User talk:Kirill Lokshin/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 < Archive 12    Archive 13    Archive 14 >
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  14 -  15 -  16 -  17 -  18 -  19 -  20 -  ... (up to 100)


Request to comment 'Warfare of the Modern Era' category

Hi Kirill, greetings; you may be interested to comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_12#Category:Warfare_of_the_Modern_era Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commented there. You're probably right about the name being wrong; but I think there might be value to having a category with that scope under a different name. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

Well, that was a pointless drama

See Sandstein's contributions for more info. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the situation, and it will be dealt with shortly. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the MMN arbitration case

Hi. You have apparently directed that I be re-added as a party to the ongoing case. This leads me to speculate that you may think that I indefinitely blocked MickMacNee in order to circumvent, preempt or unduly influence the arbitration process. I would like to assure you that this was not my intent. Rather, I tried to address what I saw as an ongoing problem requiring "standard" discretion-based administrative intervention, with the added benefit of giving you, the Committee, the opportunity to use this community-based action as a way to close the case if you so desire (or to unblock MickMacNee and proceed with arbitration if you do not).

As far as I know, the Committee has previously closed requests or cases in which a stable community-based solution has emerged, and accordingly I acted on the assumption that an ongoing arbitration case does not prevent parallel administrator action (which can of course at any time be overruled by the Committee). If I was wrong about this, and did not heed any rule that may exist according to which ArbCom retains exclusive jurisdiction over users party to a case, such that they may not be blocked during the case except at ArbCom's direction, I apologize and would appreciate your advice about the boundaries in this regard.

I understand from comments on ANI that my block may appear strange to some in view of my previously expressed desire not to participate in the arbitration case. I do not see a contradiction, though. I was (and am) not interested in participating in the case because I was not involved with the events that triggered it, and because you said that the Committee does not intend to examine the events of November 2010 in which I was involved.

I hope that I have addressed any concerns you may have in regards to my action, and would appreciate any feedback by you to understand what such concerns may be.  Sandstein  14:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a number of concerns, both procedural and substantive, about your actions here:
  1. As you no doubt know, blocking a fellow party to an arbitration case is strictly prohibited, and can lead to very severe sanctions for any administrator who does so; had you placed the block prior to being removed from the list of parties, you would quite obviously be facing the prospect of those sanctions. You were permitted to remove yourself from the list of parties because you had no recent involvement in the dispute, and expressed a desire to avoid such involvement; but, given your subsequent actions, I am left wondering whether these earlier statements were made under false pretenses.
  2. When an editor is already party to an arbitration case, it is generally accepted practice to block them only as necessary to prevent ongoing disruption; in this case, such had already been accomplished by the 72-hour block on MickMacNee, and so your block was clearly intended as a "permanent" resolution to the dispute rather than as an attempt to prevent any specific disruption. While we have occasionally viewed indefinite blocks by otherwise uninvolved administrators (and by "otherwise uninvolved" I here mean administrators with no involvement in the arbitration proceeding, and potentially no prior knowledge of it taking place, rather than technically "uninvolved" for the purpose of placing blocks) as evidence of a "spontaneous" decision by the community to enact a ban, this does not apply when the blocking administrator is clearly aware of the ongoing arbitration case. I thus have difficulty seeing your escalation of the block length as anything other than a deliberate attempt to circumvent the arbitration process, depriving MickMacNee of the ability to defend himself and preventing an examination of the other parties' conduct.
I have yet to determine whether these concerns are sufficiently serious as to warrant proposing sanctions; but I certainly intend to consider your conduct in this matter further. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
blocking a fellow party to an arbitration case is strictly prohibited: While the Committee has enforced that at least once before in Abd-WMC, I don't believe I have ever seen it formally written down anywhere. It's not in the blocking policy; is it in one of the Arbitration procedures? NW (Talk) 15:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a rule for as long as I've been an arbitrator, at least, although perhaps an unwritten one. I've always viewed it a fairly clear consequence of the policy on making blocks while involved—two parties to an arbitration case are by definition involved in a (legitimate) dispute—but you're probably correct in that it should be explicitly stated in the procedures.
In any case, given that Sandstein was involved in enforcing the rulings of the Abd-WMC case, he cannot have been unaware of this point. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do not recall ever reading any such rule while enforcing that case. Looking at the enforcement log, my only action with respect to that case seems to have been a block in enforcement of an interaction ban. This did not require me to read the whole case and its background, but only to determine whether an interaction as specified in the relevant remedy did take place. Furthermore, now that I read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley with this issue in mind, it does sanction an administrator who blocked the opposed party during the arbitration case, in addition to other uses of the tools while involved, but it does not seem to state explicitly that doing so is a particularly bad thing in and of itself (notably not in principles 5 and 6 where I would expect to see any statement to this effect); rather, it uses standard language against using tools while involved. That's not to say I think blocking one's arbitration opponents is an OK thing to do (obviously it's not), but only that there is very little basis to assume, merely because I happened to enforce this old case, that I noticed any special rule against blocking arbitration opponents and got myself un-named specially for the purpose of evading it.  Sandstein  17:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think every editor has a reasonable expectation that admins will not block a fellow-party in an arbitration case (let alone other proceedings), and will specifically not involve themselves in a matter after they say they don't want to be. That doesn't require any policy. But never mind the Abd-WMC case...even 20 pages of rules would still not have prevented this situation in this case: the circumstances here, combined with the underlying principles (found in policy, older cases, prior incidents + feedback, and the more recent case Sandstein was involved in) are a reflection that this was not a one-off or atypical incident. That is, I don't appreciate the suggestion that the rest of the project is expected to deal with an ongoing problem that is otherwise limited/due to an individual admin (and friends). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for butting in, but I don't quite see your logic here, Kirill. There was already an official decision saying that Sandstein should not be counted as a party to the case; if he then went and acted in his capacity of an uninvolved administrator, how is that suddenly to be used as evidence that he was involved after all? And on a more general note, if administrators are to be held accountable in such matters, the nature of Arbcom participant lists needs to be scrutinized and clarified more generally. In my experience, being listed on a case page is not automatically equivalent to being a party in the dispute, certainly not "by definition". For instance, on ARBMAC2, Horologium was listed, purely because he had previously taken some key administrative decisions (as an uninvolved admin) on the issue, and while he did participate actively in the proceedings, he continued to wield the mop on related decisions during the same time, and arbitrators explicitly encouraged him to do so. On EEML, I myself was listed as a participant, merely because I had been one of the people who had received the leaked e-mails and forwarded them to Arbcom. I, too, have continued to do admin work in that field, both during and after the case. (Rather annoyingly, I'm still getting stray accusations that this random listing somehow magically made me an involved party, most recently in those rants by Jacurek on my amendment request). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your point regarding the lack of any standard approach for listing parties is well made. I would welcome any suggestions for how this process may be improved, ideally without requiring the Committee to review each potential party a priori. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Reply to Kirill Lokshin above) Thank you for elaborating your concerns, to which I reply as follows:
  1. My understanding is that being named as a party to a case means that one's conduct is under review. I expressed a desire not to be named as a party in the present case, because I was neither the filing party nor involved in the events that triggered it, and so my conduct could not possibly have been under review, given that you said you did not want to review the November 2010 events in which I did participate. My request was only not to be named as a party for these reasons. I did not express an intent to withdraw from any future involvement with MickMacNee either as an administrator or as a commenting non-party (although because of my non-involvement in the events covered by the case I would probably have had nothing of substance to contribute to the case).

    When I asked to be un-named as a party, I did not anticipate that there would subsequently be grounds for a block of MickMacNee (i.e., personal attacks and edit-warring). More to the point, I could not have anticipated blocking MickMacNee at this time, because the conduct for which I blocked him had not yet occurred, and I had no reason to believe that something like that would subsequently occur. Had I indeed wanted to block MickMacNee on any pretext, I could have done so during the ANI thread that discussed his conduct and triggered the present case, but I did not.

    I was also not aware of any (written or unwritten) rule specifically against blocking a fellow arbitration party, and so I did not seek to be un-named merely to evade any such rule. (Had I thought about it then, I would probably have considered that blocking an "opposed" party to a case would normally be improper because of WP:UNINVOLVED, rather than as a matter of arbitration procedure, but in normal practice, "involved" blocks merely result in an overturning of the block rather than in sanctions.)

    To summarize, I did not ask to be un-named under false pretenses just so that I could block MickMacNee with impunity. Such an assumption appears rather contrary to the good faith that administrators, in particular, are expected to extend to one another. Rather, I asked to be un-named only because I considered that I had been named for no good reason and could contribute nothing of substance to the case then being discussed.

  2. I was not aware of the "generally accepted practice" you refer to. If you expect administrators to adhere by such a practice, on pain of sanctions, I recommend that you codify it in your policy or procedures. Nonetheless, I think that my block was compatible with this practice: I did consider that my indefinite block was necessary to prevent ongoing disruption beyond the duration of the existing 72h block, because of MickMacNee's credible statements of intent to continue in the same manner (edit-warring, personal attacks) after the 72h block expired.

    I was aware that the indefinite block also had, additionally, the potential to become a definitive solution of the problem, if (a) it was accepted as necessary in the ensuing community discussion, if (b) MickMacNee did not convince an unblock reviewer that the block was no longer necessary because he understood the reasons for it and would not repeat such conduct, and if (c) the Committee did not overrule the block, as is their right, in order to proceed with their case. But I did not view the block as a way to circumvent the arbitration process, in particular because I have neither the authority nor the ability to do so: the Committee can lift the block at any time if they think it necessary for the purpose of the case.

    Furthermore, I blocked MickMacNee because of his disruption, not to prevent him from defending himself (if a block could have this effect, the same would have been true for the 72h block I replaced) or to prevent an examination of the other parties' conduct (I do not know them and have not looked at what if anything they did in the context of this matter; furthermore, I - again - have neither the authority nor the capability to prevent ArbCom from pursuing the case as regards these others).

    So, rather than as interference, I see the block as a way to simplify the Committee's work and give them an option: if the block survives the community process, you have the opportunity to accept it as a stable outcome (at least as concerns MickMacNee), or you can unblock him and continue with the case if you think the outcome is wrong or a more permanent resolution is needed.

I hope I have addressed your concerns satisfactorily and would appreciate the opportunity to clarify if you think I have not. Finally, I hope that I have clearly expressed that my purpose was to be part of the solution in this case (i.e., help stop the ongoing disruption) rather than part of the problem. I am sorry if you think that it turned out otherwise, and I echo NuclearWarfare's comment that you should consider codifying the expectations (if any) of the committee as regards administrator actions with respect to users who are parties to an ongoing arbitration case. I have approached this issue from the point of view that the Committee normally welcomes community-based solutions to problems that are under arbitration, and I would regret it if that were no longer so or if have gone about it wrongly.  Sandstein  17:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noted; I will take your comments under consideration. For the avoidance of doubt, please refrain from any further administrative actions with regard to MickMacNee (or any other party) for the duration of the case.
In the meantime, I would be interested in any further comments you might have on the following issues:
  1. Given that MickMacNee was already to remain blocked for 72 hours, was immediate escalation of the block length necessary even in the context of a stated intent to resume the conduct in question? In particular, I'm interested in your thoughts on (a) whether the 72 hour period could instead have been used to reach a more amicable arrangement and (b) whether a removal of the underlying cause for conflict (in this case, Hammersoft's redaction of his original remarks) would have made any such statements of intent moot at the time the block expired.
  2. A number of editors have suggested that Hammersoft's comments were themselves personal attacks, or may have (intentionally or unintentionally) baited MickMacNee into an aggressive response. To what degree is this explanation credible; and, if it is, to what degree does it mitigate MickMacNee's culpability?
Thank you in advance for your input. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that I will, for the avoidance of doubt, refrain from any further administrative actions with regard to MickMacNee (or any other party) for the duration of the case. I'll answer your questions one by one.  Sandstein  17:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I think that the extension of the block was necessary. By policy, blocks are preventative rather than punitive – that is, they are not imposed to punish an editor for any past misconduct, but rather, to prevent future misconduct which the administrator has reason to believe will occur if the block is not imposed. The 72h block could not prevent the misconduct that MickMacNee had expressed or shown an intent to engage in after the block expired (that is, continuing to edit-war to remove perceived attacks against him, and make attacks of his own). Therefore, only a block that does not expire on its own is able to prevent such misconduct, because it ensures that the block will only be lifted when the unblocker is convinced that there is now a good reason to believe that the anticipated disruption will not in fact occur, rather than by the chance passage of time. Such conviction normally requires that the blocked user persuasively communicates that he understands the reason for the block and will not repeat the problematic conduct (see WP:GAB). This option is still open to MickMacNee.

    (a) It is always possible that an amicable agreement that obviates the necessity of a block is reached while a block lasts. In fact, this is the preferred outcome, and all people involved in a block situation should work towards it, because it is preferable to the block simply expiring on its own and the conflict continuing where it left off. But such an amicable agreement can just as well be reached during an infinite block as during a block of limited duration, and therefore the possibility of such an agreement is not in and of itself a reason not to extend the block. On the contrary, I believe that an indefinite block is even more conducive to reaching such an agreement than a short block, because during a short block the blocked user has the option to simply wait out the block, and has therefore less of an incentive to engage in good faith discussions about an agreement.  Sandstein  18:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (b) Not necessarily: the purpose of the block was not to resolve the question of whether the specific text at issue should remain deleted or not, but to prevent MickMacNee from continuing to resolve disagreements by edit-warring and personally attacking others, and the removal of the text in and of itself does not substantially reduce the likelihood of this happening. Only some recognition on the part of MickMacNee that his approach to disagreements is part of the problem does.

  2. Objectively, I think, the comments at issue can be read in part as personal attacks. Being compared to a member of the Westboro Baptist Church (which I now read is a widely detested American hate group) is insulting and unnecessary. But apart from that, the message mostly addresses "content and actions rather than people", as per WP:AVOIDYOU.

    But the fact that the message is in part a personal attack does not, as you put it, "mitigate MickMacNee's culpability" in my view:

  • As the editor who wrote WP:NOTTHEM, which very many other unblock reviewers have been referring to in the last few years, I believe that everybody's (mis)conduct should be judged on its own merits, not in reference to the misconduct of others. Two wrongs do not make a right.
  • We do sometimes apply more relaxed standards to users who have been severely attacked themselves. This is not a case in which I think this is appropriate. As is apparent from his block log and the various arbitration filings, MickMacNee is in the habit of resorting to severe personal attacks of his own rather liberally. A person who does this is not a person who is (or ought to be) easily shaken or disconcerted by comparatively tame attacks against himself. Therefore, I do not think that distress caused by the attacks against him should be taken into account as a mitigating circumstance.
  • And neither, I think, is the alleged baiting, which consists of edit-warring the text back in. As a veteran of the dispute resolution process with many edit-warring blocks, MickMacNee is in a position to know that edit-warring never, ever, resolves a problem of any kind, but only makes it worse. He also knows about the other WP:DR venues he can use to stop the reinsertion of the personal attacks.
  • Finally, personal attacks are not among the limited number of exceptions to the prohibition against edit-warring at WP:3RRNO. That policy also adds: "When in doubt, do not revert". The fact that the text MickMacNee removed was in part a personal attack does therefore not justify his edit-warring. Even if one were to recognize an exception to the edit-warring policy for personal attacks, that exception would apply only to the text that is a personal attack, not to the majority of the text which is not.  Sandstein  19:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simple

The above may be interesting but the story is a lot simpler than this.

  1. Sandstein is an uinvolved admin who has only interacted with MMN in his admin capacity. If any additional proof of this was ever necessary (it wasn't), it was provided by the ArbCom ruling allowing Sandstein to withdraw from the case.
  2. Sandstein extended MMN's block in his capacity as an uninvolved admin to prevent further disruption (which MMN said he would continue unless blocked indefinitely).
  3. The idea that this latest admin action has made Sansdtein somehow involved and that he should therefore be added to the case is illogical and unfounded.

End of story. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

So just to clarify

for my "records", you've changed your mind now about removing your individual email? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still unconvinced that privately forwarded inquiries are a good system (or even a workable one) in the general case; but, given the exigencies of the present situation—arbcom-l is kind of dead at the moment—it seems an appropriate measure, at least in the short term. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, for clarity, by no means was I going to try and convince you to personally change your mind on the issue; it was merely my curiosity that got the better of me. But I will certainly reflect on something while I am on this arbitrator talk page...if someone was pretty much cautious from the outset (treating the general case as if it is the present situation all along), I suppose there would be no need for them to change how they would contact an arb in the present situation, and they would have less to be worried about (depending on how much was filtered through). So that would equate to less inconvenience and less dissatisfaction in the present situation...which given the reactions so far, is quite a combination. And given the incidents people tend to remember more than others...hmm yeah. Anyway, I'll leave you to get back to it now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let you know

Herschelkrustofsky on WR apparently has a response (a positive one) to this comment that you made. Would you like a link to it? SilverserenC 03:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you're talking about his request that someone leave me a message, it's already been pointed out to me; but thank you for letting me know, in any case. Kirill [talk] [prof] 09:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC/U: Cirt

Kirill, further to the recent Political activism request for arbitration and various arbitrators' comments at that request to the effect that there had not been to date an RfC/U on Cirt, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt. Best, --JN466 13:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

The inquisition

Tell me have you thought about applying for a job with Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition?

To be read with a pseudo-Germanic accent:
*"I figured I would take it easy to start and see how willing he is to work
with us. We already know the answer to some of these questions, so we will
also be able to determine if he is lying about his actions. We can then get`
into specific questions about Usher, etc.

KL"

*That seems reasonable. I expect he's going to come back with "you'll never
make me talk!" or something along those lines, but I suppose I could be
pleasantly surprised.

Kirill"

You say "reasonable", what was next stage to be the thumb screws? Earlier in the thread your mate, Coren, calls me paranoid - amazing if I bloody wasn't with such a bunch of clowns running the show. Do none of you feel no shame for the way you have all behaved? Angry does not even begin to describe how I feel. Giacomo (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not thumb screws; that would be far too direct. We're more akin to the UN Security Council than the Spanish Inquisition these days; if you didn't cooperate, we'd probably issue a statement condemning your actions. And then, perhaps, another statement condemning them in the strongest possible terms. And then—if we became really upset—another one condemning them in the strongest possible terms and warning you that you could face sanctions.
As to the substance of your question: "reasonable" was in reference to the questions KnightLago sent to you, which were included in the message I replied to. The full context of the thread was presumably missing from the version you saw. I'm also not sure where you get the impression that Coren said anything earlier in the thread; my email was the third message in it, and the earlier two were both from KnightLago.
(Incidentally, you are aware that "KL" is KnightLago's signature, not mine? There's been some confusion about that, apparently.) Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only person confused here Kirill is you. You and Coren let your hatred cloud your judgement and how very stupid you both now look. Giacomo (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps; but that will be a question for others to judge, I think. For my part, I neither seek your approval nor fear your condemnation. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

clarification

You have been listed as involved regarding a current request for clarification to Arbcom. Communikat (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DC Meetup: May 7 @ Tenleytown Library

The next DC Wikimedia meetup is scheduled for Saturday, May 7, 3:30-5:30 pm at the Tenleytown Library (adjacent to the Tenleytown Metro Station, Red Line), followed by dinner & socializing at some nearby place.

This is the first official meeting of our proposed Wikimedia DC chapter, with discussion of bylaws and next steps. Other agenda items include, update everyone on our successful Wikimania bid and next steps in the planning process, discuss upcoming activities that we want to do over the summer and fall, and more.

Please RSVP here and see a list of additional tentatively planned meetups & activities for late May & June on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC page.

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

Newsletter header

Kirill, I'm a terrible coder. Can you modify Template:WPMILHIST Newsletter header 3 so I can hide an editorial if needed and add additional sections? Or make Template:WPMILHIST Newsletter header 4 as a final change to the header so it's somewhat customizable? The top of the header is fine, but I'd like to be able to add and subtract sections as necessary. Thanks very much! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be easy enough to make the existing header customizable; I'll make the needed changes this evening. Kirill [talk] [prof] 09:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've added two sets of new parameters:
  • Setting |no_editorial=yes will hide the editorial link.
  • Setting |extra_section_1=ABC or |extra_section_2=ABC will add a link to a /ABC subpage with the label "ABC".
One thing to keep in mind is that these parameters will need to be set on each invocation of the template; currently, that would require setting them on each Bugle article individually. I don't believe the {{{3}}} parameter is used at this point, so one option might be to move the header to a dedicated subpage for each issue (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/June 2011/Header) and transclude that to each article, rather than invoking the header template directly. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kirill! That's a good idea, one I think I'll use right now. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to extend the editing restrictions placed on User:Communicat

Hello, I have proposed that ArbCom extend the editing restrictions which it placed on Communicat (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Motion to extend editing restrictions on Communicat/Communikat and would appreciate your views on this. Thank you Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tree shaping proposed decision

All editors' behavior should be looked and going by Elen of the Roads comment that due to family trouble she has been unable study this properly. Elen quote "I have the sense that there have been other people who have been problematic, but not the time to look at it deeper. It's unfortunate" Will you please come and comment here about this. Blackash have a chat 08:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

Clue

Do you agree that this statement is not going to earn you much sympathy?

What might actually be useful here, though, is to create some place for him where he could work on those reforms and feel properly appreciated and "in power" without actually giving him any authority over day-to-day events.

How about letting the community decide how to govern itself, and let the people selected have real power, not mere illusions of power. Jehochman Talk 22:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out-of-context quotes rarely earn anyone sympathy, in my experience.
Don't be a wise guy. I'm not in need of any sympathy, than you very much. I will not quote more as there could be a copyright issue if I were to post a large chunk of text. Jehochman Talk 02:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as your substantive point is concerned, I fully support the right of the community to govern itself, and have no objection to those elected by it holding real power; indeed, I've repeatedly advocated such democratic governance in the past (cf. Wikipedia:Governance reform, etc.). The discussion you (selectively) quote here, however, had nothing to do with governance; as I quite explicitly stated in that same message, the body I was proposing would have had no executive powers. In that context, my desire to avoid granting anyone on the body authority is entirely consistent with your position that the community must decide its own governance; indeed, it was the opposite approach (a granting of real authority to the individuals in question) that would have resulted in an imposition of my ideas of governance on the community. Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your remarks are an example of elitism, and a very poor attitude towards other people. Who are you to decide who should be "in power" or not? You have no more right to make that decision than any editor in this place. Subsequently a body was composed of hand picked editors "invited" to join. (Invited by whom?) We need to stop these back channel discussion lists, including Arbcom-l, and the associated cronyism. The only people working behind the scenes should be the paid staff at WMF, in an office, under professional supervision. Any decisions by volunteer governance should be made in the open. Jehochman Talk 02:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smithsonian Archives of American Art Backstage Pass

Archives of American Art Backstage Pass! - You are invited!
The Smithsonian is hosting its first Backstage Pass at the Archives of American Art on Friday, July 29. 10 Wikimedians will experience the behind the scenes aspects of archiving the world's largest collection of documents and photographs related to American art. After a complimentary lunch, an edit-a-thon will take place and prizes will be awarded. Followed by an evening happy hour. We hope you'll participate! SarahStierch (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients

Sorry to bother you with this, but since you put the A-class review for List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (J) on the Military History project page, I am turning to you with my concerns about these lists in general. According to the assessment criteria, in particular A4, the article - or in this case list - should be in accurate English. The lists in question however seem to me like crude translations from some German lists, I have heard about but not seen myself, though. I am kind of familiar with German military terminology and some of the terms used in the list don't feel right. The articles I find in Wikipedia are not very helpful either. E.g. a deputy leader in a military unit would be a executive officer or second in command in English; a troop doctor would be a Medical Officer, and so on. I am not sure were to raise these issues, as in the past my attempts have come to nothing. I hope you can point me in the right direction where to discuss this sort of problem or do it yourself. Yours --FJS15 (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

German WWII-era terminology is a bit outside my realm of expertise, so I'm probably not the best person to comment on the accuracy of the translations. I would suggest bringing the question up at WT:MILHIST; that's generally the easiest way to solicit input from people who might have some insight into the matter. Kirill [talk] [prof] 20:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I shall give it a try. But maybe I should wait till tomorrow. It's getting exciting in Frankfurt ;-) --FJS15 (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

Edit war ongoing

Hi! There's an edit war going on at Battle of Cortenuova. A recent user is endlessly reverting my recent expansion of what was a mere stub, to a version based on 19th century, non-Italian sources, full of some strange features such as unjustified capitalization, wrong naming of Italian cities and titles etc. Can you help? --'''Attilios''' (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also his nice behaviour in this new edit. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's also missing to follow any invitation to give a mere check to WP:Manual of Style at least... the result is that his version starts with a "Prelude" section without any lead introduction. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject National Archives Newsletter

The first ever WikiProject National Archives newsletter has been published. Please read on to find out what we're up to and how to help out! There are many opportunities for getting more involved. Dominic·t 21:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Campaignbox Wars of Beleriand

Template:Campaignbox Wars of Beleriand has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DC Meetup, July 29

DC Meetup 21 - Who should come? You should. Really.
DC MEETUP 21 is July 29! This meet up will involve Wikipedians from the area as well as Wiki-loving GLAM professionals. See you Friday! SarahStierch (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DC Meetup, July 29

DC Meetup 21 - Who should come? You should. Really.
DC MEETUP 21 is July 29! This meet up will involve Wikipedians from the area as well as Wiki-loving GLAM professionals. See you Friday! SarahStierch (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

GLAM-Wiki Baltimore meetup

You are invited to the first Wikipedia Baltimore meetup on Saturday, July 23, 10:00am-12:30pm at the Walters Art Museum. Come meet Wikimedians, learn about GLAM-Wiki partnerships, get involved, and discuss future wiki outreach and activities in the Baltimore area!

There also is a Wikipedia & Cultural Heritage at the Young Preservationist Happy Hour on Friday, July 22, 6:30pm at the Midtown Yacht Club, an unpretentious neighborhood pub.

Note: You can remove your name from the Baltimore meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

DC-area Meetup, Saturday, August 6

National Archives Backstage Pass - Who should come? You should. Really.
On Saturday, August 6, the National Archives is hosting a Wikipedia meetup, backstage pass tour, and edit-a-thon in College Park, Maryland. Meet staff and fellow Wikipedians, go behind the scenes at the National Archives, help digitize documents, and edit together! Dominic·t 21:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

National Archives Backstage Pass

Not joking about the chocolate!
 This is a reminder that the National Archives Backstage Pass is tomorrow at 11 am. National Archives-themed chocolates and temporary tattoos await! Also, historical documents. :-)

Please see the meetup page for updated information on transportation, security, and other other event details. Dominic·t 22:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kirill, glad you'll be coming. As the resident Wiki Society of DC board member, you (along with Bob, if he makes it) are welcome to address the group. We'll have a couple of hours in the lecture room (with AV equipment) before the tour starts. I have someone from NARA who is likely to come and will talk about NARA's vision for future collaborations like these, and so it would be cool to hear the WikiDC perspective on GLAM efforts, Wikimania, etc. Nothing elaborate necessary, of course. Dominic·t 22:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Depictions of war

Category:Depictions of war, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mail call

You've got mail. - Dank (push to talk) 19:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Campaignbox question

I'm not sure if you are the correct person to ask, but it seems you've done a lot of work on the Military Navigation templates… Is there anything wrong with Template:Campaignbox Morgan's Raid in Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio having a map of the campaign? I did some cleanup on it last month, and I was wondering about it then, but forgot to ask. I like the information it imparts since a campaign could have few battles, yet cover a lot of territory and a simple list of battles doesn't really give a picture of the campaign. It seems like it would be especially good for campaigns with a campaignbox, but no actual article to link to. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't say that there's anything "wrong" it, per se; while most campaignboxes follow the standard layout, we've always had a few with additional items added. Having said that, I'm not sure that simply embedding the map in with the list of battles is a particularly good way of setting this up; the result looks a bit cluttered, and the list of battles winds up in a position that would normally be occupied by the caption to the image, potentially confusing the reader.
My suggestion—particularly if this is something that we expect to see more general use—would be to add a specific field for a campaign map to the template. This would allow us to create a somewhat neater layout than will be possible with a straight embedded image; it would also be possible to make the map collapsible independently of the main body of the template, minimizing the impact that having the map present will have on the relative sizes of map-bearing versus non-map-bearing campaignboxes (which will become an issue as soon as we start adding these to articles with multiple consecutive campaignboxes in place).
If you'd like, I can put together a prototype for a campaignbox with an integrated map display, and we can then take that to WT:MILHIST to discuss whether the feature can be deployed across the entire template set. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not too much work and you don't mind doing it, I think it's worthwhile to get feedback on the idea. It seems to me that a campaign is, in many situations, much more than simply a list of battles. And the potential to have the map independently collapsible seems like a real plus. Mojoworker (talk) 03:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sounds good; I should have a prototype ready sometime in the next couple of days. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've created {{Campaign/sandbox}} as a prototype of an integrated map field; the resulting layout can be seen on {{Campaignbox Morgan's Raid in Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio}}. What do you think? Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried it out and I think it looks great! The only question I have is if "state=expanded", should the map be expanded too or do you think an additional mapstate parameter (or something similarly named) needs to be added? I dunno, maybe that's overkill… Mojoworker (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether the state parameter should affect the map as well; it would make things simpler to use it for both, but it would also greatly increase the size of the template in its expanded form. In either case, I don't think that a separate mapstate parameter would be particularly useful; I doubt that there's any situation where we would want to expand the map but not the template itself.
It's probably worth mentioning this question when we present the new template to the rest of the project members; I'm sure that other people will be able to offer some suggestions about the best way to approach this. Kirill [talk] [prof] 09:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that sounds like a good plan. I agree, there's probably no situation where we would want to expand the map but not the template itself. However, there might be a case for the way the prototype is working now — expanding the template but not the map. I think I would vote for expanding both, but let's see what other people think. How do you want to work the presentation? I could write up some of the rationale that prompted me to ask the map question when I came across the "Morgan's Raid" Campaignbox if you'd like. Mojoworker (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you could write up a rationale for having embedded maps, that would be great; I'm not quite certain whether I could make a particularly convincing case for it if left to my own devices. If you're comfortable starting off the discussion, then please feel free to post your thoughts directly to WT:MILHIST; I can then chip in with technical details as needed. Alternately, if you prefer, I can start off the discussion once I have your input. Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind starting the discussion, I guess that's my preference, since I've never done anything like that before here on Wikipedia. So, at the very least, it will be a good learning experience for me. My first draft is at User:Mojoworker/Campaignbox_Map. I had a lot more in there, but razored down most of the extraneous stuff to something that, hopefully, frames the issue in a fairly brief manner. If you can add the formal presentation stuff, plus anything else you think would be useful, and reword it as you see fit, that would be great. Let me know if I've phrased anything ambiguously and I'll try to answer any questions you might have. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've started the discussion at WT:MILHIST#Embedding maps in campaignboxes; please feel free to chime in if you think I've missed anything we should be asking. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, looks like it was archived to WT:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_103#Embedding_maps_in_campaignboxes. Any thoughts on how to interpret the feedback or what the next step might be? I like EyeSerene's "same image for every battle in a campaign, but with the location of that particular battle highlighted", but that would seem to require some sort of map overlay, customized maps for each battle in the campaignbox, or some sort of coordinate algorithm which could get complicated. Thoughts? Mojoworker (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
EyeSerene's idea is interesting; but, as you say, it may be rather complicated to implement. I'll play around with some potential solutions; perhaps there's something we can do without an undue level of complexity. Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tree shaping RfM

You may remember a recent Arbcom decision in which editors were requested to agree on an appropriate name for the article currently at Tree shaping. There has been a careful discussion on the subject, followed by an RfM which was hastily closed as 'No action' by involved administrator SilkTork. Was this what was envisaged by Arbcom? Perhaps you could take a look and give your opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Military History and WP:Espionage Merge?

On the WikiProject Military History disucussion page there is talk about a merge and eliminating WP:Espionage altogether. Would like your feedback there. It would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 08:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Loves Libraries

Hey there! I was going to be in Leesburg, Virginia for the 150th anniversary program and re-enactment at Balls Bluff. One of my friends is a battlefield guide up there, and I was wondering how you'd feel about coming up the historic Balch Library or the Leesburg Public Library to be part of a WLL event? I'm just roughing in the idea right now. Get you a private wikipedian tour of the battlefield before the reenactment... I'm going to ask a couple of other DCers. BusterD (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly open to the idea in principle; it's just a question of what the exact date would be, and whether that will mesh with everything else on my calendar. :-) Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the link to the event: http://www.150thballsbluff.com/public/programs.html
This has all the detail you might want to ask me. What's unusual is that re-enactors have never been able to work on the actual battlefield, and this year they're using everything. Event is Friday Saturday Sunday Oct. 21-23, so it works perfectly for me even if I can't get extra time off. No big deal if it doesn't work out, but it will be cool. I was thinking I'd run the WLL program in Leesburg one weekend, then in Warwick the next. Both sides of the Mason/Dixon line. Appropriate, since I've got ancestors from both sides of the war. BusterD (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently scheduled to be in Alaska for that entire week, and Nevada the week after; if that remains the case, I probably won't be able to make it to the Leesburg event. I may be available on the weekend of the 29th, if you're considering doing something then.
Might I also suggest posting this to the WikiDC mailing list? I suspect there would be a number of people in the area who would be interested in a library-related event but might not be aware of it through ACW channels. Kirill [talk] [prof] 19:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear we'll miss each other once again. I've signed up for the mailing list and will do as you suggest. Makes sense for me to get on that email list anyway. I'm looking forward to volunteering for Wikimania next year, since it's easy for me to travel there (from NYC). I plan to be present the whole week. Will want to be aware. Thanks! BusterD (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Standard for place name?

I have a question about the Template:Infobox military conflict "place=" parameter. For example, at Battle of Big Mound it has for Location: "Dakota Territory, Present-day Kidder County, North Dakota". While Battle of Dead Buffalo Lake has simply "Kidder County, North Dakota". Is there a standard to specify place as the current location (i.e. Kidder County, North Dakota), the location at the time (i.e. Dakota Territory), or a combination of the two (i.e. Dakota Territory, Present-day Kidder County, North Dakota)? I did some searching, but I couldn't find anything documented.

Also, any update on the map overlay for the campaignbox? I was thinking a CSS solution might work, but I'm not CSS guru. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a real standard that applies across the board; the question of whether the present-day or at-the-time location is more meaningful to the reader has more to do with how well-known one or the other might be, and how much the region in question has changed since the time of the event. In general, though, I don't think it would hurt to include both locations; at worst, it's merely extra information.
As far as the map overlay is concerned, I've played around with it a bit, and I suspect the only real solution is going to involve putting each of the battles in as a separate parameter. At the moment, though, I don't have a working prototype ready. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt and Jayen466/Proposed decision#Proposed remedies (motion to close)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Proposed decision#Proposed remedies

Hi - There appears to be a motion to close this case later today. In the case that you have not noticed - there are two new proposals predented by Newyorkbrad - 3.3.2.1 Cirt restricted from BLPs and 3.3.2.2 Cirt restricted from "political" biographies - that you have not voted in. Thank you for your attention to this. - Off2riorob (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, and thanks for letting me know. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bugle Op-Ed

Hi mate, as a last-minute op-ed for the August Bugle I penned a brief recollection of September 11 for the 10th anniversary. I agreed with Ed that perspectives from various nationalities would be appropriate if people can manage it in time (have to be in the next 24 hours or so!) and thought you might be interested. Here's what's there at the moment, pls feel free to add or comment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2011/Tally

For some reason, this is defaulting to the page for the September 2010 tally and I don't know how to fix it. Could you look please? TIA,  Roger Davies talk 01:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I set up the pages this year so I had a squizz... Looks like I left a 2010 parameter in the main tally page -- try it now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ian! Now populated,  Roger Davies talk 01:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Vukovar featured article nomination

A few years ago you kindly carried out a peer review of Battle of Vukovar at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Vukovar. Having rewritten the article (again!) I've now nominated it for featured status with the aim of getting it to that position by 18 November, the 20th anniversary of the battle. You are very welcome to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Vukovar/archive1. Prioryman (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited! Wikimedia DC Annual Membership Meeting

DC Meetup 23 & Annual Membership Meeting

Wikimedia District of Columbia, the newest officially recognized chapter, is holding its Annual Membership Meeting at 1pm on Saturday, October 1, 2011 at the Tenley-Friendship Neighborhood Library.

Agenda items include:

  • election of the Board of Directors for the next two years
  • approval of a budget for the 2011-2012 fiscal year
  • report on the activities and accomplishments of the past year
  • social gathering afterwards at a nearby restaurant

Candidate nominations are open until 11:59pm EDT on Saturday, September 24. We encourage you to consider being a candidate. (see see candidate instructions)

The meeting is open to both the general public and members from within the DC-MD-VA-WV-DE region and beyond. We encourage everyone to attend!

You may join the chapter at the meeting or online.

Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude, 15:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Research into the user pages of Wikipedians: Invitation to participate

Greetings,

My name is John-Paul and I am a student with the University of Alberta specializing in Communications and Technology.

I would like to include your Wikipedia user page in a study I am doing about how people present themselves online. I am interested in whether people see themselves in different ways, online and offline. One of the things I am looking at is how contributors to Wikipedia present themselves to each other through their user pages. Would you consider letting me include your user page in my study?

With your consent, I will read and analyze your user page, and ask you five short questions about it that will take about ten to fifteen minutes to answer. I am looking at about twenty user pages belonging to twenty different people. I will be looking at all user pages together, looking for common threads in the way people introduce themselves to other Wikipedians.

I hope that my research will help answer questions about how people collaborate, work together, and share knowledge. If you are open to participating in this study, please reply to this message, on your User Talk page or on mine. I will provide you with a complete description of my research, which you can use to decide if you want to participate.

Thank-you,

John-Paul Mcvea
University of Alberta
jmcvea@ualberta.ca

Johnpaulmcvea (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to assist with your study. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for agreeing to participate in my study

Thank-you for agreeing to participate in my study, entitled “Online Self-presentation among Wikipedians.” I appreciate it.

As I indicated before, here are five questions that I would like you to answer. Please be as brief or as thorough as you like.


5 QUESTIONS

1. Are you a member of social networks such Facebook or MySpace?

2. In addition to maintaining a user page in Wikipedia, have you also written or edited articles? If so, about how many times?

3. What are the key messages about yourself that you hope to convey with your user page?

4. Have your Wikipedia contributions ever received feedback, such as being edited by others or commented on? Have you received a message from another Wikipedia user? If so, do you think your user page positively or negatively affected what other people said and how they said it?

5. Do you see your “online self” as being different from your “offline self?” Can you elaborate?


Please indicate your answers to these questions on your talk page, or on mine. If you like, you can email your answers to me instead (jmcvea@ualberta.ca).

Thank you again : )

Johnpaulmcvea (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get back to you with the answers to these in the next few days. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

INDICATING CONSENT

By answering these questions, you indicate your agreement with the following statements:

• That you understand that you have been asked to be in a research study.

• That you have read and received a copy of the Information Sheet, attached below (“Additional Information”).

• That you understand the benefits and risks involved in taking part in this research study.

• That you have had an opportunity to ask questions and discuss this study.

• That you understand that you are free to refuse to participate, or to withdraw from the study at any time, without consequence, and that your information will be withdrawn at your request.

• That the issue of confidentiality been explained to you and that you understand who will have access to your information (see “Additional Information”).

• That you agree to participate.


ADDITONAL INFORMATION

Background

• I am asking you to participate in a research project that is part of my MA degree.

• I am asking you because you have created a user page in Wikipedia that other people can use to learn about you.


Purpose

• My research is about how people present themselves online.

• I will look at how people present themselves when presenting themselves to the Wikipedia community.


Study Procedures

• With your consent, I will analyze the language of your user page and gather basic statistics such as the count of words, the frequency of words, the number of sections, and so on.

• I will also read the text of your user page, looking for elements in common with ads posted by other people. I will note whether you include a picture, or links to other content on the internet,

• I ask you to answer my five questions, above. This will take about ten to fifteen minutes to complete. I will ask you to answer the questions within a week, and send your answers to me.

• Throughout my research, I will adhere to the University of Alberta Standards for the Protection of Human Research Participants, which you can view at http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/gfcpolicymanual/policymanualsection66.cfm


Benefits

• There is no direct benefit to you for participating in this research. You may, however, find it interesting to read my perspective on how you present yourself online.

• I hope that the information I get from doing this study will help understand how technology affects the way people come together into a society.

• There is no reward or compensation for participating in this research.


Risk

• There is no direct risk for participating in this research.


Voluntary Participation

• You are under no obligation to participate in this study. Participation is completely voluntary.

• You can opt out of this study at any time before October 10, 2011, with no penalty. You can ask to have me withdraw any data that I have collected about you. Even if you agree to be in the study, you can change your mind and withdraw.

• If you decline to continue or you wish to withdraw from the study, your information will be removed from the study at your request.


Confidentiality

• This research will be used to support a project that is part of my MA degree.

• A summary of my research will be available on the University of Alberta website.

• Your personally identifiable information will be deleted and digitally shredded as soon as I have finished gathering data about you.

• Data will be kept confidential. Only I will have access to the computer file containing the data. It will be password protected. I will not be sent by email or stored online.

• I will always handle my data in compliance with University of Alberta standards.

• If you would like to receive a copy of my final report, please ask.


Further Information

• If you have any further questions regarding this study, please do not hesitate to contact Dr. Stanley Varnhagen, my research advisor for this project. If you have concerns about this study, you may contact the University of Alberta Research Ethics Committee at 780-492-2615. This office has no affiliation with the study investigators.


Thank-you again!

The Signpost: 26 September 2011


Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-visiting ban decision

At Tenmei banned for one year, you support a harsh sanction.

Please consider a less severe remedy in light of a wider contribution history which may have been overlooked -- see

In 2009, Roger Davies observed,

"I believe that Tenmei was trying to create an appropriate backdrop for later helpful and meaningful discussions ...."

The Senkaku issues were not simple; but there you have it.

Even this diff does not alter your judgment in this instance, I hope it will influence your thinking in other cases which arise in the future? --Tenmei (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you Muchas gracias, merci, vielen Dank and many thanks for your trust and voting me into the team of coordinators. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DC-area Meetup, Saturday, October 8

National Archives Backstage Pass - Who should come? You should. Really.
You are invited to the National Archives in College Park for a special backstage pass and scanathon meetup with Archivist of the United States David Ferriero, on Saturday, October 8. Go behind the scenes and into the stacks at the National Archives, help digitize documents, and edit together! Free catered lunch provided! Dominic·t 16:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smithsonian meetup

Greetings Kirill hows it going. I haven't talked to ya in a while and had a question that I thought you might have more info on. What ever happened to the Smithsonian project activity? I know we met a couple times but it seems to have really died out. --Kumioko (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Kirill, you do a grand job for WikiProject Military History in terms of project maintenance, functionality and organisation – don't think it goes unnoticed! Regards, Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 05:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words! Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to add List-Class

I noticed that Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive 105#Proposal to add List-Class was archived (actually it was archived twice in Archive 105 and some other duplicates were in Archive 106 so I removed the duplicates from Archive 105). But, my question is, does it need to be closed, summarized, next steps listed or anything? Thanks, Mojoworker (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to jump in, but it progressed to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#List class. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 10:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Marcus. I'm happy to see the proposal is moving forward and will be implemented. I'll try to monitor the progress there, but I suppose it will be announced at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history when it's ready. Mojoworker (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar
As you are working for the WMF, I appreciate you're support. Thanks Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm grateful for the kind words, but I think you have me mistaken with someone else, as I'm not (and have never been) employed by the WMF. Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added note

Hi Kirill, I just added a note on the Military history/Open tasks page under the blue 'Articles to be created' banner, asking users to scan the list of subject/links before adding another, but somehow the note is not 'exactly' in the right place. This is the note: Before adding a Subject/link please scan the existing links for keyword(s) to see if your topic already exists.. Is there any way to insert this in the blue-colored 'Articles to be created' banner? The template layout is a bit complex and so instead of doing a trial and error approach perhaps it would be best if someone more familiar with the template layout handle it instead. Could you check into it? Thanks, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the note got added to one of the transcluded task force lists rather than the open task page itself; I've gone ahead and fixed it so that it displays above the column break. Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colofac

He was blocked again, but for a slightly different reason than last time. As you seem to have more knowledge about his previous issues, perhaps you care to comment at ANI? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on the Bugle for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to WikiProject Military History. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation; I'll provide my responses to the questions sometime in the next few days. Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited! Wikipedia Loves Libraries DC

Wikipedia Loves Libraries DC & edit-a-thon

Wikipedia Loves Libraries comes to DC on Saturday, November 5th, from 1-5pm, at the Martin Luther King Jr Memorial Library.

We will be holding an edit-a-thon, working together to improve Wikipedia content related to DC history, arts, civil rights, or whatever suits your interests. There may also be opportunities to help with scanning historic photos plus some swag!

You're invited and we hope to see you there!

RSVP + more details!

Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC), on behalf of User:Aude[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 November2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for proceeding with the Scjessey motion; I had intended to do it earlier this week but have been offline for much of the time. Risker (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :-) Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November Op-Ed

Hey Kirill! I've started work on a November op-ed here. As you are someone who's been here god knows how long and knows many of the editors that are the subject of this op-ed, I'd like for you to go over the op-ed and add/change anything that is necesary. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly review the material you have so far; were you also looking for me to add more names? Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly that. Buggie111 (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, will do. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ACE2011

Dear Kirill Lokshin, thank you for nominating yourself as a candidate in the 2011 Arbitration Committee elections. On behalf of the coordinators, allow me to welcome you to the elections and make a few suggestions to help you get set up. By now, you ought to have written your nomination statement, which should be no more than 400 words. Although there are no fixed guidelines for how to write a statement, note that many candidates treat this as an opportunity, in their own way, to put a cogent case as to why editors should vote for them—highlighting the strengths they would bring to the job, and convincing the community they would cope with the workload and responsibilities of being an arbitrator.

In order for your candidacy to be valid, your nomination statement must also include a declaration of any alternate or former user accounts you have contributed under (or, in the case of privacy concerns, a declaration that you have disclosed them to the Arbitration Committee), and must express your willingness and ability to meet the Wikimedia Foundation's access to nonpublic data policy.

You should at this point have your own questions subpage; feel free to begin answering the questions as you please. Together, the nomination statement and questions subpage should be transcluded to your candidate profile, whose talkpage will serve as the central location for discussion of your candidacy. If you experience any difficulty setting up these pages, please follow the links in the footer below. If you need assistance, on this or any other matter (including objectionable questions or commentary by others on your candidate pages), please notify the coordinators at their talkpage. If you have followed these instructions correctly, congratulations, you are now officially a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Good luck! -- DQ (t) (e) 05:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A minor and a large question

The minor question is regarding this article in the Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål version of Wikipedia. Could/Should it be translated to English, or is it covered by other existing articles?

The large question involves this (and innummerable other articles). Ideally articles on Wikipedia should be neutral, derived from that implies that within time the same content should be present, regardless of language version. Even though our volunteers strive for neutrality today I think we have a long way to go. So with the Finnish War (Русско-шведская война] as a basis, could it be of interest to try to work out how this could be done, by volunteers, in practice?

That means, how do we work to try to reach some kind of similarity on the same content, across language versions? Best regards, Ulflarsen (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge of Norwegian, so I'm unfortunately unable to assist with your first question.
As far as the broader issue is concerned, I'm not sure that such similarity is practical, given the differences in how topics are addressed in various languages' historiography; most editors of the English Wikipedia, for example, would not be in a position to use sources available only in Norwegian. While building similar content across several language versions might be feasible in isolated instances—where there is a dedicated group of multi-lingual editors willing to translate between the sources available in the different languages involved—it's not something that we can really do on a project-wide basis. Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for a swift answer! Regarding the first, the article is really about Norwegian prisoners in England during the Gunboat War, it seems to me it could warrant a translation, but I would want to check first with someone familiar with military history on the English language project.
Regarding the second issue, I agree there are various practical problems, but regardless I would say it would be a goal to strive towards. And if one selected one topic/article, then people from various projects would possibly be able to work out procedures for how such a topic could be said to be "sufficiently covered" to be neutral and consistent across languages.
Or - to put it another way, there can not be a completely different version of the Second World War in Norwegian, English and Russian, that would not be neutral and would violate our core principles. Of course some adjustments would have to be taken to cater to different nations view of the war, but besides from that, it should be the same war. Ulflarsen (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editor-only editing level

Hi Kirill, Piotrus some time ago came up with User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#On_the_perils_of_anonymity - Solution. Basically a level of editing wikipedia accessible only to named editors. I would really like to push this. What do you think (a) of its usefulness, and (b) of the chances of getting through the wikipedia changes system. I'm really willing to push this hard if it has a chance to be seriously considered.. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an intriguing idea, certainly; but I don't think it's really workable—at least not with the model that Piotrus suggests.
To date, the main weakness in every scheme to require verification of editors' identities—and proposals along these lines have been circulating since at least the Essjay affair—is the verification mechanism itself. Piotrus' proposal to use credit cards, while feasible to some degree in the US and other developed nations—although, even here, it would exclude anyone too young to be eligible for a credit card, or lacking in sufficient credit to be issued one, or unable or unwilling to have such a card for any of a variety of other reasons—wouldn't work at all in many other parts of the world, where credit cards are a relative rarity. Actual identity documents, on the other hand, would cover more of the potential editor base—although, in countries where they're not mandatory, it's not uncommon for people not to possess them, particularly in rural areas—but are difficult to verify and easily falsified. Absent a practical method for verifying identities without excluding large segments of the worlds' population, we can't really on such verification for something widespread.
Beyond the practical concern of how identities are to be verified, though, I'm not convinced that mere verification of identity would solve the problem Piotrus is trying to address. Knowing editors' real-life identity would curb sockpuppetry, to be sure; but it would do nothing to resolve the increasingly more problematic instances of meatpuppetry, since everyone involved in such circumstances is indeed a distinct individual. Further, the increased protections for such editors that Piotrus proposes—and particularly the literal application of the BLP policy to any project-space comments about them—would mean that any such editor that did misbehave would be almost impossible to sanction, as any case presented against them would arguably be a BLP violation in and of itself. It's unclear to me, in other words, whether this would actually improve matters unless it were coupled with additional restrictions on who could participate in the program.
Kirill [talk] [prof] 20:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kirill. Thus, in line with the quote at the top of my userpage, do you think we may be seeing the end of the 'encyclopedia anyone can edit?' Buckshot06 (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tend agree with that quote as far as the substance of the argument is concerned—the emphasis on WP:VERIFY (and particularly on inline citations) has indeed resulted in the community shrinking as contributors not interested in working under the new rules have left—but I don't entirely agree with conflating unwillingness to participate with inability to do so. Unlike Citizendium or similar projects, we have not (and I expect will not) require academic credentials to edit; all that's needed is a willingness to write on a (vaguely) academic level, which is something I think anyone is capable of if they devote the time and effort required. In other words, we're still the encyclopedia that anyone can edit; we're just not necessarily the encyclopedia that everyone wants to. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine Art Edit-a-Thon & DC Meetup 26!

Fine Art Edit-a-Thon & Meetup - Who should come? You should. Really.
FINE ART EDIT-A-THON & DC MEETUP 26 is December 17! The Edit-a-Thon will cover fine art subjects from the Federal Art Project and the meet up will involve Wikipedians from the area as well as Wiki-loving GLAM professionals. You don't have to attend both to attend one (but we hope you do!) Click the link above and sign up & spread the word! See you there! SarahStierch (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the Arbitration Committee Elections

Kirill Lokshin,

As a candidate for the Arbitration Committee elections, please be aware that your name has been entered into the SecurePoll ballot and can no longer be removed barring the most dire of emergencies and direct manipulation of the database. While you may still withdraw from the election, your name will not be removed from the ballot, but only struck through. If you have any further questions on the process, feel free to contact myself, the other election administrators, or the election coordinators. --Tznkai (talk), 2011 Arbitration Committee Election Administrator. 21:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

FT2's questions on ACE

FYI, Kirill and Risker: you're receiving this message because FT2 has posted similarly on the questions pages of all four returning arbs, while I've posted to Jclemens's and Coren's questions pages, urging FT2 to move his sections to Talk.[9] [10] Then I ran down.. but in the Coren version I alluded to his posts on you guys' pages, too, so you might like to be informed. FT2 has responded to me on Jclemens's questions talkpage. Bishonen | talk 22:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not particularly surprised at FT2's response; he's been atop that particular Reichstag for a long time now. Regardless, thank you for trying, and for letting me know. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trying? Oh, you mean here? Bishonen | talk 03:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Heh. Touché. Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Hi. Just out of curiosity, is there a particular reason you're named "Kirill Lokshin 5132" at https://arbcom.en.wikipedia.org/? Was that from the days where people scrambled the account name to prevent a user from logging in after ArbCom service? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite; the scrambling done when an arbitrator left the Committee was rather more thorough. The numbers were added more recently, in order to ensure that arbitrators' usernames on the arbitration wiki differed from the ones used on en.wiki; the intent was to prevent people from easily guessing arbitrators' usernames and then attempting dictionary attacks against the passwords.
Given the fact that you know the username, the mechanism obviously has some flaws. Thus, out of curiosity: how did you find that username? (Please feel free to send me an email prior to / instead of posting the information here if you think there's a significant security hole that needs to be addressed.) Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MZMcBride, I'd appreciate your providing this information by e-mail to me as well. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
bugzilla:32716 ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unanswered questions

Hi Kirill, I have asked all candidates the same set of questions, with a minor variation between whether they are sitting arbs or not. Is there any reason that you haven't answered the questions I have asked of you. I am especially interested in hearing from you exactly what your role was in the unblocking process, and given that it was yourself who emailed me to tell me the committee had discussed the evidence, I am especially interested in hearing from you what your input in the discussion was. I ask this, because you totally ignored the clarification request, which has now been quietly removed by the Committee from Clarification pages. I would appreciate it if you could provide some feedback on that for me. Russavia Let's dialogue 01:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help with a couple of templates

G'day Kirill, sorry to trouble you. I think you have a bit of knowledge around templates and as such I was wondering if you could find what is wrong with these two: {{Australian Officer Ranks}} and {{Australian Non-Commissioned Ranks}}. For the life of me, I can't work out how to fix the "[[Template:|v]] · [[|d]] · [[[:Template:Fullurl:Template:]] e]" which appears in the top left hand corner. Any advice would be great. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has to do with {{tnavbar-collapsible}}; that template requires two parameters—the second being the raw name of the page—to work properly, and produces various garbage markup if the second parameter is not provided. I've gone ahead and fixed both of the templates you mention; hope that helps! Kirill [talk] [prof] 20:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly does. Thank you very much. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hi Kirill. Please check your email. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Received and addressed. Kirill [talk] [prof] 20:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Would you check your email for my reply? Cunard (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is about the MQS redactions, so I am not starting a new section. I think the revision deletions were an overreaction. The fact that for people with very common names such as "Michael Smith" (whether in English or in German) one can easily find criminals of the same name is hardly a secret, so it was perfectly sufficient to make sure that the connection doesn't appear in search engines. As a result of the extensive redactions, one can no longer see that MQS reacted relatively poorly. He pretended that the drastic demonstration of where his nonchalant approach to BLP sourcing can lead was nothing but an unprovoked attack, and changed the topic. I have also left a comment on the RfA page, but maybe part of the discussion can be restored. Hans Adler 21:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking a page from search engines is an imperfect mechanism at best; while most of the commonly used ones do comply with our tags, there are those that do not. For content of this nature, therefore, suppression remains necessary.
As for restoring a portion of the discussion, the earlier attempts to "redact" the content unfortunately left it present in subsequent revisions; every revision involved contained the content in some form (whether directly visible to a reader, or visible in the revision text itself). It is not possible, therefore, to selectively restore any of the revisions.
You can, of course, make further comments—as you have done—to address the topics brought up in the discussion without reference to the specific content in question. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking along the lines of copy/pasting a more thoroughly redacted part of the discussion from the unredacted diff that I still have open in another tab. But of course I wouldn't dare doing that without first making sure that that's OK. Hans Adler 22:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So long as the content in question is completely removed, I have no particular objection to the other comments being reposted. You may, however, wish to ask the editors involved for their permission to post redacted versions of their comments; I know that some people have complained that doing so misrepresents what they said, and have preferred for the comments to be completely removed than to have them posted in modified form. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I have noted at the RfA, I agree with Hans Adler that the discussion should be restored without the offending news link and references to its content. Cunard (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per your permission, I have notified the users whose votes were not recorded in their contributions about the oversighting. Cunard (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

A Proposal

I have placed this on several history-related WikiProject talk pages. I am interested in hearing your opinion on these ideas, if you have a chance to reply at some point in the near future.

Below are some ideas on restructuring and revitalizing WikiProject History.

General Points

  • Restructure the front page so that it more closely resembles that of WikiProject Military History. This design is easy to navigate, and getting to specific areas of the WikiProject is made quicker and less difficult.
  • Forge closer ties with some of its "daughter" projects. WikiProject History should serve as a focal point for history-related article improvement drives and discussions, and should be a community of editors supportive of smaller, fairly inactive region-specific history projects.
  • Expand the A-Class review process. This should be a major function of WikiProject History (conducting A-Class reviews for smaller, "daughter" projects).
    • Work on expanding the number of History Good and Featured articles.
  • Host task forces devoted to improving recently-created articles. Some editors should work with WikiProject Deletion Sorting to save as many quality history-related AfDs as reasonably possible.
  • WikiProject History should be less of a "front-lines" WikiProject, like the Military History one, but more of a coordinating effort. An enhanced A-Class review process and forging relations with "daughter" projects would help to achieve this goal.

Membership and Leadership

  • All current WikiProject History members would be members of the new, revitalized project. WikiProject Military History members, as well as members of all region-specific history projects, would be automatically inducted into the project, although these users could opt out at any time.
  • All members of the WikiProject should have an equal say in WikiProject affairs.
    • However, a group of five coordinators should be elected by all editors that are part of the abovementioned categories to make the WikiProject "flow" smoothly. These coordinators would serve for twelve months each, and would be elected in February of each year.
    • Each coordinator would have a specific task, or "department".
      • Chief Coordinator. This coordinator would serve as a guide to other coordinators and members of the project.
      • Assessment and Review Coordinator. This coordinator would sort reviews, with the help of two delegates that s/he could appoint.
      • Membership Coordinator. This coordinator would deal with membership issues, and would direct and judge "contests" on the project.
      • Resources Coordinator. This coordinator would assist members in need.
      • Content Coordinator. This coordinator would work on improving articles in need, and would direct efforts and drives related to this.

Role on the Encyclopedia

WikiProject History should be a visible, important part of the encyclopedia, as it should work to coordinate other projects and direct various task forces and drives on the website. Newcomers interested in history should be assisted and guided by the Resources Coordinator and other helpful editors.

WikiProject History should work together with other projects to achieve some of the goals of the encyclopedia as a whole.

Thank you for reading this, and for commenting, if you are interested. DCItalk 23:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

Third Uninvolved Party Needed for Edit Resolution

Please help to ensure that Prof. Joel Mata's publications regarding life at All-Saints including Filipa Moniz as member of Military Order of Santiago is taken into consideration on Wikipedia's the page about Filipa Moniz, since all my edits are immediately deleted.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 04:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Campaignboxes with multi-line titles messed up

Hey Kirill, I wondered if you noticed this: WT:WikiProject Military history#Campaignboxes with multi-line titles messed up, which I posted a while ago. It's beyond my debugging abilities. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure what could be causing that, but I'll look into it shortly. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

stray space

That newline was deliberate. Please restore and check with User:Edokter and User:WOSlinker. It's about ensuring that bulleted lists in titles (a fair number, these days) appear at the beginning of lines so that MediaWiki generates lists. With out that newline, we get raw '*' in titles. I'd have to dig for an example... Alarbus (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I've restored the newline for the time being. Having said that, I'd appreciate seeing an example of a bulleted list in the title of something using {{military navigation}}; I'm not aware of any such instances, and I can't think of any cases where such a layout would be necessary. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look for one. Mostly these have been in the titles of ordinary navboxes. It would be in my contribs, as it was my idea. For now, see {{British Isles}} where I just used a list in the above section. There's a newline somewhere making that work. The issue with {{Campaignbox Crook-Averell Raid on the Virginia & Tennessee Railroad}} wasn't there when I edited it last month; it is a change in the css/js since. I'm also seeing it only in Chrome while logged-in. Mostly, though, I think it's the different font settings in my browsers... Alarbus (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense for the above/below fields (I've used lists there as well), but the space in {{military navigation}} affects the title field rather than above/below; I don't think I've ever seen a list in the title itself, which is why I'd be curious to see an example.
As far as the alignment issue, perhaps it has something to do with the relative font sizes and line height settings? The rendering might differ depending on whether the height of the {{navbar}} happens to span both lines of the title or only the first line. Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are not very many, nor should there be. One non-mil title use I recall is {{Districts of Amazonas Region}}. I started doing some like this because that one (or one nearby) was already using a "|" as a separator on the right (Previous revision of Template:Districts of Amazonas Region)
I've not looked further on the campaign title; did reply on the other Civil War one. There're a lot of interactions with v.d.e and [show] and the title and a lot of these campaign boxes have much too much text in the title. I have Chrome set to a rather large font size and this gives me a different view. I think the ambient nowrap on the campaign box titles is problematic as I've had to use a lot of br-tags or {{allow wrap}}. It would be better if most of that could be omitted. There's a slight font-size difference (I recall; not looking ATM) between milhist box titles and the rest; this might be a piece of this. I was going to ask WOSlinker for a few tracking categories to finish the raw_name stuff and maybe a few more would help on similar stuff. Alarbus (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the two problems seem to be related; I've removed the custom styling on the title text (which was, among other things, playing with the padding and the line height) as well as the reduced font size, and the wrapped lines appear to align correctly now. Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you were editing some of that. Imagine how much of the wiki's messes could be sorted out in an afternoon together in a pup (or coffee shop). Off to look at more... Alarbus (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

←I've been review my template edits and have not found a milbox with a list in the title. If there are any, someone will probably revert the hlisting and I'll then I'll notice. I'm not sure if I ever used it for other than that dodgy flag trick. Alarbus (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hlist.js

WOSlinker has some scripts you might find useful:

They don't handle it all, but they get things pretty close most of the time. Alarbus (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Thank you! Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful; one of the thigks occasionally missed is the first list-item of a group. They can get left up after list3= without a "*" ... There are an awful lot of variations out there and weird things trip it up. Alarbus (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An award for you!

Archives of American Art Barnstar
I, SarahStierch, hereby award you, Kirill Lokshin, with this award for your participation and contributions made at today's Fine Art Edit-a-Thon. Thank you for helping to improve fine arts coverage on Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The edit-a-thon was a lot of fun; hopefully we'll be able to do more events of this sort in the future. Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Congratulations on your re-election to the Committee! I'm looking forward to working along side you for the next few years. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words, and congratulations to you as well! I look forward to having you re-join the Committee once again. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Email Favor

Thanks. We appreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; that's what I'm here for. Kirill [talk] [prof] 20:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPMILHIST Announcements

The full template seems to stay lopsided these days, and more people (including me) are keeping the full template on their talk pages. Would it be possible (and desirable) to move the "unfinished tasks" at the bottom into the right-hand column? - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly be possible, but I"m not convinced it's the best approach; when we get the next influx of GANs—which can come in sets of 10+ per day, rather than the 1–2 per day we see on FACs or ACRs—or run out of some of the less-used categories on the left side (e.g. FARs, FLCs, etc.), the columns will be unbalanced in the opposite direction. A better long-term solution might be to have the two columns automatically balance in some way; I'll play around with the template and see what I can come up with. Kirill [talk] [prof] 20:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even better, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did You Know ...

If you have done 5 dyks before then one of us has to do a review to help this hook. Oh I polished it a bit Victuallers (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've done five DYKs, surprisingly enough—this would be my third, if I'm not mistaken—but please let me know if there's something else I can do to help. In any case, thank you for all your work on the article; it's well outside my area of expertise, and you've done considerably more with it than I could have. Kirill [talk] [prof] 20:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well thats your 4th and your 5th is just beside it. Any copy editing or better pictures would be good but Seasons Greetings Victuallers (talk) 12:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

DYK for Kyra Markham

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Letterio Calapai

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas for 2011

Kirill Lokshin,

Would like to say "Merry Christmas" for 2011! Hope you have a wonderful day and have good memories with family and friends. Adamdaley (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Interview?

Hey Kirill, I was thinking of doing an interview for the Bugle's new year edition. Would you be interested in being the interviewee or, if you have someone different coming to mind, being the interviewer? Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to be interviewed, if you think anyone will be interested in reading the result. :-) Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope they will. ;-) I'll draw up some questions and get back to you. Thanks very much! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

October NARA scanathon

Hi, you attended the scanathon at the National Archives in October. I recently noticed that most participants have yet to upload scanned documents to Commons, so I just wanted to check and see if you have any files to upload. Please use the October 2011 NARA Backstage Pass category when uploading (and tag any files you already uploaded without it) so we can track them. Any documents you upload will also cataloged by NARA, as well as being available for Wikimedians to use, so this is important! Also, if you have any photos from the tour or other aspects of the event, please be sure to upload those as well. Thanks! Dominic·t 20:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Archives ExtravaSCANza

You are invited to the National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success!

This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic·t 01:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited.

Underbars on conflict infoboxes

Hello. I hav a minor request. I see you recently changed the color of the underbar on Infobox military conflict. I was wondering—as I'm afraid of messing something up—would you do the same on related infoboxes such as infobox operational plan, infobox civilian attack, infobox civil conflict and infobox uprising? ~Asarlaí 14:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the change to {{Infobox operational plan}}. The other three infoboxes don't use {{WPMILHIST Infobox style}} to define the style attributes—they're not actually maintained by MILHIST, since they're not really "military" templates per se—so their colors would need to be individually adjusted.
Personally, I'm not sure the standard military template color scheme would make sense for all of them (note, for example, that {{Infobox civil conflict}} uses a completely different color scheme). Having said that, I have no problems with implementing the necessary changes on those templates—provided, of course, that the editors who normally maintain them agree with the idea; so please post a note about your requested change on the talk page of each template you'd like me to adjust, and we can go from there. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

The da Vinci Barnstar
Awarded to Kirill, as part of AustralianRupert's 2012 New Year Honours List, in recognition of their technical support work within the Military History Project during 2011. Thank you and keep up the good work! AustralianRupert (talk) 10:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words! Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments on Wikipedia:Representation

Hi there! My name is Whenaxis, I noticed that you are on the Arbitration Committee. I created a policy proposal called Wikipedia:Representation. I think that this policy would help the Arbitration Committee as well as the Mediation Committee because the goal of this proposed policy is to decrease the amount of time wasted when an unfamiliar editor files a Arbitration or Mediation Committee when other forms of Dispute Resolution have not yet been sought. For example, an editor may come to the Arbitration Committee requesting formal mediation when other dispute resolution areas have not been utilised such as third opinions or request for comments. A representative works much like a legal aid - there to help you for free and:

  • File a formal mediation case or an arbitration case on your behalf
  • Make statements and submit evidence at the case page on your behalf
  • Guide you through the expansive and sometimes complex policies and procedures of Wikipedia

This proposed idea can also help the editor seeking help because it can alleviate the stress and anxiety from dispute resolution because mediation and arbitration can be intimidating for those who are unfamiliar.

I would highly appreciate your comments on this proposal at: Wikipedia talk:Representation. Cheers and Happy New Year - Whenaxis about talk contribs 22:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

GLAM/SI project

Greetings, I was wondering if you knew what happened to the SI project. It seemed like there was a lot of interest form the community and the museum but things just fizzled out. --Kumioko (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia DC is continuing to work with the Smithsonian on several different areas for potential collaboration. The main focus so far has been on the "Wikipedian-in-Residence" program; Sarah Stierch held that position at the Smithsonian's Archives of American Art last year, and we're looking into the possibility of several additional positions over the coming year. Kirill [talk] [prof] 20:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I knew about Sarah and the WMDC but the SI project seemed like it was basically dead. Knowone had made any changes to it in months. --Kumioko (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify?

What you mean by the failure of BAG in the Lightmouse case? The page you linked to [11] only has the decision, which eventually placed Lightmouse under the same BAG-only restrictions that are proposed for Δ, but it's not clear at all from that page how that decision faltered thereafter. Thanks, ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now that Special:Contributions/Lightbot was eventually blocked for "Unapproved functionality". Perhaps you should have linked to that instead... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.[reply]

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

Re: "I don't believe there's any evidence that Ludwigs2 is generally disruptive outside this particular topic area."

That might be technically true, in that he is not disruptive elsewhere right now, but are you aware that he was topic banned from Astrology and that ArbCom cautioned him in yet another case? See my /Evidence for links. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interview

Hey Kirill, I finally put it together. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/January 2012/Interview. Thanks so much! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I'll try to get to it this evening. Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It all looks good to me! Just making sure, did I get your wikibiography (that sounds so weird) correct? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all of that looks correct. Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 06:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many tks for your prompt response, Kirill. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblock Problem

On the IP address that I use, there seems to be a disturbance. Sevral people use Wikipedia on the same network, but a User:Shakinglord was banned some time ago, and a block had been enforced. Recently the block was lifted, but shortly after that, we were autobocked again. He seems to be still logging on to Wikipedia. I have looked into this and discovered that he has exiled to Simple English Wikipedia, creating articles there. I have collaborated with the other users on my network. These users are: User: Old Man Cactus, User: Ice Patroller, User: Endurance Captain, User: Lego Clone Trooper User: Chimeramax and User: Kaishu Tachibana. We ask if something can be done. Sevral of my colleages have also contacted other admins as well. If anything can be done, that would be great. Hoyle Casino Man (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

never mind, I think the problem has been dealt with already.Hoyle Casino Man (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions at images case

Hi. I have left some questions for you at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Proposed decision#Questions for Kiril regarding Comment in FoF 1.2 Guidance is needed. Thanks.Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hi Kirill, could you please check your mail? I wrote you a few days ago. Cheers. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

Duplicate wikiprojects

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Duplicate Florida wikiprojects. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

Просьба

Кирилл, подскажите мне в одном вопросе. Я здесь пока плохо разбираюсь в традициях разрешения конфликтных ситуаций, но у меня серьезные претензии к одному из участников, NovaSkola (см. обсуждение и секции ниже, там все коротко и очевидно). Я не представляю как достичь консенсуса с человеком, который, как мне кажется, задался целью внести в википедию заведомо ложную информацию, и вопреки правилам, не достигнув консенсуса, вносит в статью оспоренные сведения ([12], [13], [14]). В рувики есть специальная группа посредников, к которым обращаются за решением таких конфликтных ситуаций, они рассматривают вопрос и выносят решение. За возврат неконсенсусной информации, например, сразу следует блокировка. Как поступают в таких случаях в английской википедии? И как надо реагировать на обвинения в том, что я чей-то клон? Divot (talk) 11:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Чтобы было понятно, какой я "клон" (yep, it is well known both of them are clones), моя страница в русской википедии. Divot (talk) 11:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Группы посредников как на рувики у нас пока нет; наш Арбитражный Комитет вобще предпочитает не вникать в вопросы о содержание статей, a Комитет Посредников не может блокировать, итд. Порядок на таких темах как армяно-азербайджанский конфликт главным образом поддерживают администраторы арбитражного исполнения, которые имеют право использовать дискреционные санкции введенные для этого Арбитражным Комитетом. Если кто-то оскорбляет вас, я бы туда жаловался. Кирилл 01:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Спасибо. Divot (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

Information about my topic ban

Privet kolega. U menia yest odin vopros. I have a problem with my topic ban. I was banned according to "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren" [15] by admin Fut.Perf.. Of course I agree that my behaviour was battleground. But I think that better fit to my case some kind of Interaction topic ban. I had problems only with certain editors and not only in connection with "Slovak/Hungarian ethnic and national disputes".

Problematic articles were not only about national/ethnic disputes:

Article Principality of Hungary was not about "Slovak/Hungarian ethnic and national disputes" but it was about relevance of the whole article and about his scholarship. Here is a contest: [16][]

I made a new article about history Slovak lands and it was about old name of present day Slovakia. Here is a contest: [17]

Principality of Nitra is article about first Slavic state. Here is a contest: [18]

I tried to make a cooperation board, solve this problem by discussion. Here is contest: [19]

Article about politics Fidesz. Here is contest: [20]

I founded article about Slovaks in Hungary, than I left this article. And same editors are involved in and have an opposite point of view [21]

So you can see, that problem was not only about Slovak/Hungarian national and ethnic disputes. Its about certain editors with different opinions. When I left to the completely their area of editing, problem finished. But its only one Point of View in these topics now. Coz a planty of editors with different point of view were blocked. Only in 2011 it were placed on notice 4 editors which had topic battle with same editors as me [22] (Panonian, Wladthemlat, Omen and me).

I would like to know your opinion if its possible to change my topic ban and make a neutral compertorium which exact problems are between the point of views of Hungarian editors on the one side and Slovak, Romanian a Serbian editors on the other side. This would be helpful to this project, Wikipedia have to be a neutral. Iam not extremist and I believe that I have a knowledge to contribute to these topics and ability to make a compromises with opponents (at least at talkpages of articles - for a test). Vsio horosho i spasibo za otvet. Poka --Samofi (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, we give individual administrators fairly wide latitude to determine the appropriate sanction; if Future Perfect at Sunrise believes that a topic ban is the most effective remedy here, I'm not inclined to second-guess him without a convincing reason to do so.
You are, of course, free to formally appeal the sanction; the procedures are outlined here. Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, for the answer of the first part of my question. But the bigger problem is Slovak/Hungarian relation at Wikipedia and no admin tries to make something with this. I think that admin mentioned above is not neutral in this case and he became the target of canvassing from the side of Hungarian editors because of his double measure [23]. Its a large group of Hungarian editors which tries to delete Slovakian history and change all Slovak personalities to Hungarian. Sometimes its a pathetic, for example in this case: [24]. They use mostly unscholar and not neutral Hungarian sources and its impossible to discuss with them. I cannot imagine that in the article about Wayne Gretzky would be written in the heading "canadian ice-hockey player of ukrainian, polish and belorussian origin". Its ill.. Or for example this: [25] "Hungarian politics from Slovakia". He has hungarian ancestry. Again I cannot imagine in the article about Jesse Ventura [26] that would be written: "Slovak[27] politician from USA". They made from Wikipedia place for the propaganda of Hungarians and not neutral encyclopedia. Last thing I would like to open is vagueness of term Hungarian and Magyar. In the history term Hungarian (in latin Hungarus) meaned all people from Hungarian kingdom (Slovaks, Germans, Magyars, Ruthenians, Croats), but they use it like a synonym to Magyar. Iam angry because of this situation. It was discussed [28], but it needs a neutral point of view. I will personal, my grand-grand father studied in Germany and he was in evidention like a Hungarian student: [29]. But he was Slovak, I have a book after him written in slovakized-czech language. So in historical source says he was Hungarian (in historical sense). But he was also a personality in Slovak national revival, according to Slovak source [30]. I want only true, Hungarian in history doeas not mean present day Hungarians (Magyars). Maybe I will ban after this message to you, but I know its true. Probably people doeas not interesting about hungary and slovakia too much, but I dont want a situation, that after 10 years it will all Slovak history and personalities magyarized. Probably I took it too emotionaly and maybe it will better that I will not edit this topics, I dont know, but I want neutrality in this case and consensus - pilars of Wikipadia. Its not solution to ban 10 slovak and romanian editors and hold only Hungarian(Magyar) point of view. We need a team of neutral mediators in this topics. Spasi. --Samofi (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Pbrk

Template:Pbrk has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Alarbus (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know; I've commented there. Kirill [talk] [prof] 09:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

I think that the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#WikiProject_Conservatism would benefit from another WT:COUNCIL regular. It's yet another round of "these people shouldn't be permitted to collaborate on their areas of interest, much less to tag articles that interest them". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, I suppose; I'll try to comment there if I have some free time. Kirill [talk] [prof] 09:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mursel

In monitoring the behaviour of this long-term nationalist troublemaker, I am looking for an ArbCom case called 'Azerbaijan-Armenia-Iran-Kurdistan-Turkey', but can find details nowhere -- can you help? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 05:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's never been a case by that name, but I suspect that you're looking for either Armenia-Azerbaijan or Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On article-level discretionary sanctions

Dear Kirill, upon re-reading this discussion (in which I, unfortunately, was not able to participate) I realised that some arguments are somewhat questionable. You write:

"In principle, it's possible to create an article-level 1RR restriction from a literal reading of the provisions for discretionary sanctions, if we assume (a) that the editnotice on the article constitutes a sufficient warning as required by ¶2,..."

However, this is not correct. ¶2 implies that a warning is issued to the editor, who "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia". In other words, a situation when some editor, who committed no violation of WP policy, simply by reading the edit notice found himself sanctioned (edit restricted) is totally counterintuitive. In actuality, the full sequence of the events that lead to application discretionary sanctions is:

  1. Some editor working in the area of conflict "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia";
  2. A warning has been issued for him (obviously, this warning is supposed to contain a reference to some wrongdoing)
  3. If violation continues, sanctions are imposed.

In other words, the article wide sanctions do not meet these criteria: (1) a good faith editor coming to the area of conflict has committed no violations by the moment he opened the article's page; (2) the edit notice is not a warning at all, because it cites no violations committed by this particular user; (3) the sanctions are imposed before any violations took place.
I think the article wide discretionary sanctions issue should be revisited, because I see a direct violation of basic WP principles there.
Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite correct in that the sequence of events you've outlined is the normal way by which discretionary sanctions are imposed. I'm not convinced, however, that this particular sequence is necessarily mandated by the discretionary sanctions provisions as they currently stand. The paragraph regarding warnings merely states that:

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

There is no explicit requirement that the warning contain a reference to a prior violation; the only requirement imposed on the warning itself is that it include a link to the authorizing case. Implicitly, the wording of the second clause ("where appropriate, should be counseled", emphasis mine) suggests that a warning may be issued without stating any "specific steps" for improvement—and, since any mention of a specific violation would necessarily indicate something that the editor being warned might improve upon, suggests that a warning may be issued without stating a specific violation as well.
In broad terms, my interpretation of the current discretionary sanctions provisions is that the "repeatedly or seriously" test is applicable only when an actual sanction is to be imposed, and not when the preliminary warning is issued. Kirill [talk] [prof] 09:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot agree that there is no explicit requirement that the warning contain a reference to a prior violation. The text you quoted says:
"Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning..."
That mean that the warning is given to the editor, whose previous behaviour is questionable, which directly implies previous violation. I cannot imagine a situation when a warning (e.g. a WP:DIGWUREN warning) is being issued to some users without serious reasons. By contrast, the edit notice is addressed to all editors who happen to express interest to some particular article, which implies that they are considered as questionable by default, simply by virtue of their interest to this topic. Therefore, the edit notice you mean should be considered as information, not a formal warning, otherwise that would be a gross violation of AGF.
Re your last paragraph, I cannot agree that the 1RR edit notice is not a real sanction. Usually, placement of some user under 1RR is a sanction. In addition, by converting normal 3RR to 1RR for everyone, we restrict the editor's editing privileges, which may convert good faith editors into involuntary edit warriors: thus, it is much easier to unintentionally exceed 1RR limit then 3RR (even a single interleaving edit, which you may simply overlook, makes you a violator; that is exactly what happened with me when I got my only block).
Moreover, per the same discretionary sanctions at least one article had been indefinitely fully protected, which is tantamount to topic ban of all WP community from its editing, which is the actual sanction, not a warning. The possibility to apply the same sanctions to another article is currently being discussed. In my opinion, this is a very dangerous tendency.
I see no problem with application 1RR to a wide range of the users, however, they should be only the strictly limited list, which includes only those users who had already committed serious violations of our policy. For example, if 1RR is applied per WP:DIGWUREN, it should affect only those users who have already been sanctioned/warned per WP:DIGWUREN. The edit notice (which is a notice, not a warning) should just inform everyone that the users from this list are 1R restricted, or prohibited from making undicussed/unsupported edits to this particular article, and everyone who will edit war will be added to this list. However, the users who committed no violations in this area should not be restricted.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS Let me provide some positive example. The WWII article is a good article, and there was no edit wars there for a long time. The editors working on this article achieved a consensus that all non-minor edits should be discussed on the talk page before they have been made. This rule is being observed voluntarily, and it works perfectly. I agree that in some cases that is not possible, however, the admin may forcefully apply the same rule without restricting the user's editing privileges. It may work as follow:
  1. The edit notice is added to the article similar to that in the WWII article with small addition: "editors violating these rules will be sanctioned per ... (e.g. WP:DIGWUREN)
  2. If some user violates this rule, he may be reported and AE sanctions may be applied to him (including 1RR, topic ban, etc).
  3. The edit made by this user may be reverted by anyone.
As a result, the privileges of good faith editors will not be affected by the discretionary sanctions, and all questionable users will eventually found themselves sanctioned. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Informative private e-mail

Hiya. I have received a private e-mail from someone who is currently the subject of a discussion at WP:AN/I. In the e-mail, he makes some statements about himself which I believe may be very relevant to that discussion. Please advise regarding how I should proceed in this matter, if I should do anything at all, that is. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit difficult to provide a firm recommendation without knowing more details about the topic of the current discussion and the nature of the statements in question. Generally speaking, however, the contents of private correspondence should not be disclosed on-wiki without the consent of the author; depending on the correspondence in question, this may be easy or difficult to obtain.
On the other hand, if you have significant concerns regarding any Wikipedia-related email that you've received, you're welcome to forward it to the Arbitration Committee for review. Kirill [talk] [prof] 09:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

You're invited to DC Meetup #28!

DC Meetup #28: March 10 at Capitol City Brewery

DC Wikipedia meetup #28 is on Saturday, March 10, 2012, from 7pm on at Capitol City Brewery in downtown DC. (11th & H St NW).

Join us for an evening of socializing, chatting about Wikipedia, discussing Wikimedia DC activities and the latest preparations for Wikimania 2012. (RSVP + details)

Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC), on behalf of User:Aude[reply]

You're invited: Smithsonian Institution Women in Science Edit-a-Thon!

Who should come? You should. Really.
She Blinded Me with Science: Smithsonian Women in Science Edit-a-Thon will be held on Friday, March 30, 2012 at the Smithsonian Archives in Washington, D.C. This edit-a-thon will focus on improving and writing Wikipedia content about women from the Smithsonian who contributed to the sciences. It will be followed by a happy hour meetup! We look forward to seeing you there!

Sarah (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should have posted this several weeks ago

Hello, Kirill Lokshin. You have new messages at Template talk:Infobox military test site.
Message added Secretlondon (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

possible positive argument

I hope at this stage for merging espionage and intelligence as a combined separate from milhist intelligence this far down the track seems to make sense - they are both basically dead projects to revive one seems to make sense even if only to keep the intelligence portal alive and gather the huge number of intel categories and arts under one roof.... very long time no speak - cheers SatuSuro 03:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kirill_Lokshin/Archive_13&oldid=1151009103"