User talk:Kirill Lokshin

Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) and add comments on a new topic in a new section. I will respond on this talk page unless you request otherwise. Questions, requests, criticism, and any other comments are always welcome!

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

• Op-ed: Walled gardens of corruption

• Traffic report: Reality is for losers

• Featured content: This Week's Featured Content

• Gallery: Winners of Wiki Loves Monuments 2015 in Pakistan

• Arbitration report: Warning: Contains GMOs

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• In the media: Jailed Saudi blogger wins award; PR editing and Wiki-embarassment; Pakistan's third-richest person?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXV, October 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Anotherclown and Sturmvogel 66 on war in the air and at sea Review essay: Auntieruth55 on the French Revolutionary Wars Op-ed: TomStar81 on the entry of Bulgaria in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

• Op-ed: WikiConference USA 2015: built on good faith

• WikiConference report: US gathering sees speeches from Andrew Lih, AfroCrowd, and the Archivist of the United States

• Editorial: Why the news media needs a Wikipedian in residence

• News and notes: 2015–2016 Q1 fundraising update sparks mailing list debate

• Traffic report: Screens, Sport, Reddit, and Death

• Featured content: A fistful of dollars

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Blog: Third Wikimedia Spain conference takes place in Madrid

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

History of South Africa

An IP has been adding a work by Stan Winer, South Africa and the Politics of Risk,[1] to the Further Reading list of History of South Africa. Considering your participation in World War II Arbcom case back in 2010,[2], I thought you might wish to be informed. Edward321 (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Mistake in diffs

I just wanted to point out that both diffs given in this post have the same link. I think you meant for two links. HighInBC 20:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@HighInBC: Ah, good catch. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

arbcom enforcement

The enforcement provisions of GGTF clearly state, "An uninvolved admin may remove any comments that breach this remedy, and impose blocks as necessary " (emphasis mine). You've made a determination a topic ban has taken place [3] but have failed to remove the comments. Lacking such removal its hard to see how blocking Eric could be considered "necessary." Please remove the comments from Wale's talk page as you see fit and reverse your inappropriate block; the drama caused by casting him in the role of martyr will greatly exceed any benefit to the project such a block will generate. You recused yourself from the Civility Enforcement case -- do you see that as consistent with the requirement of "An uninvolved admin"? NE Ent 02:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

My interpretation of the enforcement provisions differs from yours. In addition to the wording you mention, the amended topic ban clause references the standard procedure for enforcement of restrictions; consequently, my opinion is that the standard provisions for imposing blocks apply independently of the authorization to remove breaching comments, and that I may choose to not remove the comments when enforcing the remedy. If you feel strongly that I am required to remove the comments, you are very welcome to ask the Arbitration Committee for a clarification on the matter; if they determine that your interpretation of the remedy is the correct one, I will of course comply.

My recusal in the Civility enforcement case was due to a matter entirely unrelated to Eric's participation there, and is therefore not relevant to the present matter.

With regard to your request that I reverse the block, I must unfortunately decline to do so. This is not Eric's first (or second) block for breaching this particular remedy, and neither warnings nor shorter blocks have managed to elicit compliance with his restriction. We therefore have no choice but to proceed with longer blocks, in the hopes that Eric will find following the rules less unpleasant than spending extended periods of time blocked. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Not that you will listen, but the block is simply overkill here when a warning would have made more sense. Given the totality of the discussion, and the disruption caused by Eric in that discussion (zero), and that he was mentioned FIRST, going for a month long block is simply out of per-portion to the problem. Had he started the discussion or became a problem, then I would have agreed, but I'm asking you to reconsider. The "involved" issue aside, it just isn't a good use of the block button. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see my response to NE Ent above. Given the prior history of non-compliance with this particular restriction, I believe that a month-long block is the appropriate next step. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Given this was such a borderline infraction, is there any particular reason it wasn't taken to AE to get input from other admin? Again, if he was belligerent, I would have agreed with the block, but this is such a slight case, unusual compared to his other blocks, that it begs for some discretion. Blocking him longer for what appears to be such a minor infraction looks bad, to be frank, or at best, mindlessly bureaucratic. Like a block simply because we can, without regard to circumstances. Frankly, I'm more concerned with prose and humans than rules, but I simply don't see such a huge violation that AE should be ignored. Yes, AE isn't required, but don't you want input from other admin or is there something I'm missing here? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

As you yourself point out, AE isn't required. I think I have sufficient experience with arbitration remedies to be able to deal with such a clear-cut violation of a bright-line restriction without assistance from other administrators. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't see how the term "borderline" could apply. Any reasonable reading of the diffs shows that there were clear violations of the topic ban. Nothing borderline about it. HighInBC 03:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thank goodness that at least you're no longer part of ArbCom. Your judgement is awful. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• It is very rare for me to question another Wikipedian's judgement but I have to question your judgement over the block on Eric Corbett. How about doing the right thing and unblocking him?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• This same exact thing was said towards the last two admin who blocked Eric for violating his topic ban. Please stop blasting Kirill for doing his job as an admin by enforcing something, and focus instead on what caused all of this in the first place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Just what did cause it? Unfounded allegations against Eric, and the shameful accusation that he was an admin here, then a pretty dire attempt to goad him into a response somewhere that gave an excuse for a block. There was nothing beneficial to the WP project about that, it was simple hounding. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• My point is that this isn't an admin blocking issue, it is something that needs to be taken up at arbcom. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• So an editor gets ripped a new one, in a thread full of false accusations prompted by an article full of half-truths and whole errors, and isn't allowed to defend themself. Great work: your dogmatic interpretation of what an admin ought to do will serve Wikipedia's women well. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Yo, Drmies. We go back a long time. Regardless of your opinion on the block, Kirill is one of the Good Admins© on the site. Let's not denigrate him. IMHO it was a clear violation of the topic ban. This isn't a good situation for anyone, but if the topic ban's line shouldn't be drawn here, where should it be? We're on a slippery slope. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Don't confuse sarcasm with denigration, Ed. If anyone was denigrated it was Eric, in the press and on Jimbo's talk page. Maybe you can block the editor who called him a misogynistic scourge--that should be enough of a personal attack to warrant a block. That's where the slippery slope is, though that's an understatement. But that's enough out of me. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Or how about, "the best way to not get blocked over your ArbCom restrictions is to not break them"? Stop coddling and protecting EC like he's a 14-year-old and maybe, just maybe he'll stop acting like one. RO^(talk) 17:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I've never knowingly encountered Kirill before – but I have now 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This is my sad observation that long-time editors got burned off and cannot or would not control their temper (like, "I don't give a shit what you think about me"). Especially in the situation like this. I see it as a painful symptom of wikipediholism. Therefore I would view this block of EC not a punishment, but a "involuntary retreat" to cool down and realize that Wikipedia is not. I give my condolences to EC and express a deep sorrow about what happened. Unfortunately Wikipedia do not have strong mechanisms of reward while quite apt at punishment. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You know, there are times when IAR can apply. This was one. I say, reduce the length of the block to a week and remind him that the restrictions include defending himself against false, misleading and even inaccurate accusations. When someone is mentioned in a magazine of national circulation in the USA, but with false accusations (and wrongly being described as an admin, when, in fact Corbett is emphatically not an admin), then drama erupts - complete with exaggerated and outright false accusations, it would take someone superhuman to not respond. This may have been a "bright line" breach, but really, it wasn't even close to the most obnoxious thing Corbett has ever done; he was remarkably restrained, actually, especially for him and considering the gravity of what was done to him in the Atlantic hatchet job. Montanabw^(talk) 18:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

EC doesn't need yet another reminder; he knew what he was doing. Here's all the proof you need of that: ([4]). RO^(talk) 18:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You are going after the horse here, not the rider steering it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Kirill, letting you know that I am about to unblock Eric Corbett. Having read the Atlantic piece with alarm - and tried in vain to get through moderation to post a comment noting its inaccuracies - I have to agree with the above arguments. The Arbitration Committee's sanction muzzling Eric has proven itself unfair and counterproductive to the encyclopedia. I am fully aware that this will probably trigger my desysoping. I believe those who supported my RfA did so because they judged I would use the tools for the benefit of the project. This is my implementing that judgement. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)