Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kirill Lokshin

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC).

---

• Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Statement of the dispute

Cause of concern

I've been a member of the Arbitration Committee for about a year and a half now, and have been quite active in arbitration work during that time.

Recently, a number of editors have expressed significant concern regarding my conduct as an arbitrator. Some aspects of this are presumably related to recent matters (such as the Footnoted quotes case and the Geogre-William M. Connolley case); but, given the vehemence of some of the criticism, I believe that these concerns are not limited in scope to one or a few cases, and may indicate more fundamental problems with what I've been doing.

Obviously, I'm not the best person to judge whether my conduct has somehow been unacceptable, as I have a certain bias in the matter. I believe that I've always attempted to act in the interests of the project as best I could; but others appear to disagree.

Desired outcome

I would greatly appreciate any feedback that other editors might wish to offer regarding my actions on Wikipedia. I expect that most, if not all, of the comments will relate to my work on the Arbitration Committee—what I do outside of that doesn't seem to be particularly controversial—but, if anyone does have concerns regarding my other activities, please don't hesitate to bring them up.

(On a procedural note, I apologize for the admittedly unorthodox use of RFC/U here, and beg the community's indulgence in the matter; there simply does not appear to be any other functioning venue for obtaining outside feedback regarding my actions.)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

1. Kirill ^(prof) 01:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
2. John Carter (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC) - Seems a reasonable request, and I can vouch that there has been some recent questioning of the conduct of the above editor, although that is not saying that I myself agree with those remarks.

Questions

Any users may post questions in this section.

Q. It is to be understood that no one is perfect, and that even those who try particularly hard to ensure that they don't make mistakes will at times do things they later regret. Are they any particular actions relating to ArbCom that you have performed which you have later regretted, and how would you respond were similar situations to arise again? John Carter (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A. Among my more regrettable mistakes, in my view, was the manner in which I proposed one of the findings in the Matthew Hoffman case; I had neglected to offer the proposal in the case workshop, and instead placed it for voting immediately upon drafting it. This was fairly typical for me at the time—the arbitration process had been subject to heavy delays through the latter part of 2007, and I would normally try to speed things up by bypassing the workshop—but in this case, the result was quite unfortunate. A number of editors had significant misgivings regarding the accuracy of what I had proposed—which became coupled with existing concerns that voting had been occurring too rapidly in that case—and I must bear a large part of the blame for the resulting unpleasantness.

Mostly as a result of that case, I've since made an effort to avoid drafting findings directly into a proposed decision, and have been trying instead to present draft decisions at the workshop stage, where they can be more open to outside comment. Kirill ^(prof) 03:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Question on IRC authority

Q. Could you say a few words about the tensions between this recent statement of yours, and this announcement of Jimbo's? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 11:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)I feel obliged to add my voice to the chorus of general support of Kirill here - I thing the community has set the arb.s up to fail in many ways, and maybe this is an unfortunate consequence... I dunno... either ways, it's to Kirill's credit that he's chosen this approach... :-)

A. Based on discussion that took place after Jimmy's initial announcement, it's my understanding that the IRC group contacts do not acknowledge that any formal authority over their actions rests with the Committee; and that anything that happens on or with IRC is ultimately subject to their approval rather than ours. The practical aspects of the matter have become somewhat blurred, as a number of arbitrators have taken positions within the IRC chanop hierarchy; but, as far as I know, the Committee as a body can still only suggest rather than instruct.Kirill ^(prof) 12:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Q. Sorry to put you on the spot, Kirill - but does that mean that Jimbo has been usurped by the group contacts on matters IRC? Presumably Jimbo could enforce an 'on wiki' action such as removing someone from arbcom or desysoping should a group contact refuse to honour an arbcom decision? - Privatemusings (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)and jeez.. I feel obliged again to say that unfortunately I have no real grasp of the players or issues involved here, other than noting that the lack of clarity has caused all sorts of disruption... all answers are appreciated!

A. To be quite honest, I'm not sure what Jimmy's precise role vis-à-vis the group contacts was, historically. I'm vaguely aware that there's a complicated history here having to do with Freenode, the WMF, and so forth; but you'd really need to ask someone like James to get the entire narrative.

As far as on-wiki actions: yes, we could presumably impose an on-wiki sanction in this way (even without Jimmy's participation); but, as a matter of principle, I'm uncomfortable with proceeding down a path where we try to force people to take off-wiki action by threatening them with on-wiki consequences. I suspect that such a system, if set up, would quickly become oriented towards silencing off-wiki criticism. Kirill ^(prof) 12:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Q. (final one on this from me! honest!) - Do you, as an individual arb, feel a bit hung out to dry on the whole IRC debacle? Whatever the historical context, if the group contacts do not acknowledge any formal authority 'on-wiki' aren't they also rather embarrassing Jimbo (who seems to have been mistaken about his own authority in this matter?) - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A. I don't particularly feel hung out to dry; people do have a legitimate reason to be upset with our handling of IRC matters. I do wish that certain people were a bit more willing to take my comments at face value, rather than assuming that I'm engaged in some nefarious plot; but I suppose that comes with the territory.

As far as questions regarding possible embarrassment to Jimmy are concerned, it's not really my place to comment. Kirill ^(prof) 00:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Q.Do you think that the IRC problem has been dealt with satisfactorily? To what extent has the idea of moving #admins IRC to another host which could be controlled by arbcom been explored? --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A. I don't think that the issues have been dealt with to my full satisfaction (although I must admit that, since I don't actually use IRC, my knowledge of the behavior there is doubtless somewhat colored by what others choose to report).

The creation of an alternative IRC channel has been brought up at several points; but, given the choice between a new venue with tight control and the old one without them, who would choose to use the new one? Certainly, I'd expect that anyone accustomed to misbehaving would simply stay put. This isn't to say that something like this couldn't be done; but I don't think anyone has put forward a good method for doing so that would produce something broadly workable. Kirill ^(prof) 00:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Q.In the recent Geogre-WMC case, what value did you put on the corrections, critique and context [1] provided by Carcharoth and others regarding your postings under the heading of "Giano's campaign". --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A. I made an effort to adjust the material fairly liberally in response to the received critique, even in cases where I was not fully convinced by the explanations provided; that's the reason why I wound up removing a number of items which had been questioned and tried to change the introductory wording to avoid some of the more disputed connotations. Having said that, many of the items I had originally proposed received either no specific comments at all, or no comment that would suggest that my original interpretation of the item was incorrect; so I believed that there was sufficient material remaining to warrant a formal finding. Kirill ^(prof) 00:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Q. Given how the OM case turned out, is there anything you would have done differently? What should have been done, overall, to avoid the conflicting messages that came out of that case? Do you agree that it shook the confidence of the community in ArbCom? ++Lar: t/c 17:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A. It's a bit difficult to say whether I would have acted differently, even in retrospect. There's a good argument to be made that it would have been better to wait and produce a joint statement from the Committee as a whole rather than simply making an independent announcement myself; certainly, that would have reduced the community's uncertainty in the matter. But, at the time, I was very concerned that, because FT2 had indicated his upcoming absence, the measures he had announced would already have been implemented by the time we could convene a full discussion; I'm not sure whether allowing that to happen would have been an acceptable price to pay for a smoother process.

As far as conflicting messages in general are concerned, the simple answer is that the Committee lacks any formal process to handle a scenario like this; our deliberations typically occur at a glacial pace, and there isn't any good method in place to make a decision in a matter of hours, particularly in a case where there's obvious differences of opinion within the Committee itself. Had we such a process, we could perhaps have issued a joint statement much more expediently.

And, obviously, I'm quite aware that the community's confidence has been shaken. Unfortunately, I'm not really sure of how best to restore it; other than a general desire for more openness on our part—which we can certainly try to work towards—there doesn't seem to be any general agreement within the community on what specific reforms are needed. Kirill ^(prof) 01:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Q. Sorry, this is very long winded, but it is something that concerns me greatly. Yesterday, for the first time ever I felt truly threatened, victimised and hated on Wikipedia - and the cause for this is traceable straight back to you - albeit, perhaps, unwittingly on your part. So forgetting, for the moment, our differences on other matters, as a direct and undisputed consequence of comments made by you, this thread [2] was begun yesterday by User:Ncmvocalist. I regard it as a shameful jumping of an unfired gun that Ncmvocalist had no right to be holding, let alone been handed. When he realised he was not receiving unanimous support he closed the thread with this comment [3]. In itself a personal attack on many who had posted.

• (1) How do you feel about that thread?
• (2) What is the reason no member of the Arbcom stepped into stop it?
• (3) Are such threads, prompted by Arbs' comments to be encouraged in the future?
• (4) Is this how you feel Administrators' noticeboard should be used?
• (5) Do you agree lesser souls than myself could have been driven off Wikipedia completely by such unhindered public hostility against them?
• (6) Was this seen by the Arbs to be the simple solution to whip up hate and get rid of problem users?
• (7) It is my view, that in future no editor (whatsoever - whatever the reason) should be subject to such a vindictive attack thread on the Administrators' noticeboard ever again, as a result of his/her enemies (what other word fits the bill?) taking their cue from an Arb's comment, do you agree? Giano (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A. That thread is not something that I would approve of or encourage—not only because it was quite premature if it was intended as a response to the proposed remedy in the current case, nor only because the administrators' noticeboard is, in general, a rather poor place for careful deliberation, but also because the discussion was basically doomed to become a shouting match from the start.

As for why nobody stopped it, I would guess that none of the online arbitrators were aware of it at the time. I certainly wasn't until well after the thread had been closed (indeed, I was simply offline for the bulk of the time it was unfolding). For that matter, as you can no doubt see from the voting, this remedy isn't something with which the other arbitrators agree; so I very much doubt that any of them were expecting something like this to take place, much less supportive of it.

As for questions #5 and #7: I apologize, but I'm going to be unpleasantly blunt here: while the thread is indeed sprinkled with far too many insults and attacks—most of which are quite unrelated to the topic, to boot—I see little, if anything, there that could be fairly compared to your own typical rhetoric. Your point about "unhindered public hostility" would carry a lot more weight, in my opinion, if you were not yourself at the forefront of that sort of thing; as it is, I find it difficult to reconcile your conviction that no editor should be the subject of such hostility with your apparent willingness to direct it against certain other editors. Kirill ^(prof) 01:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Kirill. For the record at least one Arb was very aware of the thread. I note you think it is quite OK to open a deliberate attack thread, in the hope of whipping up, mass hate on AN, and then close it with an insult to all, when it does not go the way one hopes. I for one, hope that does not become a regular occurence. No doubt the community will agree with me, rather then you, should the threads's founder ever hope to acheive any Wikipedia office. I also note, you feel, that I am not entitled to the same civility as others.Giano (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why you believe that I'm okay with the thread; I did say quite explicitly above that I didn't approve of or encourage it. But if that's how you want to interpret my comments, fine. Kirill ^(prof) 11:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Q. One final question, do you think it right, that wikipedia is policed from an external channel over which it claims to have no control or rights. Giano (talk) 09:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

A. No, I don't think it's right, or sensible, to have an arrangement like that. Kirill ^(prof) 11:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Q. Durova's question, part 1 FT2's announcement regarding Orangemarlin and other matters came as a surprise to the community; what was even more surprising was your initial public statement afterward. Since you were the first other arbitrator to follow up at all, and what you asserted was so different from his his words, it had the effect of raising the community response from serious concern to alarm. Although subsequent posts from both of you came closer together, your first declaration was irreconcilable with his. Quite a few members of the community trusted your word and began to condemn him; lack of clarification afterward has left a cloud over his reptuation. Is this cloud warranted? And if not, what amends are you making? Durova^Charge! 11:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A. I previously made a statement in the original AN thread regarding the blame I must share for letting the Orangemarlin matter unfold in the way it did.

Beyond that, I continue believe that my evaluation of the status of the various other (non-Orangemarlin-related) announcements was, broadly speaking, the correct one. In retrospect, the wording of my statement to that effect was likely unnecessarily provocative—I could have probably written something more nuanced, which would have made essentially the same point without sparking quite so much chaos—and the only defense I can offer in that regard is that I was more concerned with preventing their immediate implementation (as I mentioned in my reply to Lar's question above). Kirill ^(prof) 13:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Q. Durova's question, part 2 The Committee's official statement regarding that incident referred to miscommunication. Those of us who read these things carefully are far from satisfied. I--and perhaps others--would prefer a candid "lessons learned" analysis. How did communication break down so badly? To what degree do similar breakdowns affect regular case discussions? What corrective measures are being taken to prevent similar miscommunications in the future? What reforms from the community level would facilitate clearer communication? For example; some Wikipedians want to expand the number of arbitrators--would such a change hurt or help, and for what reasons? What safeguards would keep this train on its rails? Durova^Charge! 11:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A. As I see it, the main issue in the Orangemarlin matter was that silence was taken to mean assent in a situation where at least some of the other people involved did not expect it to be, or had a different opinion of what it would be assent to. This isn't really an issue in regular cases, since there is no presumption of silence possibly being assent there; all normal decisions are made by explicit voting.

It's my opinion, broadly speaking, that forcing the Committee to go through a formal vote (even a pro forma one) on all substantive Committee decisions would be the most straightforward way to ensure that incidents of this type did not reoccur. I'm not certain whether something like this is best set up as an internal procedural change on our part, or more formally as a mandate from the community; but I think it would simplify matters considerably.

Other reforms may or may not be helpful to resolving other issues, but I very much doubt that something like changing the size, structure, or makeup of the Committee would have any effect here. The problem we saw could equally occur in a group of three people and in a group of thirty. Kirill ^(prof) 13:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Q. Durova's question, part 3 In a successful request for comment, meaningful feedback leads to improved action. You raise the Matthew Hoffman case as an example where you erred and where the Committee in general handled things badly; a request for clarification is outstanding for that very case--you have not responded there; why aren't you remedying its flaws? Durova^Charge! 11:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A. An overly hasty response can be worse than no response at all (as you've pointed out); I had been holding off on making a statement pending examination of the old case material.

As for the case itself: flaws in the decision-making process—particularly flaws which are largely procedural in nature—do not necessarily mean that the end result is, in essence, wrong. While there were indeed problems with our handling of the case, I remain of the opinion that the outcome was substantially the appropriate one. Kirill ^(prof) 13:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Q. Durova's question, part 4 Observers complained that the voting phase in the Matthew Hoffman case opened far too swiftly before all its named parties had time to present evidence, yet your most recent case (Geogre-William M. Connolley) opened voting only a day and a half after the case opened on a holiday weekend, and before its named parties had time to present evidence. You were not the one who initiated that voting phase, and perhaps it is fair to suppose that recent experience may have made you a bit shy about open disagreement, but it wouldn't have been very difficult to have responded to the request for time. Two current arbitrators and one former arbitrator responded; their unanimous opinion was that volunteers' reputations built over years could and should be voted upon this way in nonemergency cases. Do you agree that this is the way to conduct arbitration? At what point do bad results and community feedback generate reform? Must the community redefine the Committee's mandate and implement new checks and balances, or will you reform yourselves? Durova^Charge! 11:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A. In all honesty, the discussion there seemed moot by the time I got around to looking at it, since all of the parties had consented to going ahead with the voting. It's not how I would do things, certainly, but it did not seem particularly useful to start yet another argument there when the outcome would not have any substantive impact, particularly as we were still dealing with the earlier situation at the time.

(This occasional problem is, incidentally, something that could easily be fixed by technical means: have the clerks create the proposed decision page as a protected blank one, and not put the template into place until a week after the case has opened. But that's neither here nor there.) Kirill ^(prof) 13:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Q.

A.

View by Ryan Postlethwaite

When Kirill first joined the committee, he quickly became one of the leading arbitrators and moved to the most active in creating proposed decisions in order to streamline the arbitration process. By being at the forefront of the committee by creating many of the proposed decisions, you open yourself up to far more critisism than other members. This is to be expected as you can't please every participant in the case. Some would argue that the footnoted quotes decision and the Geogre-WC decisions that Kirill proposed were wrong, but Kirill is one member of a committee and if the community disagrees with a decision that has been endorsed by the whole committee, it is unfair that Kirill should take the full force of the communities displeasure. One simple question remains - Is Kirill a good arbitrator? Absolutely. He's helped lead the committee through some dark times and the process is certainly a lot smoother than it was before he was appointed. He's very much open to discussion, and tries his hardest to look out for the community. Remember the recent Orangemarlin drama's where Kirill stood up in front of the community and said the decision was invalid? That's precisely the attitude we need in an arbitrator. Overall - Keep up the good work.

Clarification of a point on 17 July 2008 at 00.56 (UTC)

With regards to arbcom running smoother since Kirill joined, I actually meant that the process works better than it would do without him. If Kirill wasn't a member, I suspect the community would have even less confidence in the committee. In some respects, I think the committee are a lot more open than they once were, and it's in part thanks to Kirill for offering more explanation when asked and using the workshop. Obviously the OM debacle shook the community a lot, but Kirill was there to set the record straight, and was willing to do so despite knowing the problems it would cause - that takes a lot in my opinion. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Better than I could've said it (though I may try). Wizardman 01:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
3. John Carter (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC) - I'm not capable of addressing how the ArbCom was working before Kirill joined, because I wasn't around then. I do however agree that the committee has seemed to function reasonably well while I've observed it, and I personally have always ascribed that at least in significant part to Kirill's efforts.
4. Daniel (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Cla68 (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Kirill is seeking feedback, that's fine. I think he's a great wikian and arbitrator. I wish other arbs were as active as he is. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
7. I don't always agree with every position that Kirill takes on matters but he at least is willing to take input and listen carefully. He's also open to recall as an admin. Would that all our arbitrators were this open to input. I commend him for seeking this feedback and concur with this summary, except for the part about "smoother".... I think overall there is, regrettably, less confidence in arbcom now than there was, say, 2 years ago. ++Lar: t/c 17:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   Let me clarify this a bit. I think arbcom has made itself rather a tough row to hoe, but it's not primarily due to Kirill. Ryan said on my talk that things would be worse if Kirill were not there, and I am pretty sure he's right.... thanks Ryan for turning up and discussing this. ++Lar: t/c 05:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

8. Kelly ^hi! 18:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
9. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
10. We disagreed a few times but that doesn't mean I disrespect what he's been doing here. Kirill works for the project much more than most of us volunteers here. The important is that he does so in good faith. I envy his professionalism indeed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
11. To completely render usunder the old cliche "I do not care for what you say, but I shall defend with my life your right to say it" it is important that we value those who will speak when no other is prepared to (and that we contain our responses to that of the content and not of the speaker) and for that an other aspects of Kirill's ArbCom work we should be grateful for. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
12. While I don't have access to any of the "private" discussion places (and so have no idea what has gone on there except what has been revealed to the community), my personal experience has been that Kirill seems to be a well-meaning editor, open to discussion, who attempts to be fair. I think there are far worse ways to deem someone. I sincerely wish him well. - jc37 22:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
13. As with Lar and FayssalF, I've from time to time disagreed with things Kirill has said or done, but that simply goes with the territory; on the whole, I still believe that he is an upstanding arbitrator who in general acts with the interests of the project at heart, and who is reasonably responsive to criticism and debate (case in point: he opened this RfC). I don't believe nixing Kirill's input would improve either the community or the committee. His is an important voice. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
14. Kirill is one of the better Arbitrators. I commend him for his long-term record of good work. Yechiel (Shalom) 16:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
15. I think the fact that Krill formulates quite a lot of these proposed decisions does open him up to criticism, and while I, like many, don't agree with a few of things that ArbCom has recently done, I think that "making an example" of a single arbitrator would be unacceptable. Krill has done a fine job as an arbitrator, and as an individual, I see no real major concern. Steve Crossin (contact) 10:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
16. It is easy to criticize a tough job, keep up the good work. Chillum 17:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
17. No difficult job comes without criticism. Some may be justified but the good work Kirill has done far outweighs it. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
18. I have acknowledged the negative side of Kirill's actions below. However, RfCs can be overly negative: I endorse the sentiment of what Ryan has said, also: Kirill is, by and large, an excellent arbitrator, and an asset to the Committee. Anthøny 00:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
19. Full confidence and trust in Kirill. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

View by Wizardman

Kirill's a great arbitrator. Clearly the most active on cases making progress, and making sure that cases don't sit there and gather dust. Opening an unnecessary RfC only opens the green light to those that oppose you, which actually isn't needed in this case. To be blunt, this RfC serves no purpose as there is nothing to remedy.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Much like Ryan's above but I felt like commenting. Wizardman 01:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
3. An editor review might have been a little more orthodox, but when have Wikipedians ever been known for following the rules? L'Aquatique[review] 03:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

View by Privatemusings

Kirill is a credit to wikipedia, however the arbitration system is currently dysfunctional. What a good editor within a broken system should do is an almost impossible question - the key thing in this RfC in my view is to blame the system, not the person..... The system requires reform.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Isn't the system up for RfC or something? —Giggy 11:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Sarcasm. I also think there are some issues with Kirill which I hope to add to my section soon (unless someone beats me), but the core issue is definitely the Committee.
2. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

View by WJBscribe

When I started typing this view, it was not going to be nearly so long as it has turned out. I considered pruning it, but on reflection as Kirill has asked for feedback, I think it only fair to provide it fully.

One of the cases referred to above is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes. I expressed at the time my reservations with the special enforcement provisions of this case, which Kirill appears to have drafted (I was not conscious of this at the time). To me, this was a sweeping provision affecting all WP:BLPs in a case that got little attention from the community and where one would not expect such a provision. I think in the circumstances there should have been more notification that this remedy was being considered, though I don't think this was the responsibility of one Arbitrator any more than the others. I also expressed reservations as to the "any means necessary" elements of the remedy - I still consider them unwise and suspect that the drafting of the remedy will lead to trouble later. In my view the decision smacked slightly of desperation at the continuing stream of WP:BLP-related cases the Committee deals with. I regard this however as a difference of opinion only, time will tell as to who proves correct. I certainly agree that there was a need for the Committee to take the lead on WP:BLP enforcement, I just don't think this was an ideal way to go around it. But my opinion of Kirill as an Arbitrator was not adversely affected by his role in the case.

Recent events that did give me pause were those surrounding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin. Now is not the place to go into issues of the preparation of that case in itself and I have made clear my objections to such a totally secret case, where the subject was not aware of the case against him or able to respond to it, in correspondence with FT2. What is I think relevant is Kirill's statement on the matter. I my opinion this went too far and served to seriously undermine another Arbitrator in public. I can only comment to some extent on this as I am obviously not privy to what went on behind the scenes and the amount of discussion there was on the ArbCom list. However, I presume Kirill was aware there this was the source of some miscommunication or misunderstanding, rather than FT2 being on a frolic of his own. I think a less dramatic statement might have been appropriate, even deleting the page with a summary like "statement from the Committee to follow" might have been better for the Committee's collective standing with the community than: "these announcements have no authority or binding weight whatsoever". Concerns were voiced that Kirill disappeared from discussions for some hours. I think this response missed the point - given the effect of events was to undermine confidence in ArbCom, I think it was important that the Arbs be seen to be actively trying to resolve the matter. This being the case, I assume lessons have been learned. While I think the response was sub-optimal, that seems understandable as the situation was fairly novel.

I am aware of two issues with Kirill's participation in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley: his contributions to the workshop, and the proposed remedy remanding the decision to the community. Starting with the workshop issues, in my opinion some of the criticism surrounding this was misplaced. There have been complaints that Arbitrators don't make sufficient use of the workshop. This leads to the impression that, because Arbs aren't "showing their working", proposed decisions are arrived at out of thin air and don't obviously connect to the proceedings elsewhere. To then criticise an Arb who, through their contributions to the workshop, reveals their opinion on the relative conduct of the parties for bias and to ask them to recuse from the case creates a bit of a catch-22 situation. Damned if they use the workshop, damned if they don't. That said, if an Arbitrator is going to add to the workshop detailed evidence of problematic conduct by one party, I think they should apply the same scrutiny to the other parties. The problem in this instance came, in my opinion, from the view that Kirill was prosecuting a particular party to the case. His contributions to the workshop focused solely on Giano's questionable actions when I feel he should also have documented those of others. There are I believe those who have baited Giano and inflamed tensions and I think equal treatment requires such incidents to also be fully documented. I suspect Kirill was acting from the view that if there were to be action against Giano, there would need to be strong evidence for it, but I think neutrality was sacrificed because he ended his detailed conduct scrutiny with only one of the relevant parties. The net effect was to give the impression that he was "out to get" Giano.

Turning then to matter of the proposed remedy remanding the matter to the community, I confess I have difficulty understanding the rationale behind it. Perhaps it stemmed from simple frustration that the matter was, once again, before the committee. Nevertheless I think Thatcher put it well and succinctly on the talkpage: "Since the community has failed to come up with a satisfactory solution to the "Giano problem" (i.e. an approach that has broad consensus and avoids drama), the suggestion that Arbcom, "the final step in dispute resolution," would toss the issue back to the community is profoundly disfunctional". The Arbitration Committee exists to resolve problems that the community cannot, to shrug it's shoulders and pass the problem back is not acceptable. I am glad to see this proposal has enjoyed no further support and hope that Kirill will consider withdrawing it.

I wonder in conclusion whether the above decisions show a certain frustration after 18 months in the job. Both the "Footnoted quotes" and "Geogre-William M. Connolley" cases seem to show exasperation with the fact that these issues persist despite the Committee's efforts. In one case going for what I term the "nuclear solution" and the other wishing to wash his hands of it all together. I may be well off target but if I am not, I suggest taking a more relaxed approach when dealing with fairly perennial problems. The community may have demanding standards of Arbitrators, but it is not expecting magic. I think the tenor of comments so far show that the community continues to respect Kirill as an Arbitrator. There is no question in my mind that he is one of the hardest working, I simply worry that this may be starting to take it's toll.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. WJBscribe (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
2. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC) - especially the last paragraph.
3. 4th and 5th paragraphs (insufficient exposure to opine on others) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
4. I would agree with WJBscribe's first point, which deals with the making of policy in ArbCom cases, often in unlikely cases, without input from the community until it's a fait accompli. Another example that comes to mind is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings#Sockpuppetry, also proposed by Kirill, which states Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates. I have seen admins wanting to block on the basis of this - later, it turned out there are good reasons why this would be bad policy - reasons that likely would have come out in a wider debate. I'm sure everyone, especially Kirill, is acting in good faith - but sometimes it's not wise to make wide-ranging policy for everyone based on the limited circumstances of a single case. Kelly ^hi! 21:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
5. brenneman 23:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC) - I'd only add that I'm often confused by the good sense Kirill shows in "normal" discussion and the apparent randomness of some of the actions noted above. However, I fully support his "not in my name" announcement. - brenneman 23:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Carcharoth (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
7. With a particular eye toward the questions of rising frustration and burnout. Wouldn't be the first time the stress of arbcom got to someone. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
8. —Giggy 08:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
9. I agree with WJB's points on cases where I am familiar. Yechiel (Shalom) 16:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
10. Speaking as an ex-arbitrator, the tendency to favor the "nuclear option" grew as I was confronted, increasingly, by intractable cases where the parties were entirely focused on their own interest and the community felt obliged to take someone's part and couldn't look at the wider picture (when it took an interest at all). Hkelkar 2 comes to mind. I'm surprised my own conduct in that case has never received this level of scrutiny; comical language stripped away, Arbcom created a remedy which granted absolute carte blanche to administrators with no real provisions for oversight nor appeal. I'm grateful that Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) was the only person who ever applied it. You're left saying: "what would you have me do?" When there's no good answer, you inevitably start thinking about whether you could just ban somebody and be done with it, and whether the costs associated with the ban would be less than the perceived costs of that person remaining on the project. Mackensen (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
11. Endorse Will's view, although I would point out that it's up to Kirill to decide whether he has "burned out" or not, rather than the rest of us. Remember that a break is not beyond an arbitrator: a month or so out of action, Kirill, would, I imagine, be acceptable, especially in light of your history of excellent activity on the Committee. Otherwise, WJB puts it well, and I generally agree with his statement. Anthøny 00:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
12. A string of cases in which Arbs are trying to feel their collective way forward, and step in a couple piles of doodoo along the way. This is sometimes inevitable 'cause as Mackensen said above, "there are no good answers." Some of Kirill's actions were doodoo steps, as described above, and now he has to scrape a little of the stuff of his shoes. But the fundamentals remain sound: Kirill is a good Arb. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 01:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
13. A reasonable conclusion considering the events mentioned above, the last paragraph would have been sufficient to represent Will's view but I respect his expansion on thoughts. I do believe Kirill is a good arbitrator, even though I have limited interaction with the committee — this RfC may however go southwards if there are some underlying problems of which I am unaware. Nevertheless, the sentiment remains and I endorse Will's view to a full extent. Rudget 16:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
14. --Martintg (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

View by Redvers

I trust Kirill.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 21:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Kelly ^hi! 23:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
3. With the caveat that ("trust" == "can do no wrong") == FALSE ... We are none of us perfect, here or anywhere else, but the person to trust is the person who can admit of mistakes and who undertakes to fix their consequences. That is Kirill. ++Lar: t/c 16:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Kirill is one of my role models in the Wikipedia community, and while I understand that no man is perfect, I feel that he is probably one of the most fair, impartial, and patient contributors I've ever had the peasure of meeting. I trust him as well. bahamut0013♠♣ 17:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Trust, yes. Always agree with, no. Jehochman ^Talk 23:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Exactly the "view" I was thinking of creating myself. Consider this a vote of confidence. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Per Jehochman: I respect and trust, although do not always agree with, Kirill. Anthøny 15:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
8. I didn't even know this was here, and I apologise that I'm editing after it concluded, but I do trust Kirill and want that on the record, and I think it would be mean not to allow it to stand. So there. Hiding T 08:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

View by bahamut0013

Kirill's sincerity and transparency is what puts him above and beyond the norm. His bravery to say what needs to be said despite resistance and peer pressure reveals his positive character, but doing it while always being diplomatic, polite, and tolerant of opposing views and incivility is incredible. A patient, humble, and wise gentleman, I am surprised that an issue ever came up. I dare to say that those who would disagree are those who would impeach his character for thier own agendas. bahamut0013♠♣ 19:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

An unsolicited opinion from Carptrash

Well, I suppose that everything here is solicited, but still, It is a little strange to find myself posting here. I had no idea any of this was going on. Here is how/why I've ended up here at this place and time. I'm a sort of longish time, longish term editor with a bunch of my own wiki-issues, so when I was looking for another editor to ask for an answer to a sort of ethical/morals issues question, Kirill was one of two editors who came to mind - because of dealings I've had with him (her?) in the past and because I've crossed paths with him (her?) numerous times in that we frequent some of the same wiki-places. I would be surprised to discover that he has am idea who I am. So, without getting into my dilemma (which I shall post Kirill about) I can only say that . . . . .... I'm on his (her) side all the way. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

View by Martintg

As Ryan Postlethwaite stated above, Kirill has been at the forefront of creating many of the proposed decisions, which no doubt has been tremendously beneficial to the smooth running of the ArbCom process. However, there is a tendency to propose sweeping generalised remedies in cases that really only need sanctions against individuals for their behaviour. For example the proposal in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy for a Sourcing Adjudication Board that would have spanned all of Wikipedia, is case in point. Another is the proposal to delegate ArbCom powers via discretionary sanctions across all of Eastern Europe, broadly defined, (which Kirill just succeeded in getting passed on his third attempt), is another, which effectively suspends WP:DR policy in this area. Seems rather gratuitous to apply such draconian sanctions across such a broad area following minimal community input and no open discussion let alone clarification by ArbCom members. Shrug. This development of ever tightening control seems to be creeping right across Wikipedia.

As WJBscribe states, perhaps this may be borne out of a sense of "exasperation with the fact that these issues persist despite the Committee's efforts" and these broad sweeping remedies may be a reaction to this. However, arbitration policy does state "The Committee will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes", so we ought to have interpersonal remedies to suit. So rather than attempt to fix the problems of Wikipedia with a silver bullet hoping to fix all disputes for all time with sweeping generalised remedies, perhaps the solution is to reform and streamline the Arbitration process so cases are heard and dealt with more quickly without exasperation and burnout. As one ArbCom member stated to me a while back, it is difficult to read through pages and pages of threaded argument and counter argument in the evidence and workshop pages without "making one's head swim". Note there are professional arbitrators and judges that hear cases day in day out for their whole working careers without being burned out, this no doubt due to the process being more highly structured.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Martintg (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed solutions

This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute.  This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.  

More effort be focused on improving wikipedia's dispute resolution process

1) The community make a more focused attempt to take action to resolve a number of existing perceived problems with the existing dispute resolution process. The subject here and others have proposed options to revise the existing process, only to have discussion ultimately languish without resolution.

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Proposed. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Further, attention needs to be paid to how exactly we reach consensus for changes that are fairly fundamental. That seems to be where things founder sometimes, getting from "many see this as a good idea" to "this now has consensus". The wiki way is to just start doing what you think policy ought to be and see what happens. That works sometimes, but for certain things it's rather more problematic. ++Lar: t/c 16:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support. --Martintg (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Improvement in the structure of presenting cases to ArbCom

1) The presentation of evidence and argument needs a more structured approach, in order to make ArbCom's job easier in grasping the issues and formulating remedies, while reducing burnout. Perhaps the Wikimedia Foundation (or Jimbo Wales) could engage a consultant with expertise in arbitration to assist the Committee in finding the optimum structure for case presentation.

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Martintg (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Template

2)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Conclusion

This request for comment discussion holds that, by-and-large, Kirill's performance as an arbitrator is considered by the Community to be satisfactory. In the incidents highlighted in which Kirill could have conducted himself in a more suitable fashion, it is noted that: (1) the conduct in question, whilst not ideal, was not "a disaster"; (2) we hope Kirill will learn from these incidents, and use the lessons learned in the future. Wizardman 15:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)