:I agree with most of what you say, as I have written in the talk sections of the articles. I suggested perhaps three articles and clearly define the terms. Please read what I wrote, as you are repeating much of what I said. I am not editing the Psychopathy article. However, I think it is in very bad shape. I am trying to clean up the Antisocial Personality Disorder article. As someone said, recently, there is a very good reason why hardly any Psychology articles can even reach GA status. I have resisted editing this articles as this is my profession. I mainly write forensic articles, as I am a forensic psychologist. But this confusion over terms and the mess these articles are in is a travesty. I would like to work with you to fix them up. It is an embarrassment the way they are now. The other person, the one fixated on sex offenders being Antisocial Personality Disorders, has been blocked for 28 days. But the article is such a mess, it ruins the concept for me -- and psychopathy was my Life Work! I hope you will help. Regards, [[User:Mattisse|<font color="007FFF">'''Mattisse'''</font>]] 02:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
:I agree with most of what you say, as I have written in the talk sections of the articles. I suggested perhaps three articles and clearly define the terms. Please read what I wrote, as you are repeating much of what I said. I am not editing the Psychopathy article. However, I think it is in very bad shape. I am trying to clean up the Antisocial Personality Disorder article. As someone said, recently, there is a very good reason why hardly any Psychology articles can even reach GA status. I have resisted editing this articles as this is my profession. I mainly write forensic articles, as I am a forensic psychologist. But this confusion over terms and the mess these articles are in is a travesty. I would like to work with you to fix them up. It is an embarrassment the way they are now. The other person, the one fixated on sex offenders being Antisocial Personality Disorders, has been blocked for 28 days. But the article is such a mess, it ruins the concept for me -- and psychopathy was my Life Work! I hope you will help. Regards, [[User:Mattisse|<font color="007FFF">'''Mattisse'''</font>]] 02:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I know the blocked person meant well, but she was blocked because she [[WP:OWN]] the article. Because she has a history of such behavior, I am told, she was blocked for 28 days. She received a community ban but appealed personally to Jimbo and it was reversed. But she is on thin ice. If you are her friend, I would advise you to help her become more understanding. She is near receiving another community ban, I am told by the banning admin, who is trying to work with her. So please help her if you can to be more open to critical information and more responsible about referencing. If you are her friend you will help her. [[User:Mattisse|<font color="007FFF">'''Mattisse'''</font>]] 02:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I know the blocked person meant well, but she was blocked because she [[WP:OWN]] the article. Because she has a history of such behavior, I am told, she was blocked for 28 days. She received a community ban but appealed personally to Jimbo and it was reversed. But she is on thin ice. If you are her friend, I would advise you to help her become more understanding. She is near receiving another community ban, I am told by the banning admin, who is trying to work with her. So please help her if you can to be more open to critical information and more responsible about referencing. If you are her friend you will help her. [[User:Mattisse|<font color="007FFF">'''Mattisse'''</font>]] 02:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
::I have personally encountered the excesses of Zeraeph's zeal, but I would not suggest she is 100% misguided (as stubborn as she may be sometimes), and I do disagree with some of her edit choices but do not have the time available to make editing a daily thing or to play cyber-politics (I've had more than my fill of games from my ex). By the way, the professional body that publishes the DSM is the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and not the American Medical Association (AMA), Doctor. ;) --[[User:NeantHumain|NeantHumain]] ([[User talk:NeantHumain|talk]]) 03:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Revision as of 03:21, 13 December 2007
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Mattisse/Archive 12. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
...for helping me navigate the waters of my surprisingly peaceful RFA, which closed successfully with 85 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral.
I would particularly like to thank Acalamari and Alison, my nominators, and everyone who watched the page and ran the tally.
If there is anything I can do to be of service in the future, please feel free to contact me. (Oh, and if you hate RfA Thankspam, please forgive me. I promise I won't block you for deleting it ;-))
And forgive me if I need a Wikibreak now and then (like now. I'm exhausted!). You wouldn’t want to see me climbing the Reichstag, now would you?
Off to flail around with my new mop! (what?!)
Kathryn NicDhàna♫♦♫ This RfA thanks inspired by Neranei's, which was inspired by VanTucky's which was in turn inspired by LaraLove's which was inspired by The Random Editor's, which was inspired by Phaedriel's original thanks.
Re Is it possible to post here? The sign on the page looks like maybe I am violating a rule by posting here.
Hi FayssaIff. Please look at the question I asked you on your ArbCom nomination page. I was very hurt and troubled by you cavalier treatment of me, almost as a joke, on the AN/I page. I believe I have contributed enormously to wikipedia and do not deserved to be dismissed as a joke. I am an all too easy target because I am vulnerable. It is greatly disturbing to think that a person with your attitude toward someone like me would be on the ARBCom. You do seem not look into things before you rush to hurtful judgments. It is immensely discouraging to good editors as I am. Please look at my edit numbers, my FA article copyedits, the numbers of articles I have written and/or significantly contributed to. My DYK's are to numerous to count, although I have lost heart now to do serious work on Wikipedia. Sincerely, Mattisse17:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just answered you Mattisse. I am really sorry that you feel hurt but you have to understand that it is very hard for me or anyone else to know about other people emotions online. I totally agree that you are a very great contributor but believe me, as an admin, i can't deal w/ content. I tried to guide you both to an alternative way to sort out your dispute. That is my aim. I support your contribs of course but edit warring and some harsh comments should be reviewed. I used to get emotional here sometimes but i found out that it doesn't work. We got millions of contributors and i am sure that many among them are great contributors like yourselves. Some others are hard to work with but how can we find alternative ways? The question remains... It is about your emotional way. Take it easy. Get other people involved as third party editors especially that you use to edit very specific articles which only few people know about. Forget about emotions. Edit warring is bad and it is surely the cause of the problem. I hope you don't take it as something personal and consider that i am full aware of the situation and hope you happy editing.
P.S. "Restricted to People w/ Civil Tantrum only" is more a joke than anything. Even if it would be something serious i, of course, don't consider you part of that :) -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never posted or even knew about AN/I for the first six months I was here. Yes, I am an old lady that does not catch on quickly but that is no reason to ridicule me. My contributions have been excellent until now. I now refuse most work asked and no longer copy edit for people -- I only did that so I would be protected from the sock puppets. I copy edited the India FA and it was for that reason I was protected much of the time. You do a lot of damage by your cavalier attitude. Maybe Jimbo does not value the contributions of us older members -- I believe that is clearly the message. I voted against you for this reason. I no longer care if I am blocked. I have freaked out and put a month's worth of my articles up for deletion (and other shoot-self-in-foot tactics) but I have never edit warred knowingly, I have never been uncivil. I have never vandalized but only put my very best into wikipedia. Unfortunately all the good editors I knew have gone. It's you wikipedia. Go at it. Mattisse18:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse. I again feel sorry about the way you feel. But can you understand my position? Yes, you have been uncivil toward Blueboar. The thing is again about emotions since i know about your invaluable contributions. Now that i understand your feeling, can you please have a look at my stance toward incivility? Make sure you read my answer to Heimstern #2 and to avoid thinking it is directed to you. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) ::I might have been with BlueBoar. I had misgivings in accepting him as a mediator because of past experience. I actually saved him from a sockpuppet. However, he let an incredibly agressive person run all over me in a mediation -- a person who had taken material out of an article I wrote, redirected the article to his and then cut/paste the material I wrote into his. That person never contributed any material to the mediation. All he did was attack me constantly and at length and they were personal attacks. Blueboar said not a word to him until the very end when I blew up. Then he made a mild comment to the other party. I came up with outlines, list of materials, a schedule of how to procede - in other word I did all the work. Until I could not take both doing the work and the constant abuse anymore. There is no one for a person like me to turn to -- no one helps or protects me. Only one person is left from the excellent group of editors I used to work with on wikipedia and he will only communicate on IRC now. Why do you hang on Blueboar and don't look at the months of abuse I took with no help. I get your drift and will not bother you any more. You are for the BlueBoars and Zerapera (or whatever her name is) of the world. This is why I, like many others, no longer give of myself to wikipedia. Wikipedia does not value me and has made that very clear. Mattisse19:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Do you think I would have put up with that situation with Blueboar if I had any other choice? I did ask on AN/I if an article could be eviscerated and #REDIRECT with no consultation with article editors. Answer:no. The redirecting editor must discuss. But there was no way for me to enforce that, no one would help me, so I had to go along with Blueboar's directions of accepting the #REDIRECT and then fixing up the other editor's article to be as good as the one he had #REDIRECT and merged into his. How would you feel in a situation like that? I am helpless here at wikipedia and I cannot take it any longer. Mattisse19:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse, please take heart and don't be discouraged. I am really swamped today, fell behind yesterday on Wiki editing I must tend to, and have appt's all afternoon today, but I promise to catch up later in the day. I understand your frustration, as it mirrors much of my Wiki experience as well. Something must change if productive editors are to stay on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse, I have replied on the ArbCom vote talk page. This is becoming a time sink, so I'll just say here that I am terribly sorry to see you fall victim to Zeraeph, and to see what happened to you, and I fully understand your concerns about these trends on Wikipedia. I also have to make sure to clarify one remark you made on my talk page; I am not an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
psychos
I'm still working on it. I'm not particularly invested in it, but to me the word 'psychopathy' is also very outmoded, stigmatizing even more than is necessary, and politically incorrect. I can't be the only one to think these people using the word 'psychopath' in a clinical context is not quite right. If we can find a source that says so (shouldn't be too hard) that'd be great. Merkinsmum22:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! What a new signature you have!
Psychopath is never used in a clinical context in the U.S.
I just wrote my opinion under the Antisocial Personality Disorder article talk page. I was originally "brought up" using psychopathy as a general descriptive term. But even in my 1968 DSM-II, the word psychopathy was not used diagnostically. Psychopathy was nice because it was a general descriptive term that did not have firm requirements. You could say any manipulative person was psychopathic, and it was a given that politicians in general were psychopaths, or successful businessmen etc., even psychology professors.
The AMA really reduced it to a criminal category ("repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest") and took away the fun of calling the President of the U.S. (whoever at the time) a psychopath. It also made it clear that it was not a childhood diagnosis (must be at least age 18) but with evidence of a Conduct Disorder with onset before age 15.
I am not clear how ICD-10 fits in but I can tell from what I read on line that it has a different slant.
Although I used to have Hare's book (can't find it now) I do not remember that Hare focused so on Sex Offenders the way the Psychopathy article does. And someone has to realize that researchers can use whatever terms they want, they can make them up even, whereas the clinical situation is very different. And also the problems with cluster/factor analysis. I was on IRC yesterday with a wikipedia mathematics person, and he was reading the Psychopathy article and having big problems with it.
Thanks! It is used frequently in research because of Hare, a research psychologist - he must be in his 80's by now! He is the one using cluster/factor analyses on sample of 16 subjects. There is quite a bit of research going on in that vein. But he is off on a completely different angle and his findings are irrelevant to clinical psychology. Don't you have that 16-PF over where you are? He wants to come up with something like that. Thanks for the conversation yesterday! Mattisse22:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I like to think I've NPOV'ed the article a bit more just now, so do take a look. Yes we can call people a 'psycho' etc in everyday life if we think they're a bit wrong, but that's not really the same as institutionalised use of the term. Use of the term feels a bit like if the psychiatric establishment still believed in drapetomania lol, although APD and psychopathy are not so different, indeed many believe are synonymous. The charming/manipulative/lying elements don't seem to be in the APD article much at the mo, with which I was surprised. Hare and his followers can't have been the only ones to talk about the possible advantages in business etc of being a psycho, too. Tomorrow I'll look at the dissocial link (tonight I've had a glass or two of wine lol). Yes the bits I've read about APD before (being from the UK, I think were different. But maybe I'm just getting it mixed up with NPD a bit at that point.Merkinsmum23:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Glad you like the sig lol- I was inspired a bit by yours because you have colour and bold- plus I saw some code on another site for the rainbowness so I could copy it. At first it was flashing and larger, but I got told off:) Spoilsports lol.:) Merkinsmum23:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the piped dissocial to APD links but any differences need to be mentioned in the APD article, or a new article made about the 'dissocial' condition. It's not one of your friend Z's articles, so feel free to go ahead.:)Merkinsmum00:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! It's the unethical fraud that I object to most. I'm not going to try to fix the article or any other in Psychology. As Sandy said, it is hopeless. There is a reason why no psychology article has never been FA. I can't even image GA status. It is so hopeless. Thanks for doing that. That was so outright against even wikipedia's few standards. Mattisse00:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
psyco merge
I wanted to merge sections of it, such as get the history bit and other bits because it's a more fleshed out article. See the sections I've highlighted for merging on Hare's theory of psychopathy. I have to mention it, at least in the edit if it's done, so the history is intact for it to comply with the GFDL. What do you think? That article is in less of a note form than the APD one. I mean the criteria bit needs to be a list but the rest of APD could look more like an article. Merkinsmum01:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not understanding what you mean "comply with the GFDL". What does that entail? (I am working on the Antisocial Personality Disorder using DSM-IV. I discovered the other DSM diagnosis articles do not have that ICD-10 or 9 on them, so I don't have to mix apples and oranges.) Mattisse01:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is before I can lift sections of the psychopathy article such as the history section, I have to note a merge in the edit history, or I am not entirely compliant with wiki's copyright license, the Gnu Free Documentation License. How I understand it is that when performing a merge, the articles should oth be mentioned in the histories so there's a record of who added the various bits. But I could be wrong- your guess is as good as mine lol when it comes to technical stuff.:) And it doesn't really matter lol:)
The APD article is much more straightforward now you did that, though I'm intrigued now and will have to look at the ICD-10 tomorrow. Also it means that it doesn't look as much of a majority of people having the same view of APD or whatever we care to call it.:)Merkinsmum 02:14, 13
December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if you want to do a merge, you can. But from my point of view the info could be left where it is. It is just general information. I have all the books and references and could write a section like that for the Antisocial Personality Disorder article, although I don't think it is needed there. Sleep well! Mattisse02:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I'd like to say I'm not into the edit wars and zealous guardianship of articles (mainly, I just don't have the time); however, I am 'well versed on some subjects (like psychopathy) and contribute when I can. There is considerable confusion about the terms psychopathy, sociopathy, antisocial personality disorder, and dissocial personality disorder. Unfortunately, not even the recognized experts are in consensus (please see Reification). Luckily, we have a few clear facts that make the dispute more manageable for us Wikipedia editors:
Psychopathy is assessed in adult forensic and clinical populations using the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL–R). Related psychological instruments exist to measure psychopathy in children and business associates and to measure subclinical psychopathic personality traits through self-report.
An extensive set of research on psychopathy exists independent of work on antisocial personality disorder.
The DSM-IV task force cooperated with the authors of the ICD-10 to create a good degree of compatibility between their respective diagnostic systems although there are some notable differences.
The difficult question is in how different are these related concepts from each other? Given the separate body of research on psychopathy, it is clear at least two articles are needed. Given the relative sparsity of research on ICD-10 dissocial personality disorder, my opinion is that it is best to leave that as a section of the Antisocial personality disorder article. I think of dissocial PD as just another set of criteria for essentially the same concept as APD (just as would be the DSM-III-R or DSM-III criteria for APD, which differ quite a bit more from DSM-IV APD than ICD-10 dissocial PD does).
If you ask how does sociopathy differ from psychopathy, the answer varies greatly by expert; fortunately, no current diagnostic or measurement system uses the term. If one goes back to the DSM-I, ones finds sociopathic personality was an umbrella term that encompassed an antisocial type (perceived as in-born and defined by such characteristics as selfishness, immaturity, callousness, and impulsivity) and a dyssocial type (the result of socialization into a gang or neglectful parenting); alcoholism, substance addictions, and impulse-control disorders (kleptomania and pyromania) were also classified under sociopathic personality in this edition.
Hare distinguishes the terms psychopathy and sociopathy in the same way this early edition of the DSM distinguished antisocial and dyssocial types of sociopathic personality (however, other quotes suggest Hare sees the two as more or less the same). Lykken takes this distinction and refines it, suggesting various subtypes of both psychopathy and sociopathy. He was a proponent (but not the originator) of the distinction between primary and secondary psychopathy. He suggested secondary psychopathy may be the result of something like a choleric (irritable, impulsive) temperament or hypersexuality whereas primary psychopathy results from an innate deficit in fearfulness. Joseph Newman has tested this hypothesis of Lykken's and even come up with his own explanation of primary psychopathy (a sort of attentional deficit).
The reason many experts presently emphasize a distinction between APD and psychopathy is that they find the APD criteria inadequate for clinical, forensic, and research purposes. Psychopathy, for example, has a stronger correlation with criminal recidivism (particularly violent recidivism). APD's looser criteria muddle different motivations and etymologies. Researchers have found that certain physiological responses are correlated only with the deficient emotional experience factor of the PCL–R (and similar factors of related instruments). Prosecuting attorneys especially love the term because this diagnosis dehumanizes the defendant in the eyes of the jury (even if they are instructed to treat the information rationally rather than emotionally, let's be honest). For this reason alone, I'm sure many researchers and clinicians would happily go to the less emotional term antisocial personality disorder if the criteria were sufficient for their needs.
I could go on...
Anyway now for a more personal note: Please remember to assume good faith from your fellow editors and avoid making rash accusations by calling someone's actions "unethical," "disguised," "mislead," etc. Zeraeph did not add the dissocial personality disorder information to the APD article; I did. A calm, clear-headed frame of mind is always helpful when editing Wikipedia. Truth and facts are really not a matter of consensus, but our approach to editing Wikipedia, by and large, is since otherwise everyone could claim to know the truth on their pet interest better than anyone else and resort to browbeating their perspective into everyone else's face.
I agree with most of what you say, as I have written in the talk sections of the articles. I suggested perhaps three articles and clearly define the terms. Please read what I wrote, as you are repeating much of what I said. I am not editing the Psychopathy article. However, I think it is in very bad shape. I am trying to clean up the Antisocial Personality Disorder article. As someone said, recently, there is a very good reason why hardly any Psychology articles can even reach GA status. I have resisted editing this articles as this is my profession. I mainly write forensic articles, as I am a forensic psychologist. But this confusion over terms and the mess these articles are in is a travesty. I would like to work with you to fix them up. It is an embarrassment the way they are now. The other person, the one fixated on sex offenders being Antisocial Personality Disorders, has been blocked for 28 days. But the article is such a mess, it ruins the concept for me -- and psychopathy was my Life Work! I hope you will help. Regards, Mattisse02:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I know the blocked person meant well, but she was blocked because she WP:OWN the article. Because she has a history of such behavior, I am told, she was blocked for 28 days. She received a community ban but appealed personally to Jimbo and it was reversed. But she is on thin ice. If you are her friend, I would advise you to help her become more understanding. She is near receiving another community ban, I am told by the banning admin, who is trying to work with her. So please help her if you can to be more open to critical information and more responsible about referencing. If you are her friend you will help her. Mattisse02:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have personally encountered the excesses of Zeraeph's zeal, but I would not suggest she is 100% misguided (as stubborn as she may be sometimes), and I do disagree with some of her edit choices but do not have the time available to make editing a daily thing or to play cyber-politics (I've had more than my fill of games from my ex). By the way, the professional body that publishes the DSM is the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and not the American Medical Association (AMA), Doctor. ;) --NeantHumain (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
