Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Kirill Lokshin

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

I've now served on the Arbitration Committee for nearly five years—from January 2007 until July 2009, and from January 2010 onward. The focus of my attention has generally been drafting case decisions (I've written more than sixty) and managing the organizational and procedural aspects of the Committee's day-to-day work (I was the coordinating arbitrator from February 2009 to July 2009, and have been the deputy coordinating arbitrator since February 2010); but, over the years, I've had the opportunity to participate in just about every possible aspect of an arbitrator's role.

I stand before you on the depth and breadth of my experience with the arbitration process, and on my proven track record as an arbitrator. I will not claim to be perfect—no arbitrator is—nor to have pleased everyone with my decisions; but I have always sought to act in the best interests of the project, and I believe that I've been a voice of reason and a driving force for efficiency, transparency, and professionalism among the arbitrators.

With the reduction in the size of the Committee and the transition to fewer overlapping tranches and shorter term lengths, the need for experienced arbitrators is greater than ever before. As the longest-serving of the current arbitrators—indeed, as the longest-serving arbitrator in the history of the Committee—I believe that I have a unique level of experience to offer. I've learned much about being an arbitrator over the years; and I would like to continue serving the community in that role, if the community will have me.

Mandatory statements and disclosures: As a sitting arbitrator, I am already identified to the Foundation and otherwise comply with the criteria for access to non-public data. I have not edited Wikipedia with any account other than User:Kirill Lokshin. (proof of identification)

Candidates are advised to answer each of these questions completely but concisely. Candidates may refuse to answer any questions that they do not wish to, with the understanding, however, that not answering a question may be perceived negatively by the community.

Note that disclosure of your account history, pursuant to the ArbCom selection and appointment policy, must be made in your opening statement, and is not an optional question.

General questions[edit]

  1. Skills and experience:
    a) What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, do you think you will bring to the committee if elected?
    The most important experience I can offer, in my opinion, is that of having served for years as an arbitrator. The arbitration process is a rather specialized part of Wikipedia, and it's rare for an editor to gain a good understanding of its intricacies without having been an arbitrator themselves; in my case, I've had the opportunity to become intimately familiar with every aspect of both the arbitration process and the various other duties performed by the arbitrators.

    Having said that, I tend to agree with the school of thought which argues that arbitrators who participate in nothing but arbitration tend to lose touch with the broader community; and thus I've taken care to continue my participation in other areas of the project during my tenure on the Committee.

    Outside of arbitration, the bulk of my time has been devoted to the Military history WikiProject; as MILHIST's the first lead coordinator and a current coordinator emeritus, I've traditionally played a significant role in all of the project's various activities. My time coordinating the various processes within the project has helped me hone my organizational skills, which served me well in my role as the coordinating arbitrator in 2009, and have continued to assist me as I've carried out the responsibilities of the deputy coordinating arbitrator since 2010.

    In addition to my on-wiki work, I'm also active in the broader Wikimedia movement, particularly with our new Washington, DC-area chapter. My work with Wikimedia DC has given me an increased exposure to how Wikipedia is perceived by the broader public, and how our dispute resolution processes are viewed by those not intimately familiar with them; both are, in my opinion, useful perspectives for an arbitrator to consider. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    b) What kinds of personal experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes? If applicable, please provide links to Arbitration cases where you have been involved, or offered an uninvolved statement.
    The majority of my experience with our formal dispute resolution processes has been in the role of a sitting arbitrator; over the years I've served on the Committee, I've heard close to 150 cases. In many of those cases, I was the drafting arbitrator, and wrote the bulk of the Committee's final decision:

    In addition, I've been a party to or offered evidence in a few cases in which I did not participate as an arbitrator, giving me some perspective on how the arbitration process is perceived by the parties themselves:

    Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strict versus lenient decisions: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings? What factors might generally influence you?
    I have traditionally been among those arbitrators who have favored stricter sanctions, both in terms of individual bans and desysoppings and in terms of imposing general restrictions and discretionary sanctions. Overall, my view is that editors whose conduct is sufficiently poor as to be worthy of notice in arbitration case—and particularly editors who have had arbitration sanctions imposed on them in the past, of whom a significant number subsequently returns to arbitration—should not be overly coddled.

    Having said that, I do take more lenient approaches as well, particularly in circumstances where editors acknowledge their poor conduct and undertake not to repeat it—with or without adopting some form of voluntary editing restrictions as well. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  3. ArbCom and policies: ArbCom has not historically made or altered Wikipedia policy, and it does not include matters of Wikipedia policy in its scope of responsibilities. Policies, however, often play a role in cases brought before the Committee. Can, and should, the Committee take positions on the appropriateness, effectiveness, or clarity of policies as part of the case resolution process? If so, should ArbCom be allowed to make changes to policy directly, or recommend specific changes to policy as part of the case resolution process? Please give reasons.
    I think it's both appropriate and useful for the Committee to comment on the effectiveness and clarity of policies insofar as they apply to particular aspects of arbitration decisions, and particularly where the Committee believes that flaws or inconsistencies in the policies produce an undesirable result; because the Committee is in a position to examine many of the most divisive disputes in how policies are interpreted, it is uniquely placed to identify scenarios where policies break down or are applied in ways that may not have been expected by the editors that wrote them.

    As far as making changes to policy is concerned, it's clear that the community does not want the Committee to do anything of the sort—indeed, any suggestion, correct or not, that the Committee is attempting to change policy has traditionally led to protests. While I continue to believe that the community needs to give more thought to how our processes for project governance and policy formulation may be streamlined and reformed, I have no intention of intruding into the issue in my capacity as an arbitrator; that was, in fact, one of the main reasons why I pushed for the relevant language ("The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat") to be included in the new arbitration policy. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  4. ArbCom and article content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Can, and should, 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? Please give reasons.
    As the Committee is constrained from ruling on article content directly—and there are a number of good reasons for having such a constraint in place—its role in addressing content disputes has traditionally been threefold.

    First, the Committee affects content disputes indirectly by sanctioning violations of conduct policies committed by editors in the course of those content disputes. Most of the disputes heard by the Committee arise from differences over content to one degree or another; without an underlying content dispute, there is rarely a trigger for editors to engage in misconduct. The removal of participants from the content dispute by way of sanctions levied against their conduct thus tends to affect the ultimate resolution of the content dispute itself. The main drawback of this approach is that proper conduct is not necessarily reflective of correctness with regard to content, and vice versa; particularly in the case of so-called "civil POV-pushing", the editors being sanctioned for misconduct are not necessarily those whose edits violate content policies.

    The second approach, which the Committee has used in a few cases, is to treat violations of sourcing or neutrality policies as a conduct matter and sanction editors correspondingly. The Committee has traditionally been reluctant to use this approach, primarily because the Committee does not necessarily have the expertise necessary to evaluate anything other than the most obvious misuse of sources or the most flagrant breaches of NPOV. Nevertheless, this tactic has been used at times, usually with a high degree of success.

    The third approach is establishing of a process by which the community can reach a binding decision with regards to content, and then enforcing that decision via the normal arbitration enforcement mechanisms. This approach is, in many ways, an attempt to mitigate the weakness of the second—the Committee's lack of expertise on questions of content—while still allowing the Committee's considerable arsenal of enforcement mechanisms to be used to full effect. The binding content decision mechanism has been used only a few times; the canonical example is perhaps the Ireland naming disputes, where it has resulted in a stable—if not universally agreed-upon—solution. In certain circumstances—in particular, where the decision needed can be broken down into a set of distinct choices, such as an article naming question—establishing a decision-making process can be effective; but the method is difficult to apply to more complex disputes, as attempting to do so leads to questions regarding how the community's decision is to be judged. Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  5. ArbCom and motions:
    a) What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation.
    There are, confusingly enough, two different types of Arbitration Committee actions that are both commonly referred to as "motions"; to fully address this question, it's necessary to distinguish between the two.

    The first type of motion is the "summary motion" that constitutes the summary proceedings specified in §2.3 of the arbitration policy. This type of motion is made in the course of a pending request for an arbitration case, and is intended to serve as a binding decision in the underlying dispute in lieu of the decision that would be written as part of the requested case.

    Experience has shown that addressing a case request by summary motion is rarely uncontroversial; their utility is therefore limited by the likelihood that using them will result in increased rather than decreased tension among the editors involved. My general inclination, therefore, is to reserve summary motions for circumstances where (a) the underlying facts are either undisputed or immaterial to the outcome and (b) the importance of producing a rapid decision outweighs the importance of examining the situation in detail. In particular, summary motions are, in my opinion, well-suited for circumstances where the Committee's decision will be to remand the dispute to some other process (for example, an RFC or some other form of community discussion), and where there is ongoing tension or disruption that prevents said process from moving forward; in such a scenario, the Committee can accomplish more by rapidly curbing the most pressing disruption and allowing the community process to proceed immediately than it could by delaying the community process for the period of time necessary to conduct a full hearing and then remanding the matter back to the community.

    The second type of motion is the "amendment motion" that is made to a previously closed arbitration case pursuant to the retained jurisdiction provision in §2.1 of the arbitration policy. This type of motion is made either in the course of an amendment or clarification request for a particular case, or sua sponte by the Committee itself, and is intended to modify a prior decision (typically either to rescind a particular remedy or to enact an additional one).

    Amendment motions have traditionally been the normal approach taken for addressing matters stemming from prior cases; there have been suggestions made that such matters should be considered in more formal hearings (whether as entirely new cases, or some form of hearing less complex than a full case), but I'm not convinced that the additional workload and complexity would be justified, considering the narrow scope of most amendment requests. My inclination, therefore, would be to address amendments to past cases by motion in all but the most convoluted circumstances. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    b) When is it not appropriate to start a motion? If the community has reached consensus on an issue, does ArbCom have the right to overrule that consensus with a motion? If the community is unable to resolve an issue for some time, and there is no active case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?
    As a general rule, motions are a poor approach when there is no particular reason or need for expedient action or when the matter is sufficiently complex as to require a full hearing for the Committee to come to a reasonable decision.

    The question of whether the Committee can overrule community consensus by motion is in essence merely a facet of the broader philosophical and constitutional debate as to whether the Committee can overrule community consensus at all (whether by motion, or by full case decision, or by some other means). My general feeling is that the Committee should not overrule a true community consensus except where that consensus conflicts with a policy not subject to it (such as the various rules imposed directly by the Wikimedia Foundation). This is not to say, however, that every claim of consensus is a valid one; in my experience as an arbitrator, I've seen countless cases where small groups of editors would claim consensus for an action on the basis of an unadvertised discussion on some obscure page, or on the basis of a borderline difference in the number of supporters for particular courses of action. In general, it is quite rare for any matter on which there is widespread consensus to come before the Committee; were there a consensus, after all, then it would be unlikely that the dispute would become sufficiently heated that someone would request arbitration over it.

    As far as sua sponte motions are concerned, I think it's apparent that the community resents any attempts by the Committee to open cases without a request having been made; indeed, all the past instances of this that I can remember have ended badly. In the absence of any generally accepted method for doing so, I think that it's best for arbitrators to avoid attempting such a process. Having said that, the authority of the Committee to modify past decisions without a request is, in my opinion, generally acceptable to the community; and, while it's rare that an issue which the community is unable to resolve would be tied up with a past arbitration decision, I think it would be reasonable for the Committee to act without a request if such a circumstance were to arise. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    c) There were a number of controversial motions this year. Please identify a few motions from 2011 that you believe were appropriate (if any), and a few you believe were inappropriate (if any). Discuss why you have reached the judgements that you did.
    The majority of the motions proposed over the course of the year were fairly routine ones having to do with granting—or not granting—appeals from previously sanctioned editors; for these, I think it's sufficient to say that I supported the ones I thought appropriate, and opposed the ones I thought inappropriate.

    The non-routine motions are perhaps of more interest; a few, in particular, stand out as somewhat unusual, although not all of them were controversial in the usual sense of the term:

    • The motion regarding a publicly readable mailing list, which I supported, was bitterly controversial among the arbitrators; it's a shame, in my opinion, that it ultimately failed. As I mentioned below, the Committee's traditional reluctance to conduct more business in public has as much—if not more—to do with the lack of a venue with a suitable signal-to-noise ratio as it does with a desire to keep discussions private; a restricted but publicly-viewable mailing list would have, in my opinion, struck a workable balance between increasing transparency and shielding discussions from interruption.
    • The motion about new editors, which I opposed, was in my opinion an over-reaction, and took an approach that would inflict needless collateral damage while failing to resolve the problem it aimed to solve. While it's rare for legitimately new editors to participate in arbitration, it's by no means unheard of; prohibiting them from doing so in an attempt to stop sockpuppetry would cut off their perfectly legitimate input, particularly as the average new editor would likely not know how to seek an exemption from such a rule. At the same time, a hard threshold based on edit counts would do little to stop the more worrisome sorts of sockpuppets, which tend to be operated by banned users with no compunctions about performing a few hundred useful edits in exchange for the opportunity to wreak havoc on the arbitration process.
    • The series of motions regarding arbitrator abstention votes, some of which I supported and some of which I opposed, was of fairly limited relevance to anyone outside the Committee, although it was obviously divisive within it. The motions are perhaps best considered as an example of the sort of day-to-day procedural business that takes up much of the Committee's internal correspondence.
    • The omnibus motion amending past decisions, which I supported, was the culmination of several years of standardization by the Committee, some of which was quite controversial; much of this controversy, of course, took place behind the scenes, or on the little-watched amendment and clarification pages. The standardization effort was, in my view, long overdue; given the prominence that discretionary sanctions now play in the arbitration process, retaining the previous mix of subtly differing sanctions was unfair to both the administrators responsible for enforcement and to the editors active in the areas to which such sanctions applied.
    Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Private information: In light of the mailing list leak:
    a) Do you believe that the Arbitration Committee should keep records that include non-public information, including checkuser data and the real life identities of users, after whatever case or issue that information originally pertained to had been handled by the committee?
    In purely practical terms, some retention of non-public records is necessary—at least in circumstances where some or all of the evidence material to a particular case is submitted privately—to allow the arbitrators who consider appeals or amendment requests to examine said evidence after the conclusion of the case; with the prospect of jurisdiction on complex cases continuing for months or years after the original case concludes, it is infeasible to dispose of everything immediately without forcing future arbitrators to make decisions purely on personal recollection.

    As a general rule, however, it is rare for CheckUser data to be relevant in the long term except in the case of particularly tenacious ban-evading users, or for real-life identities to be material to an arbitration decision; and so data of this sort can, in principle, be purged in the vast majority of cases. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    b) If the answer to any part of (a) is yes, how long should the information be kept, how should it be kept, and who should have access to it?
    Having had occasion, in the course of my arbitration work, to examine evidence that was several years old at the time, I suspect that the retention threshold would need to be somewhere in the range of 3 to 5 years in order to avoid interfering with routine business. (One potential concern with a fixed retention threshold, of course, is that someone would deliberately wait for the threshold to expire and the information regarding them to be purged prior to returning; the retention period would need to be sufficiently long so as to make this impractical.)

    In terms of the retention mechanism itself, the chief limitation has always been the mailing list software used by the Committee; the current software does not allow selective archiving, making it impossible to retain only the material of long-term interest. In addition, as this year's leak has demonstrated, retaining the entire collection in one easy-to-obtain package is a poor approach from a security perspective. The ideal scenario would be to have relevant materials collected into packages dealing with particular cases and individually stored on a private wiki (or other platform) separate from the arbitrators' mailing list itself; the individual packages could then be retrieved as needed to address matters dealing with the individual cases in question, and could remain inaccessible outside of that. This requires, of course, a change in archiving software (or, alternately, a great deal of manpower to package the data by hand); and it remains to be seen whether such resources will be available to the Committee in the coming year. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    c) Currently, much of ArbCom business is handled over email, and in other non-public forums. Do you believe that all ArbCom discussions that do not directly concern private information should take place publicly? If so, how? Why or why not?
    My main concern with holding the bulk of Committee discussions in public has generally been the lack of a suitably controlled forum rather than the private nature of the discussions per se. It would be impractical, in my opinion, for the Committee to hold useful discussions in a venue where arbitrators' comments would be drowned out by the far greater volume of comments from parties and bystanders. So long as this issue could be mitigated—for example, by creating a discussion page to be used only by the arbitrators (akin to proposed decision pages), or by creating different areas for arbitrators and non-arbitrators to comment (akin to the workshop pages)—I would be supportive of moving discussions that did not concern private information to a public forum. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    d) What, if anything, did the Arbitration Committee do wrong before, and in response to, the mailing list leak? What did they do right? What would you have done differently?
    The Committee's response to the leak was admittedly not a particularly effective one; a combination of intense pressure from the community to provide answers and a lack of the necessary technical expertise to determine the actual cause of the leak led us to spend a considerable amount of time chasing false leads and speculating on potential responses. In some sense, the Committee responded about as well as might have reasonably been expected under the circumstances—we did not, unfortunately, have a plan in place for how to respond to an event of this sort, and so our response was doomed to be a disorganized and reactive one from the start—but it's clear, in retrospect, that we should have been more prepared for the possibility a leak to begin with, and should have responded in a more collected fashion rather than posting confused, individual responses, each reflecting only an individual arbitrator's partial understanding of the situation. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    e) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?
    My real identity is a matter of public record. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Division of responsibilities:
    a) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the WMF? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
    The Wikimedia Foundation has traditionally taken an extremely hands-off approach to events within individual project communities, in large part due to the legal framework under which it operates. Consequently, a variety of issues that would typically be handled by the operators of the site fell by default to the Committee.

    In recent months, there has been an increased effort on the Committee's part to have the Foundation handle some of these; in particular, things such as threats (including both threats of violence and legal threats) and serious harassment are not really matters that the Committee is well-suited to address. Whether this effort will be successful remains to be seen; my feeling is that the eventual result will be some form of tiered structure, with the Committee handling some instances and escalating others to the WMF. Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    b) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the community as a whole? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
    The division of responsibilities between the Committee and the community was traditionally somewhat vague, with various iterations of the Committee taking on a greater or lesser role per the inclinations of the arbitrators involved and the degree of support or opposition as regards particular issues from the community.

    This ambiguity has been to a large degree resolved by the ratification of the new arbitration policy, which delineates the Committee's role far more explicitly than had previously been done. It is perhaps too early to tell whether the division laid out in that policy is the correct one; my personal opinion is that it is, at least for the near future. Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  8. Challenges facing the project: Please share your views on the following subjects. In each case, discuss ArbCom's role, if any.
    a) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
    Wikipedia has—and will likely always continue to have—problems with editors who believe, for whatever reason, that the rules do not apply to them; insofar as opinions of this sort tend to occur among some of the most veteran editors, it would be reasonable to say that "vested contributors"—by which we mean specifically contributors who believe themselves exempt from the rules on the basis of their past contributions—continue to be an issue.

    Having said that, this particular problem is, in my view, considerably diminished as compared to the Wikipedia of a few years ago. This is not to say, of course, that Wikipedia does not have a problem with editors who don't believe that the rules apply to them—those are a dime a dozen. Increasingly, however, they are not "vested contributors" in the traditional sense; they feel entitled not because of their considerable accomplishments, but rather despite the lack of such. A few years ago, for example, the commonly held perception was that the most senior administrators were a law unto themselves; now, a poorly behaved administrator is as likely—and perhaps more likely—to have been promoted a month prior as he is to be a five-year veteran. The key problem to be solved, therefore, is not one of "vested contributors" per se, but rather merely one of editors, regardless of their level of experience or past contributions, who refuse to behave themselves appropriately. Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    b) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
    Factionalism is a pervasive problem for Wikipedia and one of the leading causes of large and bitterly intractable disputes among contributors; indeed, factionalism of various sorts has been to blame for an ever-increasing share of the cases heard by the Committee in recent years. To understand the role factional differences play in Wikipedia, and the approach the Committee has taken (and might take in the future) towards mitigating their negative effects, it's necessary to distinguish between two different forms of factionalism.

    The first, and most common, category of factions on Wikipedia are those which divide editors according to their position in disputes which are not inherently pertinent to Wikipedia itself, but which happen to be the subjects of Wikipedia articles. The disputes that give rise to factionalism of this sort are typically either political (e.g. Armenia-Azerbaijan or Israel-Palestine) or scientific (e.g. global warming or homeopathy), but editorial factions can arise over any sufficiently divisive real-world dispute; indeed, some of the most bitter factionalism occurs on topics of relatively narrow interest. The factions in a dispute of this type generally align themselves along lines consistent with the corresponding factions in the actual dispute (e.g. pro- and anti-abortion editors) and work to slant the articles in question to favor their position, and to diminish the influence of editors in opposing factions. Such factions are also to some degree independent of the specific editors that comprise them; there is a strong tendency, particularly in disputes along national lines, for new editors belonging to one of the sides of the real-world dispute to be drawn in to the Wikipedia counterpart as a consequence of their natural interest in their own nation's history and politics.

    Over the past few years, the Committee's traditional response to this brand of factionalism has been the imposition of discretionary sanctions; this has enjoyed some success in limiting the worst excesses of editors' misconduct—those who cannot control themselves at least to some extent tend to find themselves on the receiving end of increasingly harsh sanctions—but has been limited both by the perpetual shortage of uninvolved administrators to enforce the sanctions and by editors' ability to avoid obviously sanctionable conduct while continuing their efforts to slant the articles (i.e. "civil POV-pushing"). The Committee has generally been loath to judge disputes purely on determinations of whether an editor is violating the NPOV policy—both because of potential concerns that such a determination would implicitly constitute a ruling on content, and because the arbitrators have traditionally lacked the time and expertise to examine sources and article balance in detail—and while more direct approaches have arguably been successful in cases where the underlying dispute revolves around a relatively narrow question (such as the Ireland naming dispute), they are difficult to apply in the general case, where a dispute might span thousands of tangentially related topics and centuries of ethnic strife. In the long term, it's clear that a different approach will be necessary to curb disputes of this sort; my initial inclination would be to increasingly consider chronic NPOV violations as sanctionable offenses in and of themselves, but this will require a different approach to how arbitration cases are conducted and the subject and level of detail of evidence to be solicited.

    The second category of factions are those which align on the basis of disputes internal to Wikipedia itself—chiefly those having to do with differing interpretations of policy or the goals of the project. The proverbial example of this sort of factionalism is the philosophical divide between "inclusionists" and "deletionists"; but manifestations also include more specialized debates, such as the question of whether the Manual of Style should be prescriptive or descriptive, or whether citation templates are useful.

    Factionalism of this sort is less commonly the subject of arbitration than that of the first type; this is, in large part, due to the fact that the editors who engage in it tend to be more experienced—it being rare for someone completely new to Wikipedia to hold a strong opinion on a matter of project policy—and thus more likely to avoid both the most obviously sanctionable forms of misconduct and the escalation of the dispute to the Committee (which experienced editors recognize as being potentially dangerous for both sides). Disputes related to such factions tend to simmer on policy pages and noticeboards, existing in a tense status quo that nobody enjoys, but that everyone considers less risky than an outright confrontation. When such disputes do come to arbitration, it is typically because one side (or both) has abandoned the status quo and attempted to force the issue (see, for example, the infamous Date delinking case); and the usual result is a rapid escalation of disruptive behavior on the part of this involved, followed by harsh sanctions imposed by the Committee. This approach is generally effective in stopping any ongoing disruption—although the temporary injunctions imposed in such cases are probably of more importance here than the final decisions themselves—but tends to do little to settle the underlying disputes, as the Committee generally cannot decide on the underlying questions of policy directly. In this sense, the Committee's ability to resolve these disputes is largely limited to forcing the parties back to the negotiating table. Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    c) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with editor retention? Does Wikipedia have an overall shortage of editors? Do specific parts or tasks have shortages of editors?
    In purely statistical terms, the various reports generated over the course of the past year do show a decline in the number of active editors; while I wouldn't necessarily characterize it as a "shortage" quite yet, it's clear that at least the potential for a problem of this sort does exist.

    However, the key concern, in my opinion, is not merely editor retention in general, but the retention of highly experienced editors in particular. The smooth operation of large parts of Wikipedia depends on a relatively small number of editors who possess the necessary depth of knowledge and experience necessary; this includes, in particular, the more complex technical elements of the project—consider, for example, how dependent we have become on certain bots, and how much difficulty we encounter if any of them suddenly stop working—as well as the more specialized processes, such as FAC or CCI. The core editors who keep these portions of the project running cannot simply be replaced by new editors should they decide to leave; the experience they have—years of it, in many cases—is not something that can be instilled by help pages or the like.

    The Committee has traditionally done little to address the problem of editor retention directly, for two main reasons. First, the Committee, not being a policy-making body, is inherently limited in terms of what it can do to mitigate the causes of editor loss outside of the context of the specific cases brought to arbitration. More important, however, is the poor communication between the Committee and the editors to be retained; quite simply, the Committee has only an anecdotal understanding of what causes dissatisfaction among experienced editors, and even this is in many cases colored by the personalities involved and treated as personal rather than endemic complaints. I don't see, unfortunately, any easy way to address this issue; the most concretely productive approach would probably be for the community of experienced editors to collectively produce a list of concerns and requests and to present the unified list to the Committee, but getting this to happen would be a major undertaking in and of itself. Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  9. Reflection on 2011 cases: Nominate the cases from 2011 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
    There are traditionally two complaints that can be made regarding arbitration cases: that they arrived at the wrong decision, and that they arrived at the right decision too slowly.

    A number of cases were successful both in terms of the decision reached—in the sense that they appear to have resolved the dispute, whether or not one agrees with every part of the decision itself—and in terms of the time it took to process them. Indeed, for a period of several months the Committee managed to close cases on the two- to three-week timescales that had been routine for simpler cases in 2007; thus, for example, Noleander was closed in three weeks, Henri Coanda in two, and MickMacNee in three. In each of these, the dispute appears to have been substantively resolved—likely because each resulted in a ban of the primary editor involved.

    Other cases—Tree shaping, in particular, comes to mind—eventually arrived at what I consider to have been a reasonably effective decision, but lasted significantly longer than the ought to have. The duration of cases is a perpetual complaint regarding arbitration; despite our best efforts, every year has seen at least one case that lasts far too long, most often because of an unexpected absence on the part of the main drafter. The recent practice of naming multiple drafters to each case may help mitigate this in the future, but that remains to be seen.

    Finally, there are the cases that failed to resolve the substance of the dispute. Notable here were Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling, which lasted two months and produced nothing more substantive than a series of reminders, and Manipulation of BLPs, which did the same, albeit after only one month. The failure of these cases to lead to any real resolution was largely due, in my opinion, to their overly broad scope and the resulting lack of focus in the evidence presented and in the arbitrators' own interpretations of the disputes in question; they would likely have been more successful had they been kept restricted to one or several specific incidents, rather than being framed as general investigations of a particular type of dispute. Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  10. Proposals for change: What changes, if any, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?
    There are two potential reforms that I think are worth highlighting:
    • Changing the Ban Appeals Subcommittee (BASC) to consist of a combination of arbitrators and non-arbitrators, akin to the current structure of the Audit Subcommittee. Over the past year, ban appeals have been an ever-increasing part of the Committee's workload, and one that is perpetually backlogged because of arbitrators having to deal with higher-priority issues. A hybrid structure for BASC would increase the manpower available for processing appeals—the fact that community members of BASC would not be drawn away by other arbitration business being a particular bonus—and allow more direct community involvement in the appeals process.
    • Introducing a new subcommittee to examine complaints of administrative misconduct. The current method of handling such complaints via the arbitration process, while reasonably effective for particularly blatant cases, is somewhat limited; the time and effort involved in filing and arguing a full arbitration case discourages editors from submitting concerns until the situation becomes truly dire, while the Committee's traditional approach to administrators—a choice between desysopping and doing nothing, with no real middle ground—means that only the most serious misconduct receives a substantive response, and that administrators view the process as arbitrary and unduly harsh. A subcommittee charged with hearing simpler complaints via a process less onerous than a full arbitration case—but with more structure and predictability than noticeboard discussions and the like—would provide an opportunity to examine administrators' conduct and correct any issues before they reached a critical point, and to address any problems with specific, tailored remedies rather than through outright removal of administrative tools.
    Both of these ideas have already been the topic of discussion within the Committee, although it's probably too early to say whether they will in fact be adopted during the coming term; the viability of such structural changes is highly dependent, in my experience, on the precise makeup of the Committee, which is impossible to predict at this point. Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Individual questions[edit]

Please ask your individual questions here. While there is no limit on the number of questions that may be asked, please try to keep questions relevant. Try to be as clear and concise as possible, and avoid duplicating questions that have already been asked.

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#Question:
#:A:

Questions from Rschen7754[edit]

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide; thus, not answering specific questions will affect my recommendation. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

The questions are similar to those I asked in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those. Please note that question 3 has drastically changed from what it was in past years, though.

The first 9 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
    Considering the small number of parties, the limited scope of the conflict, and the lack of prior cases dealing with the topic, I think the case took far too long to resolve. A three-month duration may not be altogether unreasonable for some of our more complex cases, which must address the conduct of dozens of editors across hundreds of articles; but there's no real reason why a relatively simple case—and Tree shaping certainly fits into this category—should require the same duration. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Do you believe that WikiProjects can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles, directly and/or indirectly?
    I think it's reasonable for a mature WikiProject to develop—within reason, of course—standards for the articles within its scope, and to enforce those standards on the articles in question; indeed, there are a number of WikiProjects that have been successfully developing and enforcing standards for article content, layout, and formatting for a number of years, and whose efforts have resulted in increased article quality within their particular scopes.

    Having said that, it's important to note that the mere fact that someone has created a group and called it a "WikiProject" does not grant said group any authority in and of itself. If the standards that a WikiProject advances are to have any legitimacy, they must reflect the consensus of the editorial community that contributes to articles within the project's scope; and that is possible only when the project's participants reflect that community. In that sense, the project acts primarily as a vehicle for crystallizing and applying the consensus of the editors on a topic rather than as an entity with opinions distinct from those of its constituent editors. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  3. An editor has made many productive edits to articles on Wikipedia, including several featured articles. This user has not broken policies per se, but is hard to deal with, giving "smart aleck" remarks, ignoring consensus, ignoring what administrators / experienced users tell them, etc. What are your views on this situation?
    I'm a firm believer in the principle of collegiality among Wikipedia contributors, and the corollary that our conduct policies are only minimal requirements,. If someone is acting in a way that disrupts the project and interferes with other contributors' ability to participate constructively, then their actions need to be dealt with—through sanctions, if necessary—even if they aren't explicitly prohibited by policy.

    This doesn't mean, of course, that every contrary remark needs to result in sanctions, particularly in the case of someone who is otherwise a productive and well-behaved contributor; someone who has demonstrated a dedication to the project's mission is—and should be—cut more slack than someone whose main purpose is making life difficult for other editors. At the same time, the quality of one's contributions is not an absolute excuse; no editor is irreplaceable, and certain kinds of misconduct are not excused by any degree of skill in writing articles or any other aspect of an editor's repertoire. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  4. An editor fails WP:COMPETENCE. What should be done in this situation?
    I continue to hold to my position (as set forth in the Stefanomencarelli case) that an editor whose actions damage the project may be restricted from participating—either partially or completely—even if those actions arise from incompetence rather than malice. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Do the circumstances described in questions #3-4 justify a community ban?
    Either set of circumstances could potentially justify a community ban; whether such a course of action was appropriate would depend on the severity of the disruption and the degree to which other, less permanent ways of resolving the situation had been attempted. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Do you believe that "it takes two to tango"? Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?
    I do consider both provocation and necessity as mitigating factors when proposing sanctions, and have in the past supported lesser sanctions—or even no sanctions at all—for editors who believed, in good faith, that their actions were in the best interests of the project, or who were goaded into responding to another editor's misconduct in kind. Having said that, the degree to which such a defense mitigates a particular incident depends in large part on the surrounding circumstances and the editor's subsequent acknowledgment (or lack thereof) that their actions were inappropriate. I'm far more likely to show leniency towards someone who accepts that their response was not appropriate than to someone who claims provocation as an absolute defense. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. When do you believe cases should be accepted by ArbCom?
    The Committee should accept a request for arbitration when the dispute in question either has not or is unlikely to be resolved by the community—whether because the community has already attempted to resolve it and failed, or because the community lacks the necessary enforcement mechanism to resolve it, or because the community is so divided that any attempt to resolve the dispute using the normal means for doing so is certain to fail. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. When would you vote for the long-term ban of an editor?
    In general, I tend to support long-term bans either when short-term blocks and other editing restrictions have failed to curb an editor's misconduct, or, more rarely, when the misconduct is sufficiently egregious to show that the editor is fundamentally incapable of being a constructive part of the Wikipedia community. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
    Yes. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?
    The most pressing problem, in my opinion, is the shrinking editorial community—and particularly the shrinking community of veteran editors. Many of the more day-to-day difficulties we face can be traced back to nothing more profound than a lack of experienced manpower; if we can reverse that decline, we can reverse many others as a consequence.

    Beyond that, the traditional problems—the poor scaling of the consensus model, the lack of an effective governance mechanism, the balkanization of the project into petty fiefdoms—remain; but many of these are inherent to the Wikipedia model, and are unlikely to be resolved without a fundamental change in how the project works. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Rschen7754 23:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Tony1: Professional mediation and indemnification[edit]

Restraining aggrieved parties in emotionally charged scenarios is central to the Committee’s role, and arbitrators are in principle exposed to legal action by those parties in a real-world jurisdiction. It matters little whether an action is launched or merely threatened, and whether it is quite unreasonable: the costs for an individual arb to forestall a default judgment in a foreign court would be considerable (and I believe it’s not hard to transfer an order to the courts in one’s local jurisdiction). The risk is greater because as volunteers we can’t be expected to provide professional mediation as an intermediary between wiki and real-world judicial processes—mediation that might head off litigation in the first place.

Given the WMF's annual income of some $20M, what is your view on whether the Foundation should:

  1. set up a process for engaging and coordinating professional mediation of disputes that have the potential to morph into legal action against arbs (where requested by the Committee and where the Foundation believes the arb has acted in good faith); and
  2. offer legal indemnity to arbs after either a litigious party has rejected an offer of WMF-funded mediation or after that mediation has failed? Tony (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answer:

While having a professional mediation process available is an intriguing idea, I'm not certain how useful it would actually be in practice. The Committee is not a single entity that can act as a party to the proceeding; an individual arbitrator, on the other hand, would be unable to make any commitment on the Committee's behalf, and would therefore not be in a position to constructively engage in mediation. The process would only be useful, therefore, in cases where all of the arbitrators were jointly and severally party to the complaint. Further, it's worth noting that a professional mediation proceeding could potentially take up as much of an arbitrator's time as an actual lawsuit might; for someone interested merely in harassing the arbitrators rather than actually recovering damages, mediation could offer a vehicle to do so without the risk of actual litigation.

As far as an actual indemnity is concerned, I do think that some arrangement to indemnify individual arbitrators in the event of litigation is necessary. The precise form such an indemnity should take is, of course, open to discussion—and is, in fact, the topic of ongoing discussions between the Committee and the WMF—but, at a minimum, I think it should provide for a defense against the possibility of default judgments in jurisdictions where the arbitrators cannot easily mount a defense on their own. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from NuclearWarfare[edit]

  1. In my 2010 voting guide, I highlighted several quotes by other editors. Please select two from "On Administration" and state why you agree or disagree with them. If you agree, please describe how you feel you would help make Wikipedia a better place with respect to the sentiments stated in those quotes. If you disagree, please elaborate.
    I tend to find myself in agreement with the substance of both Heimstern's and Moreschi's comments; as I've mentioned elsewhere on this page, the Committee has failed to effectively address "civil POV-pushing" in both nationalist and non-nationalist arenas. Having said that, I'm not convinced that there's anything the Committee can do on its own to address the problem; the fundamental limitation is not that the arbitration process can't deal with NPOV violations as severely as it does with any conduct matter, but rather that the Committee is unwilling to do so in any significant way for fear of a community backlash. The message we've consistently gotten as arbitrators is that the bulk of the community wants us to stay well away from adjudicating disputes that revolve primarily around content policies rather than conduct ones; it's ultimately up to the community to send the Committee a different message if it desires to do so. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Do you believe that the policy on involved administrators using the admin tools should ever be relaxed to any extent? Here are some general scenarios to work with; feel free to use none, some, all of these (as well as others if you wish): In topic areas under community general sanctions or arbitration discretionary sanctions; in such a topic area but only on underwatched pages; when attracting the attention of other uninvolved editors or administrators has proved fruitless? Please elaborate.
    Generally speaking, I believe that the policy on administrator involvement should not be relaxed except in genuine emergencies; the constraints it imposes are not so onerous that a reasonable administrator would be unable to comply with them without undue difficulty. That the policy not be relaxed is especially important when dealing with discretionary sanctions and the like; the editors involved are likely to already be on edge, and the addition of claims of undue involvement on the part of enforcing administrators to this volatile mix is almost certain to produce additional conflicts rather than resolving existing ones. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wikipedia:No legal threats spends a fair amount of time talking about legal threats, as one might expect. Interestingly, there is little in it about actual legal action. If editor A sues editor B over a matter that began primarily as a dispute on Wikipedia, what should be done onwiki? Should the two editors be interaction-banned? Should it be forbidden for either editor to mention the lawsuit? Should either of the editors be blocked? What, if any, should the role of the Arbitration Committee or the Wikimedia Foundation be?
    Legal threats are prohibited not because threatening legal action is "bad" per se, but rather because doing so on Wikipedia serves no constructive purpose and creates an unwelcoming and intimidating atmosphere for other contributors; the prohibition, in other words, is merely on making the threats on Wikipedia rather than on making them at all. Actual legal action, on the other hand, must by definition take place off-wiki; so long as discussion of the action is kept off-wiki, there is no element of intimidation as far as other contributors are concerned.

    As for the propriety of legal action per se, it's worth keeping in mind that the person initiating such action may be the victim rather than the perpetrator; there have indeed been cases where victims of harassment have been forced to turn to legal action, and where such legal action has successfully resulted in the cessation of such harassment. It would not be appropriate, in my opinion, to penalize someone merely for initiating legal action, absent any evaluation of whether such action was justified; and we are obviously in no position to determine whether that happens to be the case.

    Aside from all this, of course, is the purely pragmatic concern that sanctioning editors who are actively engaged in litigation risks having the sanctioning editor(s) made party to the litigation. Absent any sort of indemnification agreement, it is infeasible for the Committee to assume that risk on its own; any such sanctions must therefore be the province of the Wikimedia Foundation, which has the requisite legal resources to deal with any adverse consequences. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Sven Manguard[edit]

Looking over ArbCom cases from the past few years, it is clear to me that many times, editors involved in the dispute being heard in a particular case use the Workshop page as a platform to continue their disputes. These Workshop posts tend to take the form of 'finding of facts that the people on the other side of the dispute have committed heinous acts, heavy sanctions for the people on the other side of the dispute, and people on my side of the dispute get off without even a warning' (it's usually less transparent than that, but barely).

  1. Do you agree with my above conclusion, in part or in full, or not at all? Please explain your reasoning.
    Your conclusion is entirely correct; this sort of behavior has definitely been commonplace for at least as long as I've served on the Committee, and, as I recall from my discussions with Fred Bauder, it likely dates back to the time when the workshop pages were first introduced. In particular, the symptoms you note tend to especially widespread in cases that involve nationalist disputes—most likely because of the preexisting tendency in such disputes for editors in particular factions to seek sanctions en bloc on editors in opposing factions—as well as cases that involve a high percentage of first-time arbitration participants, who have presumably not yet discovered the dangers of engaging in such a display. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If you believe that problematic activity occurs in the Workshop pages, (even if you don't agree with my statement), what solutions would you propose?
    There have traditionally been two schools of thought among arbitrators as regards the workshop pages.

    One school—composed, in large part, of those arbitrators who desire to use the workshop for drafting their own proposals, and who therefore would prefer a calmer atmosphere to prevail there—has viewed workshop misconduct as something to be actively suppressed by the clerks, or by the Committee itself. In practice, this has rarely been successful; with the limited availability of clerks—and, at times, their unwillingness to confront parties directly (often for good reason)—and the general tendency of the arbitrators to remain at arms' length from the workshop, the typical result has been nothing more substantive than the occasional public warning. In only a few cases—typically those when the parties' conduct became truly egregious, or when private information was being posted—has the Committee taken substantive steps to curb the parties' behavior.

    The other school, meanwhile, has argued that the conflict on the workshop is largely unavoidable—if only because, were it prohibited there, it would simply move to the case talk pages, as it commonly does once a proposed decision is posted—and that it may indeed be useful to allow it, as it provides an opportunity to quickly identify the parties not interested in compromise or constructive discussion and not able to restrain their own behavior. Indeed, editors who have continued to pursue the dispute on the arbitration pages themselves (and this includes not only the workshop, although most of the obvious misconduct takes place there, but also the talk pages, and even the evidence submissions) have often received more severe sanctions than those imposed on editors who have conducted themselves with more self-control.

    Going forward, I think the real solution would be a fundamental change in the way workshops are run, moving them away from a free-for-all where anyone can simply post whatever proposals they feel inclined to make and towards a more structured model of questioning and discussion closely directed and supervised by the arbitrators themselves. Such an approach is becoming more feasible as the number of cases open at any point continues to decline; but the limiting factor, in my opinion, will be the availability of a sufficiently large and active corps of clerks who can be tasked with keeping conduct under some measure of control. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Russavia[edit]

There is a still open RfC at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Arbcom-unblocked_editors. As evidenced at this request, there are numerous admins and editors who have serious doubts over the Committee's unblocking of what is suspected, with a high level of good faith and WP:DUCK evidence, to be a banned disruptive sockpuppet. Do you think it is appropriate that after nearly a month and a half:

  1. the community is still none the wiser as to what exactly lead this sockpuppet to be unblocked? Your answer to this question is important, as the Committee has not indicated that there were any privacy concerns requiring this unblock to have been dealt with in secret.
  2. of being asked to identify themselves, those responsible for approving the unblock have still yet to do so, let alone follow a Committee members suggestion a month ago that those responsible for the unblock should be commenting?
  3. there is still no clear answer as to why an editor is told by the Committee that future concerns in relation to the editor should be taken to the community, with a heads up to the Committee (I still have the email from 24 September as evidence of this), whilst the clarification request is indicating that the Committee will deal with all future issues in relation to this editor? Despite the email from 24 September saying that the editor in question is not under any "protection" from the Committee, once could reasonably assume that this is the case, or...
  4. the Committee refuses to explicitly acknowledge that it may have erred in this case, and given lack of Committee response turn it back to the Community to deal with?

The last question is especially important as there are numerous uninvolved admins and admins who have previously dealt with the user in question, who are too "afraid" of going over the Committee's head, even in the face of evidence; if one assumes ownership of a problem as the current Committee has, then surely the current Committee must also assume ownership of their actual ownership of the problem possibly being part of said problem. If one looks at the answers thus far given at the request from arbiters closely, one can see that there seems to be a theme amongst arbs to suggest that the Community block the editor for other current issues; all the while the Committee avoids answering Community concerns at the actual clarification request. However, the other issues have only strengthened the opinion of sockpuppetry amongst other members of the Community.

As an arbiter who is seeking re-election, I would also request a response to the following:

  1. did you play a role in the unblocking in this particular case? If so, please explain your role, and whether you involved or not in the unblock, were you in favour of the unblock in subsequent discussions?
  2. depending on the outcome of that clarification request, and of course your re-election bid, if re-elected what will you do as an individual arbiter to prevent such things from occurring in the future? that is, of course, apart from permabanning me or banning me from requesting that the Committee take responsibility for its actions :)
  3. absent the declared issue of privacy concerns, do you think that BASC should publish all of its decisions with a clear rationale on wiki for Community review?
  4. how important do you think it is that editors should willingly admit when an error is made, fix it, and then move on?

Questions from Hawkeye7[edit]

  1. Given the overarching importance of the Wikimedia chapters to the work of the WMF and the Wikipedia in general, could you tell us more about your involvement with your local chapter, what projects you have been involved with in your chapter, and what you believe the major accomplishments of your chapter have been? Would you also care to say a few words about how you dealt with an editor who had been blocked by Arbcom for sock puppetry, copyright violations, harassment and disruptive editing, and yet was still elected by your chapter?
    I was one of the founding members of Wikimedia DC, and have been serving as the chapter's Secretary since May. In that capacity, my main focus has been the legal and administrative aspects of the chapter's activities; I've been responsible for producing agendas and meeting minutes, processing membership applications and distributing notices to members and committees, preparing administrative documents and government filings, and otherwise ensuring that the chapter's obligations as an incorporated entity were met and that nothing important fell through the cracks. I also play an active role in the event and program planning done by our Board of Directors, as well as participating in many of our ongoing outreach programs.

    As a chapter, our main focus over the past few months has been the planning for the Wikimania 2012 conference; as Wikimania is our largest event (in terms of both participation and budget) for the coming year, ensuring its success has understandably been foremost on our minds. At the same time, we've felt it was important not to neglect ongoing outreach and collaboration programs; we are involved in a number of successful GLAM programs in the Washington area (including programs with NARA and the Smithsonian), as well as the pilot LibraryLab program with the DC public library system.

    As for the unfortunate situation you refer to in your last sentence, it's important to note that such scenarios are difficult to avoid when an organization is young and when the pool of volunteers available to fill particular positions is small; for example, our Board election had only six candidates for seven seats, leading to every candidate being automatically elected. Having said that, we are looking at potential ways to prevent a reoccurrence of this scenario as we proceed with our planned rewrite of our corporate bylaws. As far as the specific ramifications of this particular incident are concerned, however, all I can say at this point is that the individual in question has resigned from the positions he previously held with the chapter. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  2. Given the purpose of the Wikipedia is the creation of content, I notice that only 13% of your edits have been to the main space, and that the majority of that dates back to 2007 or earlier, squarely placing you in the category of a semi-retired editor. This obviously puts you at a grave disadvantage compared to some other candidates (and editors) who have made more substantial contributions, especially at a time when there is considerable criticism of arbs (and admins in general) who only do administrative functions and are viewed as out of touch with the issues being dealt with by the editors. What articles do you intend to be working on over the next few months?
    While I agree with the thrust of your point as regards criticism of arbitrators—arbitrators, as a rule, tend to contribute less to content while they serve on the Committee—I don't entirely agree with your characterization of my own editing. Evaluating whether someone is "semi-retired" purely on the basis of editing volume is a somewhat flawed approach; while I've made fewer edits in the past few years than I used to when I first joined Wikipedia—although, to be fair, many of those were manual category changes of the sort now done by bots—I have continued to edit regularly and remain closely involved with the editorial community. Further, while percentage of edits to the main space is an interesting (and sometimes useful) statistic, it is not the only way to evaluate contributions—and, indeed, may not be particularly meaningful when used to evaluate an editor's understanding of content creation. Consider, for example, than an editor who does nothing but vandalism reversion would have a high percentage of edits to the mainspace—but little understanding of anything beyond vandal-fighting.

    As far as my own editing is concerned, while I wouldn't presume to claim to be a top content editor—there are many Wikipedians with far more impressive article writing credentials than my own—I do think that my article work has been more than sufficient to grant me the necessary understanding of the issues involved.. It's worth noting, for example, that I've written more featured articles than most of the other candidates in this election.

    To return to your original question, however, my short-term plans are to finally finish Battle of Ravenna (1512) (on which I've been working, on and off, for several years) and bring it to featured article status. Beyond that, I'll probably begin work on another article about the Italian Wars; my initial inclination would be to go with either Italian War of 1536–1538 or Siege of Florence (1529–1530), but I haven't really made a decision at this point. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Thryduulf (talk)[edit]

  1. Are there any topic areas from which you will (almost) always recuse? If so please list them.
    As a general rule, my recusals have traditionally been related to the presence of particular editors as parties to a case rather than to the subject matter of the dispute. While I would recuse from disputes having to do with individual articles to which I had significantly contributed, I don't believe that there are any particular topic areas from which I would need to recuse as a matter of principle. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If a party or observer to a case request asks you to recuse on a case before you have opined (beyond "waiting for (more) statements" with no indication of leaning), how will you respond?
    I would consider the request in the same manner as I consider any other request for recusal: by examining the stated reasons for the request and determining whether they reflected legitimate grounds for my recusal. The timing of a recusal request is not, in my opinion, a factor of significance, with the obvious exception of requests made after one has voted on a proposed decision. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. If a party or observer to a case request asks you to recuse on a case after you have indicated your support, opposition or leanings, how will you respond?
    As above, I would respond to such a request no differently from how I would to a request made at any other time. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. What are you feelings regarding a sitting arbitrator being a party to a case? Is there a conflict of interest? Does the level of their involvement in the events leading up to the case matter?
    Obviously, a sitting arbitrator is obliged to recuse from a case to which he is a party; beyond that, I don't believe that there is any substantive conflict of interest. The Committee has established various mechanisms to segregate arbitrators who find themselves in such a scenario from any discussion of the case in question—indeed, those same mechanisms are commonly used when arbitrators are recused for other reasons—and, despite what one might think, arbitrators are not any more sympathetic towards other arbitrators than they are towards anyone else. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. If you find yourself in the above situation, how will you ensure there is no conflict of interest?
    I have found myself party to a case while serving on the Committee; as I mention above, I was sequestered from the Committee's discussions on the matter, and submitted evidence no differently from any other party. As far as I'm aware, there have not been any concerns voiced regarding my role in these cases. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in lower-level dispute resolution during their term? If so, why?
    As a general rule, sitting arbitrators should not deliberately seek to take part in lower-level dispute resolution, as doing so typically results in a need to recuse on any case stemming from the dispute. This is obviously not an absolute rule—if an arbitrator happens to find themselves in a dispute, they're obviously entitled to participate in its resolution, and the occasional recusal resulting from such circumstances is not problematic—but arbitrators should avoid participating in disputes to such an extent that their subsequent recusals cause them to be inactive for a large portion of the Committee's business. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Should a sitting arbitrator refrain from getting involved in policy discussions during their term? If so, why?
    Insofar as most policy discussions do not result in arbitration cases, I see no reason why an arbitrator should not participate in particular discussions that interest them. Insofar as arbitrators continue to pursue other editing interests during their service on the Committee, it's perfectly reasonable for them to remain active in discussions that affect their editing in those areas. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. In what circumstances can incivility be excused?
    As I mentioned in response to Rschen7754's question #6, provocation can serve as a mitigating factor when considering an editor's misconduct; when a discussion gets heated, intemperate comments can be made even by otherwise well-behaved editors, and this is forgivable to some degree. Having said that, such factors apply primarily to occasional, "heat of the moment" incivility; deliberate and habitual attacks on other editors are not excused merely because the editor making them is perpetually involved in heated discussions. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Joe Gazz84[edit]

I would like to apologize for the late questions, I've only just gotten the time to write them. If you see a question that you've already answered or one that is similar, please proceed to answer it, you may think of a new way to explain your idea/answer. Please answer all of these questions, they will weigh in heavily when I vote.

  1. Can you please elaborate on what you answered above as to what needs changing? Why does that need changing? Why would that benefit the community and the committee?
    In broad terms, delegating particular tasks to subsidiary bodies—whether composed entirely of arbitrators or partially elected directly from the community—benefits the committee by reducing workload and the community by improving response times and minimizing the risk that requests would fall through the cracks or be caught up in lengthy backlogs. Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Given that the committee doesn't create policy but only enforces policy set-forth by the community, do you believe it would be allowed or acceptable for the committee to set a policy if it sees a need for one?
    The new arbitration policy—which I spent the better part of a year helping to write—is quite explicit on this: the Committee does not set policy. Absent a groundswell among the community to amend the policy, I can't really see this changing. Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. An editor, who has been extremely helpful to the wiki and it's surrounding community (many good articles, helps clear backlogs, etc.) one day comes to ArbCom for breaking a rule, do you/would you discount the offense and let the user off with a "warning" not a full ban because they have a good history? Why or why not?
    As I noted in my answer to Rschen7754's question #3, someone who has demonstrated a dedication to the project's mission would be cut more slack, particularly over a minor offense, than someone who had no history of positive contributions. At the same time, each case is different; having such a history does not guarantee leniency any more so than not having one guarantees a harsh sanction. Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. How do you know what your limits are when dealing with a case? (No, I will not define "limits", please use your interpretation of what I am asking.)
    I've spent nearly five years deciding cases, and have yet to reach anything that I could term a limit when doing so. Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. If you could sum-up your experience here at Wikipedia, in one word, what would it be and why? (This question has more meaning to it than you think, I care more about the "Why" part though.)
    "Interesting", in the apocryphal "may you live in interesting times" sense. Wikipedia tends to be a chaotic enterprise by its very nature; the project survives, in large part, by carefully balancing on the edge of complete disarray without ever succumbing to it. Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,  JoeGazz  ♂  22:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Gimmetoo[edit]

  1. How should one identify when an arbitrator speaks as an individual rather than "officially"? How and when is it appropriate for an arbitrator to say what "the arbitration committee thinks"? Is it appropriate for an arbitrator to speak as an individual in a way that affects future arbitration?
    An arbitrator speaking about arbitration matters is, by definition, doing so in their official capacity. This doesn't necessarily mean, however, that they speak for the entire Committee; it should be kept in mind that the Committee reaches formal decisions by vote rather than consensus, and has no real concept of collective responsibility, so it's quite reasonable for an individual arbitrator to hold "official" opinions at odds with those of the other arbitrators.

    Generally speaking, arbitrators should only make formal statements on behalf of the Committee as a whole when a formal collective decision—which, in most cases, takes the form of a recorded vote—has previously taken place. In informal contexts, of course, arbitrators commonly communicate the results of informal consensus within the Committee using terms such as "the Committee thinks"; absent a formal announcement, such comments should be regarded as the individual arbitrator's evaluation of Committee consensus—they are subject to be amended following additional discussion. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Newyorkbrad[edit]

  1. Please respond to NuclearWarfare's comments about your candidacy (many of which I disagree with) in his voter guide.
    Many of NuclearWarfare's comments refer to leaked content from the arbitrators' mailing list; considering that my contributions to that list span thousands of posts across more than four years of participation, it's a bit difficult for me to address the concerns raised without knowing which posts might have prompted them. Having said that, I will try to comment on the two major themes called out in NuclearWarfare's analysis:

    The assertion that I am "quick to jump to conclusions" is presumably based on some of the opinions I expressed in response to various points brought up on the mailing list. It is important to note that the list was primarily used as a forum for brainstorming and informal discussion among the arbitrators, and that the comments made there were by definition preliminary ones, intended for collective discussion and evaluation rather than as an arbitrator's final word on a matter. Indeed, in many cases, my initial view of a situation was very different from the stance I would ultimately take on it, because my colleagues would point out flaws in my analysis that I myself had overlooked. I don't think that the liberal sharing of ideas among the arbitrators was a bad thing, nor that having us refrain from commenting until we had completed an exhaustive evaluation on our own would have led to better decisions on the part of the Committee.

    As for being "more interested in dealing with wiki-political issues than actual tangible harms": the purpose of the arbitration process is not only—and, in some ways, not even primarily—to prevent harm to specific editors per se, but rather to resolve disputes which the community has been unable to resolve. For many of the matters brought before us, effectively resolving the underlying dispute requires more than simply devising the correct solution; we must also convince the community that said solution is the correct one (or at least a reasonable one). The issues of how statements should to be framed to minimize the potential for confusion and "drama", of which potential remedies might be acceptable or not acceptable to the community, of how to ensure that the arbitration process is not only fair but seen to be fair—all of these questions can be rightly called "wiki-political", but answering them is inherent in an arbitrator's duties.

    The other concern raised by NuclearWarfare is my role in the creation of the Advisory Council on Project Development, which I described in more detail in my answers to general question #19 and individual question #1 during the 2009 election. Indeed, the formation of the ACPD was an error in judgment, for which I was in large part responsible; my acknowledgment of that was, in fact, the reason why I resigned from the Committee at that time. At this point, however, I think I can confidently say that I learned my lesson in 2009, and have taken great care to avoid similar mistakes in the two years since my re-election. Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question from IronDuke[edit]

Have you ever, as a sitting arb, had private communication (IRC, email, etc) with a potential or actual litigant in an Arb case advising them as to what action to take to strengthen their case, construed broadly?

Question from Martinevans123[edit]

If an editor creates multiple accounts to edit articles in different subject areas, not realising that this is in breach of WP:SOCK, how should he or she be dealt with? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About six hours left for voting? Is my question worthy of your attention? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011/Candidates/Kirill_Lokshin&oldid=460250546"