Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Kirill Lokshin/Questions

Individual questions
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

Questions from Gerda Arendt
Thank you for stepping forward!
 * I picked the discussion because it has (mercifully) few participants and is easy reading. I was before AE for an edit in a long discussion but didn't want to make all candidates read that much. In case of interest: I found it a bit absurd to be the one cited to AE while all other participants were free. We lost an admin over it. (To explain "mercifully" above. You will find the same names in similar discussions, repeating that the infobox is redundant. Yes, it has to be, that's its function. Sometimes I try to explain, see Jean Sibelius.)
 * All candidates get the same questions from me ;) I still doubt that the two edits which you cited as a reason to block were detrimental to Wikipedia, and therefore think they needed not even attention, so why force? - For you, involved in this example, let's look at a different situation. I was close to being blocked for the edit mentioned above. Do you think that block would have improved me? - Please return from defending your different view - no problem with that - to suggestions of how to improve Wikipedia, instead of single editors (whose influence seems exaggerated, - do you solve infobox conflicts by restricting Andy and me? Obviously not. Love the image of Jimbo Wales and the almost banned), by less force and more talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * All candidates get the same questions from me ;) I still doubt that the two edits which you cited as a reason to block were detrimental to Wikipedia, and therefore think they needed not even attention, so why force? - For you, involved in this example, let's look at a different situation. I was close to being blocked for the edit mentioned above. Do you think that block would have improved me? - Please return from defending your different view - no problem with that - to suggestions of how to improve Wikipedia, instead of single editors (whose influence seems exaggerated, - do you solve infobox conflicts by restricting Andy and me? Obviously not. Love the image of Jimbo Wales and the almost banned), by less force and more talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions from Guerillero
Thank you for running for the hardest and most thankless job on the project. Many of these questions are sourced from actual cases, discussions, and problems over the past year. Enjoy!

Questions from GrammarFascist



 * Thanks for responding, . — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 00:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding, . — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 00:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Questions from Worm That Turned

 * Thanks Kirill. That's a really helpful answer. It was indeed due to your lack of participation in the mailing list - I never noticed much of a "presence" from you due to your absence there, especially when combined with your brevity when participating on cases - so it does sound like it was a perception thing. I do appreciate you taking the time to answer. WormTT(talk) 15:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kirill. That's a really helpful answer. It was indeed due to your lack of participation in the mailing list - I never noticed much of a "presence" from you due to your absence there, especially when combined with your brevity when participating on cases - so it does sound like it was a perception thing. I do appreciate you taking the time to answer. WormTT(talk) 15:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Question from Brustopher
Hi, and thank you for running for Arbcom. These questions focus on WP:OUTING. For the purposes of these questions please assume the editors' usernames are far more distinct and unique than the ones I have given.

Question from Everyking

 * It is disappointing that your tone is so hostile. If you are going to stand for ArbCom, shouldn't you be able to answer tough questions? The ArbCom case is ongoing, as I stated. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to wait until it's been settled? And you have not addressed the problem of your inactivity. How can we possibly evaluate your candidacy when you've done so little to indicate that you're suited for the job? It would be helpful if you could point to whatever you've done that's constructive these last few years. Everyking (talk) 08:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is disappointing that your tone is so hostile. If you are going to stand for ArbCom, shouldn't you be able to answer tough questions? The ArbCom case is ongoing, as I stated. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to wait until it's been settled? And you have not addressed the problem of your inactivity. How can we possibly evaluate your candidacy when you've done so little to indicate that you're suited for the job? It would be helpful if you could point to whatever you've done that's constructive these last few years. Everyking (talk) 08:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I have more questions. Is your hostile attitude and general inactivity reflective of how you'd conduct yourself on the ArbCom? We already have enough inactive or semi-active arbitrators and we certainly don't need another. It's hard to imagine that you're going to suddenly spring to life after years of inactivity if you're elected. Also, if you find so little interest in working on this project, why would you want to take on a big new responsibility? And do you think that it's appropriate for arbitrators to give concerned members of the community an earful of insults when they ask questions?

You state above that "the arbitration case ... includes no adverse findings regarding my conduct". And while that may be true, your actions didn't receive a rousing endorsement, either. The sentiment seems to be that it was a bad block that was sure to stir up needless drama, but they are refraining from sanctioning you because they think it is possible that "a reasonable person" could have believed what you ostensibly believed. How do you feel about that? Everyking (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions from Ryk72
Thank you for stepping forward; your commitment to serving the community is greatly appreciated.

Please accept my apologies for the lateness of these questions.

Many thanks in advance for any answers. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Question from Bzuk
How would you deal with the perpetual wikilawyer whose main contribution is in the preservation of ownership rights rather than content creation? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Question from Deacon of Pndapetzim
I recently got an email about these elections, and saw that you were standing for ArbCom election again. If you remember a few years back, you failed to recuse yourself and acted both as judge and prosecutor against myself at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Proposed decision, actions which at the time seems quite plausibly like retaliation for my vocal criticism of your handling of the Eastern Europe cases and which contributed to a general feeling of being wronged that destroyed my will to contribute significantly to the encyclopedia after a decade of service. I haven't been following anyone's deeds on Wikipedia for several years and I have no idea if you are a good Arb these days or have done a good job in the role and I have no idea what your motivations were for acting like that on the case, but I am wondering if you still believe you acted in a way that you would consider 'judicious'. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions from Dcs002
Thanks for your replies - I like them all :) Dcs002 (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)