User talk:Kirill Lokshin/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 < Archive 9    Archive 10    Archive 11 >
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)


Прошу помочь с подачей иска в арбитраж

Кирилл, прошу Вашей технической помощи с подачей иска в арбитраж англоязычной Википедии: куда писать и как оформлять. Я и в русской-то не очень ориентируюсь, а тут... Заранее большое спасибо. Hithlin (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response to your query

Hello, Kirill Lokshin. You have new messages at Template_talk:Infobox_Military_Conflict#hCalendar "location" property.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-J JMesserly (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Proposed decision

As an arbitrator marked as active on the above case, please can you look over the proposed decisions and vote as you feel appropriate. If you would prefer to be marked as inactive on this case, please let me know and I'll update the case pages accordingly. Many thanks, Gazimoff 13:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response to your query

Hello, Kirill Lokshin. You have new messages at Template_talk:Infobox_Military_Conflict#hCalendar "location" property.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

My response is fixed now. Let my know what you think. -J JMesserly (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a response to the notion that something is being omitted (A but not B + C). -J JMesserly (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On re-reading your responses. I think I misunderstood what you were saying. I had it in my mind that you were offering some perspective on how the internal mechanics of the Placename/address template ought to function (how and what classes are assigned and so on). I could have responded with far less detail and hope I didn't bore you with tedious minutiae. Sorry. -J JMesserly (talk) 08:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Medal

Thanks a lot for the A-Class medal! I hope I can contribute more in the future. Cheers, Nudve (talk) 07:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dunkirk

There has recently been some conjecture as to how to describe the victory by the German forces. Can you or other members of the project group please assist in the discussion on the talk page. I intend to call for a consensus decision in order to establish the infobox statement regarding the outcome of the battle. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

EDITOR MAKING DATE EDITS

I just wanted to let you know that User:J JMesserly is making some questionable edits to dates within infoboxes without proper consensus. You can see some of the discussion at User talk:J JMesserly.--Kumioko (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military events

Hello, Kirill Lokshin. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-J JMesserly (talk) 05:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of MILHIST?

I think that I am too new to MILHIST to be qualified to answer this. However, someone who has been here since the dinosaurs might... ;) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For you

The Guidance Barnstar
For writing an essay some time ago offering advice to new coordinators and to those of us with tenor I hereby present you with The Guidance Barnstar. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 06:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Aviator

Please see the following page, The Aviator. I have been observing some vandalism of a section of the article, but now it's advanced instead of through other means to a legal threat. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Nowrap in tabs

Sorry to mess with your design, but I found the “Main page” tab wrapped in my window, making all of the tabs look too tall and unattractive. This fixes that, and the tabs are still all readable in a window as narrow as 800px in my browser. Feel free to revert, of course. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2009-02-07 03:28 z

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nom archives

I wondered why the red link went blue :) Thanks for fixing it. — Roger Davies talk 20:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

The Wise Old Owl Award

Your help is really appreciated. DurovaCharge! 04:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Editor's Barnstar

The Editor's Barnstar
For expertly trimming the text from the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Being a coordinator I hereby award you The Editor's Barnstar. Thanks for the trimming, one of those disadvantages to being a historian is that you feel compelled to add the history of everything to just about anything. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 07:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: History

Can not say I have not thought about it. A narrative history would probably be interesting to the outsiders, and it would be fun to write about the history of the project and its process in greater detail. My two concerns about the idea are that a narrative history would grow to the point of being too large to maintain, which would require either additional page or a trim of the information. The other concern I have is that a narrative history would wind up at mfd since it does not of itself provide anything important to the project, whereas the time line is small and to the point, and consolidates the major events in such as way as to be usefully but not overpowering.

To partial beat both issues we could raise the matter and see what consensus says, if people like the idea than they may be willing to invest some time in the process and would come to the rescue of a narrative page if it was to be put at mfd. Bare in mind though that as a collage student I would be unable to put much into the idea until roughly summer, and whatever I did try would need a lot of SP&G work to bring it up to standard. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With Thanks

The WikiProject Barnstar
For your leadership of The Military History WikiProject from September 2008–March 2009, please accept this WikiProject Barnstar. Cam (Chat) 00:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken Wikipedia

Hi Kirill,

Perhaps in your long experience with WPr:MILHIST you may have come across any experience with Spoken articles. I had asked on the project talk page but was replied to by users obviously new to the concept. It would be useful to know of any previous experiences. AshLin (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. IMHO this is a new dimension which could flesh out WPr:MILHIST and make large numbers of good military history articles accessible to visually-challenged users and audio enthusiasts. I'm a little surprised at finding myself somewhat of a pioneer. AshLin (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A-Class WikiProject reviews

Kirill,

If we have a WikiProject or WikiProject consortium setting up an A-Class review page, would you be willing to help coach them through their first review? I'm looking for a handful of people experienced with such reviews who might be willing to lend a hand occasionally. Please reply here if you can help. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could certainly help, but it may be better to ask one of the coordinators who has been spending more time with the reviews recently; I haven't really worked on them since last year.
We're also planning to write up a tutorial on doing ACRs, which may be useful for other projects as well. Kirill [pf] 11:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for additional volunteers at WT:MHCOORD#A-Class review coaching request, incidentally. Kirill [pf] 11:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, that all sounds excellent! I'm busy with this, and traveling to a week-long conference, but if you can get some informal assistance for people that would be wonderful! The MILHIST system is often held up as the model that others would like to emulate, and so your (you+others at MILHIST) experience is very much needed, particularly any insights into how to get people to participate. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators

There are currently 12 members with 20 or 20+, and it has been less than a week so far, that means there is two spots left. The turnout has been great. Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver The Olive Branch 21:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kay

Hi there. I read your constructs on the PK page and the accompanying piece on the discussion page. Congratulations on being able to your modifications up for more that 24 hours! I agree wholeheartedly with your comments and not least your concerns with the rather aggressive tone that one of the editors, an admin who should know better, has taken. I really don't think that using 'for fucks sake' and 'removing bolloks' to any editor has a place on Wikipedia. Granted he apologised, but his comments are increasingly rude and obnoxious and as your mods to the PK page have been made previously, one wonders whether the only reason your mods to the page have survived is that you are an admin.

I can appreciate that many posts to Wiki pages are pure vandalism, yet as i see it, the mods attempted by yourself and other editors re the 'criticism' section of this page are well intentioned and the editor(s) frequently express this on the discussion page. Being an unregistered user (such as i choose), an editor or an admin really should make a difference really should affect how are edits are taken. Of course, what we have to say does.

cheers, M

FA categorization of Warfare

Hi Kirill. Sandy and I noticed that the warfare category of FAs has reached over 200 articles. Usually at this point we begin to subdivide the category. Could you please give your opinion on whether or how we should do this? Wikipedia talk:FA#Warfare.3F Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosity

I'm coming down to help with cleanup of the Ball's Bluff site with the battlefield guide crew next weekend. You interested in popping up? Get a very personal tour by experts? You think any other MilHisters might want to join us? BusterD (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

could you please help out?

I am currently a graduate student, working on a semester project regarding Wikipedia. I was hoping you would be able to privately answer a few questions in reference to your personal experience with Wikipedia in order for me to get your view on the website. The questions are on my user page, and if you could answer in them in word and e-mail them to the address shown that would be really helpful. Your anonymity is assured, and any personal information you give will never be used outside of this questionnaire. Thank you for your time.Curesearcher (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Germany design

Hockenheim
=
Hockenheim Town Hall
Hockenheim Town Hall
Official seal of Hockenheim
Seal
Country Germany
StateBaden-Württemberg


Hi Kirill. How are you? I've requested that we make a change to the German infobox and the members of the project think it is a good idea but haven't the knowledge to change it. Basically see User:Dr. Blofeld/Germany. What we want is to change the proportion of the coat of arms and the map. Ideally the coat of arms should go in the center on top and be slightly smaller and then the map made much larger to around 200px-220px and to go underneath with the caption as with standard maps. I would be very grateful if you could make the adjustment to Template:Infobox German location/sandbox and change the proportion of the undersized map to basically look like it does on the right. See the Hockenheim article and you'll see what I mean about the undersized map which looks silly the same size as the coat of arms Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

That looks excellent mate. Three small things though. Can you shrink the coat of arms size a bit maybe to 80px and shrink the gap a little bit between the caption and get the pagename town title to display on the map, you know like Rouen for instance and which also uses the small pin dot for precision. The French infobox used to be like Germany but we now have the towns displayed on the map anetated rather than just a point. Can you make those slight adjustments, should be pretty perfect after that. Thanks. Dr. Blofeld White cat 08:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks purrfect. Thanks for your help! Take care, Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

Looking forward to another great six months of working along side you. Not that you were technically up for election, but you still deserve to be part of the moment. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Muar

Hi Kirill how are you doing? I know you are a busy man these days but could you have a quick look at this article Battle of Muar. Only asking as I don't know the rest of the people on Milhist project anymore. Been away too long. Anyway there are a couple of us trying to sort out the articles relating too Battle of Malaya. Would appreciate any help or time you can spare. Point me to the editer who cares enough to moniter our input if you know one. Thanks. Tristan benedict (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kirill. Have a good night. Tristan benedict (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wallie

Do tell me if you think I stomped on him too hard; appreciate your guidance. Regards Buckshot06(prof) 16:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one can stomp on me too hard. :) Wallie (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IECOLL

Please would you advise arbcom that User:SebastianHelm has resigned as a moderator and we therefore need arbcom to appoint somebody else to take his place. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis

An unexpected development on Wikipedia that concerns us has been brought to our attention by Moonriddengirl. Please follow this link for more information. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Activity at WestBank/J&S case that I need you to look at.--Tznkai (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps you can help me?

Hi.

I am all but certain that

(see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Versus22&curid=22388013&action=history )

Would you be willing to look and see for sure?

J.delanoygabsadds 03:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you :-) J.delanoygabsadds 04:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:External media

Template:External media has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. B (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Mine

Hi Kirill. I was wondering if you sort Template:Infobox Mine so when the pushpin map features on it like Ebenezer Colliery the background is white rather than gray? The headers are fine its just it needs tweaking so that the background is white around the map as it looks too dark all colored in. COuld you look into it? Cheers Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! You're awesome! Thanks Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Open matters/Devolution has been listed as under consideration for nine months now, is there a more appropriate header tag? MBisanz talk 06:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add me as an involved party in arbitration/Macedonia 2?

I am not a very experienced wikipedia editor, but I have been involved in the naming dispute in the past. I didn't know that we weren't allowed to add ourselves, so I did it (sorry) and then User:Grsz11 undid it suggesting that I ask this from an arbitrator. Could you add me, please? --Radjenef (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove me from Samaria arbitration

Kirill, I'd be grateful if you could remove me from the list of parties in the Samaria case and also remove the accompanying findings of fact placeholder in the workshop. As I stated on WP:RFAR when this matter was raised, my only involvement has been to offer advice to the parties on WP:AE (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria#Statement by ChrisO). I have had no involvement whatsoever in the issue itself or in any other issues about the West Bank/Judea and Samaria. I don't even know why I was added as a party in the first place - the decision seems to have been taken by Tznkai, who left a message on my talk page informing me that I'd been listed as a party but did not say why. I haven't contributed to the arbitration at any stage, no evidence has been presented concerning my putative involvement (because there isn't any) and I haven't even been mentioned by any party until you posted your placeholder. You can see the entire extent of my involvement at [1], in which I made a grand total of two posts advising the disputing parties. There is simply no reason at all to involve me in this arbitration. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nonsense currently being peddled by User:Canadian Monkey, in blatant retaliation for your findings against User:Jayjg, is exactly why I objected to being dragged into the findings of fact when I've had next to no involvement in the dispute. For the record, I have no intention of getting dragged into it and I'd appreciate it if you could discourage this sort of point-scoring. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2.8.2

Hi Kirill,

I've had to explain to NoCal100 four or five times now that the WP:BATTLE allegation in your FoF 2.8.2 is merely about that brief facetious remark you quoted and nothing else — to no avail, he insists on reading things into it that are clearly not stated. I can foresee having to explain the same thing to dozens of other editors, in all likelihood not with a significantly higher degree of success. May I ask you to make a clear statement in the comment section that the FoF is about that remark and nothing else?

On a side note, and with all respect, it's not the strongest evidence of WP:BATTLE I've seen. It only serves as a substrate for editors like NoCal to project imaginary accusations on, and for more neutral editors as a faint trail of smoke that nevertheless must be indicative of some kind of fire, since a well-respected admin found it significant enough for a FoF. Needless to say, I'd be much happier if it could be stricken. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

personal wiki software

Hi Kirill, I was wondering if you know any personal wiki software that replicates what wikipedia does functionally. I have tried a few, but they always screwup if you use markups for citations, infobox, language, battle box, stuff like that. Thanks a lot. Blueshirts (talk) 03:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks anyway man. Blueshirts (talk) 06:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impending RFC

Kirill, I intend to launch an RFC in the next day on my six recommendations for the proper organisation of ArbCom hearings. Please let me know if there's a problem in holding this RFC in relation to the ArbCom schedule (which I see you've just updated). Tony (talk) 08:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I will look through the list you mentioned and remove or modify anything in the RFC that duplicates it. On the matter of over-specifying the wording, well ... the devil is in the detail, and I believe it's important to walk backwards from the result. Would it solve that matter if I made it clear that (i) the wordings are intended to be only examples of how the proposals might be put into effect in the policy, (ii) put the exemplified wording in footnotes instead of cluttering the main proposal text, and (iii) remove thislink from the process? That might leave the latitude to execute the spirit of any proposal that gained clear support by whatever wording subsequently worked best.

I presume you've seen the latest version (posted recently), which includes "Objections" in the lead. I would like to invite people on the Provional Draft talk page to comment on those. Is it possible to locate the RFC as a subpage of the talk page there (with a slash in the title)? I have no idea of the mechanics of setting up an RFC, and the WP:RFC page I find confusing. Tony (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you indeed for supplying that information. In the draft RFC text, I've fixed the missing "not", have taken all of the full-text examples off the page, instead linking to them as "Possible policy text", and merged the boxes. It's much shorter. However, I will need to liaise with you concerning whether the "objections" should be modified. I will also need to look at the list for the next policy draft to determine whether the package of six proposals needs to be rationalised, trimmed or otherwise modified in relation to that list. Please see my application for a watchlist notice. Tony (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Remedies at WB/JS arbitration

I've asked here if you would be kind enough to comment on the thinking behind your proposed remedies. Thank you, Jd2718 (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No other questions, for now. I'm sure I am not the only one who will take some time to reflect. Again, thank you. Jd2718 (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get out of jail free via FA

I seriously think that's clever. Read my replies--if you added in a simple set of conditions that can 'reset' the timer/counter, that's pretty much the most clever editing restriction I've seen yet. Demonstrate reforms from whatever you'd done wrong? OK, totally clear barometer you're here for the right reasons. Do it again right after, your bad stuff? Give us another 10 as penance if you really want to work on that topic area. Oops, did you edit war again? You really want to work that topic? Congratulations, you're now the all-time leader in Featured Articles. Wikipedia can only win with that carrot/stick method. Put in the reversal condition and shit, I'd say put that into every decision or motion about a topic/subject ban. rootology (C)(T) 03:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think kb of FA prose is a better metric. Some FAs out there have 5k prose, and some of the ones that PericlesofAthens (talk · contribs) does, they're about 80kb prose, because he likes it that way. Also does this only include new FAs. I can imagine some guys will start FARing some older stuff to disqualify their opponents' credits so to speak YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User missing in West Bank proposed decision

Kirill, I find it odd that a user in the arbcomm case is under injunction to stay away from the case pages, but in your editor specific findings for the case you haven't even put in a place holder for the user. I'd recommend you at least add a placeholder, and if the injunction was merited then a finding is going to be merited also. GRBerry 16:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines work?

We seem to have a near-consensus version of the naming conventions draft. Would we be allowed to finish the work before your suggested remedy takes effect? MeteorMaker (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Surfer

Hi can you fix Template:Infobox Surfer. See Kelly Slater for some reason the template insists on coming first meaning that there is a gap above the text in the article. Can you fix it? Thanks Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahaa its been fixed already! I managed to work out the alignment the Hawaiian guy managed to fix the gap. Its perfect now. Hey I create an infobox surfer and it attracts people from Hawaii! Thanks anyway.20:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Clerks

[2] Do you feel it would be appropriate to list who has access to the clerks mailing list, just like all of the others? Tiptoety talk 03:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will get on that. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 03:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your question

Re: "Was some part of "complaints should be sent *privately*" unclear?"[3] It's not at all unclear. Your purpose here, in my opinion, is to keep it private so you can cover it up again.71.227.191.107 (talk) 03:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly; as you might observe from certain recent cases, we (or at least I) take unseemly behavior by functionaries very seriously. If you have any substantive evidence of these allegations, please send it to us so that we can conduct an investigation; if you don't, please refrain from using our talk page as a tabloid for scurrilous rumors. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I had the impression - and I'm hardly the only one - that you've been working your way down a predetermined hit list of enemies. Lar is not your enemy, but your collaborator in this endeavor.71.227.191.107 (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no hit list—I'm more harsh than many of my colleagues across the board, if anything—and I have no idea why Lar could be considered my collaborator, in any case; but I don't suppose anything I say will dissuade you from suspecting some shadowy conspiracy where none exists. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a big coincidence, then, that you indeffed me at Lar's request, then led the charge to desysop SlimVirgin, whom Lar identified as the Wikipedian he hates the most, with your colleague FT2 - who again did bring the project and your Committee into disrepute - and now are after Jayjg? Of course some would blame Cla68's influence upon you for the latter two, but as it seems you're all in agreement, that would be a distinction without a difference.71.227.191.107 (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Lar had no involvement with or influence on the circumstances of your block (nor with the other two issues, for that matter); but please don't let mere facts get in the way of your theory. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So Lar had "no involvement with or influence on the circumstances" of SlimVirgin’s desysopping…hmm, wasn't there a case called “SlimVirgin-Lar," to which you wrote the very one-sided decision, to which you later appealed as the penultimate "straw [upon] the camel’s back?"
Here you wrote, "Informally, the Committee notes that a technical breach of the privacy policy may have occurred in this case; but that, given the limitations of our operating environment with regards to data isolation, it is unclear whether any reasonable means for preventing breaches of this nature are available at present."
But you knew, didn't you, the reason for the breach, and that it was more or less, shall we say, "structural" and permanent in nature; your statement was formulated to mislead and conceal from the community one of the very things you and your fellow Arbitrators are concealing now. I have proof that you did.71.227.191.107 (talk) 04:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine how anything in that case might have been formulated to conceal something from the community, given that all the allegations and counter-allegations had been aired in public for months; that was, if you recall, one of the major points covered in the decision. The choice of wording is certainly not related to any of the allegations you have in mind—the decision was drafted and posted before those allegations were made.
(That you believe my decision to be one-sided is not particularly surprising, but that's neither here nor there.)
In any case, I repeat my earlier point: if you have substantive evidence of anything unseemly, please send it to us; if you do not, then don't complain that we're ignoring the matter. We cannot investigate evidence that we don't have. Kirill [talk] [pf] 05:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill, you knew this was no technical or one-time breach of the privacy policy; Lar's wife, an active Wikipedia contributor, monitors his emails and chats to keep an eye on his communications with female contributors. Several women have complained - and again, you know this already - that communication with Lar on official business was hindered by this fact.
Now why don't you tell us why Lar's wife monitors his communications, in ongoing contravention of the CU privacy policy. When did that start, and why? For the answer leads directly to a member of your own Committee, a member whom you have now appointed to oversee his use of Checkuser.71.227.191.107 (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While some of these allegations have indeed been made before, I have not seen any convincing evidence that they're true—or even any evidence with sufficient detail to serve as a starting point for an official investigation. Again, if you have such evidence, then please send it to us; if not, then I think we've just about exhausted the possibilities of merely arguing back and forth over the matter. Kirill [talk] [pf] 06:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Active sanctions

I've duplicated the wording at general sanctions. A heads-up at the original discussion about the change in plan would not have gone unappreciated, but thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please...

...have a look at this. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Several editors [4][5], including one ArbCom member [6], have remarked that this finding is insufficiently sourced. Appreciate if you could look into this. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Further points have been raised [7] and further evidence has been requested. [8] Forgive me for bothering you again, but a number of editors feel it's important that serious accusations in final decisions are well supported with diffs. MeteorMaker (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret Vassyana's comment here as an indication there might be some confusion as to what part of the diff is claimed as evidence of the alleged infraction. This potential for confusion did not exist in the draft version of the FoF because the exact quote was specified. Could perhaps the "faux pas" line be reinserted to make it clear what the voting is on? MeteorMaker (talk) 05:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Functionaries

Greetings, I wonder if you could clarify somewhere what you had in mind by the term "functionary" in this and related arbitration remedies. There is widespread confusion at Wikipedia talk:Functionary as to what the term delineates, and it would seem that the Arbitration Committee is uniquely placed to offer a definition and scope. It would be helpful to have the ambiguity cleared up so that editors and particularly those considered functionaries by the committee know what behaviour is expected of a functionary. Regards, Skomorokh 19:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello, Kirill, I saw you change the date for the Tang case. What is the target date? Is it related to Arbitrators' voting or drafting final decisions? --Caspian blue 20:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks. That's what I want to know. I guess I have to finish up my statement before the date arrives.--Caspian blue 20:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR

Indefinite full protection?[9] Was that intentional? DurovaCharge! 05:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under the new system, all requests are supposed to be made on subpages, which are transcluded back to the main arbitration request page. J.delanoygabsadds 06:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Under the new system... A company I deal with outsourced its customer service to India and didn't ask whether the customers wanted the change--or even inform us of it. Suddenly when we needed service we were on the line with people who couldn't spell our names or addresses. They sent a service call to the wrong end of town and both the technician and I wasted an afternoon. Wasn't easy to track down an actual manager, then when I got one he tried to tell me the change was to serve me better. Under the new system... he began. Their stock took a drubbing these last six months, by the way. I wonder if the fellow's still employed. DurovaCharge! 06:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broken links

Hi Kirill. Unfortunately your move of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests has created lots of broken links, see August 06. Paul August ☎ 16:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've managed to fix all the broken links now. Paul August ☎ 17:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied to your post on my talk page. Paul August ☎ 13:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appoint CU & OS auditing subcommittee.

Kirill,—

On the Committee agenda entry for "Appoint CU & OS auditing subcommittee," would it be wise to set a preliminary date for holding public elections to the subcommittee?

Regards,

AGK 21:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per list

  1. That we declare all findings in the case, including those not about you, invalid
  2. That we rescind the restriction on your seeking adminship in the future which was left in place after the last change to the case
  3. That we should change the text of the case pages to state that the case should not have been accepted
  4. That we should change the text of the case pages to state that the handling of the case suffered from procedural errors
  5. That we should change the text of the case pages to be an analysis of the mistakes made during the case
  6. That we should apologize for our handling of the case
  7. That we should admit wrongdoing in regards to our handling of the case
  8. That we should promise not to repeat our handling of the case


Let's start by saying all the last six should all be done, and a modified form of 1 that explicitly declares all findings about me invalid, as opposed to simply withdrawn. I don't think all the findings about Hoffman actually are valid - for instance, it claims he was not a POV-pusher, which, anything else aside, he certainly was, but they aren't important, and he's never showed up again since anyway, so let's let that pass.

If you want #2 to not be done, I think I'm justified in asking for answers to the following:

  • What problems does such a restriction seek to prevent?
  • What good does such a restriction serve to the Wikipedia community?
  • Is this, or can it be seen as, the Arbcom claiming that it is right anyway in its actions after all?
  • The original finding said a review would happen after a few months, at which point I would be eligible to get adminship back. If I asked the Arbcom for it back, would it be granted at this time?
  • I've been very outspoken of late. Do you seriously believe that I could even get it back by RfA if I tried?

Ball's in your court. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made submissions to ArbCom by email during the case. Charles Matthews was the initiator of the MH "case", a party to it, and recused from his role as an arbitrator. Despite this, he read my email - I know, because I received a response from him. I have no knowledge whether he read all the other private submissions, although it seems likely that he did, because it is hard to imagine why he would choose to read only my email. There is no possibility that Charles was unaware that my emails related to the case, as the subject lines made the topic of my emails clear. A recused arbitrator who is also a party to and the initiator of the case reviewing confidential materials is not merely a procedural error. It is gross misuse of privileged access, and the ArbCom should make it crystal clear that such behaviour is utterly unacceptable in an arbitrator or former arbitrator.
The case pages provide numerous reasons for an unbiased observer to suspect improper influence. The lack of prior DR steps before taking the case, the disregard of the community views expressed in the RfC, the fact that Charles was not in any way sanctioned for comments on the case pages that could easily have earned any other editor a short block, the point-blank refusal to even consider Charles' behaviour, and the stampede for a sanction from UC before evidence was even submitted - all these events taint the case. Adding to this the possibility of further impropriety by Charles - something none of the regular editors can know - leaves a case fatally flawed. No finding or sanction related to it can be trusted. EdChem (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

The da Vinci Barnstar
For your work in developing the preload template for the working groups concept I herby bestow upon you The Graphic Designer's Barnstar. Thanks for your help, and keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 07:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome. Incidentally, I noticed just now that the name of the barnstars don't match: the template states The da Vinci Barnstar, but the box says the Graphic Designers barnstar. You may want to change that :) TomStar81 (Talk) 14:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*SIGH* I may have been coming here to give you the same thing. :-) Thanks a bunch! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 06:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject User Rehab

Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currency converter

Hi Kirill. I'm preparing the article Kareena Kapoor for FAC and I was wondering if you knew how to solve a problem that's concerning me. Could you see if you can add a currency coverter to the revenues of the films which are stated in rupees in this article?Dr. Blofeld (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For instance: "The film performed well internationally and became the year's top-grossing Bollywood film overseas, earning over Rs 350 million/$/£ "?

That should be OK thanks Kirill. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Moroccan Air Force

Hi Kirill. Would you mind taking a quick look at this article? There's a table under the 'aircraft inventory' that will not display whatever I do. Thanks very much, cheers Buckshot06(prof) 20:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hey Kirill. In the Ryulong case voting page, finding 15 states "Mythdon has been posting notes at Ryulong's talk page about Ryulong's use of the rollback feature for more than a year" which is not evidenced in the evidence in the finding. In fact, another statement in the finding contradicts that by saying "However, most of Mythdon's posts in early 2009 consisted of warnings in relation to Ryulong's use of the rollback tool". I made a similar post on the voting talk page, see here but there was no response. The posts in 2008 were just useless questions, and that the diffs in the finding do not evidence any rollback warning in 2008 nor does it evidence that I was making warnings for over a year. You as well as other Arbitration Committee members voted in support of the finding, but I hope the false statement in the finding is fixed. Could you please fix this problem in a solution you think is necessary? Thanks. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor fix

Looks like this text (Based on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood) was accidentally removed in this edit [10]. I would fix it myself, but that page is intended to be edited by Arbitrators and Clerks. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, thank you for the response. :) Cirt (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Hoffman

Dear Kirril,

Can I have an update on this? Thanks, Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Mythdon admonished"

I have replied to your comment(s) here. Thanks. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delinking response

Thanks for replying, Kirill. I've responded there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia proposals

Future Perfect =

Hello, I just saw your votes on the Macedonia case. Three requests:

  1. On the proposed decision talk page, at [11], there are a number of concrete factual objections I raised against the wording of some of the proposed FoFs about me. Not sure if you saw them; if you maintain the correctness of the FoFs in light of these objections, I'd appreciate a comment.
  2. I would strongly recommend finding a better title for your proposed new remedy. "Reeducation" has some extremely negative connatations, which I'm sure you wouldn't want to have associated with it. How about "admin tutoring"?
  3. In my own case, I'm not quite sure what exactly that remedy is supposed to achieve. As far as I am aware, hardly any of the charges against me is related to concrete use of admin tools. And as far as I can remember, there have hardly ever during all my admin career been any substantial complaints about tools-related decisions I made – in fact, if one were to review all my record, I am confident one would find the number of my admin actions that have been challenged or overturned is exceptionally low. So, what is that other admin supposed to teach me? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough about the "supervision". As for the tools use, does it mean I'm expected to ask for individual permission in every single instance I intend to do something? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SQRT5P1D2

Hello, Kirill. A few words regarding your support for proposals against me, in the Macedonia 2 case. I also sent Coren a message. I understand that time is limited and I just want everyone to get his/her facts straight, as there are bits and pieces in various places.

First of all, the SPA accusation is untrue. Rlevse wrote "SQRT5P1D2 is a Macedonia-focused single-purposed account", that "has been almost entirely been focused on editing a handful of Macedonia-related articles". As showed here, the vast majority of my article edits are not Macedonia-related. You can verify that yourself.

Regarding "meatpuppetry" and "canvassing", I'm not aware if you read all the facts. I sent one (1) neutral public message. Not to mention that in the same message, I condemn nationalism (I requested "no sarissas, the referee will show you a red card"; that means "be rational and leave nationalism outside of the field", as sarissas were weapons that ancient Macedonians took pride in). I also wrote that ChrisO's actions were not made "according to the regulations on neutrality and naming by using credible sources, such as academic ones". I condemned nationalism and asked for conformance to the regulations on neutrality, thus the accusations are unjustifiable.

In addition, as you can read in my response to Horologium, Wikipedia is not isolated from the rest of the Internet. Various blogs and forums reported about ChrisO's actions. Many added their nationalistic overtones, like "Macedonia is ours" and asked for support. Even TV stations reported about it! Is ChrisO the one to blame? Nobody is responsible for what others do and I certainly have nothing to do with what others may did.

If you want to examine the facts more closely, please do. Should you have any questions, please leave me a message. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO

Thanks for the interesting proposal about admin supervision. Since I've already stated that the article move was an exceptional action in response to an exceptional situation, I certainly don't see any circumstances in which I would repeat that action. Given that, I would be happy to agree to your proposal. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate account use

Hi Kirill. Over at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Some data I've noted that, through no fault of your own - people just neglected to ask you - you haven't AFAIK given an explicit response to the question "have you ever edited enwiki under another username". For the sake of completeness and propriety, would you mind doing so? Happy‑melon 14:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology votes

Reviewing the case and noticed that you still need to vote on enforcement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Proposed_decision#Proposed_enforcement

Sydney

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Account

Hi, I sent Arbcom an e-mail concerning my alternate account and you responded back to me. Could you please put a message on my talk page or user page confirming that Arbcom is aware of this in case anyone else has concerns?--Sandor Clegane (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great work at Samaria

Hi Kirill. You did brill at Samaria voting those people off the island. Can you get Jayjg back as soon as possible orcould you make Jaakobou an administrator? That would really stuff them! 81.156.221.178 (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call for you to recuse the AMiB RFAR

FYI rootology/equality 21:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rejecting "Locus of dispute" as written

In the "Tang Dynasty" ArbCom case, the "locus of dispute" factfinding should be rejected as written.

A new, better locus of dispute should be adduced.

I write to encourage you to re-visit this because the first and last sentences are fundamentally flawed.

NO to 1st sentence. The case originated when Teeninvestor rejected any and all inquiry relating to WP:V, WP:Burden and WP:RSUE, alleging vandalism and disruptive editing instead. This persistent confrontational strategy is endorsed and encouraged by those voting in support Newyorkbrad's locus of dispute. These votes effectively disregard Tenmei's locus, Teeninvestor's locus and, most importantly, Teeninvestor's restatment at Summarizing "more or less the entire dispute". This obfuscation marginalizes even the attempt to pursue a strategy of collaborative editing; and for this very practical reason, I could not disagree more with this sentence

NO to 3rd sentence. In the specific context of this case, it is procedurally unsound to adopt the expanded scope proposed by Teeninvestor and Caspian blue. One of the few areas of agreement acknowledged the initially limited focus of our case when it was opened. I could not disagree more with this sentence.

In support, I highlight a crucial fulcrum or pivot between "A" and "B" below:

"We appear to confront a small scale replica of what has occurred in other, wider disputes ... informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point of this escalating drama:
  • 1. "What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
  • 2. "What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does the source reflect that consensus?
  • 3. "Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
  • 4. "Are unsourced assertions being used?
"As others will know better than me, these four points are, unsurprisingly, at the center of most protracted disputes and are all violations of our core content policies, e.g., verifiability, no original research and neutrality."
"This guy is out of control, man." [emphasis added]

In this instance, Tenmei's paraphrase of Coren's moderating analysis was posted on the talk pages of all arguably interested participants at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. The "out of control" accusatory phrasing was repeated in diffs on the talk pages of PericlesofAthens and Arilang1234. This suggests a deliberate strategy rather than a merely transient outburst.

In these pivotal diffs, Teeninvestor cannot feign to have misunderstood my writing. These are plainly Coren's paraphrased words; and yet, this modest effort to frame collaborative editing issues was immediately converted into a contrived hostile encounter. This destructive pattern is reflected ad nauseam on the evidence and workshop pages. Despite the cumulative attacks, the edit history confirms my participation focused on issues, but this outcome tells me clearly that I was wrong to take the high road.

In voting to support this awkward "spin", ArbCom's counter-intuitive judgment effectively affirms that the contributions of Teeninvestor and Caspian blue were above reproach and I was not.

This alchemy is difficult to digest. ArbCom rewards what is bad and denigrates what is good. --Tenmei (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Royalty

Hello, Kirill! I was told that you are pretty good with templates and I need help around one. The Template:Infobox Royalty needs to be edited, to reduce its length. Could you please put all the succession elements (predecessor, successor, reign, regent, coronation) into a hide/show box? You can see how the Spanish did it on es:Plantilla:Ficha de monarca. The infobox of Eleanor of Aquitaine article, for example, has three succession parameters. If we could make them collapsable, the infobox would be significantly shorter, but nothing would be lost. I've tried to do it, but there is always something wrong. Thanks! Surtsicna (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The royal title should be instead of Succession and collapsing should be optional or, even better, automatic if there is more than one succession field. That's what I had in mind :) Surtsicna (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Location change (and reservations made) for DC meetup

I stopped by TGI Friday's this evening and was less than impressed. They apparently don't take reservations, except perhaps if you call 24 hours ahead of time. The staff was not so helpful, and the menu has hardly anything vegetarian which is an issue for some people.

So, I checked out the Bertucci's pizza/Italian place across the street (21st & I St NW). Their staff couldn't have been more helpful, and think it will be fairly quiet so we will be able to hear each other. So, reservations are made for Bertucci's at 5pm on Saturday. --Aude (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Hoffman

Hey, Kirill. It's been about a month, I think. Could I have another update? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks a lot! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D.C. Meetup, Saturday, June 6, 2009

The 7th DC Meetup dinner will be held this Saturday, June 6th, starting at 5 p.m. The event will be at Bertucci's, near George Washington University and the Foggy Bottom metro station. It will follow the Apps for Democracy open source event at GWU. For details or to RSVP if you haven't already, see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 7. (You have received this announcement because your user page indicates that you live in Maryland, Virginia, or DC.)
Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 19:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC) to report errors, please leave a note here. [reply]

User:LOTRrules

Hello. When in the arb thing going to occur as you said in the email? Its been days now and there is not any hint of it. 78.148.198.170 (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Watchlists

Really? I did not know that. Do you know how to turn it on/enable it? TomStar81 (Talk) 15:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hold up, I found it :) That must be a recent addition; haven't check my preferences in while, but I do not recall seeing the expanded watchlist option the last time I looked. Thanks for the info though, I am certain that I can make good use of the option. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement on MH case

Kirill, as you may or may not have noticed, I posted a statement about the MH appeal. In it, I raised questions about the actions of a former ArbCom member using his privileges to access confidential submissions in a case in which he was recused as an arbitrator and acting as a party to the case. I would appreciate it if you could make sure all present ArbCom members are aware of the statement (as it was made quite some time after Shoemaker's Holiday launched the appeal). In my view, the issue of misuse of information provided through the arbcom mailing list is a serious one, calling for a substantive response from the Committee about the policy implications. EdChem (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

definition of term in ArbCom motion?

Kirill, Sorry to pester, but I wonder whether you could outlay a few minutes to provide an opinion on the definition of "mass delinking" with respect to the examples given; and possibly to liaise with other arbitrators about the matter. I think it would be unhelpful for admins to be engaged in circular debate with editors—and running to arbitrators for advice—about whether their edits fall inside or outside the ambit of Motion 1.3. Thanks in advance. Tony (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and while I'm here, could I refer you to what I think is an excellent policy proposal by Ckatz concerning a way to address the continuing thorn in our sides: identity deception (last para here)? The current situation seems to take up far too much admin and arbcom time, and I believe it erodes trust between editors, and community confidence. As MBisantz points out, the WMF would need to be involved in such a solution, but the second bullet on this page (wmf:Minutes/April_5-7,_2008#Data_retention_policy) seems to leave the door open. Tony (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom dates case

Hi, I haven't been following the dates case for the sake of my sanity, but am shocked to discover that I've suddenly been banned from "style and editing guideline pages" for 3 months, including discussion pages. This is absolutely bizarre to me - I can't imagine what of my behaviour could have provoked such a long ban (3RR infringers get 24 hours, and though I may have been provoked into edit wars a few times, I don't think I've even done anything as bad as a 3RR infringement). In particular I see no reason why I should be banned from discussion pages - there's no sugggestion I've been uncivil there. Since you voted for this restriction, can you explain why? Also is there anything I can do to get it overturned - I feel it is horribly unjust in view of the contributions I've made in this area, including continually seeking consensus in difficult situations. I think I'm being punished here for the sins of others. Anyway, explain your reasoning please.--Kotniski (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I applaud your decision on Obama articles but it is not enough. There are other editors not mentioned and some got off too lightly.

The mess with Obama hurts Wikipedia. I used to contribute until about a year ago because some Obama people were just too nasty. Suggest a good edit and they jump all over you. Many people not listed have a clear political agenda (only positive things and oppose all neutral or negative things for some; only negative things and oppose all positive things for others).

One trouble is that people write something and have a reference. But there is no editorial consideration of what goes in the article. As a result, there is more positive stuff and negative stuff is censored because more people are disciples of Obama than haters.

This mess also hurts Wikipedia that I've decided only to read Wikipedia, not add to it. If I see something that is poorly written, I think "why help?". There is no appreciation for helping but swift attacks by people who have a political agenda. Then they stalk you in the other articles.

The solution to Obama hasn't been reached. ArbCom has taken a long time but just nipped a few people. A real solution would be to have professional reviewers, even English and History teachers to act as referees. This would be done only in exceptional cases, such as the Obama article and only for a limited period, such as 3-4 months. Until then, I don't write for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerwiki (talk • contribs) 20:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cold War Task Force

I don't know if you remember me, but you welcomed me to the Military History WikiProject. I recently proposed that a task force be made for the Cold War. I was wondering that if you liked the idea, you could put your support on the Military History talk page. -JayLeno175 (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of "related discussion"

Dear Kirill

I write to you in your capacity as Coordinating Arbitrator. Ryan has been issuing warnings such as this and this and this to the revelant parties in the recent Date Linking case who've !voted in the full-date unlinking bot RFC, related to the remedies concerning these bans from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions". The clerk has taken the lead from a comment by User SilkTork, No. 10 here.

I wonder whether you could read my note to Ryan on this matter and clear up what is very possibly a misunderstanding. Tony (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I am one of the editors Ryan warned. I find “style guides and related discussions” to be exceedingly clear: WP:MOS, WT:MOS, WP:MOSNUM, WT:MOSNUM; that is, don’t edit the style-guide pages and don’t argue about things on their respective talk pages. I expected participation with a simple vote in RfCs, where there is slim to no potential to be uncivil to someone would be fine. That is, after all, the basis for my restriction: incivility to others. I note that SilkTork commented in the RfC as follows: this discussion is *flying close* to the spirit of that ban (my emphasis). Restrictions on Wikipedia are to be interpreted least restrictively to prevent harm, not most restrictively. As far as I can see, the only “flame war” here is one of SilkTork’s making; otherwise, everything on the RfC was going quite peaceably. Greg L (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. I see your response to Ryan’s talk page. How long is this to go on? How do I get out from under it? Greg L (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're under an indefinite variant of the ban, so the best way to have it removed would be to continue contributing productively to the project while the situation with these guidelines stabilizes. We'll be considerably more receptive to appeals once we're confident that the debate has been settled and that your presence won't reignite the conflict. Kirill [talk] [pf] 17:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. That seems reasonable enough to me. Greg L (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon reflection… Quoting you: … while the situation with these guidelines stabilizes. We'll be considerably more receptive to appeals once we're confident that the debate has been settled and that your presence won't reignite the conflict. My fear is that date linking will be like a herpes infection: it never goes away and one keeps getting outbreaks for life. Accordingly, there will always be times where my presence could “ignite” a situation with dates; particularly if it’s six months from now and Locke comes back. I ask that when it comes to setting the milestone at which I can get unrestricted, that the Arbs not set a goal of “some future time when the date linking/delinking issue goes away”; that will take a long while. So…

    That brings me to an even better solution for you guys: Let me back on to WT:MOS, WP:MOS, WP:MOSNUM, and WT:MOSNUM for everything else I do there (math, science, and units of measurement), and just keep me out of anything to do with date linking/delinking for six months to a year. I never was all that animated about date linking in the first place; my record never once shows me going in and delinking mass quantities of dates—perhaps only one date ever few weeks or so. The only exception to this proposed restriction would be if the date linking issue pertains to an article on which I am a major contributor; I should be able to restore an article I’ve been working on to make it MOSNUM-compliant if someone goes in and links a date, or if it is a date-related discussion on my talk page or that of one of my wikifriends. This results in “Greg L” entirely out of date linking and lets MOSNUM benefit from my contributions on math and science issues.

    Between the above and my pledge to exercise as restraint and employ as much civility as any admin out there, doesn’t this seem like a perfectly reasonable solution that meets all your objectives? Greg L (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete user/disc pages; warn jayron/redpen/mufka

Hello kirill, If you could please delete my page and page history, I'd be much obliged.

I requested speedy deletion on 1Apr for reason 1.6. jayron deleted it, then acted as if s/he did me a favour. I feel jayron shouldnt have been the one to delete it initially as s/he and I have negatively interacted in the past. Followups from jayron included an unneccesary block; followed by telling me to get a yahoo email so that I may contact wiki admins!

Wiki is all about anon editing : as such I didnt and wont get an email account in order to communicate as it is not required.

Since then jayron,redpen, mufka have been repeatedly editing my page. I blank my page they restore it. This has been happening since April, so for 3months now. I bet if I changed their pages they'd posting threats of "i'll report you" and/or "you will be banned". It is quite easy for me to get a new ip address but I dont think Ive done anything wrong, so I wont change my ip address.

If my pages needed to be restored /reverted, I definitely think those three arent the ones who should do it as they/I have a convoluted history.

If you could please delete my page and page history, I'd be much obliged.
If you could contact jayron, redpen, & mufka & ask that any problems they have they let an admin or arbitrator know, instread of making changes or posting to me. I'd like to edit wiki in peace Thanks. 173.79.58.33 (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cold War

I have a Q at the Cold War notice board. At the moment the entire Cold War project seems to be a subset of the MILHIST one, according to the stats, even if directly tagged, meaning that things like anti/pro-communist summits/laws/referndums to ban communist parties etc will be in there. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom policy Draft 2: query

Hi Kirill: nice work. However, this statement:

The Committee may call interim elections, in a comparable format to the regular annual elections, if it determines that arbitrator resignations or inactivity have created an immediate need for additional arbitrators.

leaves open whether arbs elected at such "interim" elections would have a full term or would be elected only until the following January 1, where presumably the annual elections would fill the gap. Your clarification would be much appreciated. Tony (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Kirill. One way of avoiding the short-term of, say, an August interim election (hardly worth it for four months) could be to make the term last until December 31 in the year following the interim election. That would free the Committee from the cost-benefit constraint of an interim election after the early part of the yearly cycle. Just a thought. Tony (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian help

Hey Kirill, I left a note here as we need some help countering systemic bias on Ruff - any elp much appreciated. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DreamHost arbitration request

Thanks for agreeing to take a look at this. I'd like to start working on my evidence submission, but this has been going on long enough with enough editors that it seems like it would be in TLDR territory. What's the best way to focus in on the useful stuff for an evidence submission? Thanks again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy Hoy!

If you have the time and would be so kind, I'd like to know your thoughts on this. Thanks:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Conference New York Update: 3 weeks to go

For those of you who signed up early, Wiki-Conference New York has been confirmed for the weekend of July 25-26 at New York University, and we have Jimmy Wales signed on as a keynote speaker.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

need water for small fire

Hello Kirill, Your response at WT:MILHIST#Are subsections in firearms articles okay? is the basic response Some guy has been getting from several others (and I also agree with you) but two members of WP:Firearms keep reverting him and telling him about an elusive consensus that neither have been willing to point out to anyone. Rather, they are telling Some guy that he will have to get a consensus at WP:Firearms before he can make changes to any of the articles in question. When he has placed a tag for subsections, they will not let it stand in the article. This has led to this AN/I report. It looks like ownership to me. If you have the time, could you please look this over? I would like to see the whole thing de-escalate but I'm also inclined to agree with Some guy about the freedom to make changes. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for helping. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Infobox German location

Hi Kirill. I've made a proposal for the German infoboxes to use regional locators. Could you offer your thoughts and also would you be able to reprogramme the infobox to read each of the 16 states it is in and use the relative svg pin map? Each if the word Bavaria appears in the state section of the box by default it displays the File:Bavaria location map.svg from Template:Location map Germany Bavaria? I'm sure you know what I mean. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thats a good thing because people don't mind either way. I was thinking about something like below to feature the regional map and national map side by side and get the pin to display on both. We'd need to shrink the country map size to about 160px. The reaosn why I think the regional maps are useful is because they show where the settlements are within the sub districts of them. If you see Hockenheim for instance at the moment there is quite a gap either side of the central map so fitting the two in could be done I think. We have all 16 state maps at Category:Germany location map templates and I believe they all follow the same naming convention so I'd imagine you just programme the template to read the state parameter with that {{if thing and programme it to display the relative svg map by default.

Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK that sounds good thanks. We might have to do a trial and error in regards to individual state maps as they may differ in size so the px may vary for some state locators to align tidely with the national map. Regards. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Actually there is something you could do in the mean time. Can you move the general information section of Template:Infobox City Spain to the bottom below population, move the Time zone : CET (GMT +1) - summer : CEST (GMT +2) part down to just above post code once the general information section is at the bottom and shrink the width of the box. It's too bloated! Perhaps impose a set width on it, otherwise you could write something and it will float the width of the page! Sometime I'd like to impose Template:location map Spain to the template and replace the old set markers but first things first. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. Dr. Blofeld White cat 07:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My involvelent

Thanks for the clarification, but please consider this: how I am involvement when the arbitration case is being cited with regards to an editor with whom I hardly interacted, in an article which I have never or hardy edited, in a content conflict in which I have not taken place? If mere fact that I was a party to those arbitrations is sufficient to make me involved, fine, but could you clarify if this is indeed the definition being used, and if this makes every admin who was a party to those cases involved as well? Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Cold War

Thanks for fixing that, I couldn't quite get the coding. The important thing those is that we have the TF coordinators now. Happy Forth of July! TomStar81 (Talk) 01:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reviews

 Military history reviewers' award 
By order of the coordinators, for your help with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews April to June 2009, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award.  Roger Davies talk 12:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Template talk:Infobox German location

Hi Kirill. I've made a proposal for the German infoboxes to use regional locators. Could you offer your thoughts and also would you be able to reprogramme the infobox to read each of the 16 states it is in and use the relative svg pin map? Each if the word Bavaria appears in the state section of the box by default it displays the File:Bavaria location map.svg from Template:Location map Germany Bavaria? I'm sure you know what I mean. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thats a good thing because people don't mind either way. I was thinking about something like below to feature the regional map and national map side by side and get the pin to display on both. We'd need to shrink the country map size to about 160px. The reaosn why I think the regional maps are useful is because they show where the settlements are within the sub districts of them. If you see Hockenheim for instance at the moment there is quite a gap either side of the central map so fitting the two in could be done I think. We have all 16 state maps at Category:Germany location map templates and I believe they all follow the same naming convention so I'd imagine you just programme the template to read the state parameter with that {{if thing and programme it to display the relative svg map by default.

Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK that sounds good thanks. We might have to do a trial and error in regards to individual state maps as they may differ in size so the px may vary for some state locators to align tidely with the national map. Regards. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Everything OK?

Request for clarification

As per your sugegstion, I have opened Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  13:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your conduct

Your conduct as an arbitrator appears to have been improper. Perhaps you should correct yourself. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, specifically my comments on the Durova case. The evidence before the court is incontrovertible; there's no need for the jury to retire! Jehochman Talk 13:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restriction

Hi, please could you have a look at my "appeal" at WP:A/R/A. The situation I find myself in at the moment is ridiculous - I'm being warned for commenting on pages (the RFC on the date unlinking bot) which are not in any shape or form "style and editing guidelines". This leads me to conclude that when the arbs set this restriction, they were using "style and editing guidelines" as some kind of euphemism for "anything to do with date linking". In any case I've yet to hear any justification for the scope of this restriction - it seems entirely arbitrary and nothing to do with the supposed offences. For example, I was just about to make a comment at WT:Disambiguation, but on checking found that this WP page is marked as an "editing guideline", so going by the wording of the restriction I shouldn't be commenting on it, but WHY?? It makes absolutely no sense to me, yet most arbs have not even responded to my request for amendment, and those who have responded negatively have not answered my reasonable enough points made in response to them - in particular, no-one has given any reason as to why the restriction should include discussions. So please, could you have a look at this and help get this entirely inappropriate restriction changed - at least so as to exclude discussions that don't relate to dates.--Kotniski (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thread in question has now been moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking (2).--Kotniski (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, but I would appreciate more information - the arguments for amending the restriction have been quite extensively set out (by me and several others), and the replies from you and the other opposing arbs don't seem to address them - they just say that you/they believe the restriction is justified, without explaining why. I may be missing something, but so far I don't believe I've seen any reasoning for making the scope of the restriction include discussions, particularly discussions on style and editing guidelines which have nothing at all to do with the subject of the case. You will appreciate, I hope, that in my position (with effectively nowhere else to go) it is extremely unsatisfactory just to be told that the arguments in my favour are insufficient, without any reason or counterarguments being given. --Kotniski (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you say is not only harsh, but totally unfair. If you looked at the totality of what I did over date linking, and not just a few isolated occasions when I lost my temper (which I have acknowledged, and learnt from), you would see that I did a lot to make progress on the issue in a proper, positive way. Your characterization of me as one who is likely to exacerbate the dispute through actions on other pages (even though the dispute is now basically settled anyway) feels like one of the worst personal attacks I've suffered on WP, given the status of the person it comes from. I'm off on holiday now, so have no immediate need to discuss the matter further, but since we're doing personal criticism, let me say this: ArbCom's appalling handling of this issue has done far, far more harm than the actions of any editor - you've allowed the dispute to drag on into a ridiculous six-month bout of mudslinging, imposed sanctions that have nothing to do with solving any current problem, driven perfectly normal good editors away from the project, failed to acknowledge or discuss the systematic defects which led to the mess (even when they were pointed out to you), generally failed to engage in constructive dialogue with those involved, and are now inventing wildly exaggerated accusations to justify what were obviously erroneous decisions. I always assumed that those at the top of WP were wise and sensible people making considered decisions for the good of the project - I still believe that as individuals you are, but somehow as a collective body you have lost the plot rather badly. I hope that this case isn't representative of how ArbCom usually acts, but anyway, I hope you and the other Arbs (can you forward these comments to your mailing list?) will look objectively at what's gone on here and at your own part in it, and learn some serious lessons for the future, just as I'm sure all parties to the dispute have done.--Kotniski (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Editor Concerns

I'm extremely concerned by User:Some_guy and his... unco-operative remarks and general attitude. He's already had User:Nukes4Tots and User:Koalorka blocked for a week for disagreeing with him (he says it's for "personal insults- I disagree) and honestly, I think it's time someone with some authority came in and told him to either get with the programme or clear off and stop wasting our time. He's already said he's too good to even take a moment to join the MILHIST project, and I for one will not support any proposals made by people who can't be bothered pitching in and helping the projects. Please, I'd appreciate some backup here. It's not a good direction for a prestigous project like MILHIST to be heading in. Commander Zulu (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply! My concern isn't so much the proposals (they're not particularly harmful, as you say, but I still disagree with them) as with the actions of the person proposing them. He basically appeared out of nowhere, made sweeping changes to articles, and when two of the "regular" editors asked him to knock it off, he promptly complained about "personal attacks" and got them blocked for a week, and has generally been carrying on about "No-one owns articles!" and that sort of thing. Yes, true, no-one "Owns" articles, but I'm sure you'll agree the "active" editors are quite busy enough maintaining the articles and that without our support, most of the firearm articles would be, well, Not Very Good. And call me old-fashioned, but I would say that basic courtesy dictates some deference to the project maintaining the article. I'm not saying You Must Be A Member Of MILHIST To Have An Opinion, I'm saying that barging in and carrying on the way this new chap has Just Isn't Cricket, and that a discreet word in their ear to the effect that This Has Been Noticed might not go astray- a sort of "Your input is quite welcome, but getting editors blocked and insisting You Know Best when none of us have ever heard of you is, well counterproductive."

At any rate, I admire your ability to remain professional about the whole thing! :) Commander Zulu (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Koaolorka never participated in the discussion and Nukes did not participate for three days before he was blocked. Both ANIs were reviewed and the blocks administered by independent administrators. Both editors exhibited a refusal to discuss the substance of adding subsections at any length, and relied primarily on attacking me. However, Nukes has started accusing me of trying to silence him and prevent him from participating in the discussion, so you can look at that here. Some guy (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer opportunity in Bethesda, Thursday, July 16

The Wikimedia Foundation will be conducting an all-day Academy at the National Institutes of Health, in Bethesda, Maryland, on Thursday, July 16. The team that will be teaching at the Academy, a mix of paid staff and volunteers, is looking for four more volunteers to be teaching assistants, providing one-to-one assistance in workshops whenever a workshop participant has a problem following the instructional directions. (We currently have two editors signed up as teaching assistants, and are looking for a total of six.)

The NIH editing workshops are only for two hours, but volunteers are asked to meet the Wikimedia Foundation team at the hotel in Bethesda at about 7:15 a.m. (time to be finalized shortly) and to stay for the entire day, which ends at 4:30 p.m. Lunch will be provided. (The full schedule can be found here.)

The team is not necessarily looking for expert editors (though they are welcome), just people who can help novices who might get stuck when trying to do some basic things. If you've been an editor for at least 3 months, and have done at least 500 edits, you probably qualify.

If you're interested, please send John Broughton an email. If you might be interested, but would like further information, please post a note on his user talk page, so that he can respond there, and others can see what was asked.

(You have received this posting because your user page indicates that you live in Maryland or DC. --EdwardsBot (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

ACPD membership

You mentioned in your notification that interested editors can apply to be a part of the Advisory Council on Project Development. Where should interested editors (for example, me) send such applications? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some guy ANI

I have started an ANI discussion on Some guy: WP:ANI#Some guy You may want to comment there. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Substituting surname

I understand. One thing though. Any idea how you can {{subst: a surname in the page title to DEFAULTSORT sort the categories? Its just I have a large batch of German politicians to transwiki and I want to do it more quickly. So basically when you create the page it automatically places e.g Fritz Baier as Baier, Fritz in the categories. If not I gather there is a bot that can default sort the categories by surname and fix it afterwards? Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd imagine it is something like {subst:PAGENAME} but with a little programming to read the last word of the title and place it first. It would save a great deal of time anyway.Regards. Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tool link question

Out of curiosity would you happen to know of any tools that check the copyright status of images here in a manner similar to the ones we use for the ACR process to check for dead external links and dab links? And if we don't have any tools, would you happen to know anyone to whom I could suggest such a tool if it has not already been suggested? TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 02:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, asked at FAC. Now I play the waiting game... TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 02:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Kirill Lokshin. You have new messages at Berean Hunter's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettable

It's regrettable that you feel the need to resign from the ArbCom, unfortunately, it would probably be best if all of the members who voted for this ill-advised council do so as well. You are well-respected, and I hope that you will continue to be a strong member of the community. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea that everyone who voted for the council resigning is a ridiculous idea. Since when were ArbCom members infallible creatures not allowed to make mistakes? I think it's unfortunate Kirill took protests from certain vocal community members as a sign that the entire community rejects the idea and doesn't trust him any longer. An endorsement from roughly 20 people does not a community-wide consensus make. Steven Walling (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's going on? (admittedly, I'm not keen at the new council stuffs and discussion) You're one of finest ArbCom members, so please don't resign the position.--Caspian blue 21:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add that I do thank you for your work. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ps

this bit --> 'throwing vague ideas and premature proposals up on random pages.' made me smile - is there really any other possible approach? (and would those dribbling at their keyboards in opposition to the council idea consider reflecting on that?) - either ways, it made me smile for obvious reasons :-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

I believe that one of the members of the special committee has personally attacked me:Giano[12] I would appreciate your asking him to desist such attacks, if you mean this "committee" to be acting in good faith. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What action should Kirill take? He is too involved as an admin, and he has no authority over members of this group - temporarily he is not even an Arb, although when he was one he wouldn't have acted in this capacity anyhow. Without comment on the complaint, I would suggest that this is not the place to make it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His description of you looming as a harpy or vulture here, in this scenario, is accurate. Are you here to make a reference work or play at politics? rootology (C)(T) 00:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, Mattisse is an excellent encyclopedia builder, with hundreds of articles to her name. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that is the main reason why she was not banned entirely!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never requested that Kirill resign and I do not wish that he do so. It is a misconception that I requested his resignation. I merely requested acknowledgement of an error in judgment. However, whatever my statement, it should not be taken as a reason to personally attack me. I am deeply saddened if Kirill condones this type of behavior on his behalf. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content

Kirill, would like to offer you a restoration on the image of your choice. Perhaps something like this is close enough to your interests? It's from a manuscript of military designs. About a century late for your favorite period, but still Italian. With respect, Durova275 05:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Before
    Before
  • After
    After

What you chose was enough to work with. Hasn't thumbnailed yet on my screen (am heading out to brunch). Will address that if it remains a problem. Best regards, Durova275 16:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks Kirill for all your good work on the Arbitration Committee. Paul August ☎ 17:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Observation by a somewhat uninvolved party

Years ago, as a simple creator you were an elegant, cheerful, energetic content machine, an inspiration for a new editor like myself. You led the Military History project to success by example, delegation, organization and sheer energy. I was one who called for the position of coordinator emeritus, mostly to honor the enormous positive influence you'd have on the project even without your continued and direct input, after it was apparent you'd become truly desired by the community at Arbcom. Then, well, dude, you really set an amazing pace.

The emergence of Roger Davies first in the Military History project and then at Arbcom suggests that the organic success of your structural and ethical model for leadership at WPHILHIST wasn't a mere accident (lots of other reasons too, not the least of which is the friendship and long interaction you two have with each other, plus Roger's tendency to prove somewhat useful and durable himself). Many people here in the pedia have interacted with you, have learned to heed your council, have enjoyed engaging you in good faith disagreement, and mostly IMHO have developed strong reasons to reside trust in your internal process. I myself think I know you (or something about you) because of my cumulative associations and the knowledge of unknown others with which I trust you. Don't know everything, couldn't, and wouldn't want to; I know enough. You've got nothing to prove to anyone here; you're among friends. Truly.

With that in mind I say what I would say to a younger brother or nephew: Do whatever the hell you feel like doing. With joy in your heart. Chart whatever bright course your center pulls you toward and go change the world. You have proven yourself vastly capable in your youngest years; you should be a powerhouse in your life whatever path you choose.

With your long term interests at heart, I would suggest, take some kind of afk time before making firm decisions. Nobody here would begrudge you a moment. Peace and Love, my wiki-friend (and we've still got Portal:American Revolutionary War to finish). BusterD (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

m:SRP

Per your request, I've removed your oversight and checkuser permissions on this wiki. Thanks for your service to the project.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry to see you resign

... if you are determined to do so. Thanks for all your work. Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best intentions never go unpunished

Gee, I leave town for a few days for a nephew's wedding and here you are having more excitement than a bunch of piranha in a fishbowl (a precise analogy, I will offer). While I rarely follow the drama of grandpoobah-level wiki-politics, I believe I know what led you to your decision to resign from ArbCom. When you started out on this role, I remember telling you that you were a braver man than I. Leaders here are eaten, preferably alive. However, I hope you leave ArbCom with the understanding that inducing some measure of productive change in a highly politicized environment is the greatest level of achievement that a true leader can expect. And you have accomplished more than most, Kirill, so please take a due measure of pride in that. For all you’ve done for Wikipedia, let me say, Спасибо, моя подруга. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your resignation from ArbCom

Bugger. --Dweller (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

with the endorsement of Jimbo Wales?

Re Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development. You wrote: with the endorsement of Jimbo Wales but (other than his not removing that text) there is no obvious evidence of that endorsement. Can you provide a diff, or is it via private email? Forgive me if this has been clearly stated somewhere else; I couldn't see it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems obvious that the idea was pitched to Jimbo before it went public and he approved. Are you suggesting Kirill made it up? لennavecia 21:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems obvious is far too vague for a matter of this importance. You're on this committee but your comment above makes it clear that you don't know in what sense Jimbo has endorsed it. I'm wary of paraphrase and would like this matter clarified. Are you suggesting Kirill made it up? seems to me unnecessarily aggressive. As I hoped I made clear, I'm simply asking what the evidence is. If its a diff, all well and good, we can see it. If it is a private email, not so good: in that case it should be published (either the email, or a retrospective endorsement) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question for clarity seems aggressive to you? Well, it's only fair enough, I suppose, as I find it increasingly hilarious that such a big deal is being made of a discussion group. لennavecia 00:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't explicitly stated, since the endorsement was, indeed, via private email; there wasn't anything publicly viewable to link. Kirill [talk] [pf] 21:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think that isn't good enough. I think that either you should ask Jimbo if he doesn't mind making the email public; or request that he make some public sign of approval William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am no longer in a position to do anything about publishing correspondence from arbcom-l; please speak to one of the current arbitrators if you want to see that happen. Kirill [talk] [pf] 21:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WMC give it a rest. It's not worth your needless drama. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is disconcerting and disheartening to see how those who are so quick to shout Hoseana! and Hail Jimbo! are even more quick to commit Lèse majesté, when he makes even the mildest pronoucement of which they disapprove.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know I'm not shouting Hoseana or committing Lm; so I really have not a clue what you're (RDH) on about. Ditto, what has this got to do with drama? This is about WP:RS. As far as I'm concerned, I wanted to know in what sense this was OK'd by Jimbo. Jimbo has now post-fact clarified this, so I'm happy William M. Connolley (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then we had a misunderstanding. Rleves and I thought you were badgering our friend at a moment of great personal difficulty...bad form. But I will take your word that this was not the case.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Your Gold Watch

To Kirill upon the occasion of his retirement from the ArbCom. For having left it a better place than when he joined it. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk)

Now don't go taking the long walk to bring justice to the Cursed earth. Unless you really want to, of course ;-)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. (And, no, I'm not planning to take my long walk—or ride off into the sunset, for that matter—quite yet.) Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation from Advisory Council

I can and do understand how you might resign from the Arbitration Committee over this, even if I do think maybe it might be a good idea if you could show a little less integrity once in a while. But I do have to question why you would additionally withdraw from the new Advisory Council. Actually, when I first saw you had resigned from the ArbCom, I thought it was because you thought you might be more needed on the new Council, and I still think that. I'd probably do it myself, if there were a snowball's chance in hell that I would ever get put in either group. I would very seriously ask you to reconsider that move. Anyway, thanks for everything you've done to date for both groups. John Carter (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

resigning?

I have no idea what's going on, other than some sort of council thingie was being formed, and it caused an uproar. I'm not really even sure if that's the cause of your resignation from ArbCom. Speaking as someone who is emphatically not a happy-buddy IRC gimme-a-hug-and-a-smiley-icon kinda editor, I am deeply saddened about your choice (although it is yours to make, of course). Wikipedia is trending toward rampant mediocrity driven by clusters of... folks who care little about academic excellence or stringent quality standards (who in fact do not even comprehend what either of those mean, having never been exposed to them), and much about having many online friends and pretty barnstars. On the other side, it is also under attack by flame-wielding legends in their own minds. People who are mature, wise and balanced are in desperately short supply. It would probably be impolite for me to ask you to reconsider. But reconsider. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you quitting, Kirill. You were one of the handful of arbitrators who I felt actually got what Wikipedia is supposed to be about - Ling Nut's comments above are absolutely spot on about where Wikipedia has gone off the rails. You did your best to put the project back on the rails, but sadly I think it's become ungovernable now. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a great shame. All the best. --Folantin (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kirill. Thanks for being such a steady voice of reason, and I'm very sorry to hear about your resignation. From I saw of your arbitration work, your contribution to the quality of life of this community was significant. Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought

"Coordinators be thou for the contributors. You were elected to the position of coordinator by virtue of an approval vote obtained from your fellow contributors, but your fellow contributors will quickly become a jury of your peers if you overstep your authority on a matter. You must endeavor to exercise moderation in all things you do as a coordinator. The mark of a great user is that he or she can leave a position of power yet still retain the respect and admiration of the project as whole or near whole. If you can leave coordinatorship behind you but still be looked up to, then you have grasped the essence of what it means to serve in the position of a coordinator, and it will unlock doors for you within the project and across Wikipedia."

Based on this advice to the coordinators, and applied under the circumstances to arbitrators, then I dare say you have grasped the concept perfectly :) Take a long break, from arbcom, I would even consider taking a few weeks off from Wikipedia altogether, and when you come back I would be that everything will look and feel a little better. Good luck, whatever you decide to do, and thanks for on outstanding arbcom committee. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 14:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For grace under fire, I hereby award you this purple heart.

done and dusted?

well forget a week, t'would seem an hour's a long time in wiki-politics! - Are you sure you're up for resigning over the council thing, at this point? - Bear in mind the truism that the vast majority of 'the community' is actually just perfectly happy editing away on a few articles in the blissful ignorance that should they ever run into hot water, the 'management' levels of the community are you know.... a bit... idiosyncratic? ( / broken / stupid / embarrassing / colourful adjective of your own choice here ;-) - have a cup of tea, and mebbe reconsider? If not - then thanks heaps for all your work etc. etc. (first of many, I'm sure) :-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second that. Steven Walling (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful, NOT. One of the best admins and arbs we've ever had was driven away by the reaction to something he felt would help improve wiki. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What Rlevse said. I truly hope that you reconsider your decision to resign from Arbcom, if not, thank you for all that you have done in your time as a member of Arbcom. You have always been a voice of reason, I hope that you will continue to be. Best regards, Woody (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom is a completely thankless crap job. No matter what an arb does he gets crap for it. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt it, I certainly don't envy any of you. All I can say is thank you for all that you do. Best regards, Woody (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill, the ACPD is fundamentally a great idea for which you should be proud. Its implementation and scope was just a little too ambitious; everything here is accomplished piecemeal through small steps, not by grand cure-all solutions. --maclean 21:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Rlevse and others elsewhere, at least about the resignation, if not the thanklessness of ArbCom, about which I blissfully know nothing. And I think the advisory council is a great idea. I can also see how resigning ArbCom might not be the hardest decision in the world to make, but still regret that you've made it. You wouldn't be up to clerking duties if it came to that, would you? ;) The ArbCom will still need someone to file all the statements for them. John Carter (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? (I missed this.) Kirill. No. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should all quit arbcom, then the community can fix everything themselves and can't bitch at us. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Complainers will always complain, rarely aware of the amount of work those goes into what they're complaining about, quick to assume bad faith: thick skins are in order! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Sandy, I missed this as well, completely. Woody (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Decisions made in haste are often repented at leisure - I really think you should spend much more time contemplating the consequences of an honourable but premature reaction to a certain amount of hostility from certain areas of the community. I do have a suggestion for a quick fix; take the group off of publicly viewable fora and place them on a email list hosted by Wiki servers and then make decisions and enforce them without consultation with the community - this should satisfy one of your major critics, since this is the method they used until their star waned - except I think the majority of the assembled talents are peculiarly adverse to that method of influencing the project. Nope, if the creation of the group is flawed then the really honourable thing to do is try to get it right (or, at least, better) next time. Another cliche I shall throw your way is "The only person who never makes a mistake is the person who never makes anything." You may not have previously had my advantage of habitually being a minority viewpoint within the Wikipedia community, but if you really have the best interests of it at heart (and I am surely in the majority in believing you do) then you will persist in your efforts and in also undertaking the responsibilities that the project has entrusted you with. In fact, remaining as an Arb and yet also admitting to a flaw in judgement (if that is what it is, I am uncertain the verdict is not yet in) may increase your stock in those who recognise you as being one of those who act and work diligently for the betterment of the project. There are changes afoot, as is evidenced by the recent rash of RfC's and proposals for change, and there is a requirement or even a necessity that there are those who are currently/recently part of the infrastructure remain to help guide and advise those who seek to move Wikipedia into the future. In short, please reconsider your decision to resign - I am sure the ArbCom will accept a plea of "temporary insanity" (if only that is the general get out for being a candidate in the first place). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have had to go on Jimbo's page and request he uses some arcane founder power to stop you resigning - do you really need the grief that that will incur if he does (... you are going to have to bloody ban me from this page, too, if you want this to stop!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please reconsider. In good faith, you proposed something. Some others haven't agreed. Right or wrong, this happens all the time on WP and in real life. Here, as everywhere, we need people to be BOLD: the encyclopedia and the world would be nothing without it. I hope you can see that there is still faith in you, and in your ability to resolve our tedious conflicts, and to generate ideas about to make it it better.--Slp1 (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone, thank you for your kind words; they mean a great deal to me. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't resign over this, Kirill. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I weren't serious about resigning, I would have never done so; it's in the best interests of the project that the piper be paid in this case, I think. I'm sorry that I wasn't able to live up to your expectations. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain you were serious about resigning, and appreciate the conviction and action. But the point is that you did live up to the expectations of many (most?) WP editors. We need and want committed people who are willing to risk and give the best of themselves. Sometimes that means making proposals that aren't accepted; the wrong timing? the wrong presentation? Only time will tell. Building an encyclopedia this way is hard work, as I know from experience. I can't imagine the pressures of being an arbitrator, but grunt-esque editors like me need and want role models like you who are willing to think outside the box to make this encyclopedia better, and stick to it even when the going gets hot. The piper would be paid most inappropriately in this case. --Slp1 (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill, I won't sugarcoat it-I was disappointed in you when you were first elected. I was really hoping you would shake things up more. But in retrospect you were playing it smart and safe. You were only one voice and vote at the time, and a freshman at that. I expected way too much of you. Plus you still had the burden of MILHIST on your shoulders then too. But since Bauder's retirement, and especially since the last Arb elections, you have started to fulfill all the hopes and promise I had for you back in those dark days of 06-07. You are a leader and a builder. The community and the committee needs you now more than ever. I know it is a difficult and often thankless job, but you are the best man for it. Please, old friend, don't resign when the end of your term of voluntary imprisonment draws so near. Try and stay on at least until elections in November. Then by all means stand down and get a much deserved rest. But in the meantime continue to improve the committee and its culture and build onto your already impressive legacy.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your faith in me; but I don't think my presence on the Committee is necessary, at this point. The reforms I've helped set into motion—the increased transparency, the proper procedures, the new arbitration policy—will, I think, continue whether or not I'm there to oversee them personally; and the fallout of this affair, and the resulting questioning of my actions and motivations, would merely serve as a needless distraction from the Committee's work in the coming months. I am still only one member of a large committee; the community, if it speaks with a single voice and asks that the reforms continue, can do far more to motivate the Committee to act than I ever could.
As for my legacy, if it turns out to be merely that of a man who knew when he could do more good by leaving than by staying, I would be content; but I think it's a bit premature to discuss it, in any case, since I have no plans of retiring from the project. Certainly, I should finally have the time to finish some of those articles I've been putting off since 2007. :-) Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh the articles!...Yes, I'd forgotten about those; ) While myself, and most everyone here, would respect you no less for resigning, there is something to be said for riding out the storm. You did not go into this job not expecting to court critics, detractors and outright enemies did you? : ) If you resign now they can claim victory. They can say you left with a cloud overhead and couldn't take the heat, which is utter BS. This whole teapot tempest will soon be old news. Your strength of character will out this one, of that I have no doubts. So unless this is the proverbial, magic straw, which I really hope is not the case, why not stay on just long enough to deny the pricks our most esteemed colleagues, the satisfaction :-)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 03:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for you to resign. There is even less need for you to request that your CheckUser and Oversight rights be removed. If you do resign, you resigned in good standing. I wish that you would reconsider... :-( J.delanoygabsadds 03:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c with Kirill himself) Sorry Kirill, I for one do not accept your resignation. You're a member of our ArbCom and we really need you to stay that way. ArbCom works as a group. You can take leadership from within a group, and if you do so, you run the risk of being slapped down. Don't take it personally, it comes with the territory of leadership, the "nail sticking up gets the hammer" and all...
Did you (and AC as a whole) screw up with the advisory council? IMO yes. But so what? If I were to list all my good ideas with bad initial reception, my good ideas that turned out to be bad ones, my good ideas that turned out to be massively misconceived, and my just-plain-stupid ideas as proved in real-life: well, there is no web browser able to display the contents.
Please revert any "resignation" edits you've made, you're still the best we have, no matter what you may think just now. We voted for you. We need you. Franamax (talk) 03:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, two comments. First, IMO the iteration of ArbCOM that we had 24 hours ago was without a doubt one of the best group of people sitting in that thankless job. You guys did a great job and I think you and an Rlevse were among the best on the Committee. The only reason I won't say "the best on the committee" is because there are still some wonderfully gifted and dedicated members there. You and Rlvese brought something the committee needed. Second, do what is right for Kirill. You are a volunteer and if Kirill needs to step down/step away, then by all means do so and don't look back.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bah! This really stinks. Do think things over, come to your senses, etc and then then reconsider. MBisanz talk 03:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as I hate pleading for people not to leave/go/retire etc (see meatball:GoodBye)... per everybody else, don't resign. The fact that you felt it necessary to resign is a good part of the reason why the community needs you not to. ++Lar: t/c 03:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Lar and a bunch of the other comments I've seen above and about, thanks/chill/reconsider. There are things that need fixing and the huff about your Good Idea™ only points that out. We may not have always agreed, but you're obviously one of the serious people. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Balloonman; Only 24 hours ago we had the Best ArbCom Ev-er. I wish I shared Kirill's optimism that the ship will be able to stay on course without its helmsman.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 06:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kirill, just reverse this decision, please; no one will mind, and you won't lose face. I'd be very disappointed to lose your leading role at ArbCom. Tony (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you've set a standard of behavior as a Committee member that the rest of the current and future ArbCom members would be wise to emulate, if they aren't already. Cla68 (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm baaaaaaaaaaaack... I am disappointed you are not, though. Per Franamax, getting slapped down for acting upon an interpretation of "what is best" that is not universally accepted - and sometimes for good reason - is something of a modus operandi for the above editors (with the obvious exception of Lar, of course) and I think I can safely say that for us it is simply part of the process; another "learning experience". Well, now that you have experienced your own personal Road to Dramascus moment you are even better placed to weigh and judge and discuss the actions of those editors who come before the ArbCom. Why should you deprive the Committee of this new found perspective? LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you all for your kind words. I'm quite comfortable with my decision, however—not waking up to an inbox full of hate mail definitely helps!—so my resignation remains in effect.

I realize that this is probably quite disappointing to many of you, and I apologize for not living up to your expectations; but, overall, I think that my stepping down is in the best interests of the project. The Committee is more than capable of carrying on without me, and I have no desire to cling to my position merely for its own sake, or to drag the Committee into my own affairs.

I'm sure that I'll continue to play an active role in the project and advocate for reform, in any case, regardless of whether I'm on the Committee. Kirill [talk] [pf] 14:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, over on my talk page people are saying two days ago we have the best arbcom ever, now we don't. You're a key reason for that. Your unique skill set is crucial en wiki having a great arbcom. Please return. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously. Time to come back. We've got work to do. لennavecia 21:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also hope you'll reconsider. (I'm contacting you from my alternate account because my real account is on enforced Wikibreak.) I haven't always agreed with your decisions, but you've still done more than just about anyone to keep the committee moving and to come up with some solutions to the community's problems. Heimstern:Away (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've come too far to resign. Please reconsider mate. Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject

I noticed you recently redirected the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council in order to "...centralize discussion to one page so that we don't have so many unanswered questions". Did you take any measures to move open questions somewhere? I ask because without that my open question will never get an answer because it is now hidden by the redirect. Astronaut (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On The Subject Of The WPC

On the subject of the WPC, what do you think of my proposal to turn it into an elected content policy-making body?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of giving WikiProjects a greater role in principle—it's actually something I've been pushing for years—but I think changing the WPC to a policy-making body may be a bit premature.
Beyond that, I have problems with the logistics of what you're proposing. A straight correlation between having a WikiProject and having representatives on the WPC would effectively cause the demise of the task force system; no active group will want to be a task force rather than an independent WikiProject if doing so would disenfranchise it. The simplest way to fix this might be to make task forces eligible for representation under the same rules as independent WikiProjects, but I'm not convinced that it would be the best approach. In broad terms, I'd prefer to see a system where larger, more active, and more productive WikiProjects were given greater representation, while small and inactive ones were given less of it; aside from creating a somewhat more accurate representation of the editor base, this would also encourage smaller groups to combine and create more active core projects, rather than sustaining the current Balkanized system where every trivial subtopic is broken off into its own independent—but unsustainable—project. Kirill [talk] [pf] 16:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, that's why I suggested 2 delegates from each project; To prevent the larger, more powerful ones like ours from dominating the WPC. Task forces are work groups, not representational units. To make them thus would risk creating the opposite problem of everyone and his mom starting TFs just to get votes on the council. How about this instead: No delegates at all. Every member in good standing of every project would have a voice and vote on the WPC should they chose to exercise it. They would elect a chair and other presiding officials to manage the discussions and voting. But aside from that it would be an experiment in simple, open, direct democracy-An Ecclesia for the Wiki projects. And like that august, ancient assembly, should proceedings prove too chaotic and unmanagable, then smaller groups could be created to better handle the workload.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting idea. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from issues of logistics and scale, the biggest problem with it is, again, domination by the big projects such as ours. The former could be addressed through organization, delegation and improvisation. The latter could prove much more tricky. Maybe reserve a number of official posts for the smaller projects? Or make the chair of the WPC revolve (a swivel chair, if you will:) so that every project will have a fair chance to, at least symbolically, head the council.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're assuming that larger and more productive projects exercising a degree of influence proportional to their scale is a bad thing, no? There's a legitimate argument to be made that small projects should not be unduly disenfranchised; but, at the same time, I don't think it's really reasonable to equate a ten-editor project that's been around for a week to a thousand-editor project that's been around for five years. We should not, in my opinion, set up a system that rewards the Balkanization of projects; our overall objective still needs to be improving the encyclopedia, and that means we need a smaller number of larger and better-run WikiProjects, not a greater number of impotent and catatonic ones.
If anything, I'd want to go the other way, and set a fairly high bar for any "special" role in the WPC. Smaller projects could be represented by some sort of at-large representatives at that level; but I think that a project needs to have a strong track record of actually accomplishing something before it makes sense to give it any greater voice or visibility. Kirill [talk] [pf] 15:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and obviously there must be some qualifying requirements for participation in the WPC. Size and activity level for two, and as you suggest, time of existence. Towards this end, what do you think would be reasonable numbers? I only suggested 10 actives as a base, which could be raised or lowered accordingly.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

partner peer reviews with milhist and vg

was wondering what peer review criteria decide what gets posted for each wikiproject.陣内Jinnai 01:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just been wondering because a lot of peer reviews, like the one I put up, School Rumble are under the scope of WP:VG but only because the relevant video game articles were merged/redirected and therefore the main article became relevant within the scope of the wikiproject. However, I never posted it on the talk page, just the automated request picked it up for the assessment page.
I really don't mind, but was just checking to see what would be posted and what wouldn't.陣内Jinnai 01:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you resign

I go on WikiBreak for a good two or so weeks, and I come back to find one of the most diligent arbitrators in the history of the project has resigned. I'm not sure if we've ever interacted before, but I wanted to say that I've always appreciated the work you did on ArbCom, regardless of if I disagreed with you or not. This may be a bit overdue at this point, but I just wanted to say thank you for your service in a thankless job. 2 1/2 years of defining ArbCom's image and making Wikipedia a better place is something to be proud of. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, please say you aren't leaving wikipedia too? We need you greatly. Maybe it is for the better if you want to concentrate more on encyclopedia with less stress from arb but I also thought you did a great job and would still do if you hadb't have resigned. Best regards. Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no plans to leave Wikipedia. :-) Kirill [talk] [pf] 16:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template help

Hi Kirill, could I bother you for a little bit of help with a template. Somewhere in {{LondonGazette}} there is a bit of whitespace between the external link and the date. I can't seem to find it anywhere. See List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Royal Air Force#References for an example of it. Any help would be appreciated, thanks. Regards, Woody (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As ever, many thanks! Woody (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I Has Rollback plz?

I'm hoping to be doing some more mainspace work...you know, those articles we were discussing above ;-)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Use it wisely, don't edit war, etc. etc. Kirill [talk] [pf] 11:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I shall, thank you, Sir!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Carpenter

Thanks for putting this into peer review. Since it is currently a GA Candidate should we remove it or can we have both going at the same time? --Kumioko (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer reviews can be run in parallel with other processes, I think, since they're basically requests for feedback, not formal assessments. Kirill [talk] [pf] 11:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, I made a few more adjustments last night and I will make some more today. I will also follow it in peer review and make any adjustments necessary as changes occur (unless someone beats me to it of course). --Kumioko (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question at another page

I posed a question at User talk:Roger Davies#sourcing question that I thought you might be able to provide some wisdom with. I would appreciate any input you might have. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Roger suggested about putting material on the unit's website is probably the best idea. Beyond that, I would argue that government records are, in principle, sufficiently "available" to qualify as sources even if they're not viewable by the general public—presumably the records can be examined by interested researchers upon request>—but it would be much better if we didn't need to jump through such hoops.
Images, incidentally, don't necessarily need to have been published elsewhere; the image can, I think, be used without any further ado, assuming that the licensing is acceptable (which it should be, the image presumably being public domain as a federal government work). Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your feedback

thanks for your feedback at the wikiproject council. I am now suggesting at WP:SCOTUS that we become a task force of WP:LAW, and in doing so I quoted your brief comment, "Frankly, I'm not sure why SCOTUS isn't a task force of LAW to begin with, but that's just me." I've been a contributor at both WikiProjects for "only" about six months (there are some very senior contributors there), but my impression is that this solution simply hasn't been thought of. I'm wondering if you'd be willing to keep an eye on the discussion that may-or-may-not ensue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Supreme_Court_cases#Have_we_considered_making_this_wikiproject_a_.22task_force.22_of_WP:Law.3F.

(These projects tend to die down over the summer when school is not in session.) Agradman talk/contribs 15:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll drop by and comment there. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 10:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

WP:Hornbook

Hi Kirill, I didn't realize this was you from the NYC WikiConference. Thanks for your advice at WP:LAW regarding task forces.

Using your subst: template, I created [[WP:Hornbook.

I requested that someone make me a userbox, at Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/Ideas#Request:_can_you_make_a_userbox_for_my_new_task_force.3F.

Once that's done, I'm going to advertise the task force at the talk pages of the 80-ish people in WP:SCOTUS, WP:LAW, and Category:Wikipedian_law_students.

As I've mentioned in various places, I'm starting a club at my law school for this purpose, so I'm not worried about recruitment.

If you don't mind, I'd like to stay in touch with you as this process unfolds ... Agradman talk/contribs 21:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update:

I made the userbox myself! {{User Hornbook}}

I am going to begin drafting a solicitation to leave on talk pages of people who might be interested. I'll be drafting it at User:Agradman/taskforcespam, but it will take a while. If it's all right, I'd like to show it to you to get your feedback. I'll let you know when. Thanks. Agradman talk/contribs 00:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to review the note, and to help you in any other way you need.
A couple of initial comments that spring to mind:
  • Unless I'm misunderstanding the meaning of "editors", the task force should be named as "Law students' hornbook task force" instead of "Law student hornbook editors task force". Convention is to take the part of the name that precedes "task force" and use it as a label for things like assessment categories; and it makes more sense to wind up with something like "Stub-Class law students' hornbook articles" than "Stub-Class law student hornbook editors articles".
  • The basic template for the task force page is pretty rough; being used to working with WP:MILHIST's more developed task force format, I'd forgotten how crude the basic one is. You might consider asking at WP:LAW whether the project would like to have some more sophisticated infrastructure in place; if there's interest, I can put together a list of possible features for the project to consider.
Cheers, Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is great advice. I changed the name to "JD curriculum task force," which is much less of a mouthful.
  • I've pretty much written the note, if you'd like to take a looksee at User:Agradman/taskforcespam. (I'm also soliciting feedback from my WP:LAW comrades.)
  • I'll put a post at WP:LAW that addresses your second bullet point. Agradman talk/contribs 03:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The invitation looks pretty good, but an obvious item missing from the list of things to do is actually participating in the task force (which may take the form of writing articles, working on an explicit to-do list, and so forth). It may seem like that doesn't need to be stated explicitly, but the current text makes it seem like all you're asking is for people to spread the word, not to actually participate. Kirill [talk] [pf] 11:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I reproduced your offer at the WP:LAW talk page. It might take a while to generate a response -- since the bar exam for graduating law students was yesterday, and everyone else is winding up their summer internships, we've had low turnout on the project page -- I might need to start pasting the inquiry into user pages to get attention on this. Agradman talk/contribs 03:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great; I'll keep an eye on that discussion. Kirill [talk] [pf] 11:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

Could you please warn Poeticbent about his disruptive and abusive behavior in the article Massacres of Poles in Volhynia ? I have a detailed example with all relevent diffs here: [13]. When he got caught vhanging the info, he then decided to move it tot he back of the article. The discussion is here: [14]. Note the abusive nature of his posts. This guy had been blocked before when writing on a similar topic: [15]. I'm not looking for a block now, just a warning so that he settles down a bit. Thanks!Faustian (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask at WP:AN/I or WP:AN/AE for an administrator to deal with this; I generally refrain from any involvement in Eastern European disputes. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.Faustian (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC fix

Thanks for that, ive done this plenty of times now so i dont know why i messed it up - ill blame lack of sleep lol--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no problem. ;-) Kirill [talk] [pf] 11:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kirill_Lokshin/Archive_10&oldid=1166514239"