Arbcom needs a shrink, Durova proposes "consulting services of credentialed professional Options

[Doc glasgow]

Durova has just proposed that arbcom requires to hire the "consulting services of credentialed professionals" in "situations involving serious harassment, threats, and health issues".

Wikipedia's arbitration committee has dealt with a number of situations involving serious harassment, threats, and health issues. These concerns fall far outside the normal scope of encyclopedic disputes; these issues have real world ramifications. The qualifications for which arbitrators are chosen--familiarity with site policies, experience in article dispute resolutions, etc.--have virtually nothing to do with the training and experience requisite for handling problems of this nature. Therefore I offer a solution.

Proposed:

By January 1, 2009 the Committee will either retain the consulting services of credentialed professionals in these areas, or else its members will obtain appropriate fundamental training in these areas from qualified professionals. If the consulting option is selected, normal client-professional confidentiality would apply to the relationship. If the training option is selected, training would be mandatory for all new and returning arbitrators and must be completed by February 15, 2009 or the arbitrator will be placed on the inactive list involuntarily and excluded from internal arbitration communications (mailing list, private wiki, etc.) until training is completed.

The Committee will submit interim reports to the Community via public announcement on the Administrators' Noticeboard on November 1 and December 1. No later than January 1, 2009 the Committee will announce its final action, complete with the names and professional qualifications of the consultants or trainers, and name the formal instruction (if any) that Committee members take. If a Committee member is placed on the inactive list due to failure to complete training, a training needed notation will be added next to that arbitrator's name. The community may request an independent audit for compliance in obtaining and retaining training/consultation, according to reasonable means per the Committee's specification.

See here.

I wonder if she's going to pay for them?

[Doc glasgow]

Outside agents of any kind are pointless.

The purpose of arbitration is not to "deal even-handedly and impartially" or to bind up the broken-hearted, it is to serve to aims of the project. The only people qualified to do that are people committed to, and understanding the project.

The problem is not that arbcom fail to be fair and impartial, it is that they try.

[dtobias]

The purpose of arbitration is not to "deal even-handedly and impartially" or to bind up the broken-hearted, it is to serve to aims of the project.

That has a very collectivist sound to it.

----------------
Now playing: Britney Spears - Baby One More Time
via FoxyTunes

[GlassBeadGame]

The purpose of arbitration is not to "deal even-handedly and impartially" or to bind up the broken-hearted, it is to serve to aims of the project.

That has a very collectivist sound to it.

----------------
Now playing: Britney Spears - Baby One More Time
via FoxyTunes

It is of course not what it is about. "The Good Doctor" knows full well that independent and professional dispute resolution would not result in that kind of hand holding. What he cannot see, thanks to the interesting head gear common among Wikipedian's that combines rose-colored glasses and side-blinder into one optical device, is that their "community" are not only stakeholders involved in Wikipedia's disputes. ArbCom does not inspire confidence among the "faithful." There is absolutely no reason why anyone who brings concerns not informed by unquestioning loyalty to project ought to place any faith whatsoever in their processes and persons.

[Doc glasgow]

There is absolutely no reason why anyone who brings concerns not informed by unquestioning loyalty to project ought to place any faith whatsoever in their processes and persons.

There is no more reason for anyone who's not committed to the project having confidence in arbcom, than there is for people to have confidence in the moderators of any website.