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?

[Carruthers]

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

If it was for them, rather than for users, it might be a good investment.

(doesn't the WMF have money?)

[Moulton]

Borderline Success Stories

Somewhere out there, one can find statistics on the fraction of the population diagnosed with Cluster B Personality Disorders.

Cluster B (dramatic, emotional, or erratic disorders)

• Antisocial personality disorder: pervasive disregard for the law and the rights of others.
  
  
• Borderline personality disorder: extreme "black and white" thinking, instability in relationships, self-image, identity and behavior
  
  
• Histrionic personality disorder: pervasive attention-seeking behavior including inappropriate sexual seductiveness and shallow or exaggerated emotions
  
  
• Narcissistic personality disorder: a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy"

It occurs to me that the same statistic for the WP demographic might be a tad higher than that for the population at large.

But wait...

There's more...

Studies on Clusters

In 2005, psychologists Belinda Board and Katarina Fritzon at the University of Surrey, UK, interviewed and gave personality tests to high-level British executives and compared their profiles with those of criminal psychiatric patients at Broadmoor Hospital in the UK. They found that three out of eleven personality disorders were actually more common in managers than in the disturbed criminals:

• histrionic personality disorder: including superficial charm, insincerity, egocentricity and manipulation
  
  
• narcissistic personality disorder: including grandiosity, self-focused lack of empathy for others, exploitativeness and independence.
  
  
• obsessive-compulsive personality disorder: including perfectionism, excessive devotion to work, rigidity, stubbornness and dictatorial tendencies.

They described the business people as successful psychopaths and the criminals as unsuccessful psychopaths. [5]

[LaraLove]

Borderline Success Stories

Somewhere out there, one can find statistics on the fraction of the population diagnosed with Cluster B Personality Disorders.

Cluster B (dramatic, emotional, or erratic disorders)

• Antisocial personality disorder: pervasive disregard for the law and the rights of others.
  
  
• Borderline personality disorder: extreme "black and white" thinking, instability in relationships, self-image, identity and behavior
  
  
• Histrionic personality disorder: pervasive attention-seeking behavior including inappropriate sexual seductiveness and shallow or exaggerated emotions
  
  
• Narcissistic personality disorder: a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy"

It occurs to me that the same statistic for the WP demographic might be a tad higher than that for the population at large.

But wait...

There's more...

Studies on Clusters

In 2005, psychologists Belinda Board and Katarina Fritzon at the University of Surrey, UK, interviewed and gave personality tests to high-level British executives and compared their profiles with those of criminal psychiatric patients at Broadmoor Hospital in the UK. They found that three out of eleven personality disorders were actually more common in managers than in the disturbed criminals:

• histrionic personality disorder: including superficial charm, insincerity, egocentricity and manipulation
  
  
• narcissistic personality disorder: including grandiosity, self-focused lack of empathy for others, exploitativeness and independence.
  
  
• obsessive-compulsive personality disorder: including perfectionism, excessive devotion to work, rigidity, stubbornness and dictatorial tendencies.

They described the business people as successful psychopaths and the criminals as unsuccessful psychopaths. [5]

I have no doubt a large portion of the community suffers from some sort of personality disorder. A good majority, actually, would be my guess.

[Carruthers]

I have no doubt a large portion of the community suffers from some sort of personality disorder. A good majority, actually, would be my guess.

Does anybody know a University psych dept that might want to consider doing this as a research project? (I personally would have to think that you are probably correct, study or not...)

[Doc glasgow]

This is going to sound harsh. But I think we dig ourselves a hole when we begin on compassionate grounds to consider the subjective or mental disposition of users.

Arbcom should look at the net effect of behaviour alone. "What are this user's actions doing for the goals of the project?"

If any user seems unable to handle such an objective assessment because of mental difficulties, bereavement, exams or off-wiki subjective stress, (or even criminal harassment) then the best thing arbcom can do for the user is gently point them to their "right to vanish".

The minute arbcom gets into subjective dispositions, and confidential evidence of off-wiki mitigating factors, it is in huge difficulty because 1) as Durova points out it isn't qualified 2) it is pretty impossible to verify anything 3) it can never account for its action to the community.

Users need to take responsibility for their actually action if they want to edit here - if they can't cope with that, whilst we must be humane and sympathetic, we must encourage them to leave. Life is more than wiki - and wiki is not more than life.

Doc

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow:

[Carruthers]

Users need to take responsibility for their actually action if they want to edit here - if they can't cope with that, whilst we must be humane and sympathetic, we must encourage them to leave. Life is more than wiki - and wiki is not more than life.

Doc

You mean edit there, of course?

I mean, it seems to me that the official position of WR is that everybody already takes responsibility for anything they say, since there's no official position to begin with...unlike other places we could mention...

[Doc glasgow]

Users need to take responsibility for their actually action if they want to edit here - if they can't cope with that, whilst we must be humane and sympathetic, we must encourage them to leave. Life is more than wiki - and wiki is not more than life.

Doc

You mean edit there, of course?

I mean, it seems to me that the official position of WR is that everybody already takes responsibility for anything they say, since there's no official position to begin with...unlike other places we could mention...

Yes I mean there.

But the difference between wr and wp is just a matter of "t" to me at times (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[dogbiscuit]

It is clear to me that many online forums lack the psychological restrains that real life has, and they seem to amplify odd behaviours.

Wikipedia as times seems to do worse, in that although they claim Wikipedia is not therapy, it is clear that there are a selection of high profile problem users who do seem to have become dependent on it, and like many online forums, there is a certain addictiveness to the social networking and game playing.

We've turfed off a small handful people here who seemed to be getting more and more distressed in their interactions here, but it seems we have a small enough community that these actions can be seen and understood. It is a harder problem for Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, this is where we hit the Wikipedia brick wall, for when Wikipedia comes across hard problems they simply run and hide, claim not our problem, or quote legislation, or simply try and make fun of concerned people with USENET cries of OMGSAvetheChidrenz!!.

I don't expect Wikipedia to have solutions to all problems, but I do think it has a moral duty to try and find solutions. Sometimes they just need to kick people off, but be able to do it in a way that can be seen to be fair, rather than the arbitrary methods in use today, which can fan the flames - being banned for being a bit of a nuisance can seem rather harsh when compared with the manipulative types who are given free reign.

[Kelly Martin]

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

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

I'm sure she thinks she qualifies as a "credentialed professional" and will be one of the people being paid.

[wikiwhistle]

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.

The answer of course is for Arbcom simply to not deal with such issues- not in a bad way of course but that they should say that such things are a matter for qualified people- the police, a psychiatrist etc. I don't know when arbcom has dealt with health issues (?) unless it was to say someone was mentally ill, perhaps.

Not everyone can be an expert at everything and the arbcom should specify the obvious limits on their expertise and responsibility, if people like Durova are really unsure about it.

To try and do otherwise is a possible legal minefield of accepting liability for things which they aren't liable for, and trying to treat people etc, or not reporting a crime. Although I doubt this type of thing happens very often in practice.

[Doc glasgow]

It is clear to me that many online forums lack the psychological restrains that real life has, and they seem to amplify odd behaviours.

Wikipedia as times seems to do worse, in that although they claim Wikipedia is not therapy, it is clear that there are a selection of high profile problem users who do seem to have become dependent on it, and like many online forums, there is a certain addictiveness to the social networking and game playing.

We've turfed off a small handful people here who seemed to be getting more and more distressed in their interactions here, but it seems we have a small enough community that these actions can be seen and understood. It is a harder problem for Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, this is where we hit the Wikipedia brick wall, for when Wikipedia comes across hard problems they simply run and hide, claim not our problem, or quote legislation, or simply try and make fun of concerned people with USENET cries of OMGSAvetheChidrenz!!.

I don't expect Wikipedia to have solutions to all problems, but I do think it has a moral duty to try and find solutions. Sometimes they just need to kick people off, but be able to do it in a way that can be seen to be fair, rather than the arbitrary methods in use today, which can fan the flames - being banned for being a bit of a nuisance can seem rather harsh when compared with the manipulative types who are given free reign.

Absolutely not. Wikipedia is a project to write an encyclopedia. That's it. If you are judged to be helping, you should get banned.

Fairness is nothing to do with it. Wikipedia is not here to give you rights, or make the world a better place - its community is a means to an end, nothing more. If you think wikipedia is treating you badly, if it makes you feel ill, if you think "hey, they get away with, why shouldn't I", then look away, and go away.

Wikipedia is not your right, and if they decide to ban you, tough. There's a whole internet out there.

[Kelly Martin]

Durova is an attention whore; she posts things like these because they attract great buckets of attention and make her (and her batshit crazy ideas) the center of attention for a time. When this one peters out she'll do it again on some other batshit stupid idea. People need to stop paying attention to her; only then will she go away. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is so large now that it's impossible to effectively orchestrate a shunning of a troll there.

[dtobias]

Absolutely not. Wikipedia is a project to write an encyclopedia. That's it. If you are judged to be helping, you should get banned.

Ban people for helping the project to create an encyclopedia? Now, that's something some of the regulars here on WR can get behind! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

----------------
Now playing: Rayna - Complete
via FoxyTunes

[Moulton]

Do Wikipedians Have a HOLE in Their Head?

This is going to sound harsh. But I think we dig ourselves a hole when we begin on compassionate grounds to consider the subjective or mental disposition of users.

Arbcom should look at the net effect of behaviour alone. "What are this user's actions doing for the goals of the project?"

If any user seems unable to handle such an objective assessment because of mental difficulties, bereavement, exams or off-wiki subjective stress, (or even criminal harassment) then the best thing arbcom can do for the user is gently point them to their "right to vanish".

The minute arbcom gets into subjective dispositions, and confidential evidence of off-wiki mitigating factors, it is in huge difficulty because 1) as Durova points out it isn't qualified 2) it is pretty impossible to verify anything 3) it can never account for its action to the community.

Users need to take responsibility for their actually action if they want to edit here - if they can't cope with that, whilst we must be humane and sympathetic, we must encourage them to leave. Life is more than wiki - and wiki is not more than life.

Doc

I don't disagree with the notion that ArbCom is in no position to diagnose pre-existing emotional disorders afflicting miscreants who are hauled before the Ministers of Injustice at Wikipedia's version of the Spammish Inquisition known as the Assail 'Em Witch Trials.

However, ArbCom, being comprised of veteran editors and leaders of a community of knowledge workers who are engaged in crafting an encyclopedia that purports to be the "sum of all knowledge", are in a very strong position to be aware of the well-documented emotional consequences of employing the Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation upon a population of emotionally reactive Homo Schleppians.

As is well known in the scientific literature of Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology, Criminology, and Theology, the Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation is iatrogrenic — generally ineffective at best and counter-productive at worst. As we have learned from Victor Turner, Lonnie Athens, James Gilligan, Suzanne Retzinger, and Rene Girard, the contra-indicated practice contemplated by Hammurabi of Babylonia falls a tad short of Ethical Best Practices.

Well, perhaps more than a tad. Augustine of Hippo reckoned that Hammurabi's Original Logic Error (HOLE) was the dumbest mistake Homo Schleppians ever made, since the Dawn of Civilization.

[dogbiscuit]

It is clear to me that many online forums lack the psychological restrains that real life has, and they seem to amplify odd behaviours.

Wikipedia as times seems to do worse, in that although they claim Wikipedia is not therapy, it is clear that there are a selection of high profile problem users who do seem to have become dependent on it, and like many online forums, there is a certain addictiveness to the social networking and game playing.

We've turfed off a small handful people here who seemed to be getting more and more distressed in their interactions here, but it seems we have a small enough community that these actions can be seen and understood. It is a harder problem for Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, this is where we hit the Wikipedia brick wall, for when Wikipedia comes across hard problems they simply run and hide, claim not our problem, or quote legislation, or simply try and make fun of concerned people with USENET cries of OMGSAvetheChidrenz!!.

I don't expect Wikipedia to have solutions to all problems, but I do think it has a moral duty to try and find solutions. Sometimes they just need to kick people off, but be able to do it in a way that can be seen to be fair, rather than the arbitrary methods in use today, which can fan the flames - being banned for being a bit of a nuisance can seem rather harsh when compared with the manipulative types who are given free reign.

Absolutely not. Wikipedia is a project to write an encyclopedia. That's it. If you are judged to be helping, you should get banned.

Fairness is nothing to do with it. Wikipedia is not here to give you rights, or make the world a better place - its community is a means to an end, nothing more. If you think wikipedia is treating you badly, if it makes you feel ill, if you think "hey, they get away with, why shouldn't I", then look away, and go away.

Wikipedia is not your right, and if they decide to ban you, tough. There's a whole internet out there.

Actually, it seems I didn't express myself clearly as that is the point I was trying to make. The confusion stems from the underlying concern, that if Wikipedia carries on in its arbitrary way then it will just generate more righteously aggrieved people. In other words, if being stone bonkered is a reason for banning, then we would start seeing a large number of convenient blocks: Giano, too clearly fixated, Cla68, and so on. SlimVirgin, not fixated, just dedicated to building an encyclopedia under some name or another, she can stay.

So the solution WMF need to work out is a means of blocking people "for their own good", but actually "for the good of the project", without it simply being another weapons upgrade.

An example would be blocking those who simply spend too much time on the project, as you just know that they are going to end up a nut case, if they aren't already.

However, I will disagree on one thing: the raison d'etre of Wikipedia is to make the world a better place, which is what makes the project in its current state so tragic.

[DevilYouKnow]

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

This is one of the unrealistic things Durova's ever proposed.

So, somebody tell me -- is Durova turning into a troll?

[Doc glasgow]

Wikipedia has unfortunately become too personalised. So, arbcom is about "treating people fairly" and trying to "redeem" people if at all possible.


Firstly, wikipedia is not short of users - losing a few via arbcom would have a negligible effect on the project. If we took our top ten feature writers and deleted all their content contributions, few people would actually notice the net effect.

Now, arbcom can't act totally arbitrarily. Our good users can't be made to worry about the possibility of summarily blocking because someone doesn't like their face. A degree of predictability of outcome and assurance of proportionality is needed.

Having said that, arbcom should understand that their cases impact on the community less through dealing with individual parties and more by the signals and warnings they send out to other users. They need to look at the "big picture" and not just at the individuals before them. That's what they fail to do.

I mean, the individual net effect of SlimVirgin, JzG, or Cla is probably possitive. They contribute more than they "take" in drama-time. (OK, we could argue about that.) Nevertheless, it is certainly the case that wikipedia would benefit from very severe sanctions here, as the net effect of that would be to pull many users and admins into line.

We keep hearing "sanctions are not putative they are preventative". I think that's at the heart of the problem. We focus on what will reform the user (and ban only if we can't), rather than on deterrence. Sometimes hanging someone (even if alternatives were available) is beneficial "pour encourager les autres".

For that matter, decimation is also unfair, but sometimes effective.

Arbcom needs to be more effective, and less concerned (although not altogether unconcerned) with "fair"

[Kelly Martin]

So, somebody tell me -- is Durova turning into a troll?

Turning into?

[Doc glasgow]

So, somebody tell me -- is Durova turning into a troll?

Turning into?

Em. This metamorphosis was obseved back in December 2007. See Kelly Martin's blog, my own obsevations and even this forum.

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow: