User talk:Heimstern/ACE2009

On desysops
(Do not hesitate to revert this if you prefer to not engage the candidates regarding your evaluations).

I don't generally discuss specific editors during elections, but I felt it best to clarify part of my reasoning in the desysop you feel was such a grievous mistake. Part of the problem (and I seem to remember having stated so during the case) is that this was not the first time he had used his admin tools during a content dispute, and had failed to adjust according to the lesser sanctions in the past. In isolation, the findings in Macedonia 2 wouldn't have warranted a desysop and I would have voted against it &mdash; in fact, I doubt it would have even been proposed in the first place. The greater problem was that we had to restrict him from using the tools in a topic area just a few months previously, and that was after another admonition and reminder for the same reason. I guess my point is that even when one's intentions are pristine, using the tools where one is involved in a content dispute is a bright line that should not be crossed. Loosing patience and making an error in judgment is generally not such a huge deal, but doing so repeatedly after being sanctioned is a behavior pattern that the Committee cannot, and should not, ignore. &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I do thank you for taking the time to write this. At the very least, it demonstrates a giving-a-care-ism that I feel can be lacking in the committee and the community as a whole toward content problems. In honesty, while I think the desysopping of ChrisO was an error, it was the desysopping of FutPerf that left me hopping mad, particular for the short time in which it appeared the indefinite version was going to pass. I recall your not supporting this, which is a large part of why I'm leaning toward supporting another term at this point. I still think the committee should have been more finessed in its approach to ChrisO, but its approach to him did much less to provoke my ire than the case of FutPerf. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, part of the problem (about content problems) is that, by the time it reaches ArbCom, all hell already broke loose &mdash; pretty much by definition. Long-lasting content disputes where not all participants are acting in good faith is a systemic weakness of the way Wikipedia works and, by tradition and community desire, isn't something ArbCom can intervene in before tempers have exploded into misbehavior. Arguably, the ArbCom format wouldn't be very well suited for content disputes anyways.  Something else is needed, but I'm not placing good odds on the community agreeing on what until things get worse.  That was, in fact, the entire objective behind the much reviled steering committee idea: get a group of experienced editors from all "parts" of Wikipedia to talk such things out and make new proposals for the long-term, endemic problems in a way that ArbCom's "firefighting" mandate is ill-suited to.  (We're in a good position to see where the problems are, but too thick in the worst of it to fix things at the root)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I do wish to point out that I myself never reviled this steering committee or whatever it was called (partly because I never learnt much about it before it just sort of flopped on its back). I remember thinking it might be a good idea to look into this sort of thing, though. It's things like the community's reaction to this that make me question not only the committee's resolve to deal with content, but also that of the community as a whole. There are too many people, including, alas, some running for the committee, who seem to think things are mostly OK in terms of the tools we have in content disputes. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't mean to imply you did, sorry if it came across this way. But yeah, I agree that creating to mechanisms to solve long term problems is unreasonably hard nowadays; both by fear of bureaucracy and by simple inertia.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't think you meant that I reviled it. I only said what I said to point out that I wasn't in agreement with the community at large. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on me
I think they're generally fair, insofar as I probably do take a harder line on incivility than many of the other candidates, and would not hesitate to sanction it in ArbCom cases. The only part with which I take issue is the concern that I will "punish incivility strongly while avoiding more weighty matters that are central to the encyclopedia". Punish incivility strongly? Check (although note my answer to general question 22, in which I note that "I'd be reluctant to desysop an administrator who, while single-handedly defending a subject area against POV-pushers, occasionally slipped into it"—from reading your comments, I'm sure you've correctly inferred to what case I'm referring there). But "avoiding more weighty matters that are central to the encyclopedia"? A good portion of my platform is about sanctioning content-related misconduct (i.e. POV-pushing, BLP vios, failure to centre discussion on content disputes around reliable sources, etc.—see my answers to general questions 20 and 30). I think I'd be considerably more aggressive than most candidates in sanctioning the weightier stuff. Anyway, I wasn't going to say anything, but your above dialogue with Coren, seem to have been productive, so why the hell not? Steve Smith (talk) 09:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Give me some time to chew on this. I admit that I'm seriously zonked right now (work's been busy as all get-out lately) and don't think I can process at this exact time. I'll try to do so when I'm a bit more congnizant. And yes, I do know the vote's over in like, two or three days and that I can't delay this for long. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Take your time; I suspect that you'll still oppose, because I think you and I have the reasonable disagreements of reasonably people on civility, which is plainly an issue that's important to you in deciding your votes. I have no objection to being opposed on such bases (indeed, I recently encouraged an editor who had pledged to support me to take another look at my answers, because I he and I disagreed on what I thought were some pretty fundamental issues).  But it will leave a sour taste in my mouth if I'm opposed because you believe that I'll reward the kind of steadfast, unbending POV pushing that provokes good editors to snap. Steve Smith (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made a reassessment, which, as you can see, still doesn't tell what I'm doing. I intend to chew on it for a few hours before deciding what to do. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)