User talk:Kirill Lokshin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hawkeye7 (talk | contribs) at 11:42, 29 October 2015 (→‎A barnstar for you!: new WikiLove message). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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!

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 [1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
      • I've never knowingly encountered Kirill before – but I have now 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
EC doesn't need yet another reminder; he knew what he was doing. Here's all the proof you need of that: ([2]). RO(talk) 18:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The idea that Eric didn't know that his comments would violate the restriction is difficult to reconcile with the fact that Eric explicitly said as much beforehand. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are going after the horse here, not the rider steering it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Montanabw: Even if, hypothetically speaking, we were to accept that the Atlantic article contained some inaccuracies about Eric to which he was in some way "entitled" to respond, I think you must agree that such a hypothetical "right to respond" can be extended only to responses concerning those inacuracies, and not to general participation in the underlying discussion. Eric did, in fact, make a number of comments addressing what he perceived as false accusations against himself ([3], [4], [5]). He was not, in fact, blocked for those comments.
What did prompt me to block Eric were comments that were quite unrelated to anything the article said about him personally, but which were, rather, attempts to deny the existence of the gender gap in principle. Such comments cannot possibly be regarded as an "excusable" breach of the restriction under our hypothetical "right to respond", and thus warrant no special IAR dispensation. Further, such remarks are not in and of themselves a minor or borderline violation of the restriction; rather, insofar as Eric has been banned from commenting on the gender gap or processes designed to address it, denying that one exists in the first place breaches the restriction in the most fundamental way possible. Consequently, I see no reason whatsoever to extend any special consideration to Eric in this matter. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It did give the appearance that he was blocked for the first set, though I'll grant a nod that you do have a case for minor application of the second. IMHO, I would have slapped him with 72 hours, not a month, and thus most of this drahmah could have been avoided. Bottom line is simple, he's not going to change his mind or his position, nor will he even personally appeal a block, but a short block that makes everyone cool off for a day or two usually reduces the drama without raising the specter of the absurdity of the whole GGTF mess, which was botched from beginning to end. Montanabw(talk) 21:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But ArbCom decided to use escalating blocks, so one month was the next step, as this is EC's seventh block for breaking his sanctions since they were put into place. RO(talk) 21:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wait so Eric is on a topic ban but he is allowed to bend and break the rules of it? What is the use of having topic bans in the first place then? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Well, that block lasted one whole day. That'll teach him not to violate his topic ban. It seems like the admins who always insist on unblocking Corbett who suffer collateral damage, not Corbett himself. Liz Read! Talk! 19:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is just nuts, I agree that Eric should have the right to defend himself but also agree with Kirill that he went past that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"It seems like the admins who always insist on unblocking Corbett who suffer collateral damage, not Corbett himself." That makes no sense. (Why s/ EC suffer anything because an admin chooses to unblock him?!) IHTS (talk) 03:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, saying nothing about it directly one way or another, you have seen that the block has been lifted by Yngvadottir, right? John Carter (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John Carter: Yes, it's mentioned just a few comments up. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very courageous and I believe wise decision. Why are there no additional rulings in these ARBCOM procedures which explicitly ban any discussions in high profile talk spaces which would be likely to goad a colleague under a T/Ban to respond? A severe boomerang should be the consequence. Irondome (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eric Corbett was deliberately baited to respond. As the high profile page concerned is controlled by Jimbo and monitored by the Foundation, and the enforcement officer was Kirill Loshkin, we can only draw one conclusion. So don't expect any great results from discussion here. Giano (talk) 09:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For doing your job

The thankless barnstar
For doing what is expected of an admin in a manner 100% consistent with policy and getting yelled at for it I award you The thankless barnstar. HighInBC 23:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed here, what is disappointing is that Yngvadottir leapt to unblocking Eric [6] before you could post your full reasoning about it. [7] Even if it was justified it was a leap before you look move. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Regardless of whether or not we agree with the decision, we should commend any administrator willing to make a tough, unpopular call that he or she knows will result in disagreement or abuse. Gamaliel (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find it interesting that the same anti-fan club appear every time: Gamaliel, Alanscottwalker, Chillum/HighinBC etc. I'm just waiting for Ironholds to show up. These are the people that moan about the Corbett fan club but they are as much as club as that. And it stinks.
For the record, you'll note that I do not get involved in every Corbett drama and I have on several occasions intervened to prevent escalation. The rest of you, including Kirill (who almost certainly has been subject to lobbying in DC) are just vindictive kow-towers to Jimbo's "moral ambitiousness" crusade, which has fuck all to do with building an encyclopaedia and everything to do with creating a libertarian utopia. That you are mostly based in the US says it all: it is cultural imperialism of a type that only the US practice nowadays. - Sitush (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that I support an admin who is being abused for the horrific crime of treating Eric by the same standards as anyone else under a topic ban only shows that I don't want my fellow admins abused for doing their job. I think if you actually did your homework you would find my position more nuanced. I have in the past defended Eric on multiple occasions. I may defend him again if he is in a position worth defending, but in this case the facts are obvious. Next time you lump me into a group do some research first please. HighInBC 15:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I submitted an AE request regarding a comment by Corbett exactly once (when, mind you, I could have easily just blocked him myself) and for that crime I've been put on the Eric Corbett Enemies List. This is exactly how his supporters have gamed the system, by attempting to personalize sanctions enforcement and isolate and harass individual administrators to prevent any action against him. It's not that Corbett is breaking the rules, it's that individual admins are out to get him. Sure. Eventually people will start looking at that long enemies list you are compiling and that already ridiculous idea will seem less and less plausible. Gamaliel (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What long list? You regular comment on or around Corbett drama, seemingly always in opposition. It isn't necessarily about who makes the complaint (which in recent months has often been EvergreenFir on-wiki and quite probably is her off-wiki on this occasion). You and your ilk are as much part of the problem as any of the so-called fan club. And Kirill is very likely not uninvolved: he is a WP organisation officeholder in DC, where many of the most shrill who seek to reduce the perceived gender gap hang out, and a participant in the gender gap-inspired Women Scientists project.
I'm all for improving the encyclopaedia but you lot have a very warped sense of what constitutes improvement. No matter: I will soon be gone, along with several others, and you can watch the entire Indian caste area fall into utter chaos, making it one more aspect where the project will be going backward rather than forward. Some improvement! - Sitush (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to Kirill's block, aside from the single AE submission I don't recall ever commenting about Corbett drama. I have been outspoken about issues of systemic bias and so forth, but what Eric Corbett has to do with, say, WikiProject Women Scientists, outside of some feverish anti-feminist conspiracy theory, I have no idea. As for the Indian caste articles, you might recall at AE I supported tougher rules against SPAs that should help editors working there. Gamaliel (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush: There is no point in arguing. People have their opinion, some join Eric's cabal and some group-up against that cabal, this happens everywhere, in real life as well. I don't know which group is hero/villain but people got the liberty to choose any of them. And some may stick to either of the group, everytime, whatever happens. Jim Carter 15:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, please keep out of it - I don't need to read the platitudes of another WP:WER-like do-gooder. Gamaliel, your both your memory and your logic seem to be faulty. Like your mate Bernstein, you're good with words and shit with reality, playing some sort of MMPORG and lawyering like mad instead of getting on with what matters. So be it: I've had a bellyful of the hypocrisy here. And your support for the recent ARCA proposal, which is irrelevant to this conversation, means little because the one person it would really have helped won't be here. I absolutely guarantee you that the already nightmarish caste stuff will just implode, not because of your thoughts in the ARCA thing but because of your thoughts elsewhere. Creating rules is bloody pointless if you drive off the people who are actually doing the damn work here, and that includes Eric. But doubtless it suits those who prefer social engineering to content. Before I completely lose my temper with your cabal, I'm signing off for the day. Perhaps for good. - Sitush (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no cabal. HighInBC 15:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Timbo's Rule 19. Having underwent the RFA process through no fault of my own...I can say this with authority: "Yes, Virginia, there is a cabal." Carrite (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Gamaliel here, although, honestly, I supposed some might say the same thing about Yngvadottir. It took guts to make the block, and we definitely need more admins who have the guts to make calls they know will be unpopular. We do have at least a few cabals of supporters of individual problem editors, and standing up to any of them can be and often is hard. I just wish that there had been a bit more communication first, or, honestly, that Eric had maybe been willing to actually appeal a block for once. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 5

Newsletter • October 2015

Hello there! Happy to be writing this newsletter once more. This month:

We did it!

In July, we launched five pilot WikiProjects: WikiProjects Cannabis, Evolutionary Biology, Ghana, Hampshire, and Women's Health. We also use the new design, named "WPX UI," on WikiProject Women in Technology, Women in Red, WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health. We are currently looking for projects for the next round of testing. If you are interested, please sign up on the Pilots page.

Shortly after our launch we presented at Wikimania 2015. Our slides are on Wikimedia Commons.

Then after all that work, we went through the process of figuring out whether we accomplished our goal. We reached out to participants on the redesigned WikiProjects, and we asked them to complete a survey. (If you filled out your survey—thank you!) While there are still some issues with the WikiProject tools and the new design, there appears to be general satisfaction (at least among those who responded). The results of the survey and more are documented in our grant report filed with the Wikimedia Foundation.

The work continues!

There is more work that needs to be done, so we have applied for a renewal of our grant. Comments on the proposal are welcome. We would like to improve what we have already started on the English Wikipedia and to also expand to Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. Why those? Because they are multilingual projects and because there needs to be better coordination across Wikimedia projects. More details are available in the renewal proposal.

How can the Wikimedia Foundation support WikiProjects?

The Wikimedia Developer Summit will be held in San Francisco in January 2016. The recently established Community Tech team at the Wikimedia Foundation is interested in investigating what technical support they can provide for WikiProjects, i.e., support beyond just templates and bots. I have plenty of opinions myself, but I want to hear what you think. The session is being planned on Phabricator, the Wikimedia bug tracker. If you are not familiar with Phabricator, you can log in with your Wikipedia username and password through the "Login or Register: MediaWiki" button on the login page. Your feedback can help make editing Wikipedia a better experience.


Until next time,

Harej (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remember

2013. Your arbitrator colleagues had worded an absurd restriction, preventing Andy from adding an infobox even to an article he created, and you were among the brave to insert one, remember? - Did you ever read my steps to avoid blocking by thoughts and talk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made the steps a template. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

This is purely a suggestion that you are free to disregard in whole or in part. It would be incredibly helpful if you posted a statement that you now understand that your block of Eric Corbett was excessive and that you regret the resulting kerfuffle. You could also state that you do not wish Yngvadottir to be desysopped. The ongoing fight is destructive to the Wikipedia community. We need to avoid these, and excuse mistakes by well-meaning editors and admins, rather than running people off the project.

You know what Eric's issue is, don't you? If you aren't fully clued in, email me. In this situation he was not reverting to prior form. In past days I would have supported banning him, but I can't support a ban for this particular incident. Every person has a fundamental right to reply when people talk about them, wherever that conversation occurs. This is a right that cannot be curtailed by a topic ban. If folks don't want to hear from Eric, don't mention him. Jehochman Talk 16:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did I not have precisely the same right of reply last January, when I was blocked for a comment on that page, in a thread bearing my name, regarding international discussion of my writing about Wikipedia? Where were you then? Oh, wait.... MarkBernstein (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And two weeks ago EC implied I was a lunatic ([8]), and his supporters made damn sure I wasn't allowed to comment at his talk page without fear of a block. RO(talk) 20:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vested contributors arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
This barnstar is sort of the kiss of death, but I regard doing what is right as an uncommon virtue Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kirill_Lokshin&oldid=688060207"