I think you have a very good point there, and having looked through a lot of the flameouts, I believe that is in the majority of the cases the reason that people leave. Ironically, in more than one case, I've seen "good faith" get assumed on a troll's behalf while someone who's been around for a long time and generally demonstrated good judgment is interrogated for "biting" them by delivering the ultimatum they should be getting in that case-either stop the problem behavior, go away, or get helped to go away. To that, I can actually see solutions. -I've suggested that new users be disabled from creating mainspace pages (mainspace only would be best if it were technically feasible, this would still give them the ability to create their user pages, start up discussion on a talk page if the page hasn't yet been started, etc.) until they've been around for 4 days and made 50 edits (or perhaps 20 mainspace edits.) If someone can manage to make 20 mainspace edits, stick around for 4 days, and not get indef blocked, they're probably not an idiot or a vandal, and they've probably started to gain at least a limited understanding of content policy by working with existing articles. They probably also should be restricted from uploading images during this time. If they want to upload free-use ones, they should be doing that on Commons anyway. If they want to upload fair-use, they shouldn't be doing that first thing upon joining anyway. Yes, this will deter a few good people from joining. It'll also deter a lot of bad ones, and knock down the neverending CSD backlog. If anything, it's more "bitey" to say "Well, that new page you made about your (best friend/grandfather/loved one that just died/favorite obscure (band|website)) is going to get summarily nuked" rather than "Hey, before you make a new article, we'd like to be sure you understand a little about how things work here. If you're convinced you've got it down already, wait a few days, or articles for creation is right this way." The CSD backlogs and newpage patrol burn out a -lot- of admins and patrollers, and are inordinate timesinks as well. We don't just need to ask ourselves "But what if we miss out on one good article that way?" We also need to ask ourselves "If the number of articles we must speedy is reduced to a quarter its size, what could those who are tagging and deleting them be doing with the time instead? What if we're missing out on thirty good articles that way, as well as a ton of improvements to existing ones, and burning out great editors in the process?" -There's no reason for vandals to be given 3 or 4 warnings before the hammer comes down. They should get one, telling them their conduct is unacceptable, period, and if they pull it again they get a nice block. If they apologize nicely, and clearly understand why it happened and show intent to quit it, there's always an unblock button. In my experience, however, it's pretty rare that a vandal suddenly "comes around", except in a few cases of test editing where they go to the sandbox instead. Again, the question is "What if half the RC patrol could be dispatched to the cleanup and wikification backlogs instead?" -We need, as a community, to be a lot quicker to give the boot to trolls, edit warriors, and POV pushers. This goes triple if they're single-purpose. It's very rare that these people "come around", or do anything but drive good people off the project. -We also need to come down a hell of a lot harder on people trying to own articles, or who are a little too liberal with reverting. Every time you make an edit, you can look right down below, and it'll tell you "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." OWNership drives a -lot- of people off, and prevents articles from ever being improved. If at all possible, and there are no overriding concerns (such as BLP or complete factual inaccuracy) which demand immediate reversion, poor but relevant and good-faith edits should be sourced, improved, and integrated, not reverted. And those who revert well-sourced material relevant to an article because they don't like what it says should be shown no mercy whatsoever. -We need to make cutting easier, and quit calling people who trim down, merge, and delete articles "vandals" or "deletionists". Cutting is a healthy, natural part of the editorial process. (Of course, this presumes that such cuts are made with a clear rationale.) Once again, people need to see that sentence in the edit window. If you don't want your work edited, possibly beyond recognition, possibly even removed, certainly without your approval, you're posting it in the wrong place. -People who don't discuss a questionable action with the person who took it before heading to ANI or RFC or wherever else need a good troutslapping. Sometimes, the person may really have a good rationale (or bring to your attention something you didn't know), and the matter can be dropped. Other times, you may convince them (or bring to their attention something they didn't even know), and they'll happily reverse themselves. Of course, the same applies to those who refuse to discuss issues with those who do raise civil questions about their actions and explain the rationale behind them, therefore virtually guaranteeing escalation. My apologies for the length. I do believe if we can solve these issues, we can significantly and realistically reduce burnout of good editors and admins. If we lose a few trolls, vandals, and vanity bios in the process, well, that's just an added bonus. -- Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 4/21/07, Cascadia <cascadia(a)privatenoc.com> wrote: Gosh, you know what would be nice? If there was some kind of program dedicated to fostering a sense of community and fostering interaction between editors! Nah, it'd never work. ~~~~

And, (get this) they might actually have a place for editors, to talk to other editors, about *random /human/ stuff*!

On 4/21/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote: No, the general idea would just be a place where people can talk about their lives, and connect on a personal level. Kind of like a coffee lounge of sorts... ~~~~ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

- Be too nice to the newbie, shoot the veteran: I know Todd said this, but it happens too much- We're so afraid of biting people that we'll throw the book at a seasoned editor.

"David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:fbad4e140704220818n7330f43cya6890397a0d06f22@mail.gmail.com... > On 22/04/07, Cascadia <cascadia(a)privatenoc.com> > wrote:

>> - Be too nice to the newbie, shoot the veteran: I know Todd said this, >> but >> it happens too much- We're so afraid of biting people that we'll throw >> the >> book at a seasoned editor.

> e.g. when you demanded Ryulong resign from adminship for blocking your > sockpuppet.

If an admin is going to hold the position, they need to be on top of things much better. Personally, if I was an admin, after such a total screw up, I would have resigned and reapplied in a few months. Why? Because it would be admiting I had completely screwed up, and that I was willing to own up to the mistake and take full responsibility for my actions.

On 4/22/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Hey, here's part of something we need to realize, in that positive culture you're envisioning: EVERYONE SCREWS UP. That's just a fact of life. Even highly-trained professionals make the occasional error. We should certainly expect that from a crew of, well, effectively amateurs. If someone messed up an edit and broke a page's formatting, you wouldn't call for them to be banned from editing. (I sure hope!) You'd bring it to their attention or fix it. By the same token, administrators will make the occasional mistake too. That doesn't mean they're terrible people, or even careless. It means they're human. Now, that being said, there's a difference between an error and genuine abuse. Ryulong's actions didn't rise to the level of abuse by any stretch of the imagination. (I'm not sure I'd even necessarily call them an error.) In that case, there was some tension (and still is) between an allowed use of sockpuppets (to maintain privacy), and a prohibited one (to avoid community scrutiny). For all we knew, it could easily have been the same person who made -all- those accounts. There's no way to have the first clue if what any of them said are true. That's why "anonymous" socks are frowned upon. That being said, given the sensitivity of the situation, I wish Ryulong would have discussed a bit before issuing the blocks. But that's a -minor- error if it is one at all. And part of building a good community is to accept that others -will- have a different viewpoint than you, and unless someone is being egregiously abusive, destructive, or totally refusing to explain themselves at all-learn to accept a good rationale even when you don't totally agree with it. The other guy thinks he's just as right as you think you are. Seraphimblade -- Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 4/22/07, Cascadia <cascadia(a)privatenoc.com> wrote: nor were and like appologize. breaking a have greater). their should > never be treated as such by anyone. > > -Cascadia >

>And, (get this) they might actually have a place for editors, to talk >to other editors, about *random /human/ stuff*! > > Ah, just my imagination... > > No, the general idea would just be a place where people can talk about > their lives, and connect on a personal level. Kind of like a coffee > lounge of sorts...

Are you people teasing me, or what? :-)

If you are, nice job ;-)

If not, where do we start?

Marc Riddell

on 4/22/07 10:00 PM, K P at kpbotany(a)gmail.com wrote: buses, the But, speaking specifically about the people you interact with all the time on this List, that you wouldn't have a chance to meet in the above places, wouldn't you like to know what they think, and how they feel, about other things beside what relates to Wikipedia?

On 23/04/07, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote: Much like the problem of wiki governance - 4300 frequent editors in any given month (and 43,000 less frequent editors) is somewhat more than 100-150. The usual solution is something to do with voting. But Wikipedia systems including anything resembling a vote seem to rapidly decay either into an insular committee of regulars or a lynch mob.

On 4/23/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote: I'm not sure if we should judge any attempts to start this sort of thing, but there was a *very* active movement to create this sort of thing in 2006. I'm specifically thinking of userboxen and [[Wikipedia:Esperanza]]. Ironically, it was decided (by consensus, moreover, and among many of these projects' proponents) that both of these things actually hurt the community; the proliferation of boxen has slowed, and Esperanza was shut down. I'm not sure why these attempts failed, but it may be that getting to know your fellow editors as humans isn't very conducive to creating a culture of mutual respect if you can't even respect them on a professional level. (The most active and vocal Esperanzeans also had some of the most active and vocal assumers of bad faith in their number.)

In the end, I think it's more about the kind of people who are attracted to the project - specifically, the messy deep dark bowels of the project such as RfA, AfD, and all things that attract trolls (e.g. articles on polemical issues like [[George W. Bush]]). Most reasonable people hang out around these areas for a while, decide they're not worth it, and either leave or find their own niche on WP (mine seems to have become Malaysian articles; it's an obscure, quiet and peaceful area of WP where I do my best to keep politicians' biographies free from libel - not very hard when there aren't many people editing them).

The nicest and most respectful people in the project tend to be those who avoid the polemical areas of WP. Trouble is, if nobody mans the polemical areas, who will? We can't surrender these things to the extremists - but the levelheaded centrists don't have the right temperament for handling them without burning out.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you can respect your fellow editors on a professional basis, it's redundant to get to know them on a personal level, although that would be nice. And if you can't respect them as colleagues (common for people involved in polemical things, where the other guy is *always* wrong), it's difficult to imagine you respecting them as people. That may be why Esperanza failed; because its base was generally people who couldn't respect their fellow editors as colleagues.

on 4/23/07 2:09 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge(a)telus.net wrote: Ray, I took a look at Esperanza's Main Page, and its MfD discussion. I didn't have to read either one very far to understand why the project failed. It had set itself up as a separate Community from the Main WP one. That may not have been its intention, but that is how it came across to many - and to me. This is nowhere near what I am thinking about. What I see would be a Mailing List set up exactly like the WikiEN-l one we now participate in; the only difference would be in the subject matter discussed. I would love to go to a Wikimania event, but time and scheduling make that impossible for me. I would, therefore, love to see a Wikimania-type List where the same type of environment and communication could take place for anyone and everyone who cares to participate. This is what I'm getting at. Marc -- If you're restricted to what is - you are cut off from - - what could be.

The nicest and most respectful people in the project tend to be those who avoid the polemical areas of WP. Trouble is, if nobody mans the polemical areas, who will?

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you can respect your fellow editors

a professional basis, it's redundant to get to know them on a personal level, although that would be nice.

Ryulong then left, leaving his actions in place and having other admins clean up the mess.

On 23/04/07, Cascadia <cascadia(a)privatenoc.com> wrote: Your ridiculous repeated statement that blocking your sockpuppet is enough reason to resign from being an admin shows an overwhelming sense of entitlement. - d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

But is there any way we can get back around to the original purpose here, which was to discuss the high burnout rate and ways to slow it down?

> on 4/23/07 10:10 PM, Todd Allen at toddmallen(a)gmail.com wrote: > >> But is there any way we can get back around to the >> original purpose here, which was to discuss the high burnout rate and >> ways to slow it down?

> Todd, > > I mean this in the most positive of ways: To honestly and effectively > discuss accomplishing what you are talking about, is going to require a > shift of thinking and focus for some - from the maintenance and well-being > of the encyclopedia to the same of that of its people. When the product is > the only thing that really matters to a company, then the persons who > produce that product are going to suffer - and it remains a terrible place > to work. > > Marc Riddell >

I'm with you there. But the discussion's got to start somewhere.

EVERYONE SCREWS UP. That's just a fact of life. Even highly-trained professionals make the occasional error. We should certainly expect that from a crew of, well, effectively amateurs.