests for comment organized by the Committee, I think we're still lacking in terms of more routine methods of getting feedback and advice from the community. Kirill [talk] [pf] 21:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(6) I've noticed that many arbitrators, both former and sitting, have tended to migrate away from mainspace editing as they become involved in the project's more political aspects. Do you feel it is important to maintain some level of contributions to articles even as an admin, bureaucrat, and of course, arbitrator? (Juliancolton)
 * A: I think it's certainly important to remain involved in content-building—whether by writing articles, by participating in article review processes, or by some other means—as one takes on more "political" tasks; this is true both because of the necessary connection to the rest of the editor community that such work provides, and because a balance between content and administrative work is far less stressful than spending all one's time on administrative work alone (particulary where such work is extremely stressful in and of itself, as is the case with arbitration). Historically, arbitrators who have been able to spend some of their time writing articles have been less likely to experience burnout than arbitrators who have not. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(7) Arbitrators will have access to at least the following mailing lists: Functionaries-en, checkuser-l, oversight-l, clerks-l, and arbcom-l. How much traffic to you anticipate on each? How much of that traffic will you actually read? (Tznkai)
 * A: arbcom-l is, of course, the major source of mail, averaging a little under a hundred posts per day; compared to that, the other lists don't have nearly as much activity. In addition, much of the traffic on checkuser-l and oversight-l is unrelated to the Committee's work, and so doesn't need to be followed as minutely as the other lists' unless one happens to be working with those tools.
 * (Part of the problem quantifying this, incidentally, is that arbcom-l traffic is not really constant; most days have less mail than average, while the occasional periods of crisis tend to result in multiple hundreds of posts per day.)
 * More concretely, however: I had no problems keeping up with the traffic when I served on the Committee, and I don't anticipate that I would have any if I were to do so again. Kirill [talk] [pf] 05:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(8) An arbitrator who is a participant in a case, and thus recused from acting in his or her official capacity, still retains access to confidential materials (mailing list posts, the ArbCom wiki, etc). Is her or his reading these materials acceptable? What (if any) use of these materials by the recused arbitrator is acceptable, and what safeguards (if any) are needed to prevent inappropriate usage? I am thinking (for example) about actions like making case-related comments on the ArbCom list, emailing editors who have submitted private evidence, and posting additional evidence / comments on wiki relevant to concerns expressed privately by the other committee members. Should inappropriate usage be dealt with publicly on wiki, or privately between ArbCom members? (EdChem)
 * A: My view on this is that a recused arbitrator should not be reading, responding to, or otherwise interacting with anything related to their case that comes up in the Committee's private discussion venues. In the past, we've relied primarily on an honor code–albeit one that has never been explicitly formalized–to deal with this, and it has generally worked well (with certain notable exceptions); I think, at least for routine matters, such an approach is easier to use than the more heavy-handed one of setting up temporary lists or otherwise excluding the recused arbitrator through technical means (although this has also been done in several cases).
 * As far as inappropriate usage is concerned, it depends on the severity of the offense and the response. Certainly, official censures need to be public if they are to have any meaning; but not everything may rise to the level of requiring such a response. Kirill [talk] [pf] 21:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom and admins
(9) Should the process of (a) reviewing admin actions that may have breached policy, and (b) desysopping, remain solely with the Committee (and Jimbo), or would you prefer that a community-based process also perform these roles? (LessHeard vanU)
 * A: I remain broadly in favor of establishing a community-driven process for reviewing admin conduct, provided that one can be devised which provides a reasonable degree of fairness to the admins in question. Unfortunately, I don't think that we've really come up with a good one yet; admin recall is, of course, entirely voluntary, and the other proposals that I've seen haven't really struck a good balance between being responsive to complaints against admins and not becoming a mere forum for the appropriately sanctioned to seek vengeance. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(10) Over the past year Arbcom has desysopped a number of admins. Generally do you think Arbcom has (a) not desysopped enough (b) got it about right (c) desysopped too much over this period? Why? (Davewild)
 * A: I tend to view desysoppings as highly individual matters; when the Committee desysops an administrator, it is because of something that individual administrator has done, not because there is some quota of desysoppings that must be filled. As such, I think the Committee has generally made the correct choice when faced with a question of whether someone is to be desysopped, although there are obviously cases where I would have preferred a softer or harsher approach (as well as cases where I agreed with the eventual desysopping due to the failure of other approaches, even though I would have preferred if those other approaches had been successful). Kirill [talk] [pf] 21:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(11) Do you support or oppose the recent Committee practice of bypassing RfA by directly re-granting previously revoked administrative privileges without community comment or approval? (Finn Casey)
 * A: I'm not particularly supportive of it, both because the Committee is not well-placed to judge what the community might think of a potential administrator, and because this practice falls into a broader category of second-guessing the original decisions that I think has become too common. I can see limited circumstances where the Committee might return the tools independently; but I think this should be done as part of fixed-length desysoppings, rather than by arbitrarily returning the tools at some later date. Kirill [talk] [pf] 21:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(12) Would you consider taking a case where it is clear that an admin has lost community trust, but there has been no RfC or attempts to resolve the issue? (Majorly)
 * A: If an administrator were to clearly breach core policy in a substantial and harmful manner, I would certainly consider taking the case even in the absence of preliminary dispute resolution, particularly if concerns existed that the administrator might continue their disruptive behavior. In the general case, however—in other words, where no obvious actionable breach of policy has taken place—I cannot imagine how we might determine that an administrator has lost the community's trust if there has been no RFC or similar discussion through which the community's opinion might be gauged. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(13) Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an administrator without a prior ArbCom case? Be specific. (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: Broadly speaking, I'd support at least temporary desysoppings in a number of broad cases:
 * Refusal to respond to the Committee's inquries
 * Unambiguously abusive sockpuppetry
 * Acting in a manner that endangers the safety of the project or its participants
 * Beyond that, I would tend to prefer that a full case be brought before making the decision to desysop someone, although there are doubtless exceptions and special circumstances in which doing so might not be feasible. Kirill [talk] [pf] 21:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(14) If it's discovered that an admin is a sock of a banned user, and that some users (including, but not only, admins) who had voted in Example's RFA knew this at the time, what measures should be taken against those voters? (Od Mishehu)
 * A: At the very least, I would lean towards desysopping any administrators who knowingly aided a user in evading their ban; beyond that, it would depend on the specific circumstances of the case. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom's role and structure
(15) Over the past year Arbcom has made a few change in how it runs, such as introducing the Ban Appeals Subcommittee and establishing the Arbitration Committee noticeboard. What changes (if any) would you make in how the Arbitration Committee works? (Davewild)
 * A: Unfortunately, a lot of the administrative changes made in the last year have turned out to be somewhat abortive; the Committee's public agenda, for example, hasn't been updated in months. I think the immediate priority should be restoring these to a smoothly functioning state; it doesn't make sense to embark on a campaign of new reforms when the existing ones are not really working.  My initial inclination would be to involve the clerks more closely in maintaining the Committee's paperwork; there is no particular need for the Committee to do everything on its own, and offloading a portion of the administrative work onto the clerks—who, unlike arbitrators, are chosen specifically for their willingness and ability to do it—would significantly reduce the arbitrators' workload and allow them to focus more on the actual business of arbitrating. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(16) In last year's election one of the successful candidates said in answer to a question "ArbCom should not be in the position of forming new policies, or otherwise creating, abolishing or amending policy. ArbCom should rule on the underlying principles of the rules. If there is an area of the rules that leaves something confused, overly vague, or seemingly contrary to common good practice, then the issue should be pointed out to the community. A discussion and the normal wiki process should generally be allowed to resolve the matter" Do you agree or disagree, and why? (Davewild)
 * A: This is a good principle, I think; unfortunately, the Committee's past attempts at pointing out problems to the community have often gone unheard. I don't know of any particularly simple solution to the problem; clearly, we need both better channels of communication between the Committee and the general community, as well as better processes for ensuring that the problems the Committee points out do get discussed and resolved in a reasonable timeframe. Kirill [talk] [pf] 21:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(17) ArbCom cases divert vast amounts of editor time and goodwill into often pointless arguments, causing constructive editors to feel oppressed and disillusioned, and leading to "remedies" that are in fact retributive punishments (often ill-targeted) that fail to remedy any real problems. Do you agree, and what would you do about it? (Kotniski)
 * A:In my experience, the disputes that arrive before the Committee are those where goodwill has already been exhausted, and where the editors involved are already spending more time embroiled in arguments than in collaborative, constructive editing. Arbitration brings these problems into sharper relief, but they are present before arbitration ever begins—else why would arbitration be needed in the first place? Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(18) Not all Wikimedia Projects have an Arbitration Committee, and some that did have a committee no longer do so. Do you accept or reject the view that the English Wikipedia benefits from having an Arbitration Committee? Why? How important is the ArbCom dispute resolution process? (Camaron/Majorly)
 * A: I would say that something akin to the Arbitration Committee—which is to say, a process by which a binding resolution to a dispute may be obtained—is not only beneficial, but absolutely necessary; the alternative scenario, in which editors unwilling to compromise simply keep fighting indefinitely, would clearly be detrimental to the encyclopedia-building effort.
 * This doesn't necessarily mean, however, that the Committee as presently constituted is an ideal form for such a process to take. It remains, in my opinion, more beneficial than not—since, in its absence, dispute resolution would effectively default back to the administrators' noticeboards, which are a rather disorganized and unpredictable process at best—but certainly we should continue to look for ways to improve the Committee's usefulness, or indeed to replace the Committee with something more effective if we can devise such a replacement. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(19) A number editors in the community have expressed concern that the Arbitration Committee is becoming too powerful and expansive in response to some committee actions including the creation of the Advisory Council on Project Development and BLP special enforcement. Do you agree with them? How will you deal with such concerns if you are successfully elected to the committee? (Camaron)
 * A: Given that I was in many ways responsible for causing both of the debacles you mention, I hope I might be forgiven for a rather lengthy response:
 * Considered strictly from the perspective of practical application of policy, the provisions of BLPSE were not particularly novel; everything authorized by the "special enforcement" could be—and had been—done by individual administrators citing different policies, or simply claiming that IAR applied to their actions. What was markedly different about BLPSE was the language in which the remedy was framed; and it was this choice of language that contributed greatly to the ensuing problems.
 * The BLPSE ruling was written at a time when BLP articles, and the policy itself, were becoming battlegrounds in unrelated political and philosophical disputes among different factions within the community, and when many of the core administrators who had made BLPs their focus were rapidly burning out. In drafting the decision, I wanted to stress very strongly the importance of taking the BLP policy seriously—and, in parallel, to send a message to the administrators working to enforce it that the Committee stood behind them.
 * In retrospect, it is apparent that the strong language which I thought would serve this dual purpose ("any means necessary" and so forth) became, instead, the cause of its failure—both because it convinced many editors that the provisions were an attempt by the Committee to seize power, causing them to oppose BLPSE regardless of their stance on the underlying BLP issue, and because, rather than reducing burnout among the BLP-centric administrators, the resulting disputes exacerbated it. There is also a reasonable argument to be made that no special remedy was needed at all; certainly, the dearth of any actual invocations of BLPSE suggest that administrators have continued to rely on other formulations of policy in their work.  Perhaps a simple admonition to remember BLP would have served just as well.
 * (As a counterpart to BLPSE, it is worth examining the introduction of discretionary sanctions by the Committee. Discretionary sanctions are no less substantial in terms of the degree to which they let administrators enforce policy independently of the Committee; and yet, because they were introduced much more gradually, and written with less focus on rhetoric and more on practical policy enforcement, they have become widely accepted where BLPSE has not.)
 * As far as the ACPD is concerned, on the other hand, the origins of the idea of an advisory group lie in large part in the failure of the content dispute resolution RFC which had been started by the Committee earlier in the year. The sharply negative response to our opening of the RFC pushed us away from simply opening additional RFCs on a number of issues, as we had intended; but this left us with a number of matters we had publicly committed to examining—one of the drawbacks (or features, if one prefers) of having a public agenda is that things cannot simply be removed—and no convenient way of doing so.
 * Once the idea of an advisory group was on the table, however, it quickly evolved into a catch-all way of fixing other, tangentially related problems. We were simply going to pass off all the issues that we never seemed to have time to discuss over to the new group, we thought, and they would be able to come up with some good ideas for resolving them.  How those ideas might have actually become something more was never very clear—and, given that we had not given the body any executive powers, we thought that we did not need to spend too much time determining that before they had even come up with something—but there was a feeling that having a group of experienced editors discussing things would be better than not having one, even if there was no clear path for taking their ideas to the next level.
 * The ACPD was not intended as an expansion of the Committee's authority, in other words—but, admittedly, as planning for it progressed, it became increasingly unclear what exactly it was intended to do.
 * (To make matters even worse, the Committee was forced to announce the ACPD prematurely, after news of our initial invitations leaked and various rumors began to circulate about what we were actually planning. Under the circumstances, we chose what we believed to be the lesser of two evils—publishing the announcements as they were drafted at the time, rather than continuing to edit them while rumors spread—but this meant that the material we posted was, indeed, a preliminary draft.  I believe the argument has been made elsewhere that the reaction to the ACPD would not have been quite so negative if the announcements had more clearly explained its intended purpose; and, even if we ignore any confusion about the purpose on our part, the insufficient level of editing the announcements received was a problem in and of itself.)
 * In hindsight, it is easy to point to particular mistakes on the Committee's part and say that we ought to have known better; and, indeed, perhaps we ought to have. But it is not quite so easy to see those mistakes as one is making them, of course; at a certain point, all that can really be said is that the Committee learns from its mistakes and tries to avoid repeating them—as do individual arbitrators. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(20) Conduct/content: ArbCom has historically not made any direct content rulings, i.e., how an article should read in the event of a dispute. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Should it sanction users for repeated content policy violations, even if there is no record of repeated conduct policy violations? Can the committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve? (Heimstern)
 * A: The Committee has both sanctioned users for repeated violations of content policies (see, for example, the Sadi Carnot case), and set up procedures for resolving content disputes (see, for example, the various Ireland naming disputes). I think that, on the whole, these approaches have been both effective at resolving the underlying problems and well-received by the community, so I would be supportive of continuing to use them in the future.
 * Having said that, it's worth keeping in mind that the Committee is not made up of subject-matter experts, and is therefore limited in its ability to evaluate whether a particular user has indeed breached content policies. In past cases, we have only taken that path in the most clear-cut scenarios–for example, when it was obvious that sources were being misrepresented.  It is not generally feasible for the Committee to rule on more subtle distinctions, however. Kirill [talk] [pf] 21:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(21) Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: In my opinion and many others', the worst problem to plague Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts on how to solve this problem? For example, should the Arbcom be more willing to issue sanctions, such as bans, topic restrictions and revert restrictions (and if possible, maybe comment on when different types of sanctions are appropriate)? Should the community, particularly administrators, take on more of the responsibility for this problem? If so, how? (Heimstern)
 * A: The introduction of discretionary sanctions in late 2008 was intended as a way of allowing the bulk of this problem to be dealt with by the administrative corps, with only unusually complicated cases rising up to the Committee. On the whole, I think this is the right approach going forward–with the never-ending supply of "new" editors causing trouble in these areas, the Committee becomes perpetually overwhelmed with repeating the same nationalist dispute case every few months–but it has not been as successful, historically, as one might like.
 * A part of the problem, I think, is the relatively disorganized process used for formal arbitration enforcement, where many of these cases end up. There has been a tendency for administrators to be hesitant to apply sanctions–driven, in part, by the relative freedom with which other administrators may rescind them–and this has led to users being given endless warnings in place of any actual restriction on their conduct.  I think a more formalized and standardized process for arbitration enforcement would improve matters in this area considerably. Kirill [talk] [pf] 21:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(22) Civility: How and when to enforce civility restrictions remains controversial. How admins should enforce it is largely outside the scope of this election, so I ask you this: To what extent and how should ArbCom enforce civility? Is incivility grounds for desysopping? Banning? Are civility restrictions a good idea? To what extent is incivility mitigated by circumstances such as baiting or repeated content abuses (POV pushing, original research etc.) by others? (Heimstern)
 * A: Civility restrictions have proven troublesome at certain points in the past, largely when they were applied to editors whose incivility took place in the context of essentially political discussions; they remain a useful tool, I think, for curbing rampant incivility in other areas. Beyond that, I would say that civility is part of the decorum expected of those who hold various special roles on Wikipedia–including administrators–and that the Committee has a role to play in removing individuals unwilling to maintain the proper level of decorum from those roles; but I don't think that civility should be the primary focus of the Committee's work. Kirill [talk] [pf] 21:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(23) How will you attempt to improve ArbCom's efficiency and ensure that cases do not drag on for months? (Offliner)
 * A: The main cause of interminably long cases, in my experience, are delays in the initial drafting phase; a case will generally make no noticeable progress until someone prepares a proposed decision for voting—and, often, there is a lack of impetus among the arbitrators to do so. This is the reason why I have spent much of my time on the Committee drafting decisions; and, if re-elected, this is why I intend to continue doing so. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(24) How important do you think it is that the community should try to resolve issues before arbcom step in? (Majorly)
 * A: Generally speaking, anything which can be done to resolve disputes before they reach the Committee is a good thing; certainly, if more disputes could be settled by negotiation and compromise, rather than by having the Committee impose a binding remedy, then the editing environment would be much improved.
 * Having said that, there will always be disputes where one of the parties—or all of them—absolutely refuse to compromise in any way. If such disputes are to be resolved before coming to arbitration, then the community needs to develop an effective model for imposing binding remedies as well; and while we've made some moves towards that with the administrators' noticeboards and the associated community sanction discussions, I think we're still quite far from having a smoothly-functioning system for binding resolution below the level of arbitration. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(25) What do you think of the Arbitration Committee's decision to set up Advisory Council on Project Development earlier this summer? If you were one of the founding members of the advisory council, please explain why you accepted the invitation to join the committee. (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: Please see my response to #19, above, for my thoughts on the ACPD affair. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(26) As of May 2009, only 5 of the 16 Arbitrators had made more than 500 edits to the mainspace in the past calendar year. Several arbitrators' past 500 edits stretched back over 12 months. Considering this, do you feel that the Arbitration Committee is qualified to judge conduct disputes that overlap heavily with content disputes? Please elaborate. (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: I don't believe that merely counting edits is a good indication of either an editor's level of participation in content work, or of their knowledge of it. Certainly, an editor that makes a hundred spelling corrections does not become more knowledgeable by virtue of doing so than an editor who writes a featured article in a dozen large edits.  While there is, indeed, an argument to be made that arbitrators should try to be more involved in content creation, looking at edit counts is not, I think, a particularly useful way of evaluating things here. Kirill [talk] [pf] 21:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Specific past examples of ArbCom's decision-making
(27) Do you agree with the committee's decision to reban the_undertow/Law (see motion here)? Would you have handled the situation differently? (Jake Wartenberg)
 * A: While I suspect I would have ultimately come to the same decision regarding Law—his actions, and those of his supporters, were indeed inappropriate—I would have preferred to deal with the matter by opening a normal case, as was originally requested. Summary motions were introduced to handle simple and obvious cases; by definition, something requiring a dozen different motions to resolve is neither.  The decision to proceed via summary motion rather than open a case deprived the Committee of the opportunity to examine the matter in more detail and to fully determine the extent to which Law's actions were known, and to whom. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(28) Why do you think the committee chose to desysop Jennavecia but not Jayron32 (the motion to desysop Jennavecia was passing with all arbitrators having voted when Jennavecia resigned, the motion to desysop Jayron32 had been and was rejected; see the previous link)? How would you have voted? (Jake Wartenberg)
 * A: As I've noted above, a large part of the problem here was the lack of a full case. The presentation of proposals as summary motions rather than a normal proposed decision effectively meant that there was little possibility for alternative proposals to be presented—or, indeed, for those proposals that were made to be evaluated on the basis of anything other than the parties' initial statements.  Jayron32 was treated less harshly because his initial statement was more apologetic, I suspect—but I cannot say whether that would have been the outcome had real evidence been presented, and a full examination taken place. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(29) Iridescent and MZMcBride have both publicly admitted that they knew that Law was the_undertow at the time of Law's RfA. While MZMcBride did not vote in Law's RfA, Iridescent did. Noting that Iridescent is currently a user who has the ability to request the admin bit back at WP:BN at any time and that MZMcBride is currently a sysop, what do you think, if anything, should the Arbitration Committee have done? (Jake Wartenberg)
 * A: As I've noted above, I'm of the opinion that a full case should have been opened to determine who was involved in the matter, and to examine their conduct in relation to it. Presumably both Iridescent and MZMcBride would have been parties to such a case; whether they would have been sanctioned is not something that I can say without actual evidence to examine, although I would be inclined to view their actions as inappropriate absent a suitable explanation. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(30) Out of all the cases handled by the Arbitration Committee in 2009, which one(s) do you think the committee as a whole handled (a) the most successfully, and (b) the least successfully? Please explain your choice(s). (Camaron)
 * A: On the whole, I think most cases this year were handled well (or as well as a complex arbitration case can be handled). Scientology was perhaps the first to garner significant media interest–and I think we dealt with that aspect of it as well as could be expected–but it was not particularly novel in its approach, nor particularly well-run administratively.  Other cases were similarly unremarkable, though effective at resolving the disputes in question.
 * As far as unsuccessful cases go, Date delinking stands out as having taken far too long given the nature of the dispute, and having been mostly ineffective in its final resolution (both because, by the time the decision was finalized, the dispute had more or less burned itself out, and because the abrogation of most of the sanctions shortly after the case closed meant that much of it became a dead letter in any case). Kirill [talk] [pf] 21:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(31) For the purpose of the following five questions, please assume the principles in question are directly relevant to the facts of the case that you are deciding as an arbitrator. Would you support or oppose these principles as written should they be proposed in a case you are deciding, and why? (To keep the amount of time required to respond to these examples to an absolute minimum, I personally would consider one or two sentences to be ample reasoning for the "why" part of this question; that kind of statement length is akin to many of the Arbitrator votes on the proposed decision pages of a case.) (Daniel)
 * (As a point of further clarification, it is entirely unnecessary to read the case these principles were originally decided in — the intent of these questions are to establish your opinion on the general principles that are linked to, while working under the assumption they are directly relevant to a case you are deciding.)


 * (i) "Private correspondence", July 2007
 * (ii) "Responsibility", December 2007
 * (iii) "Perceived legal threats", September 2008
 * (iv) "Privileged nature of mediation", December 2008
 * (v) "Outing", June 2009
 * A: Well, I'm not sure how much more can be said on the specific clauses in question, beyond the fact that I did vote for all five when the associated cases were being considered.
 * More generally, however, I would dispute the assertion that a principle can be meaningfully considered outside the context of its particular case. A statement may be perfectly true and reasonable, and yet be utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand; I might support or oppose including the exact same principle depending on whether it is actually applicable to the decision in which it is being proposed, in other words. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(32) What do you think of the Arbitration Committee's recent decision to appoint MBisanz as a fourth community member – or rather, alternate member with full access and possible voting rights – to the Audit Subcommittee after an election which was to elect three members to the subcommittee? (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: I think that making an unexpected fourth appointment was a mistake. While I appreciate the unusual closeness of the vote, I don't believe that a close vote in and of itself is sufficient to justify deviating from the previously announced plan for the election, given that any change made at that point takes the appearance—whether correct or not—of having been made to favor a particular candidate.
 * The better alternative, I think, would have been to announce the possibility of an additional appointment in case of a close vote ahead of the election; based on some of the Committee's subsequent comments, I suspect that the decision to allow such a course of action had already been made at that point. The idea of having additional seats open is not necessarily a bad one, but the community should be kept informed from the beginning.  People do not like surprises in such matters, in my experience. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Other issues
(33) Originally RfARs were named in the style of "Party X v. Party Y", in line with the idea of two groups in opposition to each other (eg. User:Guanaco versus User:Lir). Later it was changed to naming an individual user (eg. Husnock). Now cases get random names like Highways 2. What naming convention do you believe is the appropriate one for ArbCom to use in designating case names? Under what circumstances should a case name be changed after opening, such as in ? (MBisanz)
 * A: The different naming conventions used parallel a shift in the nature of cases themselves, from primarily adversarial affairs (brought by one of the users in a dispute), to inquisitorial ones dealing with a single user, and then to inquisitorial ones dealing with much larger disputes covering entire topic areas. Personally, I don't put much importance on the name of a case; it's essentially a shorthand designator so that arbitrators (and other users) can easily reference in the future.  If we had an easier way of finding cases—for example, a well-maintained index—then we could adopt a standardized convention; personally, I'd prefer to simply number the cases (e.g. "2010-017") for the purposes of page naming, and leave determining what they're actually about to the case statements themselves.
 * As far as renaming is concerned, this has mostly taken place where the case name includes the names of editors who wind up not being mentioned in the final decision; the renamings have been done primarily as a courtesy, to avoid having those editors' names appear whenever the case is mentioned. Obviously, moving to a standardized naming scheme based on something other than the names of the parties would eliminate the need to rename cases after the fact. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(34) Do you feel that the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach is correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? (NuclearWarfare)
 * A: Please see my reply to Lar's first question. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(35) Please list all of your accounts, active at any time, and any IP addresses you have made substantive edits from? (Hipocrite)
 * A: I have not edited from any accounts (or IP addresses) other than my current one. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(36) One issue on which arbitrators (and others participating in cases) frequently disagree is how "strict" versus "lenient" the committee should be toward users who misbehave and need to be sanctioned. Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, as a general matter in the types of cases that tend to lead to split votes among the arbitrators, do you think you would side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or those who vote for a greater number of bans and desysoppings? Generally, in a given case what factors might lead you to vote for (a) a less severe sanction, or for (b) a long-term ban or a desysopping? (Newyorkbrad)
 * A: Historically, I've been one of the stricter arbitrators on the Committee; but cases are so different that it's difficult to say a priori whether a particular set of circumstances might call for a lesser or greater sanction. Kirill [talk] [pf] 21:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

=Individual questions=
 * Questions asked individually to the candidate may be placed here.

Questions from Piotrus

 * 1) Can you explain why did you resign as an arbitrator somewhere in 2009? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My question is echoing the above, and could you also please state your position on whether or not you intend to serve a full term if re-elected. Regards Manning (talk) 03:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A: I resigned in July of this year, in response to the community's displeasure at the formation of the Advisory Council for Project Development. Given the substantial role I played in setting up the ACPD, I considered myself responsible for leading the Committee into the resulting fiasco; and the community's outrage at the idea led me to believe that I had lost the community's confidence (or at least that the degree to which I retained it was in serious doubt).  Given those factors, I decided it would be in the best interests of the project that I resign, rather than dragging the rest of the Committee through a scandal largely of my own making.
 * As far as serving a full term is concerned, I certainly intend to do so; but, to be fair, I intended the same thing when I was first elected in 2006. All I can say is that I will serve to the best of my ability; but I will not remain an arbitrator against the community's wishes merely so that we can avoid a vacancy on the Committee.  Better that we have fewer arbitrators, all of whom enjoy the community's confidence, than a larger number of arbitrators who do not. Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) How important is it for an arbitrator to reply to emails from parties and to their messages on arbitrator's own talk page?
 * A: Quite important, I think; for better or worse, answering correspondence is a major part of an arbitrator's job. Personally, I've always tried to reply to individual messages from parties, although doubtless there have been some that I've occasionally missed. Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) How important is it for an arbitrator to monitor and participate in discussions on arbitration case's discussion pages?
 * A: Certainly arbitrators should monitor discussions, and participate where their comments are warranted. At the same time, it's necessary to understand that the relative freedom permitted on arbitration case pages—anyone can post anything, often at great length—means that arbitrators are perpetually overwhelmed.  In order to ensure that every comment received an individual response, we would need to sharply limit the volume of traffic; conversely, if everyone would prefer to have the pages as a free-for-all discussion, then they must accept that not everything they say will be replied to.  There are, unfortunately, too few arbitrators and too many cases for it to be otherwise, no matter how responsive we might wish to be. Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) In both my experience, and that of some other editors I talked to, being "grilled" at arbitration for weeks (or months) is "one of the worst experience of one's life" - and it doesn't matter if one is found innocent or guilty afterwards. Do you think that something can be done to make the experience of parties be less stressful?
 * A: I would expect that something can be done, yes—but we would first need to determine what it is about arbitration that leads to such stress. My personal guess would be the lack of clarity regarding evidence presentations—in larger cases, parties spend far too much effort either writing attacks on other parties, or responding to them, in the guise of "presenting evidence"—and that is certainly something that could be improved by closer arbitrator (and clerk) attention and better instructions; but that may not be the real cause of the stress from your end.  We need to better identify the problem, I think, before we can come up with a specific solution. Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Would you agree or disagree with this mini essay?
 * A: I agree with the principle behind the essay, if not necessarily the simplicity of its practical approach. Unfortunately, it's often difficult to say a priori whether banning an editor will lead to greater improvements in the encyclopedia than not banning them, at least on an individual level.  We are forced, therefore, to rely on general principles ("uncivil editors tend to drive other editors away", "edit-warring tends to reduce content quality", and so forth).  The implicit valuation is still present—editors who are constructive contributors tend to be forgiven where unconstructive editors are not—but it is often based on general symptoms rather than some deep analysis of an individual editor's contributions. Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) ArbCom commonly criticizes editors, publishing findings about their failings and remedies to correct them. While nobody disputes this is needed, do you think ArbCom should also try to clarify whether noted failings are exceptional, and accompany critical findings with positive reinforcement, such as here?
 * A: Positive reinforcement has a role to play, I think; but, at the same time, it is not something that should be universally applied; praise for someone about to be banned for a year is hardly beneficial to anyone involved. Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Kirill Lokshin to Kirill Lokshin (by KnightLago)

 * 1) Is the purpose of arbitration to resolve disputes, or to uphold policies and community norms?  To what extent can, or should, the Committee ignore policy if doing so allows a more effective resolution to a particular dispute?
 * 2) How should the desire to be fair to every individual involved in arbitration be balanced with the need to expediently resolve disputes?
 * 3) When presented with groups holding two competing visions of what Wikipedia ought to be, should the Committee strive to maintain a balance of power between the two sides, or espouse one in preference to the other?
 * 4) Should every infraction discovered in the course of an arbitration proceeding be sanctioned?  Why or why not?
 * 5) Why did arbitration decisions shift from individual, targeted sanctions, to general sanctions, and finally to discretionary sanctions?  How did this trend change the editing environment in affected areas, and to what extent have those changes benefitted the project?
 * 6) Are admonishments, reminders, and warnings effective as arbitration remedies?  Why or why not?
 * 7) Is the shift away from informal decision-making and consensus and towards formal procedures and rules of order in the Committee's day-to-day business desireable?  Why or why not?
 * 8) To what extent should individual arbitrators bear collective responsibility for the actions of the Committee as a whole?  Is it acceptable for an arbitrator to undermine a decision he or she disagrees with?
 * 9) Arbitration has been described as mixing the characteristics of adversarial and inquisitorial systems.  To what extent is this correct?  To what extent is this desireable?
 * 10) Over the past several years, a number of cases (notably C68-FM-SV, Date delinking, and Scientology) have taken an extremely long time to resolve.  What are the primary causes of this, and how can they be addressed?
 * 11) Are the main systemic problems with arbitration a result of the Committee's failings, or consequences of the environment in which the Committee functions?

Seems only fair :-) Good luck! KnightLago (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from Sandstein
Hi, I have a question related to arbitration enforcement. Recently, another administrator undid one of my arbitration enforcement blocks without discussion, which ArbCom prohibited in 2008. Because a reblock by me would have been wheel-warring, I requested arbitral intervention at. While the Committee appeared to agree that the enforcement was correct and the unblock was wrong, they did not seem inclined to do anything about it for 15 days until the case became moot because the admin was desysopped for unrelated reasons. This has led me to cease AE activity, because I view this non-reaction as a sign that the current ArbCom is not very interested in having its decisions actually enforced. As an arbitrator, what would you have done or advised in this situation? Thanks,  Sandstein   06:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've always been of the opinion that the effective enforcement of arbitration decisions is critical if they are to have any meaning; if editors can simply ignore the remedies adopted by the Committee, or undo them on a personal whim, then arbitration ceases to be a binding form of dispute resolution, and becomes merely a more bureaucratic form of outside comment.
 * (It's worth noting, incidentally, that my original draft of the ARBMAC "Appeal of discretionary sanctions" clause was considerably less forgiving of editors who chose to interfere with arbitration enforcement than the final text of the decision.)
 * Having said that, a single arbitrator is merely that: a single arbitrator; while I would have certainly attempted to prod the Committee into confirming your actions more quickly had I been serving on it at the time, it's perfectly possible that the outcome would have been the same regardless. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from Wehwalt
Are you tanned, rested, and ready?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not tanned, perhaps—I don't tan very well—but certainly the other two. :-) Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I note that you asked all other candidates a long series of questions, and then, after a space of some days, announced your own candidacy. Had you contemplated running at the time you asked other candidates the questions? Would it be appropriate for someone contemplating running to ask others a series of questions without disclosing that he was mulling over a candidacy? Under what circumstances would such, or similar conduct be appropriate, or inappropriate? Thanks for your time.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As I noted in my statement, I hadn't originally intended to run this year. My initial idea—and the purpose for which the questions were written—was to put together an evaluation of the candidates, similar to the ones here; obviously, my decision to stand for election myself means that I won't be moving forward with that particular undertaking.
 * As far as propriety is concerned, I don't know of any reason why such questioning would be considered inappropriate in and of itself even if the questioner were considering a candidacy at the time, given that we have no restrictions whatsoever on who may pose questions—indeed, many announced candidates continue to do so—and no requirements that the questioners disclose anything about themselves when asking. I'm certainly not aware of any expectation that those asking questions refrain from any other involvement in the election. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Avraham
Thank you for stepping forward to volunteer for what I know is a thankless, exhausting, nerve-wracking, emotionally draining, and real-life-affecting position here in EnWiki. For your courage alone, I salute you. I apologize if these questions replicate any above. If they do, please feel free to cut-and-paste your response here. Also, for any question with subquestions, please feel free to answer the subquestions only. Thank you very much. -- Avi (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your opinion regarding the current state of administrator desysopping on EnWiki?
 * 2) Should there be more or less controls than are currently in place?
 * A: I would prefer that a community-driven method for desysopping exist in parallel to the current Committee-driven one (which tends to focus only on egregious violations of policy); unfortunately, I don't think we've come up with a workable one yet. Kirill [talk] [pf] 10:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Should the final say be in the hands of ArbCom, the community, or somewhere in between (stewards, crats)?
 * A: Insofar as the Arbitration Committee is empowered to accept appeals of things like community sanctions, I would say that it's reasonable for the Committee to serve as the final check on desysopping, whether as a court of last appeal or as the main venue for the proceedings. Kirill [talk] [pf] 10:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) How should an emergency desysop (coming from a CU check or other data source, for example, which is affecting a current RfX or XfD) be handled differently than a more "run-of-the-mill" desysop (from a protracted RfAR), or should it?
 * A: Generally speaking, I would say that "emergency" desysoppings are, by their very nature, temporary, pending a full investigation; they should lead into arbitration proceedings rather than replacing them. Kirill [talk] [pf] 10:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your understanding of how the voluntary relinquishment of maintenance tools works with regards to their subsequent return upon request?
 * A: The traditional approach is that voluntarily relinquished tools may be returned unless the editor relinquished them "under a cloud". What that term means has unfortunately never been precisely defined, although resigning tools in the midst of an arbitration proceeding, whether active or pending, is the most common scenario under which it's invoked. Kirill [talk] [pf] 10:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your opinion about the current state of inter-editor behavior, especially with regard to "civility"?
 * 2) What does "civility" mean to you in the context of English Wikipedia?
 * A: Treating one's colleagues with courtesy and maintaining the high standards of decorum appropriate to a scholarly project. Kirill [talk] [pf] 10:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you believe that there has been a shift towards more or less "civility" between editors?
 * A: I think we've broadly stayed at the same average level for the past few years, although certain areas remain less civil than others. Kirill [talk] [pf] 10:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you believe that there exists a class of editors whom for various reasons are "exempt" from civility restrictions?
 * A: Not as a class, I think; there are specific editors who are given more or less slack, but, in my experience, that tends to be a consequence of the individual editor's personality moreso than any common characteristic. Certainly, I can't think of any quantifiable trait that can be directly correlated to such an exemption. Kirill [talk] [pf] 10:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you believe that there should be a class of editors whom for various reasons are "exempt" from civility restrictions?
 * A: No. Kirill [talk] [pf] 10:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you believe that there needs to be more or less enforcement of civility on English Wikipedia?
 * A: I think there needs to be more consistent enforcement across all areas; certain ones are currently much more tolerant of incivility than others. Kirill [talk] [pf] 10:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) If the answer to the above is "Yes", what do you see is ArbCom's role in this matter and how would you go about enhancing Wikipedia in this regard as an arbitrator?
 * A: The Committee has, in the past, been relatively successful with imposing restrictions on editors who were habitually and incorrigibly incivil; for the most part, I think that's the appropriate path forward. Kirill [talk] [pf] 10:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your opinion regarding Wikipedians "rights," or at least "expectations" to privacy and ano/psuedo-nymity, and what is ArbCom's role in either supporting or adjusting these expectations/rights?
 * A: Obviously, many editors contribute with the expectation that their pseudonimity will be respected; I think the Committee's role is to ensure that other editors do so, within reason. (Personally, I think we place too much value on pseudonimity, but that's neither here nor there.) Kirill [talk] [pf] 10:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Lastly, please list one to three issues that you believe are of primary importance to the ongoing future of wikipedia and how you will contribute to the handling of those issues. Please feel free to copy/paste sections from your nominating statement if you have addressed it there.

Questions from John Carter
These questions are being asked of all candidates.
 * In limited conversation with past and present arbitrators, they have regularly mentioned the pronounced time demands which being a member of the Arbitration Committee can require, particularly in the difficult or complex cases, on such matters as reading evidence, reviewing behavior of individuals, and discussion of solutions. Do you believe that you will be able to give such matters the time they require?
 * A: Yes, I believe I will; I've already done it once before. Kirill [talk] [pf] 21:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, as has been mentioned above, several editors have indicated some arbitrators become less active as regular contributors, either because of the "politics" or because of the demands on time. Do you anticipate being able to continue to function as an active content contributor while an arbitrator?
 * A: Well, serving as an arbitrator does reduce the time one has available for article work; but I did manage to write a featured article during my last term, and the increased number of arbitrators taking on drafting work will hopefully leave me with more free time in the future. Kirill [talk] [pf] 21:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, do you anticipate that your exposure to the seamier side of wikipedia might make you less interested in continuing as a content contributor on the conclusion of your ArbCom term?
 * A: On the contrary, I think being on the Committee makes one more interested in writing articles; the latter is much less stressful. Kirill [talk] [pf] 21:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This one isn't.
 * As some have noted above, you had earlier retired from ArbCom upon the unusual degree of negative response which you received upon the creation of an advisory board. Were this one of the kid's shows that were around when I was a kid, there is a very real chance that one of the actors would have come on at the end of the episode and told is in generally patronizing and condescending terms what we should have learned from seeing the show. Personally, I think you were right in the first place, but wonder whether the experience has caused you to rethink in your own mind the role of ArbCom and the "system" in place here.
 * A: I don't think the ACPD affair has demonstrated anything that wasn't already well-known to everyone involved—chiefly, that successfully making structural changes within the Wikipedia system is hard. The way in which the ACPD was convened was obviously a mistake (or, really, a series of mistakes that compounded one another); but this was little different, in my opinion, from the many other mistakes and failed initiatives the Committee has undertaken over the years.  I remain confident that eventually someone will come up with the right way of moving forward; the Committee may wind up having no role to play in it, but it's the progress that's important, not who happens to be driving it. Kirill [talk] [pf] 21:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Lar
Note to readers: This is a copy of User:Lar/ACE2009/Questions. These questions were taken from last year and modified to fit changes in circumstance.

Note to respondents: in some cases I am asking about things that are outside ArbCom's remit to do anything about. I am interested in your thoughts even so. Note also that in many cases I ask a multi part question with a certain phrasing, and with a certain ordering/structure for a reason, and if you answer a 6 part question with a single generalized essay that doesn't actually cover all the points, I (and others) may not consider that you actually answered the question very well at all. For those of you that ran last year, feel free to cut and paste last year's answers if you still feel the same way, but some of the questions have changed a bit or expanded.


 * 1) Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:
 * a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.
 * A: This is something I've supported for years, although admittedly nobody has come up with a particularly good delineation for when an individual becomes "too notable" to be eligible. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.
 * A: This is a good idea in principle, although I have no doubt some people would try to abuse it for the purposes of enforcing notability rather than BLP. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * c) "Liberal semi protection" - The notion that if a BLP is subject to persistent vandalism from anons it should get semi protection for a long time (see User:Lar/Liberal Semi ... we were handing out 3 months on the first occurance and 1 year for repeats)
 * A: This is another decent idea, at least in the absence of something more sophisticated (such as flagged revisions), although I'm not terribly happy at the thought of excluding all anonymous editors merely for the antics of a single disruptive one. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * d) "WP:Flagged Protection" - the trial we maybe(?) are about to get
 * A: It's better than nothing, I suppose, although the current (trial) version is little more than a somewhat more complicated version of the existing protection/semi-protection scheme. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * e) "WP:Flagged Revisions" - the actual real deal, which would (presumably) be liberally applied
 * A: This would be nice if it ever happens, but I'm not holding my breath. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A: More generally, I would say that we need to divorce the questions of enforcing BLP from more general political and philosophical concerns; if a particular tool will aid us in ensuring BLP compliance, then we should use it for that, rather than rejecting it because it fails to solve some other, unrelated problem. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:
 * a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?
 * A: Under the standard interpretation of those terms, a question of policy, since it concerns our approach to articles in general rather than the content of particular articles. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?
 * A: Please see my answer to general question #19. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
 * A: Had I any idea of how to effectively change our BLP approach, I'd already be doing it. The Committee's history in this area has not been one marked by a great deal of success (although the Badlydrawnjeff decision did enjoy some of that); I suspect, based on past experience, that the evolution of BLP will continue to be mostly unpredictable and driven by events outside our control rather than by deliberate attempts at reform. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be? Does the recent adoption of Secure Poll for some uses change your answer?
 * A: I think that consensus has failed to scale on the project-wide level; on the local level (for example, on article talk pages or in WikiProjects), it continues to function effectively. The underlying cause, I think, is the fact that consensus really only works when most people are willing to compromise, or at least can accept an outcome other than their preferred one.  As the size of the community has increased, we have developed factions who are not amenable to any sort of compromise on their particular position, and who therefore have no desire to allow a genuine "consensus" process to move forward.
 * As far as what can be done about this, I think a shift towards more traditionally democratic forms of governance is inevitable. The introduction of SecurePoll is a factor, but that's ultimately a tool, not a solution in and of itself; what is missing, even if SecurePoll is available, is a willingness to rely on it for project-level governance decisions—or, failing that, some alternative means of reaching them. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions. Should we implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter? What is the reason or reasons for the delay in implementing?
 * A: Based on the experiences of the German Wikipedia, I tend to think that we should experiment with using something close to the flagged revision implementation used there. At the same time, I don't think this is a matter for the Arbitration Committee to solve; ultimately, as I've said above, we need broad-ranging governance reform if we're to make any headway on initiatives like this. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.
 * a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?
 * A: I accept it as one of our founding tenets, although I think too much emphasis is placed on it relative to other policies. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?
 * A: I don't believe there would be any effective way of changing it without alienating an overwhelming portion of the editorial community, and that it's therefore not worth considering for the foreseeable future. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?
 * A: We should make an effort to help people within reason; but, ultimately, it's not our responsibility to protect people from the consequences of their own decisions. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?
 * A: It may or may not be, depending on the circumstances. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C from last year in that it's more extensive)
 * A: My identity is quite public. I think that it would be beneficial for arbitrators to openly identify themselves, primarily to avoid any further incidents of people not being whom they claim to be, but also because it simply appears more professional to do so. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?
 * A: I don't believe the WMF says much of anything on the topic, really. It's probably something that ought to be noted in the welcoming materials for new editors (and certainly for new and potential administrators), but I don't think it should be the WMF's primary responsibility to deal with.
 * As far as the Committee is concerned, I think its traditional role is the appropriate one. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D from last year)
 * A: It depends on the circumstances. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.
 * a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?
 * b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.
 * c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
 * d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.
 * e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?
 * f) Are there editors who overplay the stalking card? What's to be done about that?
 * A: I don't think it would be a particularly good idea to publicize our methods for dealing with stalking. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) A certain editor has been characterised as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?
 * A: In the case of that editor, certainly; beyond that, blanket rules need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. As far as people trying to deliberately game the system by forcing us to revert good edits go, we shouldn't let ourselves be led into such a game; in most cases, IAR is a perfectly sensible way of not playing along. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:
 * a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
 * A: It's inevitable that Wikipedia will be discussed in other venues, if only because any time two Wikipedians meet, discussion inevitably turns to Wikipedia matters. On the whole, I think it's pointless for us to try to control it. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
 * A: No, I do not have such a vehicle; frankly, I've never felt the need to. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
 * A: I don't particularly care for Wikipedia Review myself, but I suppose people can run off to chat there if they want. As far as Wikback is concerned, I think its main failing was that it didn't provide the sort of tabloid-like atmosphere that WR does; people interested in a serious, staid discussion tend to be quite at home holding it on Wikipedia, and people who want to gossip will seek out a less-policed site. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?
 * A: I don't think it's necessarily inappropriate in and of itself, so long as the requisite standards of decorum are maintained. Participating in inappropriate activity on that site is, of course, inappropriate regardless of the position one holds here. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
 * A: No, not on any that's currently active; I did sign up for Wikback before that went under. Beyond that, I think any arbitrator who participates in such a forum can be assumed to do so with full understanding of the potential consequences. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * f) How has this (the view of outside criticism) changed in the last year? Has it changed for the better or for the worse?
 * A: Personally, I think the big shift towards acceptance of outside criticism was in 2008; I haven't observed any particularly significant changes in how we view outside criticism this year. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * A: I think we've more or less gotten over that problem over the course of the past year; certainly, a number of cases have sent the message that longevity and position are no excuse for disruptive behavior. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * A: It depends on what I'm intending to use it for. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

These are not easy questions. Thanks for your thoughtful answers. I think I know where you stand on most of these but you didn't have to answer these the first time you ran... :) ++Lar: t/c 03:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Rschen7754
Note that some of the questions were recycled from 2008, but have been trimmed down. I will evaluate these and a few other characteristics based on a (private) rubric to determine my level of support. Please note that if you are not an administrator, have not been here for a substantial length of time, or have a statement that is not written seriously, this will drastically affect your score.

The first 10 questions are short answer questions. The last question is a bit open-ended.


 * 1) What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?
 * A: That case took far too long, in my opinion, considering that it was not a particularly complex dispute; but I happened to be recused on it, so there was really nothing I could do to speed things up. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
 * A: Insofar as WikiProjects serve as the central venues for editors interested in a particular topic area to gather for discussion, I think it's perfectly appropriate for them to develop guidelines based on the consensus of those discussions. Of course, developing guidelines is not necessarily the same thing as enforcing them; but, in my experience, if a WikiProject develops reasonable guidelines, and is willing to adjust those guidelines when genuine problems are pointed out by editors not involved in the original discussion, then there should be little difficulty in getting articles in the topic area to adhere to the standards in question.
 * (Personally, I've always advocated for WikiProjects to take on a more prominent role in Wikipedia; but that's neither here nor there. Many projects are, unfortunately, ill-suited to develop anything due to their own inactivity.) Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) An editor has made few to no productive edits to articles on Wikipedia. This user has not broken policies per se, but is hard to deal with, giving "smart aleck" remarks, ignoring consensus, ignoring what administrators tell them, etc. What are your views on this situation?
 * A: I think we ought to be more liberal in ejecting editors who are demonstrably not here to help build the encyclopedia; unfortunately, we don't have a particularly effective process for actually doing so. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) There have been editors in the past who have opposed administrators solely for being administrators. To be more specific, a) they oppose on nearly all RFAs, and b) when an administrator's conduct is criticized on ANI, they instantly attack them regardless of the situation. What are your views on this sort of thing?
 * A: I suppose that would depend on the nature of the user's attacks. Incivility and personal attacks are, of course, prohibited, whether the target happens to be an administrator or not; civil criticism, however, is something I think should be permitted even if the criticism is unfair.  There are always a few people who are never satisfied; I think it's reasonable to expect that administrators should be able to tolerate a few perpetual critics, so long as their comments remain polite.
 * As far as opposing RFAs is concerned, I don't think it rises beyond the level of mere annoyance, although I would hope the closing bureaucrats would give appropriate weight to such comments. Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) An editor does not have the intelligence required to edit Wikipedia. (Specifically, they not understand English and do not realize that they are messing up things like table syntax, wiki syntax, headings, are adding unsourced things, etc.) What should be done in this situation?
 * A: I would hesitate to call this "intelligence"—we're really talking about linguistic comprehension more than anything else—but I take the stance that editors who persist in damaging the encyclopedia may be banned from further participation even if their actions were the result of inability to contribute properly rather than malice; see, for example, the Stefanomencarelli case, which revolved around a similar situation. Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Do the circumstances described in questions #3-5 justify a community ban?
 * A: Taken together, they certainly would, in my opinion. If we're talking about each of the scenarios individually, however, that would depend on the severity of the disruption, and the degree to which other, less permanent ways of resolving the situation had been attempted; each of the scenarios could justify a ban, but that's only one possibility. Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Explain in your own words what 3RR is and how it should be enforced.
 * A: The 3RR prohibits reverting a page more than three times in 24 hours, with certain narrow exceptions. As far as enforcement goes, 3RR is one of the few bright-line rules; anyone reverting (outside of the exception areas) more than three times in a 24-hour period may be blocked for 24 hours, regardless of any other factor. Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) When determining if a borderline username is provocative, what criteria do you use?
 * A: Username patrol is one of the few things I've never actually done on Wikipedia, so I can't really comment on what criteria I'd use for borderline cases if I were to undertake it. Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) A banned user edits Wikipedia. When should their edits be reverted?
 * A: Generally speaking, always—being banned means that their participation is unwelcome—although we should avoid playing silly games with the occasional banned user who contributes large amounts of good content as a breaching experiment. There are a few users, however, who are "remarkably" unwelcome; their edits need to be reverted even if they start uploading featured articles. Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) During the course of 2009, User:Casliber, User:FT2, User:Kirill Lokshin, and User:Sam Blacketer left the Arbitration Committee. a) Pick one of these editors and explain why they left the Arbitration Committee. b) Question removed
 * Note: Please do not pick yourself. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A: Given my access to various privileged information regarding all of the cases in question, it wouldn't really be appropriate for me to comment. Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Question removed - left as placeholder for consistent numbering
 * 2) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?
 * A: There are many different ones, obviously; to name just a few of the most prominent, we have policy bloat and stagnation, poor treatment of new editors, increased burnout of old editors, and a pervasive inability to resolve long-term content disputes. (Indeed, much of this year's Wikimania was devoted to discussing various aspects of these problems.)  However, the key problems are generally outside the Committee's power to solve directly—and where we have tried to solve them, the results have been less than encouraging. Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Rschen7754 (T C) 02:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from bahamut0013
In your candidacy statement, you state that you origionally did not intend to run for Arbcom. Why is that?

You also state that you decided to run based on the low number of candidated, I was hoping you could expand on that some more:
 * 1) What number of candidates would have not prompted you to run?
 * 2) Do you have an issue over who is running (i.e. plenty of cadidates but not enough good candidates)?
 * 3) Do you see this as a situation where the community needs you, and your sense of duty is overriding your desire to return to non-Arbcom pursuits?

Thank you for running, and thanks for your previous service with Arbcom. These questions are not meant to be stressful, but simply to get your intents and motivations for running.  bahamut0013  words deeds 20:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I hadn't intended to run for the Committee because, frankly, I'd been enjoying my retirement. Being an arbitrator is a stressful job even in the best of times.
 * As far as your other questions are concerned, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to comment regarding the quality of the other candidates. I'll merely say that giving the community a broader range of potential arbitrators to choose from can only be a good thing, regardless of the individual candidates' respective merits. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Cirt
Hello Kirill. I have a question about your conduct in the Scientology arbitration case.

You were the first arbitrator in the case to make any proposals, which you put forth at the Workshop page. The only remedy you proposed in the case, was against myself. By the conclusion of the case, you had not proposed any other remedies against any other party in the case. You admittedly drew your cues from what you described as utterly absurd proposed sanctions from the Workshop page. The users that proposed such measures were themselves the subject of administrative actions:


 * John254 (community banned for disruptive socking, including socking that workshop)
 * Justanother (banned by the Arbitration Committee at the end of the Scientology case)
 * Jossi (subsequently indefinitely blocked for disruptive socking)

A reasonable reading of the evidence revealed no actual substance to the claims that had been made against me, and no actual sanction was proposed against me at the case decision. What it appears, Kirill, is that you were reading the politics instead of the evidence. I was recently reelected as an arbitrator on another WMF project, and I wouldn't dream of attempting to decide a case the way you did.

Two questions: Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Why didn't you ever withdraw your workshop proposals against me, even after it became clear to your colleagues that they were baseless?
 * 2) How many other cases have you decided on the basis of political pressure, rather than evidence?


 * I have not decided this, or any other, case on the basis of political pressure; indeed, I'm not really sure what pressure you believe was applied (given that none of the parties enjoyed any significant political influence), or how I might have bent to it (given that I drafted my proposals after finding the ones written by the parties inappropriate), or even how any of this constitutes deciding the case (given that I never even proposed the items in question for a vote).
 * By way of background, I first started looking at the Scientology case early on—before much of the evidence was collected—as I believed that I would wind up being the drafting arbitrator, and that the early part of 2009 would be taken up with getting the new arbitrators oriented (making entering the year with a large case backlog inadvisable). The various allegations made about your conduct seemed as reasonable a starting point as any, given that they seemed isolated from the other matters under consideration, that a significant portion of the workshop was being filled with (rather useless) proposals concerning them, and that the evidence presentations for other aspects of the case were lacking; and so I drew up a set of preliminary proposals which I believed better reflected the reality of the events than what had already been proposed.  These were, obviously, merely initial proposals, and not finalized ones—but drafting such rough ideas is the very purpose of the workshop page.
 * It subsequently became apparent that my reading of the situation had been overly harsh towards you, and therefore I did not present any of my initial ideas for a vote when the proposed decision was actually being put together. In any case, the case switched to a different drafting arbitrator shortly after my initial efforts with it—my time for the next few months was primarily devoted to organizational work—and so I didn't re-examine the case for some months, at which point the matter had largely become moot.
 * As far as withdrawing the proposals is concerned, I have not, as a rule, withdrawn proposals made on the workshop page—only those actually presented for voting. I did experiment with striking clauses on the workshop in one case (Eastern European disputes), but I found that it resulted in more confusion rather than less, and created a significant amount of extra work for me that was not justified by the minimal benefits.  I'm not aware of other arbitrators making it a habit to remove such preliminary items either. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

IRC Question from Hipocrite
Do you use any of the wikimedia related IRC channels? If you do, will you please permit any logs of your conversations to be posted, in full? Thanks.


 * I don't use IRC at all, much less the Wikimedia channels. If I were to use them, however, I would have no problem with anything I say being logged and posted. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from NE2
Have you read War and Peace?


 * Yes, I have (in the original language, even). It's not really a work I enjoyed, however; I've never particularly liked Tolstoy's style. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from Smallbones
Jimbo made a policy statement about paid editing. What is your position on Jimbo's continuing (not past) role on policy making? Is paid editing against policy? (I like short answers; I hope you like short questions) Smallbones (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A: I think we need to move away from having Jimmy involved in day-to-day policy and governance matters; I believe he wishes to hold a mainly ceremonial role, and I think that's probably the best path forward for the long-term health of the project as well.
 * As far as paid editing is concerned, I think it's implicitly restricted by the conflict of interest rules, regardless of any other statements on the matter. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Vecrumba

 * 1) What specific tenets of conduct do you commit to observe to maintain objectivity and transparency and to deal with issues beyond surface appearances?
 * 2) How do you plan to bring fresh and ameliorating views to conflicts and to avoid viewing those conflicts as merely confirming your prior personal expectations and perspective? That is, to see editors as editors and not through the the labels placed on them? As they are related, please feel free to answer either separately or in tandem. Thank you.

Question from Hiberniantears
Officially, Jimbo is no different than any other user, and ArbCom doesn't deal with content disputes. Functionally, the only part of this statement that is true is "officially". Intellectually, how do you reconcile the existence of such fallacies on a project like this, and what do you see as their impact (positive or negative)? Hiberniantears (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Question from Everyking
In 2007, you accused me of assisting a banned editor who is extremely notorious for real-life harassment of Wikipedia users and blocked me for a week on that basis. As you might imagine, as someone who despises such abuse of our volunteers, I found your allegation infuriating and I feel that it unjustly tarnished my reputation. Would you act differently today? Are you prepared to apologize at this time for your conduct then? Everyking (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)