"Todd Allen" wrote
If we can find some common threads as to why it's happening, maybe we can slow the rate down.
People have to learn to pace themselves. People have to understand how negative the effects can be if they try to force the pace on WP. I think people here may believe that they are here for the long term, but may lack the patience that is implied in saying that.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
Fred wrote:
What is happening is the result of combat fatigue (stress in less dramatic terms) By being very demanding regarding actions by anyone in a leading position there is more stress, and less satisfaction. Most people can be stressed in this way only for a short period of time. Trial lawyers and combat veterans for a bit longer.
We are all part of the problem. The solution is to be much more forgiving of the "mistakes" of others and being less quick to criticize. Another solution is to get rid of the attack dogs or at least not join in when they go into full cry.
Charles wrote:
"Todd Allen" wrote
If we can find some common threads as to why it's happening, maybe we can slow the rate down.
People have to learn to pace themselves. People have to understand how negative the effects can be if they try to force the pace on WP. I think people here may believe that they are here for the long term, but may lack the patience that is implied in saying that.
I'm just coming back from a weekend spent fighting a cold and avoiding WP entirely (don't use the admin bit with a 4-deg-F fever). Pacing onesself indeed.
Firstly, thanks to Newyorkbrad for starting the thread.
I wanted to comment on both Fred's and Charles' comments, and indirectly on some others in-thread.
I've gotten in a bit of trouble for having gotten confrontational with a couple of admins who burned out, in the few days before they blew. I don't think I was a major or precipitating factor, but from one viewpoint I didn't help.
In both cases, I saw little alarm bells going off in my head and was pretty sure they were about to go. I've seen those several times since and started leaning on people to take breaks.
In my viewpoint, there's an inherent problem with admins reaching the endstate of burnout. One common pattern is that they completely lose good faith regarding someone they've been arguing with for a while and hit them with an admin tool grossly abusively, or start seriously assuming bad faith for newbies.
This is not garden-variety admin mistake - I see those all the time. This is not grumpy admin syndrome - There are less of those, but they "feel" different than the ones I'm talking about who blew up. This is not admin having a bad day. The ones who blew up and left made a very sharp, escalating level of nastyness (doubling period 12-24 hrs) and then lost it.
It's possible to see this as finally pushed too far by a troll. But I think that's as a rule a mistake - the two where I pushed back, the provocations had been garden-variety, IMHO, and the reactions out of proportion.
One of the advantages of continuing to AGF even with the abusers is that the admins about to blow up stand out clearly.
As I said, the last couple of times that I saw the signs, I asked people to wikibreak, and they did. In one case they left and didn't come back, in the other they returned with decreased participation.
My motivations for pushing in the earlier cases were that we do sometimes have a legit problem with admin-BITE, and I was seeing it there. We do need to stay aware and vigilant on that point. Admins will make mistakes, have bad days, turn grumpy, burn out in a big blowup, and on rare (unique?) occasion turn seriously rogue. I have noticed that I've both made mistakes and had bad days. If we intend to keep encouraging and attracting new talent, we need to minimize the consequences and volume of BITEs.
I don't pretend to have the single right answer, but I think that pushing people to take a break de-escalates situations and has ancedotally led to less loss to the project (with a totally useless statistical sample size). If you see someone suddenly become very much more confrontational or angry or aggressive, I advise trying to get them to take a break.
It might also make sense to create some sort of structure for an organized effort on that account. Anything from a "Stressed admin noticeboard" to a "This admin pledges to take a Wikibreak if 5 admins or 10 users ask them to in any 24 hr period" pledge and template. Those ideas occurred to me but I haven't had bandwidth to follow them up.
George Herbert wrote:
It might also make sense to create some sort of structure for an organized effort on that account. Anything from a "Stressed admin noticeboard" to a "This admin pledges to take a Wikibreak if 5 admins or 10 users ask them to in any 24 hr period" pledge and template. Those ideas occurred to me but I haven't had bandwidth to follow them up.
Or it could be as simple as every admin having an "admin buddy", somebody who maybe doesn't normally get involved with your same areas, but takes a look to see how you're doing every once in a while, and can speak up objectively if things are not going well. It wouldn't be much of a time imposition to look over one other person's contribution history once a week, plus if the areas of specialty are different, there's opportunity for broadening one's admin outlook. This would be a peer relationship, not any kind of mentoring - totally random pairing of admins would suffice even (and hopefully allay paranoia about cabals).
Stan
on 4/24/07 9:09 PM, Stan Shebs at stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
It might also make sense to create some sort of structure for an organized effort on that account. Anything from a "Stressed admin noticeboard" to a "This admin pledges to take a Wikibreak if 5 admins or 10 users ask them to in any 24 hr period" pledge and template. Those ideas occurred to me but I haven't had bandwidth to follow them up.
Or it could be as simple as every admin having an "admin buddy", somebody who maybe doesn't normally get involved with your same areas, but takes a look to see how you're doing every once in a while, and can speak up objectively if things are not going well. It wouldn't be much of a time imposition to look over one other person's contribution history once a week, plus if the areas of specialty are different, there's opportunity for broadening one's admin outlook. This would be a peer relationship, not any kind of mentoring - totally random pairing of admins would suffice even (and hopefully allay paranoia about cabals).
Stan
C'mon guys. Both of you are repeating stuff that's been suggested again and again. And, if history repeats (which is has before), these suggestions will fade from memory, until sometime in the (near) future they will be repeated along with, perhaps some new ones, and they will fade
If you (we) believe that this is truly a problem we truly care about, isn't it time to begin creating a concrete proposal of action?
Marc Riddell
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 4/24/07 9:09 PM, Stan Shebs at stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
It might also make sense to create some sort of structure for an organized effort on that account. Anything from a "Stressed admin noticeboard" to a "This admin pledges to take a Wikibreak if 5 admins or 10 users ask them to in any 24 hr period" pledge and template. Those ideas occurred to me but I haven't had bandwidth to follow them up.
Or it could be as simple as every admin having an "admin buddy", somebody who maybe doesn't normally get involved with your same areas, but takes a look to see how you're doing every once in a while, and can speak up objectively if things are not going well. It wouldn't be much of a time imposition to look over one other person's contribution history once a week, plus if the areas of specialty are different, there's opportunity for broadening one's admin outlook. This would be a peer relationship, not any kind of mentoring - totally random pairing of admins would suffice even (and hopefully allay paranoia about cabals).
Stan
C'mon guys. Both of you are repeating stuff that's been suggested again and again. And, if history repeats (which is has before), these suggestions will fade from memory, until sometime in the (near) future they will be repeated along with, perhaps some new ones, and they will fadeŠŠŠŠ
Actually, I don't recall hearing or suggesting the admin buddy idea before. It has the advantages of being easy to organize, easy to maintain, fits into existing work habits, and encourages the development of more long-term relationships. Many admins already tag-team on stressful issues, it just tends to be ephemeral, and so an admin gets sufficient support one month and then the next month is unnoticed until the spectacular flameout.
Stan
On 4/24/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 4/24/07 9:09 PM, Stan Shebs at stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
It might also make sense to create some sort of structure for an organized effort on that account. Anything from a "Stressed admin noticeboard" to a "This admin pledges to take a Wikibreak if 5 admins or 10 users ask them to in any 24 hr period" pledge and template. Those ideas occurred to me but I haven't had bandwidth to follow them up.
Or it could be as simple as every admin having an "admin buddy", somebody who maybe doesn't normally get involved with your same areas, but takes a look to see how you're doing every once in a while, and can speak up objectively if things are not going well. It wouldn't be much of a time imposition to look over one other person's contribution history once a week, plus if the areas of specialty are different, there's opportunity for broadening one's admin outlook. This would be a peer relationship, not any kind of mentoring - totally random pairing of admins would suffice even (and hopefully allay paranoia about cabals).
Stan
C'mon guys. Both of you are repeating stuff that's been suggested again and again. And, if history repeats (which is has before), these suggestions will fade from memory, until sometime in the (near) future they will be repeated along with, perhaps some new ones, and they will fadeŠŠŠŠ
Actually, I don't recall hearing or suggesting the admin buddy idea before. It has the advantages of being easy to organize, easy to maintain, fits into existing work habits, and encourages the development of more long-term relationships. Many admins already tag-team on stressful issues, it just tends to be ephemeral, and so an admin gets sufficient support one month and then the next month is unnoticed until the spectacular flameout.
Stan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Then let's just do it! I'm willing to be a test case, if that's needed, who else? Basically, random pairings where each partner keeps an eye on the stress level of the other, gently brings possible mistakes to their attention, and suggests stepping back from situations that are about to cause a blowup would be a great first step.
Seraphimblade
on 4/24/07 11:13 PM, Stan Shebs at stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Actually, I don't recall hearing or suggesting the admin buddy idea before. It has the advantages of being easy to organize, easy to maintain, fits into existing work habits, and encourages the development of more long-term relationships. Many admins already tag-team on stressful issues, it just tends to be ephemeral, and so an admin gets sufficient support one month and then the next month is unnoticed until the spectacular flameout.
Stan
Stan,
I don't have a problem with the idea of "admin buddies"; although in some cases it may be the blind leading the blind, or the deaf leading the blind (each having their own set of challenges). But I see only subtle differences between this and the "mentoring" process proposed before.
But the real point of my post is: when and how does a proposal - become practice - become policy?
Marc
On 25/04/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I don't have a problem with the idea of "admin buddies"; although in some cases it may be the blind leading the blind, or the deaf leading the blind (each having their own set of challenges). But I see only subtle differences between this and the "mentoring" process proposed before. But the real point of my post is: when and how does a proposal - become practice - become policy?
Well, it sorta has to be adopted one volunteer at a time. So something that sounds like a good idea.
The problem can be battling cliques of admins. This already happens.
- d.
On 4/25/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/04/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I don't have a problem with the idea of "admin buddies"; although in some cases it may be the blind leading the blind, or the deaf leading the blind (each having their own set of challenges). But I see only subtle differences between this and the "mentoring" process proposed before. But the real point of my post is: when and how does a proposal - become practice - become policy?
Well, it sorta has to be adopted one volunteer at a time. So something that sounds like a good idea.
I don't think we have to have any policy for something like this. It can become practice just if people start doing it and it works and spreads... so we need to actually get some people going doing whatever it is. Practice that's not contrary to policy is fine. If there's a reason to write a policy later to codify what's being done, if it needs to be codified, is fine.
I hereby declare the WikiBreak Cabal. The WBC is a completely disorganized band of trusted users who commit to constructively advising stressed admins and editors to take appropriate wikibreaks to refresh themselves. I'll throw up a page.... here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Georgewilliamherbert/WikiBreakCabal
Marc, I suggest that you pick whichever of the ideas you think is most useful, and start it. I and probably dozens of others here pledge at least moral support, and probably some actual effort 8-)
on 4/25/07 1:36 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Marc, I suggest that you pick whichever of the ideas you think is most useful, and start it. I and probably dozens of others here pledge at least moral support, and probably some actual effort 8-)
I honestly did not know it was that simple to start something in WP. Thank you. I'm still learning the mechanics and protocols of how things are done around here.
And George, be careful what you teach, and to whom; the teacher is forever an integral part of the history of what their student produces :-). Thanks.
Marc
On 4/25/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/25/07 1:36 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Marc, I suggest that you pick whichever of the ideas you think is most useful, and start it. I and probably dozens of others here pledge at least moral support, and probably some actual effort 8-)
I honestly did not know it was that simple to start something in WP. Thank you. I'm still learning the mechanics and protocols of how things are done around here.
It may help to bounce the specifics of how and what you want to do around a discussion here, or at the Village Pump, before you go "live", but you don't need anyone's permission to do it unless you're proposing something that changes existing policy.
The discussion in that case is to both generate some energy and gather improvement suggestions on how / what to do; I always find that even my good ideas get a little better with outside review and suggestions.
And George, be careful what you teach, and to whom; the teacher is forever an integral part of the history of what their student produces :-). Thanks.
Oh, look, I've become an Enabler ;-)
On 4/25/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/24/07 11:13 PM, Stan Shebs at stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Actually, I don't recall hearing or suggesting the admin buddy idea before. It has the advantages of being easy to organize, easy to maintain, fits into existing work habits, and encourages the development of more long-term relationships. Many admins already tag-team on stressful issues, it just tends to be ephemeral, and so an admin gets sufficient support one month and then the next month is unnoticed until the spectacular flameout.
Stan
Stan,
I don't have a problem with the idea of "admin buddies"; although in some cases it may be the blind leading the blind, or the deaf leading the blind (each having their own set of challenges). But I see only subtle differences between this and the "mentoring" process proposed before.
But the real point of my post is: when and how does a proposal - become practice - become policy?
Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. Quoth Gandhi, you must be the change you want to see in others. ;)
Johnleemk
Marc Riddell wrote:
I don't have a problem with the idea of "admin buddies"; although in some cases it may be the blind leading the blind, or the deaf leading the blind (each having their own set of challenges). But I see only subtle differences between this and the "mentoring" process proposed before.
Mentoring is potentially a high-commitment activity for the mentor. Buddying has far fewer expectations. Think of buddy diving; you're still enjoying your own dive, but your buddy is aware of you and vice versa.
But the real point of my post is: when and how does a proposal - become practice - become policy?
Well, I just created [[Wikipedia:Admin buddies]], we'll see how many people like the idea. I don't think it needs to become policy, since the arrangement is fundamentally voluntary. If it's popular, I expect it will be suggested to admins. But even if only a dozen people pair up, we're still better off than we were before.
Stan
on 4/25/07 10:31 AM, Stan Shebs at stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Well, I just created [[Wikipedia:Admin buddies]], we'll see how many people like the idea. I don't think it needs to become policy, since the arrangement is fundamentally voluntary. If it's popular, I expect it will be suggested to admins. But even if only a dozen people pair up, we're still better off than we were before.
Stan
Nice, positive move, Stan. I hope it works. If I were an admin, I'd join.
Marc
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 4/24/07 11:13 PM, Stan Shebs at stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Actually, I don't recall hearing or suggesting the admin buddy idea before. It has the advantages of being easy to organize, easy to maintain, fits into existing work habits, and encourages the development of more long-term relationships. Many admins already tag-team on stressful issues, it just tends to be ephemeral, and so an admin gets sufficient support one month and then the next month is unnoticed until the spectacular flameout.
I don't have a problem with the idea of "admin buddies"; although in some cases it may be the blind leading the blind, or the deaf leading the blind (each having their own set of challenges).
The biggest problem with the deaf leading the blind is that the deaf don't listen very well. ;-)
Ec