Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Vassyana

What does policy fail to consider?
Rules upon rules about rules over rules that do not bind. It would be your job to make rules bind. How would you ensure that the rules for enforcing the rules were followed in the first place? How would you ensure that the last resort was not made the first? 00:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.234.170.70 (talk)

Edit Analysis
A detailed breakdown of this candidate's edits in article and Wikipedia spaces can be found here. Franamax (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Recusal
I have created a statement that more clearly outlines when I would recuse: User:Vassyana/Recusal. It includes a copy of my answers to questions that involve recusal, for convenient reference. If anyone has any further questions or concerns, please feel free to leave me a message or send an email my way. Vassyana (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

WT:NOR objections
I must take issue with the characterization of my participation at the no original research policy. My NOR edits were based on extensive talk page discussion involving a large number of editors, RfCs and multiple solicitations for input at the policy village pump, not the unilateral actions implied by some. We had gone through a number of proposals and an extended discussion regarding the PSTS section of "No original research". Rather than simply provide diffs, here are some archive section links to provide examples of the overall situation:


 * The archive of the talk page section linked in the edit summary in the diff provided by SlimVirgin: Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 32. There are further archive links in the post, leading to sections where changes were discussed.


 * My frustration was not simply with an isolated incident. It was also gut-wrenching aversion to a broader pattern. See, for example: Requests for comment/COGDEN.


 * The section where I called another editor a liar: Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_31. I am admittedly on my worst behavior there. My frustration with (what I perceived to be) double-standards and falsehoods is completely unfiltered.


 * An example of my participation in collaborative discussion, my attempts to address concerns raised, and my admittedly growing frustration with reverts by editors unwilling to participate in the discussions: Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_30.


 * It was a very long and contentious process, but as much as some confused and angry words were exchanged in frustration, the active contributors were understanding and supportive: Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 25 (the preceding sections are relevant).


 * The active discussion about PSTS stretched back several months. For example: Wikipedia talk:No original research/archive19

I have since learned from the experience and no longer continue to engage myself in situations where my patience and self-restraint is worn so thin. If anyone has any questions, would like more links, or otherwise desires further clarification, please do not hesitate to let me know. Vassyana (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * After looking at the archived discussions and double-checking with a third party that was keeping an eye on the discussion at that time, Vassyana's account seems accurate: a long unfruitful discussion that stressed everyone involved. Pcap ping  12:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Devolution
I would like to clarify my reasons for supporting devolution, due to the concerns raised. If I can further clarify this stance and its reasoning, please do not hesitate to let me know. Vassyana (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see devolution as far more practical and compatible with our fundamental principles than the trend towards centralization.
 * I believe that many cases coming before ArbCom are accepted without proper attempts at dispute resolution. There is a huge distinction between problems the community cannot solve and problems the community has not undertaken a full effort to solve. ArbCom is intended for cases where the community has exhausted its other options, or simply has no other options.
 * A significant portion of the community has expressed extreme discomfort with "legislating from the bench" and top-down solutions. If ArbCom is to eschew this approach, then the responsibility must be taken up by the community.


 * I really appreciate you taking the time to respond to this. When I look at the rejected requests vs. the completed requests it's hard for me to reach the conclusion that we'd have been better served had ArbCom rejected even more cases.  We seem to have a large number of issues that the community are persistently failing to deal with.  I'm not sure permanent battlefields about Notability, BLP, Fair Use, Blocking Policy, Wheel Warring, not to mention lots of subject areas, etc. are helpful.  One problem is that any community decision is subject to WP:Consensus not numbers which, though it was likely written with good intent, tends to become the rallying cry of a tendentious minority.  Whether it's a sincere belief or cynical power grab I can't be sure, (WP:AGF says to assume the former, though it's a bit ridiculous to assume this is always the case given how obviously "Consensus not numbers" can be abused) but the effect is that this "principle" creates a filibuster that's not helpful toward our goal of WP:ENC.  Another issue--a big one for me--is the culture of adminship.  As a decentralized decision it's virtually impossible to remove tools once granted from anyone under any circumstance and therefore largely impossible to control problematic admin behavior--partially because of the filibuster; partially because we have 1000ish active admins who, like a teachers' union, believe ironclad tenure is a wonderful system; partially because there's absolutely no mechanism for Stewards to evaluate a decentralized discussion and so they never do. --JayHenry (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding. The problem with many of the areas you mention is that only the community (or an imposed solution by Jimbo or the Foundation) can resolve the underlying issue, because they are questions of settling policy, which is beyond the remit of ArbCom. ArbCom can intercede as gross disruption and/or administrative misconduct that the community cannot resolve comes up, but otherwise it has little role or authority for many of the areas you raise. I should also note that I find filibustering to sometimes be a form of disruption (see User:Vassyana/consensus). We may have to agree to disagree, but thank you for taking the time to seriously consider my position and elaborate on your concerns. Vassyana (talk) 06:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So what's the dénouement? The issues I identified are all hardy perennials in the ArbCom's garden.  The cases come because the community cannot resolve them, many of these disputes I mention have lasted years now in a cycle like this: mechanisms do not exist for the community to form consensus, it eventually spills over for some reason to ArbCom, ArbCom makes some blocks for violating some semi-related behavioral guideline or whatever, ArbCom then punts the substantive issue back to the community.  The mechanisms still do not exist for the community to form consensus and so the case returns to ArbCom and everyone acts surprised.  You say only the community can resolve the issues.  The evidence over the course of several years or more says the community, however, cannot in fact resolve the issues.  I remember in high school my TI-83 had this really bad version of Pong, where the ball never went any faster and the computer never missed so it was trivially easy to play it forever.  The game only ended if the player got bored or the battery died.  It wasn't a very good game. --JayHenry (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's simply not within ArbCom's remit to craft policy solutions and it has been made very clear that the community has little interest (and much aversion) towards imbuing ArbCom with such power. Jimbo or the Foundation could impose other solutions, or alter the scope of ArbCom, but it is extremely unlikely. Given ArbCom's lack of authority over policy and the unlikelihood of intervention from Jimbo or the Foundation, the responsibility for any resolution falls squarely on the community, for better and worse. Significant alterations and/or additions to our current system would be required for any alternate avenues of resolution, which themselves would require action and acceptance by the community. Vassyana (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If ArbCom cannot create policy, then what was WP:PSCI? II  | (t - c) 07:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the originating case: At worst, ArbCom made a foray into a content ruling, which is something generally frowned upon by the community (to put it lightly). At best, ArbCom observed extant good practice under existing principles (NPOV, categorization conventions, et cetera). My opinion falls towards the latter.
 * Regarding the policy: The community decided to adopt the pinciples as formal policy. The pseudoscience section itself predates the existance of the FAQ as a separate page. The reference to the ArbCom ruling was added a bit over three months after the case resolved by an editor independent of ArbCom through normal policy editing.
 * ArbCom noting how existing principles and policy apply to a given situation is not at all the same thing as ArbCom interceding in policy disputes. Vassyana (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)