Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kirill Lokshin

The format
I dislike this format and it isn't really suitable for "career appraisal" discussions.

Perhaps we should adopt a user-talk discussion style. To start one of these, a user adds a template to his user talk page, not unlike Template:RFCmedia, etc. and the RFC bot can then add the user to a list. In other words, the mechanism would be exactly the same as that already in operation for content RFCs. Then comments (which are primarily for the benefit of the person who called an RFC on himself) go directly to his user talk page. --Jenny 11:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I dunno... if we can take care to avoid bloat (and I know that's rich coming from someone who's just added his own tuppence worth!) then it might just work ok.... otherwise my solution, as touted elsewhere, is to encourage a genuinely independent party to clerk aggressively, giving salient views 'mainpage' status, and splitting redundancies into subpages etc. - it's yet to really be trialled though - I just reckon it's a good idea :-) Privatemusings (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We have a forum for editors to have their conduct reviewed and critiqued, editor review would have been such a better forum for this discussion.  MBisanz  talk 16:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you're right. However I'm suggesting that we might try to head off these bloaty marathons by giving self-RFCers a lightweight way to request comment, without all the umfallumph and paradiddle (most of which is irrelevant) of a user conduct RFC.  Most of us have been around long enough to realise that such processes don't work towards dispute resolution, but rather tend to polarise us.  We've seen so many times these "Statement by X" followed by what?  A VOTE!  Vote polarise and they can only exacerbate a bad situation, or make a relatively harmless disagreement into something rather nasty.  One-to-one dialog, however, tends towards consensus. If I ask for comments, and you come and comment in good faith on my own talk page, then I'm liable to be more favorably inclined towards you than if you endorse some silly "vote" on a page like this.   --Jenny 19:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Oy. El_C 21:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To MBisanz: I used to do a lot of editor reviews. See User:Shalom Yechiel/Drafts and archives/Editor review archive. Nobody pays attention. User conduct RFC is where the action is.  I think Kirill had the right idea. Yechiel (Shalom) 16:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment
Maybe this is completely off-base, which is why I'm putting this comment here. But I have personally gotten the impression, rightly or wrongly, that Kirill seems to be both trying to function as an effective arbitrator, which by virtual unanimous agreement he seems to have done, and also to try to resolve some problems he foresees down the road now, through decisions and other actions, so that neither the current arbitrators or their successors will necessary face those problems later. I can't see anything wrong with that either. Unfortunately, I think the problem arises because, for whatever reason, good or bad, many of the rest of the community, including apparently other arbitrators, don't seem to agree that with him on that point. The "philosophical" disagreement here seems to at least me to be one of the precipitating factors in some of the disagreements here. Personally, I agree that trying to forestall forseeable problems is a good thing, although thankfully I'm not an arbitrator, so my opinion doesn't necessarily count for much. I have added a section to the page about how I think we should focus some more attention as a community on the problems we can foresee. If we can agree that certain preventative measures could reasonably be instituted now, good, I think that would reduce the later problems. If we can't agree, either because some editors want to take many/most occurrences on a case-by-case basis, or because they don't want to try to "write law" for later, or whatever, but have a thorough community discussion about it, and possibly even agree to certain specific new preventative measures even if not broad ones, that would be useful as well. But I do think that we would all be better off if we had more people actively trying to address the matter, even if in absolute objection to it, so that some of the actions of some which I think might be motivated by such goals will not have to recur.

And I know that I'm going to hear the "prescriptive vs. proscriptive" phrase repeated here as well. My own personal view is something like the way one might phrase several of the handgun violence laws in the US. It is not illegal to carry a concealed weapon in some states, nor is it necessarily illegal to shoot someone dead with such a gun. But, if you do that, you can reasonably expect that the police and court will be interested in your actions, and might even bring action against you on that basis. That governmental action might even have results you really don't like. So, even though the written law does not pointedly rule out such activity in general, it still might lead to some form of review and sanction. Most of our own policies and guidelines don't explicitly rule out certain behavior, but they do indicate that certain behavior, depending on the circumstances, can and sometimes should be sanctionable.

Anyway, shutting up now. John Carter (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of this request
Does it seem to anyone else like this RfC is firmly on the road to being a Q&A about ArbCom and recent decisions, as opposed to a true examination of Kirill's history and role as an editor and arbitrator? Avruch  T 12:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Time to archive?
I trust that this RfC has made clear that Kirill's performance as an arbitrator is considered satisfactory, and indeed superior. I certainly am satisfied with his work in the year and a half I have followed it, first as a clerk and this year as a fellow arbitrator. There has been no additional input for some time, and I believe this RfC can now be closed and archived. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur here. Having this discussion continue would not bear any benefit, and I think the most good would be reaped from closing the discussion presently, rather than at a later date. The following may be a useful "conclusion statement," if one is to be authored:
 * Anthøny 17:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You could offer to let Kirill write his own closing statement? In any case, some conclusion in his own words would be good. Carcharoth (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops. Too late! :-) I'll drop Kirill a note anyway, as a final word from him might help. Carcharoth (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops. Too late! :-) I'll drop Kirill a note anyway, as a final word from him might help. Carcharoth (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please hold on with archiving. This show of worship and admiration took place during my extended wikibreak and I completely missed a chance to comment and give feedback. Since receiving some feedback was a stated goal of Kirill Lokshin who started this RfC, I suppose he would be interested in my opinion as well. As the most active arbitrator, he bears most responsibility for the current sorry state of this arbcom even if he is not solely responsible for this situation. --Irpen 04:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)