Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ Bureaucracy _ Arbcom needs a shrink
Posted by: 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_professional_consultation.
I wonder if she's going to pay for them?
Posted by: 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?)
Posted by: Moulton
Borderline Success Stories
Somewhere out there, one can find statistics on the fraction of the population diagnosed with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_B#List_of_personality_disorders_defined_in_the_DSM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_B#List_of_personality_disorders_defined_in_the_DSM (dramatic, emotional, or erratic disorders)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder: pervasive disregard for the law and the rights of others.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_personality_disorder: extreme "black and white" thinking, instability in relationships, self-image, identity and behavior
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histrionic_personality_disorder: pervasive attention-seeking behavior including inappropriate sexual seductiveness and shallow or exaggerated emotions
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_B#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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_disorders were actually more common in managers than in the disturbed criminals:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histrionic_personality_disorder: including superficial charm, insincerity, egocentricity and manipulation
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder: including grandiosity, self-focused lack of empathy for others, exploitativeness and independence.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive-compulsive_personality_disorder: including perfectionism, excessive devotion to work, rigidity, stubbornness and dictatorial tendencies.
Posted by: LaraLove
Borderline Success Stories
Somewhere out there, one can find statistics on the fraction of the population diagnosed with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_B#List_of_personality_disorders_defined_in_the_DSM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_B#List_of_personality_disorders_defined_in_the_DSM (dramatic, emotional, or erratic disorders)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder: pervasive disregard for the law and the rights of others.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_personality_disorder: extreme "black and white" thinking, instability in relationships, self-image, identity and behavior
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histrionic_personality_disorder: pervasive attention-seeking behavior including inappropriate sexual seductiveness and shallow or exaggerated emotions
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_B#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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_disorders were actually more common in managers than in the disturbed criminals:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histrionic_personality_disorder: including superficial charm, insincerity, egocentricity and manipulation
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder: including grandiosity, self-focused lack of empathy for others, exploitativeness and independence.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive-compulsive_personality_disorder: including perfectionism, excessive devotion to work, rigidity, stubbornness and dictatorial tendencies.
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.
Posted by: 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...)
Posted by: 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
Posted by: 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...
Posted by: 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
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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?
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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!
----------------
Now playing: http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/rayna/track/complete
via http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/
Posted by: Moulton
Do Wikipedians Have a HOLE in Their Head?
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 http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/~bkort/FloNight.IRC.html at Wikipedia's version of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton/Archive_1#No_One_Expects_the_Spammish_Inquisition known as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Relevant_Discussions.
However, ArbCom, being comprised of veteran editors and leaders of a http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/building-community/3iyoslgwsp412/20 of http://knol.google.com/k/knol/system/knol/pages/Search?&start=0&num=30&q=Barry%20Kort&locale=en&back=3iyoslgwsp412.25&restrict=general# 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 http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/search?q=fascinating Homo Schleppians.
As is well known in the scientific literature of Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology, Criminology, and Theology, the Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenesis — generally ineffective at best and counter-productive at worst. As we have learned from http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/search?q=liminal+social+drama, http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/foundations-of-ethics/3iyoslgwsp412/10#H3-Lonnie-Athens-James-Gilligan-and-Suzanne-Retzinger, and http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/foundations-of-ethics/3iyoslgwsp412/10#H4-Ren-Girard, the contra-indicated practice contemplated by http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM falls a tad short of http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia.
Well, perhaps more than a tad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Augustine_of_Hippo reckoned that Hammurabi's Original Logic Error (HOLE) was the http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/disjunction-dysfunction-and-the-error/3iyoslgwsp412/13# http://wc1.worldcrossing.com/WebX?224@@11f76c36@.1de60489/0 ever made, since the http://underground.musenet.org:8080/orenda/noughty.html.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: 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?
Posted by: 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"
Posted by: Kelly Martin
Posted by: Doc glasgow
Em. This metamorphosis was obseved back in December 2007. See http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2007/12/durova-takes-dramatic-low-road.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=177398665#Time_for_that_big_disclosure_from_Durova and even http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=14538&mode=threaded
Posted by: maiawatatos
Feels like britain in the '90s. Outsorce and privatise everything, then find out you've got no structure of your own left...
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
It is not just ancillary matters relating to mental health, protective concerns etc, that ArbCom is not up to the task. They are not competent to address their core task of settling disputes. ArbCom needs to be abandoned and the services of independent dispute resolution professional need to be secured.
It would be promising that anyone on Wikpedia thought that anyone offering any credentialed services existing outside the "World Map of Wikipedia" could help the project. This promise, however, needs to filtered through the fact that the person advocating this modest improvement is only doing so to advance her own influence, status and "career" on the self-absorbed and dysfunctional site.
Posted by: wikiwhistle
It is not just ancillary matters relating to mental health, protective concerns etc, that ArbCom is not up to the task. They are not competent to address their core task of settling disputes. ArbCom needs to be abandoned and the services of independent dispute resolution professional need to be secured.
That would involve money too, though.
Posted by: Carruthers
It is not just ancillary matters relating to mental health, protective concerns etc, that ArbCom is not up to the task. They are not competent to address their core task of settling disputes. ArbCom needs to be abandoned and the services of independent dispute resolution professional need to be secured.
That would involve money too, though.
They HAVE money. They're spending money right and left on other ridiculous things (like Sue "Spiderhands" Gardner's salary....). They might as well spend it on something that will actually fix some of these problems for a change.
Posted by: Kelly Martin
Posted by: maiawatatos
It's not like any professional from the outside is going to be guaranteed to be even-handed either though - or even necessarily independent or competent.
It's like, as I mentioned above, privatising a crucial public service - incredibly naive to assume that those who the service is farmed out to will give a damn about its quality. They'd want their arses covered so they're not liable for anything, would take a fat whack of money, and there's every chance that they'd be even less productive in terms of time spent on cases than the current arbcom.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: maiawatatos
Whoever is the final step of dispute resolution must at least attempt to be even-handed, or the whole resolution process loses the trust of the community - and as a result the project will get disrupted. Have you really not noticed that happening recently?
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
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.
Complete drivel.
Posted by: 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.
Complete drivel.
Bollocks to you too.
Posted by: 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: http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/britney+spears/track/baby+one+more+time
via http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/
Posted by: Carruthers
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.
Yes, it does. However, surprisingly, the true goal of ARBCOM is excommunication from the Kult. It's not about fixing problems, it's about driving those who don't drink the koolaid out of the project.
If they wanted real arbitration, they have the money to pay an outside arbitrator to do just that, in an objective and non-partisan manner....
Posted by: 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: http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/britney+spears/track/baby+one+more+time
via http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/
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.
Posted by: DevilYouKnow
Em. This metamorphosis was obseved back in December 2007. See http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2007/12/durova-takes-dramatic-low-road.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=177398665#Time_for_that_big_disclosure_from_Durova and even http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=14538&mode=threaded
Wow, I stand corrected. Perhaps this is Durova's way of trying to grab a free shrink? She needs one, badly.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: Cedric
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?
Indeed. But then, if she can rassel rattlesnakes while riding her Harley across the top of the Berlin Wall, why should this be much of a strech for her?
Posted by: Doc glasgow
..
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
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?)
Silly Rabbit, they're planning to sue you personally for Mental Anguish.
You'll be paying for their Chirpopractors and their Church Of Wikipediology Certified Hi-Tech High-Touch Healers (read "Muscovite Masseuses") for the rest of your born days.
Jon
Posted by: Kelly Martin
Posted by: Moulton
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton/Mu#Cognitive_Shrink
Title: Cognitive Shrink
Composer: Janice Joplin and Barsoom Tork Associates
Artist: Durova
Midi: http://ultra.musenet.org:8020/media/mercedes_benz.mid
ArbCom won't you buy me a cognitive shrink?
My friends all have schpilkes and I need a drink.
Worked hard all my lifetime, my edits all stink,
So Freud, won't you buy me a cognitive shrink?
Oh Freud won't you buy me a night on the couch?
My friends have neuroses and I'm such a grouch.
Let me prove that I'm worthy and nobody's slouch,
ArbCom won't you buy me a night on the couch?
Oh Wales, won’t you buy me a Wiki that's free?
Spamming with dullards is annoying me.
I wait for reverting each day until three,
So Wales, won’t you buy me a Wiki that's free?
Everybody!
ArbCom won't you buy me a cognitive shrink?
My friends all have schpilkes and I need a drink.
Worked hard all my lifetime, my edits all stink,
So Freud, won't you buy me a cognitive shrink?
That’s it!
CopyClef 2008 Janice Joplin and Barsoom Tork Associates. All songs abused.
Posted by: maiawatatos
Oh dear... 'all songs abused' is certainly right.