User talk:Heimstern/ACE2011


 * Pray tell, sir, where is your candidature?! Heim for ACE2012…? AGK  [&bull; ] 12:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey. I really did think about it, but as pretty much anyone who clicks my contribs can see, I'm not the most active these days, leaving me lacking the time needed to contribute to the committee meaningfully. Glad to have your confidence, though. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Moving on ...
Hi Heimstern:

Thanks for the kind words, appreciated. On the other issue, I've had a quick look back at the ArbMAC2 and I guess your remark about this. In answer to your question, yes, I probably have moved on a great deal since June 2009 as back in the day I had little experience of arbitration and was sometimes a bit monochrome in my approaches. One of the things I've promised, if re-elected, is to try to develop a possible Administrator Review Subcommittee in conjunction with the community. This has been discussed in various fora for ages but never progressed. As admin conduct is already an ArbCom responsibility it shouldn't be too difficult to set up once the details are worked out, if the will is there. The basic idea is that it will look after admin behaviour, and explore and trial new flexible approaches - like admin breaks and mentoring - than just rely on the current sanction-based remedies. Not only will a dedicated resource like this help prevent admin burn out but having more options will help reduce the chance of FPAS-type scenario re-occurring. Does that help? Roger Davies talk 19:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Roger. First, allow me to thank you for initiating dialogue with me on this. I'm at least glad to see that in place. Real life is not really allowing me to have a proper look at what you've said here yet, so I just wanted to plop down this acknowledgment and let you know I do plan to get back to you as soon as possible. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi again, Roger. Any chance you'd be willing to elaborate on the Admin Review Subcommittee? Or if you've done so elsewhere, to point me there? I don't really understand yet how it would help. And after all, FutPerf's issues at ArbMac2 were generally not admin-related; most of his perceived offences had to do with civility and similar things (as I recall, there was basically one bad block). So anything you can let me know to help me understand where you're coming from on this idea would be good. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Heimstern: I can elaborate with pleasure. I'll need to get my thoughts together concisely and I'm aiming to post something within 24 hours.  Roger Davies  talk 00:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Entirely fair, as I took longer than that to get back to you. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Heimstern: thanks for waiting! The idea isn't new, proposals to set up some kind of admin review body have been bouncing around for a few years now. One of the earliest I know about was developed here by Tony back in Jan 2009 but there have been other related suggestions since. I have in mind particularly the discussions on SandyGeorgia's talk page, here and in this sub-section here. My own take is that a subcommittee of ArbCom to both review administrator and recommend sanctions is a very good idea. The addition of non-arbitrator members would give it valuable extra manpower and fresh perspectives. The extra people would also enable it to investigate things more thoroughly than ArbCom can usually manage. It would choose whether or not to accept a case, and would primarily be an extra tool for dispute resolution, intervening at an earlier stage and with a lower threshold than is usual for arbitration cases. Good administrators are a valuable resource and, by intervening earlier than ArbCom usually does, the subcommittee would help prevent admin exasperation and frustration (which are often the root cause of later poor conduct). To apply this to the FPAS situation, the time for some sort of intervention was probably immediately after the RFC. Simply laying out some of the alternatives open to him might well have resulted in him adopting a very different approach. Turning back to FPAS and ARBMAC2, which is what this is all about, the conduct issues were more than just one bad block. The perceived core problem was WP:NOTPERFECT rather than WP:INVOLVED, and a finding of fact, summarising the problematic behaviour passed unanimously. The policy applicable to administrator conduct at the time was #Administrator_conduct this, which makes it clear that administrators are expected to set an example, whether or not they are using the tools. Edit-warring and battlefield conduct have never, in my experience, made a bad situation better. Now it is equally clear that the committee was near unanimous in agreeing that sanctions were appropriate. The difficulty came about (as is often the case) in agreeing precisely what they should be. I supported a three month desysop without strings for return because, among other things FPAS had indicated that this was acceptable to him. You asked whether I've moved on. I've thought a lot about this. Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that nowadays I'd probably propose the three-month desysopping as a voluntary three-month tool break. I've arranged these a few times now (whee special circumstances apply) and I'm probably the only arbitrator doing so. Voluntary restrictions serve the same purpose as a sanction but aren't punitive and preserve dignity. And no, I don't think I've moved on to the point where I think that ArbCom should have been given this admin a barnstar ;) I hope this helps to understand my thinking on this: these situations are never straightforward and it's never easy finding the right solution.  Roger Davies  talk 01:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Roger. I've been busy, too, hence my taking a while to get back to you. I can see where you're coming from and I thank you for your willingness to discuss. The admin review subcommittee could be an interesting approach. I remain unconvinced it would have done much good in the case in question, though. The problem there was a huge content issue and the POV walled garden that was being enforced by Greek editors. Consider, for example, finding of fact 20.1: The committee takes FutPerf to task for his statements of intent to edit war and for having a battleground mentality, but never suggests what FutPerf should have done to deal with the POV pushers. And no, "don't edit war or fight the other side" is not an answer, because that would have meant just letting the Greek POV take over. And since ArbCom hates taking any case that doesn't show clear conduct violations (and they seem loath to categorize POV pushing as a conduct violation), we were stuck doing nothing except revert warring with them. And that is why I continue to feel the committee screwed up pretty bad in sanctioning FutPerf. No, I don't think he should have been given a barnstar by the committee (though only because that is not committee practice for anyone), but the approach taken says "stand up against POV pushers and we will sanction you". And to be fair, a lot of that is the fault of the community, not the committee, given the former's refusal to really make content dispute resolution happen when it needs to (mediation doesn't work against people who've made up their mind that their national POV is all there is to it). I can see a lot of good thought has gone into your perspective on things, and I'm going to need some time to digest it all and decide where my vote falls. I'll update my guide when I've decided. Again, thanks for your answers. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)