User talk:Kirill Lokshin/Archive 16

Hey Kirill Lokshin. I've put in a submission for a presentation at Wikimania 2015 called Is Two the Magic Number?: The Co-op and New Editor Engagement through Mentorship. I'll be talking about the state of finding help spaces on en.wiki and how our new mentorship space, The Co-op, factors into that picture. Reviewing will begin soon and I'll need your help to be able to present our work. Please review our proposal and give us feedback. If you would be interested in seeing this presentation, whether you are attending or not, please add your name to the signup at the bottom of the proposal (you do not need to attend Wikimania to express interest in presentations). I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} on behalf of Wikipedia:Co-op.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey mentors, two announcements:

1. You can now make your profile at The Co-op! Please set up your mentor profile here as soon as you are able, as the pilot begins on March 4th. It isn't very involved and should only take a minute. If you need more info about what the different skills mean (e.g. writing, communication), please refer to these descriptions.
2. Profile creation, invitations, and automated matching of editors, profile creation, that will be coordinated through HostBot and a few gadgets may not be ready for our pilot, and will have to be done manually until they are ready. In preparation for the pilot, please read over these instructions on how we will be manually performing these tasks until the automated components are ready. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} on behalf of Wikipedia:Co-op.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. 02:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

.

To remove yourself from this mailing list, remove your name from this list. 22:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to find someone that would be interested in helping me having the article about Kai Holst become either good or featured. If this is not within your area of interest I would be happy if you had some suggestions for me. If you could use some time on it I would in exchange for example offer to translate one of your articles in full for inclusion into the Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål version of Wikipedia. Ulflarsen (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

We are preparing to take a closer look at Featured articles promoted in 2004–2010 that may need a review. We started with a script-compiled list of older FAs that have not had a recent formal review. The next step is to prune the list by removing articles that are still actively maintained, up-to-date, and believed to meet current standards. We know that many of you personally maintain articles that you nominated, so we'd appreciate your help in winnowing the list where appropriate.

Please take a look at the sandbox list, check over the FAs listed by your name, and indicate on the sandbox talk page your assessment of their current status. Likewise, if you have taken on the maintenance of any listed FAs that were originally nominated by a departed editor, please indicate their status. BLPs should be given especially careful consideration.

Thanks for your help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Please respond at Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/sandbox#Pinging next round; thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey there! The Co-op has been on a hiatus for a bit, but we are planning on opening up shop again soon. When you're able, please read over and respond to this update on our talk page. We have favorable results from our final report regarding the pilot, and we are interested in seeing who is available to mentor when we reopen our space and begin to send out invites again. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

This message was sent by I JethroBT (talk · contribs) via Mass Message. (Opt-out instructions)

In one of the previous years you either attended or expressed interest in attending the Frederick Wiknic. I'd like to invite you to come to this year's Wiknic, which will be held on Sunday 2 August 2015 at 12:00 PM at Baker Park in Frederick, Maryland. You can find more information on the events meetup page. Zell Faze (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I see you recently joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. I've made a proposal to merge this project into Wikipedia:WikiProject Women at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red, so we can not only cover missing articles but focus on general quality of women's biographies. If interested please put your name down on the WP:Women page at the bottom.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I have a few questions for you, as James seems a bit too frazzled to discuss.

• What happened with the July 2015 Salon?
  • Can the August 2015 Salon be scheduled?
• Should we plan a D.C. Wiknic for 2015?

I'm contacting you as I believe you're still relatively involved with Wikimedia DC. If there are others I should be contacting in addition/instead, please feel free to ping them! --MZMcBride (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@MZMcBride: The August WikiSalon will be scheduled shortly. As far as the Wiknic is concerned, most of the core Wikimedia DC folks are out of the area on travel at least through the end of Wikimania, so having it in July may not be feasible from a logistics standpoint. I'll chat with James and see if we can plan for a date in August instead. Kirill ^[talk] 16:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks!

James was a bit worried about a D.C. Wiknic being too hot or too rainy (which is understandable given D.C.'s recent awful weather), but I think we have plenty of options to make the Wiknic a fun event. It's one of my favorite events of the year, so I just want to make sure we don't miss it. Fletcher's Cove might be an exciting venue, if we wanted to hold the Wiknic in a spot other than Meridian Hill Park. I'm happy to help coordinate if you two are busy. I realize that July is kind of consumed by Wikimania and surrounding events. A Wiknic in August sounds fine to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@MZMcBride: I've talked to James, and he's fine with doing something in August. However, he probably won't have enough bandwidth to organize the event himself, so it'll largely be up to us to put something together. What are your thoughts on location? Does it make sense to move away from Meridian Hill Park this year, or should we stick with it? Kirill ^[talk] 22:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The location doesn't really matter to me. Meridian Hill Park is convenient and easy, but we could just as easily meet in Dupont Circle or wherever.

In terms of dates, do you have any preference for a Saturday or Sunday in August? The first and second weekends of August aren't great for me... what about Saturday, August 15 or Sunday, August 16?

I'm not sure a whole lot of bandwidth is really needed to gather a bunch of nerds in a park. This needs a sign-up page to coordinate food/drinks/picnic-y things (napkins, cups, plates) and it needs to be announced via talk page message, the mailing list, Meetup.com(?), and maybe geonotice (is that still a thing?). Once we have a date, time, and location nailed down, I can spend a few minutes doing the rest. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@MZMcBride: Sunday, August 16 would be a good date for me as well. I vaguely recall that we had some complaints about the crowded nature of Dupont Circle, so let's plan on doing it at Meridian Hill Park. Any thoughts on the time? Kirill ^[talk] 14:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

There's usually a pretty decent amount of shade in the park. So maybe 12 p.m. to 3 p.m.? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@MZMcBride: 12 to 3 sounds reasonable to me. Kirill ^[talk] 00:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Page created: Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Wiknic/2015. We just need to publicize it now. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I was about to hand-deliver the invites until I realized that Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List is enormous. I need you or James to use Special:MassMessage to send this out. Here's some text:

• Target list: Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List
• Subject line: Wiknic in Washington, D.C. on Sunday, August 16
• Message:

[[File:Wiknic logo.svg|right|100px]]
Hi. The Washington, D.C. [[WP:WIKNIC|Wiknic]] will take place on Sunday, August 16 from 12 p.m. to 3 p.m. at [[Meridian Hill Park]]. If you're interested in attending, please '''[[Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Wiknic/2015|sign up here]]'''. Hope to see you there! --~~~~

<small>If you no longer wish to receive event invites, please remove yourself from [[Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List|this list]].</small>
{{subst:clear}}

I don't really care about Meetup.com, but maybe one of you all want to set that up as well? I'll send an e-mail to the Wikimedia DC mailing list later. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Shinsi has been requested by User:Ogress for being a "a random place-name from Korean mythistory". You have partaken on this subject in the past, and I ask that you partake on the current discussion of its deletion here. Thank you. Cydevil38 (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Uncategorized military articles, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor ^(talk) 21:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal ^talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I have filed a Request for clarification of Remedy 2.2 of WP:ARBRAN, concerning a topic ban placed on User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Since you were a member of ArbCom at the time, any insights you may wish to share about the committee's thinking would be welcome. Thanks. BMK (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello!

First, on behalf of WikiProject X, thank you for trying out the WikiProject X pilot projects. I would like to get some anonymous feedback from you on your experience using the new WikiProject layout and tools. This way, we will know what we did right, and if we did something horribly wrong, we can try to fix it. This feedback won't be associated with your username, so please be completely honest. We are determined to improve the experience of Wikipedians, and your feedback helps us with that. (You are also welcome to leave non-anonymous feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject X.)

Please complete the survey here. The survey has two parts: the first part asks for your username, while the second part contains the survey questions. These two parts are stored separately, so your username will not be associated with your feedback. There are only nine questions and it should not take very long to complete. Once you complete the survey I will leave a handwritten note on your talk page as a token of my appreciation.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Harej (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Just sending a reminder to complete the survey linked above. (This is the only reminder I'll send, I promise.) Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you!!! Harej (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Contacting you because you're listed as the chair of the conference committee. Montanabw tells me that I've somehow managed to block the entire conference. I don't recognise the block in question, so I've left a request for help at WP:ANI, asking anyone to unblock immediately. My apologies to everyone for whatever's the problem, although I suspect that it's an autoblock; maybe you're again looking over someone's shoulder? Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Block of Eric Corbett and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

	The thankless barnstar
	For doing what is expected of an admin in a manner 100% consistent with policy and getting yelled at for it I award you The thankless barnstar. HighInBC 23:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed here, what is disappointing is that Yngvadottir leapt to unblocking Eric before you could post your full reasoning about it. Even if it was justified it was a leap before you look move. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed. The idea that Eric didn't know that his comments would violate the restriction is difficult to reconcile with the fact that Eric explicitly said as much beforehand. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

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

@Montanabw: Even if, hypothetically speaking, we were to accept that the Atlantic article contained some inaccuracies about Eric to which he was in some way "entitled" to respond, I think you must agree that such a hypothetical "right to respond" can be extended only to responses concerning those inacuracies, and not to general participation in the underlying discussion. Eric did, in fact, make a number of comments addressing what he perceived as false accusations against himself (, , ). He was not, in fact, blocked for those comments.

What did prompt me to block Eric were comments that were quite unrelated to anything the article said about him personally, but which were, rather, attempts to deny the existence of the gender gap in principle. Such comments cannot possibly be regarded as an "excusable" breach of the restriction under our hypothetical "right to respond", and thus warrant no special IAR dispensation. Further, such remarks are not in and of themselves a minor or borderline violation of the restriction; rather, insofar as Eric has been banned from commenting on the gender gap or processes designed to address it, denying that one exists in the first place breaches the restriction in the most fundamental way possible. Consequently, I see no reason whatsoever to extend any special consideration to Eric in this matter. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

It did give the appearance that he was blocked for the first set, though I'll grant a nod that you do have a case for minor application of the second. IMHO, I would have slapped him with 72 hours, not a month, and thus most of this drahmah could have been avoided. Bottom line is simple, he's not going to change his mind or his position, nor will he even personally appeal a block, but a short block that makes everyone cool off for a day or two usually reduces the drama without raising the specter of the absurdity of the whole GGTF mess, which was botched from beginning to end. Montanabw^(talk) 21:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

But ArbCom decided to use escalating blocks, so one month was the next step, as this is EC's seventh block for breaking his sanctions since they were put into place. RO^(talk) 21:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Wait so Eric is on a topic ban but he is allowed to bend and break the rules of it? What is the use of having topic bans in the first place then? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Well, that block lasted one whole day. That'll teach him not to violate his topic ban. It seems like the admins who always insist on unblocking Corbett who suffer collateral damage, not Corbett himself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This is just nuts, I agree that Eric should have the right to defend himself but also agree with Kirill that he went past that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

"It seems like the admins who always insist on unblocking Corbett who suffer collateral damage, not Corbett himself." That makes no sense. (Why s/ EC suffer anything because an admin chooses to unblock him?!) IHTS (talk) 03:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

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

@John Carter: Yes, it's mentioned just a few comments up. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That is a very courageous and I believe wise decision. Why are there no additional rulings in these ARBCOM procedures which explicitly ban any discussions in high profile talk spaces which would be likely to goad a colleague under a T/Ban to respond? A severe boomerang should be the consequence. Irondome (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Eric Corbett was deliberately baited to respond. As the high profile page concerned is controlled by Jimbo and monitored by the Foundation, and the enforcement officer was Kirill Loshkin, we can only draw one conclusion. So don't expect any great results from discussion here. Giano (talk) 09:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Regardless of whether or not we agree with the decision, we should commend any administrator willing to make a tough, unpopular call that he or she knows will result in disagreement or abuse. Gamaliel (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I find it interesting that the same anti-fan club appear every time: Gamaliel, Alanscottwalker, Chillum/HighinBC etc. I'm just waiting for Ironholds to show up. These are the people that moan about the Corbett fan club but they are as much as club as that. And it stinks.

For the record, you'll note that I do not get involved in every Corbett drama and I have on several occasions intervened to prevent escalation. The rest of you, including Kirill (who almost certainly has been subject to lobbying in DC) are just vindictive kow-towers to Jimbo's "moral ambitiousness" crusade, which has fuck all to do with building an encyclopaedia and everything to do with creating a libertarian utopia. That you are mostly based in the US says it all: it is cultural imperialism of a type that only the US practice nowadays. - Sitush (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact that I support an admin who is being abused for the horrific crime of treating Eric by the same standards as anyone else under a topic ban only shows that I don't want my fellow admins abused for doing their job. I think if you actually did your homework you would find my position more nuanced. I have in the past defended Eric on multiple occasions. I may defend him again if he is in a position worth defending, but in this case the facts are obvious. Next time you lump me into a group do some research first please. HighInBC 15:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I submitted an AE request regarding a comment by Corbett exactly once (when, mind you, I could have easily just blocked him myself) and for that crime I've been put on the Eric Corbett Enemies List. This is exactly how his supporters have gamed the system, by attempting to personalize sanctions enforcement and isolate and harass individual administrators to prevent any action against him. It's not that Corbett is breaking the rules, it's that individual admins are out to get him. Sure. Eventually people will start looking at that long enemies list you are compiling and that already ridiculous idea will seem less and less plausible. Gamaliel (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

What long list? You regular comment on or around Corbett drama, seemingly always in opposition. It isn't necessarily about who makes the complaint (which in recent months has often been EvergreenFir on-wiki and quite probably is her off-wiki on this occasion). You and your ilk are as much part of the problem as any of the so-called fan club. And Kirill is very likely not uninvolved: he is a WP organisation officeholder in DC, where many of the most shrill who seek to reduce the perceived gender gap hang out, and a participant in the gender gap-inspired Women Scientists project.

I'm all for improving the encyclopaedia but you lot have a very warped sense of what constitutes improvement. No matter: I will soon be gone, along with several others, and you can watch the entire Indian caste area fall into utter chaos, making it one more aspect where the project will be going backward rather than forward. Some improvement! - Sitush (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Prior to Kirill's block, aside from the single AE submission I don't recall ever commenting about Corbett drama. I have been outspoken about issues of systemic bias and so forth, but what Eric Corbett has to do with, say, WikiProject Women Scientists, outside of some feverish anti-feminist conspiracy theory, I have no idea. As for the Indian caste articles, you might recall at AE I supported tougher rules against SPAs that should help editors working there. Gamaliel (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: There is no point in arguing. People have their opinion, some join Eric's cabal and some group-up against that cabal, this happens everywhere, in real life as well. I don't know which group is hero/villain but people got the liberty to choose any of them. And some may stick to either of the group, everytime, whatever happens. Jim Carter 15:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Jim, please keep out of it - I don't need to read the platitudes of another WP:WER-like do-gooder. Gamaliel, your both your memory and your logic seem to be faulty. Like your mate Bernstein, you're good with words and shit with reality, playing some sort of MMPORG and lawyering like mad instead of getting on with what matters. So be it: I've had a bellyful of the hypocrisy here. And your support for the recent ARCA proposal, which is irrelevant to this conversation, means little because the one person it would really have helped won't be here. I absolutely guarantee you that the already nightmarish caste stuff will just implode, not because of your thoughts in the ARCA thing but because of your thoughts elsewhere. Creating rules is bloody pointless if you drive off the people who are actually doing the damn work here, and that includes Eric. But doubtless it suits those who prefer social engineering to content. Before I completely lose my temper with your cabal, I'm signing off for the day. Perhaps for good. - Sitush (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no cabal. HighInBC 15:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Timbo's Rule 19. Having underwent the RFA process through no fault of my own...I can say this with authority: "Yes, Virginia, there is a cabal." Carrite (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gamaliel here, although, honestly, I supposed some might say the same thing about Yngvadottir. It took guts to make the block, and we definitely need more admins who have the guts to make calls they know will be unpopular. We do have at least a few cabals of supporters of individual problem editors, and standing up to any of them can be and often is hard. I just wish that there had been a bit more communication first, or, honestly, that Eric had maybe been willing to actually appeal a block for once. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

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

The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Did I not have precisely the same right of reply last January, when I was blocked for a comment on that page, in a thread bearing my name, regarding international discussion of my writing about Wikipedia? Where were you then? Oh, wait.... MarkBernstein (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Did I block you? Jehochman ^Talk 08:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

And two weeks ago EC implied I was a lunatic (), and his supporters made damn sure I wasn't allowed to comment at his talk page without fear of a block. RO^(talk) 20:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Was I involved in that? Why do you grind axes here? One wrong doesn't justify a second one for the sake of consistency. Jehochman ^Talk 08:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

In the first arb case about arbitration enforcement (a contradiction in terms, as kindness enforcement would be), I made some suggestions:

Thoughts before enforcing arbitration or asking for it

I dream of a Wikipedia where AE is not needed and offer small steps in the direction. Imagine you see something I did which you think breaches my restrictions.

• You reflect if it really needs correction. You have the option to decide no.

If yes:

• You talk to me if I am aware of a breach and willing to revert or correct.

If no:

• You look really hard if the situation is a breach. I could tell you examples where it wasn't but want to be gentle with people who easily say "It's a clear violation".

If you think yes:

• You reflect if a correction via AE is worth the amount of time it takes. Please stay away if no.
• Only then you file or act.

1. I have seen "peanuts" arrive at AE, and I suggest to make the step "talk to the user in question before you file" mandatory.
2. Once filed, I think that a time for comments of 24 hours is not asking too much in cases where Wikipedia is not at stake. The key question should be: will pursuing the request will help Wikipedia? Dispute resolution might offer a better approach.
3. I suggest that admins who are known to be close to the filer or the other editor stay away from closing.
4. I suggest to seriously think about a different sanction than blocks. I was close several times and always thought that a block wouldn't be my loss but Wikipedia's, One day blocked may equal to one article not expanded to GA, or several stubs not created, several incidents of vandalism not managed. I hope you don't expect me to change my mind because of a block ;)

I read today "If we would grant each other the presumption that we are acting in good faith, we could dispense with some of the drama ...".

Gerda Arendt 30 June 2015

Do I have to repeat them in the second? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin, this is just a note to alert you that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence phase will be closing in 2 days. If you would like to add any additional evidence or respond to statements made by others, you have until November 5th. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin, the Evidence phase has been extended and will now end on November 10, 2015. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I have proposed two templates at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Essays/Templates, and would appreciate comments. Because no one seems to have noticed, I have chosen to notify several editors who have edited the project page. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 01:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Can I bother you for a favor? I was RC patrolling about 2 days ago and noticed this edit, which I emailed the oversight group for consideration and have yet to hear back them. I think that's a little too much information to have on Wikipedia in an article space, so I'm hoping you will know what should be done with the edit. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@TomStar81: I've passed this along to the oversight folks, and it's now been suppressed. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kirill Lokshin, in the open Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a heads up and kind of on a personal note, but I've long been of the opinion that people who post photos of themselves on Wikipedia, whether a part of an article or their personal page are putting their vanity on display. If you think your face belongs here then you probably are too personally involved and in my mind are suspect in any of your decisions here. Zedshort (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kirill, I have a question if I may. A few years ago when WP:EEML came to light you essentially supported those who were behind one of the worst displays ever seen on Wikipedia. Giano will attest to that, as will your own words at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision/Archive_1#Guilt_by_association. So I am kind of curious as to your own comments for the upcoming election on which you base your position around harassment. Can you tell us why in the last 6 years your stance has gone from openly supporting the harassers and their harassment to opposing harassment? Would be interested in your answer here! Ping: Nick 101.186.36.211 (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping. It will come as no surprise to Kirill that I won't be voting for him. However, regarding WP:EEMl, that all seems a long time ago and there's little point in dragging up very historic arguments. Otherwise, one sinks to the level of those trying to involve me in this latest Eric fiasco. Giano (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I supported—essentially or otherwise—the harassment exposed during the EEML case. My objection at the time (which I raised in the discussion you link to) was to a proposed motion that would have sanctioned everyone on the mailing list simply for being part of the list, without determining whether each individual had done something warranting sanction or giving them an opportunity to defend themselves. I cannot recall having any particular problem with the rest of the proceedings, and don't believe I commented on them further once it became clear that the particular motion in question wasn't going to pass. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe we've had the pleasure of speaking before, but I'm RGloucester. I have a particular interest in cataloguing and detailing the history of the system of "sanctions" now used on Wikipedia. As it is now, there is a great deal of confusion over what different kinds of sanctions are, and even Arbitrators have shown to be confused by the endless terminology (as an example, a certain Mr Davies thought some time ago that "general sanctions" referred only to community sanctions). Having done some research on the subject, I believe I understand the system. As such, I intend to write a history of the system so as to allow people to understand clearly how the different types of sanctions arose, and what the various terms involved mean. The starting point for this project is located User:RGloucester/Sanctions. Knowing that you are the one that essentially codified the system, I was wondering if you could help me in this cataloguing, detailing how the system arose, &c. This would be greatly appreciated, and would contribute to a great reduction in confusion amongst the editors of this project. If you can help, take a look at my draft. I await your reply. RGloucester — ☎ 03:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've emailed you on a matter related to your election candidature. Tony (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Kirill, a reminder that if you're going to participate in the survey, we'll need your responses reasonably soon. Tony (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for all your talk page edits where you have applied the Womens' Health template. It is what I consider to be a tedious task but an important one. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  11:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I received notice of the ArbCom election on November 24. I posted my three questions to you the next day, and I see many others posted questions before mine. You have not participated on your candidate discussion page (Ok, not much happening there anyway) or answered any questions on your question page in the past ten days, which was before I even knew these elections were happening. Do you have enough votes without needing us first-time voters who got late notice? Have you abandoned your campaign? I hope not, because I like you as a candidate. Voting isn't over until December 6. I have been trying like heck to get to know the candidates, and you are not the only one who has been ignoring those of us who were invited late into this process. I like you as a candidate (you have made gutsy, principled decisions in the past), but I don't like being ignored either. What does that say about you as a candidate when you stop participating during the last two weeks of a campaign, when all of us first-time voters finally got our notices that we can vote? Have you given up? Dcs002 (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dcs002: My apologies for missing your questions; I've now answered them. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies to my questions. I did vote for you. I guess I wanted you to know this wasn't just a drive-by snarking, if that's how I came across. I can't imagine why anyone would want that job, but since you want it, good luck in the polls! Dcs002 (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The only candidate not to respond to the Signpost's survey. Pretty disappointing. I voted against him. Tony (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back to the 2016 Arbitration Committee. A few moments ago, you should have received an email from me asking you such simple questions as what email address you want to use for committee business. Welcome! Courcelles (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Courcelles: Received and responded. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations! :-) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Congratulations! Don't get too burned out. Mz7 (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Happy to see you back in the saddle. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You never answered my questions, you know. Being an arbitrator is a big responsibility, so you should expect that your actions will be under very close scrutiny going forward. Everyking (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations, amigo! I'm happy for you! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Congratulations.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Congrats. :) --Tito Dutta (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Kirill Lokshin,

please check on incident and the Austrian Empire/Talk page:Hungary and Kingdom of Hungary 1526-1848/Talk page:Austrian Empire 1804-1867 and their content. I seek compromise without altering historical accuracy. Thank You (KIENGIR (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC))

Hello Kirill Lokshin, congratulations on your appointment to the WP:AC. I am sure that you will serve the committee to the best of your abilities. Keep up the good work. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Congratulations! bd2412 T 18:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Kudos Lamerkhav (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Since the results were announced, you've made only one edit, Kirill. That's one edit in 11 days. Why the sudden change in editing patterns? As an incoming arbitrator, you surely realize that the community expects a certain level of engagement. Do you think you have the time and/or dedication to fulfill the job you've been elected to do? Everyking (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks for all you have done this year :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

When an action is so controversial that ArbCom splits on it, that's too controversial. It's easy to get comfortable over time, so I hope you will reflect on this. Have a nice holiday and make sure to see Star Wars: The Force Awakens at least twice. Jehochman ^Talk 13:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

Excuse me. I am lead writer for the Signpost's "Arbitration Report" and am wondering if you would be interested in answering some interviews questions as a newly elected Arbitrator. The questions will be asked through email, unless answering them here would be a more suitable choice. GamerPro64 22:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@GamerPro64: Sure, I'd be happy to. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kirill Lokshin. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

@GamerPro64: I don't appear to have received it, unfortunately. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I re-sent it to you but I keep getting my email unsubscribed here. Is there any way to fix that issue? GamerPro64 16:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@GamerPro64: I'm not sure. When I enter your username to Special:EmailUser, it tells me that you don't have a valid email address. Presumably you've gone through the usual email confirmation stuff?

In any case, please feel free to email me directly at kirill.lokshin@gmail.com instead. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to reconfirm a second time. I'm gonna try this one more time before directly emailing you. GamerPro64 17:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind. Just directly sent you the questions. GamerPro64 17:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Kirill Lokshin,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hello, as you created the Italian War of 1551–59 article, you may be able to resolve a doubt of mine. It says that the war beteween england and france was between 56-59, but this source gives it as 57-60. Do you know id it's right?

Thx Dona Deda (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Dona Deda: Looking at Phillips & Axelrod's Encyclopedia of Wars, while the direct fighting between England and France was concluded in 1559 with the Treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis, the contemporaneous conflict in Scotland, which involved French troops supporting Mary of Guise, continued into 1560 (see Siege of Leith and Treaty of Edinburgh). Kirill Lokshin (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

thanks a lot. Dona Deda (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

This month:

Development of the extension for setting up WikiProjects, as described in the last issue of this newsletter, is currently underway. No terribly exciting news on this front.

In the meantime, we are working on a prototype for a new service we hope to announce soon. The problem: there are requests scattered all across Wikipedia, including requests for new articles and requests for improvements to existing articles. We Wikipedians are very good at coming up with lists of things to do. But once we write these lists, where do they end up? How can we make them useful for all editors—even those who do not browse the missing articles lists, or the particular WikiProjects that have lists?

Introducing Wikipedia Requests, a new tool to centralize the various lists of requests around Wikipedia. Requests will be tagged by category and WikiProject, making it easier to find requests based on what your interests are. Accompanying this service will be a bot that will let you generate reports from this database on any wiki page, including WikiProjects. This means that once a request is filed centrally, it can syndicated all throughout Wikipedia, and once it is fulfilled, it will be marked as "complete" throughout Wikipedia. The idea for this service came about when I saw that it was easy to put together to-do lists based on database queries, but it was harder to do this for human-generated requests when those requests are scattered throughout the wiki, siloed throughout several pages. This should especially be useful for WikiProjects that have overlapping interests.

The newsletter this month is fairly brief; not a lot of news, just checking in to say that we are hard at work and hope to have more for you soon.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kirill. Pharos and I noticed the cool chat feature you have over on Meta for your upcoming A+F event. Is this an IRC? Wanted to find out more information on this interface. It's so great! -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind, I can see it's https://www.rumbletalk.com/.... All the best, Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@BrillLyle and Pharos: As you've already discovered, it's an embedded RumbleTalk chat. The chat feature is actually something new we're trying at our upcoming edit-a-thons, as we've had a number of requests from remote attendees for a way to ask questions during events.

One thing to keep in mind if you're interested in doing something similar: setting up the embedded chat window requires making changes to the site JavaScript files. We're hosting ours on wikimediadc.org, where we have full control over the site, so it's not an issue; but if you want to use it on Meta or Wikipedia, you'll need to convince the local administrators to let you make the needed changes, which might not be all that easy. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much Kirill Lokshin....! -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

	Hoping you enjoyed the recently-held in-person Art+Feminism meetup, we cordially invite you continue your participation by joining the worldwide virtual online event hosted by Women in Red. March 2016 (Women's History Month)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

More information Join us! ...

Join us!
	Women Scientists - worldwide online edit-a-thon - a Year of Science initiative Hosts: Women in Red, Women Scientists Sponsor: WikiEdu April-December 2016 #wikiwomeninred #yearofscience #contentgap

Close

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage

Dear @Kirill Lokshin: I just sent an email through Wikipedia. Please contact me through email.

Hello, Kirill Lokshin. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kirill. We haven't met, so Hi! Um.... I noticed that you are the person who created the Template:WikiProject banner shell. I wonder if one could, and if you can, create a similar thing for Template:Connected_contributor. The reason I am asking is that sometimes there are very, very many connected contributors, like at Talk:European Graduate School and it takes up too much space. If this is not possible, please let me know, and if it something you don't want to or can't work on, that's of course fine, just let me know and I can ask others who've worked on the banner shell, or anybody else to whom you might direct me. I know nothing about this template coding stuff. ack. (I'm watching here, so you can reply here). Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: The connected contributor template is a little different from WikiProject banners in that there's a single template which lists all of the contributor entries, rather than one template per entry (as is the case with WikiProjects). In order for something like {{WikiProject banner shell}} to work, each contributor's entry would need to be its own template, which I'm not sure would be desirable (or would actually reduce the space the templates take up, for that matter).

The other option would be to make {{Connected contributor}} itself collapsible in some fashion. This wouldn't be difficult to implement in principle, but might be a controversial change in practice, as it could make it more difficult to find the contributors' names. I can put together some mock-ups if you're interested. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for getting back to me on that! Very nice of you. I was exploring before seeking consensus... Let me see if there is interest from others - and will come back to you. Thanks again Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, Kirill. I was planning to go to Wikimania with my wife (I'm giving a presentation there), but it is now questionable that she will be able to make it because of work. Are you going? I'd rather travel with someone. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@BD2412: Unfortunately, I'm not going to be at Wikimania this year. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - you'll be missed. If you know anyone local who is going, send them my info. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

This month:

In the last issue of the WikiProject X Newsletter, I discussed the upcoming Wikipedia Requests system: a central database for outstanding work on Wikipedia. I am pleased to announce Wikipedia Requests is live! Its purpose is to supplement automatically generated lists, such as those from SuggestBot, Reports bot, or Wikidata. It is currently being demonstrated on WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health (which I work on as part of my NIOSH duties) and WikiProject Women scientists.

Adding a request is as simple as filling out a form. Just go to the Add form to add your request. Adding sources will help ensure that your request is fulfilled more quickly. And when a request is fulfilled, simply click "mark as complete" and it will be removed from all the lists it's on. All at the click of a button! (If anyone is concerned, all actions are logged.)

With this new service is a template to transclude these requests: {{Wikipedia Requests}}. It's simple to use: add the template to a page, specifying article=, category=, or wikiproject=, and the list will be transcluded. For example, for requests having to do with all living people, just do {{Wikipedia Requests|category=Living people}}. Use these lists on WikiProjects but also for edit-a-thons where you want a convenient list of things to do on hand. Give it a shot!

The value of Wikipedia Requests comes from being a centralized database. The long work to migrating individual lists into this combined list is slowly underway. As of writing, we have 883 open tasks logged in Wikipedia Requests. We need your help building this list.

If you know of a list of missing articles, or of outstanding tasks for existing articles, that you would like to migrate to this new system, head on over to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Requests#Transition project and help out. Doing this will help put your list in front of more eyes—more than just your own WikiProject.

WikiProject X maintains a database that associates article talk pages (and draft talk pages) with WikiProjects. This database powers many of the reports that Reports bot generates. However, until very recently, this database was not made available to others who might find its data useful. It's only common sense to open up the database and let others build tools with it.

And indeed: Citation Hunt, the game to add citations to Wikipedia, now lets you filter by WikiProject, using the data from our database.

Are you a tool developer interested in using this? Here are some details: the database resides on Tool Labs with the name s52475__wpx_p. The table that associates WikiProjects with articles and drafts is called projectindex. Pages are stored by talk page title but in the future this should change. Have fun!

• The work on the CollaborationKit extension continues. The extension will initially focus on reducing template and Lua bloat on WikiProjects (especially our WPX UI demonstration projects), and will from there create custom interfaces for creating and maintaining WikiProjects.
• The WikiCite meeting will be in Berlin in May. The goal of the meeting is to figure out how to build a bibliographic database for use on the Wikimedia projects. This fits in quite nicely with WikiProject X's work: we want to make it easier for people to find things to work on, and with a powerful, open bibliographic database, we can build recommendations for sources. This feature was requested by the Wikipedia Library back in September, and this meeting is a major next step. We look forward to seeing what comes out of this meeting.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)