Psyschim62 is blowing up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Physchi...
I think in retrospect there were signs earlier, but it's becoming more clear.
On 12/20/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Psyschim62 is blowing up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Physchi...
I think in retrospect there were signs earlier, but it's becoming more clear.
Do you have a pointer to the actual issue? Maybe I'm not familiar enough with RfA's but even this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Physchi... doesn't seem to explain what the issue itself was.
Other than that, this looks like a fairly normal admin life cycle. He apparently joined the project in late 2004, became an admin some time after that, and leaves 3 years later claiming the project has been overtaken by trolls and has strayed from its original purpose. Is this unusual for anyone's involvement with virtually any internet project?
If there's a broader issue we should be discussing here, please tell us what it is.
Steve
On Dec 19, 2007 4:49 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
If there's a broader issue we should be discussing here, please tell us what it is.
It's been a recurring theme, but the point is that we still haven't figured out how to detect and head off (talk to, counsel, convince to take a stress-break and come back, whatever) flameouts by admins and longtime editors.
There's a difference between people chosing to leave the project, and a project where the usual mode of leaving for experienced participants is an antagonistic conflict incident blowing up.
That we haven't really come up with good solutions doesn't mean that we should stop noting incidents as they happen.
On Dec 19, 2007 4:49 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
If there's a broader issue we should be discussing here, please tell us what it is.
on 12/19/07 8:00 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
It's been a recurring theme, but the point is that we still haven't figured out how to detect and head off (talk to, counsel, convince to take a stress-break and come back, whatever) flameouts by admins and longtime editors.
George, perhaps we never really tried hard enough.
There's a difference between people chosing to leave the project, and a project where the usual mode of leaving for experienced participants is an antagonistic conflict incident blowing up.
It is indicative of an failing culture.
That we haven't really come up with good solutions doesn't mean that we should stop noting incidents as they happen.
Right, but is anyone paying attention?
Marc
On Dec 19, 2007 5:00 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
There's a difference between people chosing to leave the project, and a project where the usual mode of leaving for experienced participants is an antagonistic conflict incident blowing up.
Not to say I'm not concerned, but is that really the "usual" mode of leaving? Certainly it can get a lot of attention, and it's easier to keep track of, but I'm not sure where the numbers would be, on that one.
Also, if people are exploding, I'd imagine that resolving the immediate issue which led to the explosion is only treating a symptom. Since they probably exploded after a good deal of building up stress, the source of building stress may be our greater concern. Band-aids can work wonders, but they won't solve underlying problems.
...trouble, of course, few seem to agree on what those underlying problems are.
-Luna
On Dec 19, 2007 6:41 PM, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007 5:00 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
There's a difference between people chosing to leave the project, and a project where the usual mode of leaving for experienced participants is an antagonistic conflict incident blowing up.
Not to say I'm not concerned, but is that really the "usual" mode of leaving? Certainly it can get a lot of attention, and it's easier to keep track of, but I'm not sure where the numbers would be, on that one.
Fair comment.
I have not endeavored to try to measure or keep statistics. This is ancedotal evidence not statistical.
Also, if people are exploding, I'd imagine that resolving the immediate issue which led to the explosion is only treating a symptom. Since they probably exploded after a good deal of building up stress, the source of building stress may be our greater concern. Band-aids can work wonders, but they won't solve underlying problems.
...trouble, of course, few seem to agree on what those underlying problems are.
I think there is interest from and in lots of directions.
There are interlinked problems of getting enough agreement on particular problems being significant, how to address them, and getting a critical mass of people working to fix them. All of the steps involved are typically failing over the last year, in my ancedotal experience. The reason I keep bringing this up is to try and encourage attention and interest in cooperating on addressing them.
On Dec 19, 2007 5:00 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
There's a difference between people chosing to leave the project, and a project where the usual mode of leaving for experienced participants is an antagonistic conflict incident blowing up.
on 12/19/07 9:41 PM, Luna at lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
Not to say I'm not concerned, but is that really the "usual" mode of leaving? Certainly it can get a lot of attention, and it's easier to keep track of, but I'm not sure where the numbers would be, on that one.
Also, if people are exploding, I'd imagine that resolving the immediate issue which led to the explosion is only treating a symptom. Since they probably exploded after a good deal of building up stress, the source of building stress may be our greater concern. Band-aids can work wonders, but they won't solve underlying problems.
...trouble, of course, few seem to agree on what those underlying problems are.
-Luna
We can't look inside the person; but we can look inside the Project.
Marc Riddell
On 20/12/2007, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007 5:00 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
There's a difference between people chosing to leave the project, and a project where the usual mode of leaving for experienced participants is an antagonistic conflict incident blowing up.
Not to say I'm not concerned, but is that really the "usual" mode of leaving? Certainly it can get a lot of attention, and it's easier to keep track of, but I'm not sure where the numbers would be, on that one.
Not even close, IMO. Most people just go and do other things instead.
Also, if people are exploding, I'd imagine that resolving the immediate issue which led to the explosion is only treating a symptom. Since they probably exploded after a good deal of building up stress, the source of building stress may be our greater concern. Band-aids can work wonders, but they won't solve underlying problems. ...trouble, of course, few seem to agree on what those underlying problems are.
Oh yeah. I'm not saying it isn't a problem, I'm saying it's not typical.
- d.
On Dec 20, 2007 12:31 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Oh yeah. I'm not saying it isn't a problem, I'm saying it's not typical.
It may be true that most just fade away, for a while or pseudo-permanently.
Those don't seem to get the community up in arms. Which is what causes attention on the blowups.
We probably should pay more attention to those fading away (at least do the equivalent of exit interviews, as well as some support for "We support you taking a break, but stay in touch, and we want you back, m'kay?"
On Dec 19, 2007 8:00 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007 4:49 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
If there's a broader issue we should be discussing here, please tell us what it is.
It's been a recurring theme, but the point is that we still haven't figured out how to detect and head off (talk to, counsel, convince to take a stress-break and come back, whatever) flameouts by admins and longtime editors.
There's a difference between people chosing to leave the project, and a project where the usual mode of leaving for experienced participants is an antagonistic conflict incident blowing up.
That we haven't really come up with good solutions doesn't mean that we should stop noting incidents as they happen.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
Like many who are responding to this question, I've been around long enough to see this pattern repeated many times, although from the editor perspective rather than the admin one. There are a few high profile admins who, even as I write this, appear to be self-destructing; there is no doubt in my mind that they are committed to the project, but they have clearly lost their way. In real life, adult friends of people who are going off the rails tend to reach out, talk to the person and try to help the person get back on the right track, or at least to take a good break. That doesn't seem to happen very often on Wikipedia; perhaps it is the ephemeral nature of online relationships, or perhaps there is something specific in the cultural norm that causes us to turn a blind eye to the inappropriateness of the behaviour until it becomes so outrageous that failing to act becomes unthinkable.
I've never sought out the kind of wiki-friendships that would put me in a position to "pull in" someone who's going over the line, but I know that many of those most in danger of crossing that line seem to have many supporters. Generally speaking, few editors want these folks to be pushed into dispute resolution or banished from the project; they simply want them to return to better behaviour. Yet those closest to the admins who are having difficulty keeping their eye on the ball seem to rise to their defense, to actively demand that people "put up or shut up." Eventually, someone files an RfC or an RfAr, and instead of having an admin who needed a month away from ANI we have a disheartened person feeling devalued, bitter and unwanted. Perhaps more people need to be willing to talk firmly but supportively to their friends who have lost sight of the big picture, before such extreme steps are required.
Risker
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Dec 19, 2007 7:03 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007 8:00 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007 4:49 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
If there's a broader issue we should be discussing here, please tell us what it is.
It's been a recurring theme, but the point is that we still haven't figured out how to detect and head off (talk to, counsel, convince to take a stress-break and come back, whatever) flameouts by admins and longtime editors.
There's a difference between people chosing to leave the project, and a project where the usual mode of leaving for experienced participants is an antagonistic conflict incident blowing up.
That we haven't really come up with good solutions doesn't mean that we should stop noting incidents as they happen.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
Like many who are responding to this question, I've been around long enough to see this pattern repeated many times, although from the editor perspective rather than the admin one. There are a few high profile admins who, even as I write this, appear to be self-destructing; there is no doubt in my mind that they are committed to the project, but they have clearly lost their way. In real life, adult friends of people who are going off the rails tend to reach out, talk to the person and try to help the person get back on the right track, or at least to take a good break. That doesn't seem to happen very often on Wikipedia; perhaps it is the ephemeral nature of online relationships, or perhaps there is something specific in the cultural norm that causes us to turn a blind eye to the inappropriateness of the behaviour until it becomes so outrageous that failing to act becomes unthinkable.
I've never sought out the kind of wiki-friendships that would put me in a position to "pull in" someone who's going over the line, but I know that many of those most in danger of crossing that line seem to have many supporters. Generally speaking, few editors want these folks to be pushed into dispute resolution or banished from the project; they simply want them to return to better behaviour. Yet those closest to the admins who are having difficulty keeping their eye on the ball seem to rise to their defense, to actively demand that people "put up or shut up." Eventually, someone files an RfC or an RfAr, and instead of having an admin who needed a month away from ANI we have a disheartened person feeling devalued, bitter and unwanted. Perhaps more people need to be willing to talk firmly but supportively to their friends who have lost sight of the big picture, before such extreme steps are required.
Risker
I think these are good observations; it's one of the many differences between online and in person communities.
I have, for my part, understood this issue and made a conscious effort in the handful of cases I spotted early enough to try and give that friendly adult advice.
The problem is determining when, for a particular individual, the normal behavior becomes abnormal, and then becomes imminent warning. I've recognized signs after the fact a number of times, which frustrates me to no end.
George Herbert wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007 7:03 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007 8:00 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007 4:49 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
If there's a broader issue we should be discussing here, please tell us what it is.
It's been a recurring theme, but the point is that we still haven't figured out how to detect and head off (talk to, counsel, convince to take a stress-break and come back, whatever) flameouts by admins and longtime editors.
There's a difference between people chosing to leave the project, and a project where the usual mode of leaving for experienced participants is an antagonistic conflict incident blowing up.
That we haven't really come up with good solutions doesn't mean that we should stop noting incidents as they happen.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
Like many who are responding to this question, I've been around long enough to see this pattern repeated many times, although from the editor perspective rather than the admin one. There are a few high profile admins who, even as I write this, appear to be self-destructing; there is no doubt in my mind that they are committed to the project, but they have clearly lost their way. In real life, adult friends of people who are going off the rails tend to reach out, talk to the person and try to help the person get back on the right track, or at least to take a good break. That doesn't seem to happen very often on Wikipedia; perhaps it is the ephemeral nature of online relationships, or perhaps there is something specific in the cultural norm that causes us to turn a blind eye to the inappropriateness of the behaviour until it becomes so outrageous that failing to act becomes unthinkable.
I've never sought out the kind of wiki-friendships that would put me in a position to "pull in" someone who's going over the line, but I know that many of those most in danger of crossing that line seem to have many supporters. Generally speaking, few editors want these folks to be pushed into dispute resolution or banished from the project; they simply want them to return to better behaviour. Yet those closest to the admins who are having difficulty keeping their eye on the ball seem to rise to their defense, to actively demand that people "put up or shut up." Eventually, someone files an RfC or an RfAr, and instead of having an admin who needed a month away from ANI we have a disheartened person feeling devalued, bitter and unwanted. Perhaps more people need to be willing to talk firmly but supportively to their friends who have lost sight of the big picture, before such extreme steps are required.
Risker
I think these are good observations; it's one of the many differences between online and in person communities.
I have, for my part, understood this issue and made a conscious effort in the handful of cases I spotted early enough to try and give that friendly adult advice.
The problem is determining when, for a particular individual, the normal behavior becomes abnormal, and then becomes imminent warning. I've recognized signs after the fact a number of times, which frustrates me to no end.
You know what they say about hindsight.
I have tried to look back through some of the previous implosions, though. I find that one extremely common thread is that the person tends to become progressively more brusque, hostile, and nonresponsive, and tends to respond to questions or criticism either by ignoring it or by attacking the questioner.
I think this is a warning sign we should look out for. Granted, we have some admins who tend to be blunt and short and are still on the whole very good admins-but for them, that's normal behavior. Even these admins, however, will generally respond to questions regarding their actions, even if just to say "I deleted it because it was an ad."
For most admins, though, a marked change in the way they react to people (especially toward the negative) should be a good reason for someone to gently suggest they take a voluntary and temporary break from the tools before they're given an involuntary and permanent one. Ideally, this would be someone the person knows and trusts, and that the person being given the advice would be hesitant to simply brush off as a troll or a fool. As to those trusted people, the best thing you can do for those you trust and care for is to be honest with them, even when that honesty might sting a little.
WikiProject: Burn Unit or WikiProject: Rescue? Mostly kidding, but I'm not sure that there is any specific action that can be taken to avert this sort of thing. Folks need to be adults and recognize when they are reaching their limits *before* they explode. If they can't do that, then it calls into question whether they are ideal as administrators. Every time an admin burns out violently and resigns in the context of an ArbCom case there is one less admin who isn't self-aware enough to remain an admin. Seems harsh to say it that way, but its true isn't it?
On Dec 19, 2007 11:06 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007 7:03 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007 8:00 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007 4:49 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
If there's a broader issue we should be discussing here, please tell us what it is.
It's been a recurring theme, but the point is that we still haven't figured out how to detect and head off (talk to, counsel, convince to take a stress-break and come back, whatever) flameouts by admins and longtime editors.
There's a difference between people chosing to leave the project, and a project where the usual mode of leaving for experienced participants is an antagonistic conflict incident blowing up.
That we haven't really come up with good solutions doesn't mean that we should stop noting incidents as they happen.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
Like many who are responding to this question, I've been around long enough to see this pattern repeated many times, although from the editor perspective rather than the admin one. There are a few high profile admins who, even as I write this, appear to be self-destructing; there is no doubt in my mind that they are committed to the project, but they have clearly lost their way. In real life, adult friends of people who are going off the rails tend to reach out, talk to the person and try to help the person get back on the right track, or at least to take a good break. That doesn't seem to happen very often on Wikipedia; perhaps it is the ephemeral nature of online relationships, or perhaps there is something specific in the cultural norm that causes us to turn a blind eye to the inappropriateness of the behaviour until it becomes so outrageous that failing to act becomes unthinkable.
I've never sought out the kind of wiki-friendships that would put me in a position to "pull in" someone who's going over the line, but I know that many of those most in danger of crossing that line seem to have many supporters. Generally speaking, few editors want these folks to be pushed into dispute resolution or banished from the project; they simply want them to return to better behaviour. Yet those closest to the admins who are having difficulty keeping their eye on the ball seem to rise to their defense, to actively demand that people "put up or shut up." Eventually, someone files an RfC or an RfAr, and instead of having an admin who needed a month away from ANI we have a disheartened person feeling devalued, bitter and unwanted. Perhaps more people need to be willing to talk firmly but supportively to their friends who have lost sight of the big picture, before such extreme steps are required.
Risker
I think these are good observations; it's one of the many differences between online and in person communities.
I have, for my part, understood this issue and made a conscious effort in the handful of cases I spotted early enough to try and give that friendly adult advice.
The problem is determining when, for a particular individual, the normal behavior becomes abnormal, and then becomes imminent warning. I've recognized signs after the fact a number of times, which frustrates me to no end.
You know what they say about hindsight.
I have tried to look back through some of the previous implosions, though. I find that one extremely common thread is that the person tends to become progressively more brusque, hostile, and nonresponsive, and tends to respond to questions or criticism either by ignoring it or by attacking the questioner.
I think this is a warning sign we should look out for. Granted, we have some admins who tend to be blunt and short and are still on the whole very good admins-but for them, that's normal behavior. Even these admins, however, will generally respond to questions regarding their actions, even if just to say "I deleted it because it was an ad."
For most admins, though, a marked change in the way they react to people (especially toward the negative) should be a good reason for someone to gently suggest they take a voluntary and temporary break from the tools before they're given an involuntary and permanent one. Ideally, this would be someone the person knows and trusts, and that the person being given the advice would be hesitant to simply brush off as a troll or a fool. As to those trusted people, the best thing you can do for those you trust and care for is to be honest with them, even when that honesty might sting a little.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Quoting Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com:
WikiProject: Burn Unit or WikiProject: Rescue? Mostly kidding, but I'm not sure that there is any specific action that can be taken to avert this sort of thing. Folks need to be adults and recognize when they are reaching their limits *before* they explode. If they can't do that, then it calls into question whether they are ideal as administrators. Every time an admin burns out violently and resigns in the context of an ArbCom case there is one less admin who isn't self-aware enough to remain an admin. Seems harsh to say it that way, but its true isn't it?
No it isn't true. Resigning in a huff in no way means they aren't self-aware enough to be an admin. In fact, deciding one has had enough and leaving in a huff is far superior to many of the possible alternatives such as massive abuse of the admin tools. Almost every admin that leaves in a huff is an admin who is a good admin and the fact they are leaving demonstrates that they are self-aware enough to know when they need an indefinite wikibreak.
On 12/20/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
I have tried to look back through some of the previous implosions, though. I find that one extremely common thread is that the person tends to become progressively more brusque, hostile, and nonresponsive, and tends to respond to questions or criticism either by ignoring it or by attacking the questioner.
This sounds like a standard response to a person becoming stressed due to more and more demands being placed on them and less margin for error. People get terse and aggressive when they feel that they have a big workload and no one to share it with. In the case of our admins, there are so many pressures now: problems to solve, but also a lot of "don't do this, don't do that". Attempting to navigate all these pitfalls while watching out for trolls is likely to do anyone's head in.
For most admins, though, a marked change in the way they react to people (especially toward the negative) should be a good reason for someone to gently suggest they take a voluntary and temporary break from the tools before they're given an involuntary and permanent one. Ideally, this would be someone the person knows and trusts, and that the person being given the advice would be hesitant to simply brush off as a troll or a fool. As to those trusted people, the best thing you can do for those you trust and care for is to be honest with them, even when that honesty might sting a little.
I don't know that a temporary break solves much in these situations, if the underlying causes haven't changed.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 12/20/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
I have tried to look back through some of the previous implosions, though. I find that one extremely common thread is that the person tends to become progressively more brusque, hostile, and nonresponsive, and tends to respond to questions or criticism either by ignoring it or by attacking the questioner.
This sounds like a standard response to a person becoming stressed due to more and more demands being placed on them and less margin for error. People get terse and aggressive when they feel that they have a big workload and no one to share it with. In the case of our admins, there are so many pressures now: problems to solve, but also a lot of "don't do this, don't do that". Attempting to navigate all these pitfalls while watching out for trolls is likely to do anyone's head in.
For most admins, though, a marked change in the way they react to people (especially toward the negative) should be a good reason for someone to gently suggest they take a voluntary and temporary break from the tools before they're given an involuntary and permanent one. Ideally, this would be someone the person knows and trusts, and that the person being given the advice would be hesitant to simply brush off as a troll or a fool. As to those trusted people, the best thing you can do for those you trust and care for is to be honest with them, even when that honesty might sting a little.
I don't know that a temporary break solves much in these situations, if the underlying causes haven't changed.
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You do have a good point there. However, if nothing else, a temporary break can let someone get their feet back under them for the time being.
I think you have a good point about the underlying issues as well. It's a difficult balance to find. On the one hand, admins shouldn't be gods, and their actions are and should be open to scrutiny and good-faith questions. On the other, admins should have enough of a degree of discretion that they don't have to feel they're constantly being picked at or attacked for actions that really are defensible. I don't have the answer to that one, but it's something to think about.
I think, generally, as long as someone can provide a reasonable and good-faith explanation of his or her action, and the line of reasoning at least has some rational basis and gains some acceptance, we should leave it alone. In almost all types of discussions (AfD, RfA, you name it) we have a point at which to say "You know what, there's no consensus to change what's already happened, so we don't make the change." Why not do the same thing here? If there's not a clear consensus someone was wrong, close the discussion after however long instead of having an endless (and ultimately pointless, since no consensus will be reached) argument.
on 12/19/07 11:34 PM, Steve Bennett at stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/20/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
I have tried to look back through some of the previous implosions, though. I find that one extremely common thread is that the person tends to become progressively more brusque, hostile, and nonresponsive, and tends to respond to questions or criticism either by ignoring it or by attacking the questioner.
This sounds like a standard response to a person becoming stressed due to more and more demands being placed on them and less margin for error. People get terse and aggressive when they feel that they have a big workload and no one to share it with. In the case of our admins, there are so many pressures now: problems to solve, but also a lot of "don't do this, don't do that". Attempting to navigate all these pitfalls while watching out for trolls is likely to do anyone's head in.
For most admins, though, a marked change in the way they react to people (especially toward the negative) should be a good reason for someone to gently suggest they take a voluntary and temporary break from the tools before they're given an involuntary and permanent one. Ideally, this would be someone the person knows and trusts, and that the person being given the advice would be hesitant to simply brush off as a troll or a fool. As to those trusted people, the best thing you can do for those you trust and care for is to be honest with them, even when that honesty might sting a little.
I don't know that a temporary break solves much in these situations, if the underlying causes haven't changed.
Steve
I agree, Steve. But exploring the "underlying causes" would require taking a long, critical look at some aspects of the Wikipedia process. This would involve taking a critical look at the Wikipedia culture. And, since the Wikipedia culture is us, it would mean taking a critical look at ourselves. We have, historically, been very resistant to doing that.
Marc Riddell
On Dec 19, 2007 11:34 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/20/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
I have tried to look back through some of the previous implosions, though. I find that one extremely common thread is that the person tends to become progressively more brusque, hostile, and nonresponsive, and tends to respond to questions or criticism either by ignoring it or by attacking the questioner.
This sounds like a standard response to a person becoming stressed due to more and more demands being placed on them and less margin for error. People get terse and aggressive when they feel that they have a big workload and no one to share it with. In the case of our admins, there are so many pressures now: problems to solve, but also a lot of "don't do this, don't do that". Attempting to navigate all these pitfalls while watching out for trolls is likely to do anyone's head in.
For most admins, though, a marked change in the way they react to people (especially toward the negative) should be a good reason for someone to gently suggest they take a voluntary and temporary break from the tools before they're given an involuntary and permanent one. Ideally, this would be someone the person knows and trusts, and that the person being given the advice would be hesitant to simply brush off as a troll or a fool. As to those trusted people, the best thing you can do for those you trust and care for is to be honest with them, even when that honesty might sting a little.
I don't know that a temporary break solves much in these situations, if the underlying causes haven't changed.
Oftentimes, people who have been around awhile develop the feeling that they, personally, are indispensable to the project; that they are part of the last line of defence against trolls, or vandals, or nationalist POV pushers, or whatever menace the person in question has taken up the tools against. It seems to get worse the more tools one has; normal editors are less susceptible to this thinking than admins, who are in turn less susceptible than checkusers and oversights. (Bureaucrats have been relatively immune to this, both because they no longer have any emergency actions to take since desysoppings were shifted to the stewards, and because theirs is the one task that is genuinely not backlogged.)
A break, at least in theory, should demonstrate to a stressed-out person that others will rise in her place and keep the project going if she doesn't do everything herself. Unfortunately, sometimes confirmation bias means that the person on break sees things going to hell in their absence, regardless of whether or not that's actually the case. Also, sometimes the demonstration of dispensability can cause the person to finally snap, if their own sense of importance to the project was what was driving them in the first place. I'm torn, as to exactly what I should feel about that, since a sense of importance to the project is one of the few reward mechanisms we have to offer, but it's not in itself helpful.
On 20/12/2007, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
Oftentimes, people who have been around awhile develop the feeling that they, personally, are indispensable to the project; that they are part of the last line of defence against trolls, or vandals, or nationalist POV pushers, or whatever menace the person in question has taken up the tools against. It seems to get worse the more tools one has; normal editors are less susceptible to this thinking than admins, who are in turn less susceptible than checkusers and oversights.
Having collected most of the cool toys, I shall set an example by taking frequent breaks and goofing off whenever I damn well feel like it ;-p
- d.
On Dec 20, 2007 12:38 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/12/2007, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
Oftentimes, people who have been around awhile develop the feeling that they, personally, are indispensable to the project; that they are part of the last line of defence against trolls, or vandals, or nationalist POV pushers, or whatever menace the person in question has taken up the tools against. It seems to get worse the more tools one has; normal editors are less susceptible to this thinking than admins, who are in turn less susceptible than checkusers and oversights.
Having collected most of the cool toys, I shall set an example by taking frequent breaks and goofing off whenever I damn well feel like it ;-p
Would that we all had *your* attitude towards this job. :-)
There are 1440 current admins, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators and 95 former admins, according to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Former_administrators] , of which 28 have been desysopped. If we assume that an equal number should have been desysopped, but have not been, that is 3.6%. That's an extremely low percentage of problems for any organization.
According to the lists of semi active and inactive admins, there are 161 inactive, judged by over 3 months inactivity at wikipedia, not only non-use of the tools. There are 286 semi-active, less than 30 edits in the last 3 months. Possibly the proportion of problems is so lo because some of the admins who would otherwise have been problems have become inactive. A few even say they are leaving to avoid stress,.
On 12/20/07, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007 12:38 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/12/2007, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
Oftentimes, people who have been around awhile develop the feeling that they, personally, are indispensable to the project; that they are part of the last line of defence against trolls, or vandals, or nationalist POV pushers, or whatever menace the person in question has taken up the tools against. It seems to get worse the more tools one has; normal editors are less susceptible to this thinking than admins, who are in turn less susceptible than checkusers and oversights.
Having collected most of the cool toys, I shall set an example by taking frequent breaks and goofing off whenever I damn well feel like it ;-p
Would that we all had *your* attitude towards this job. :-)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 20/12/2007, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Possibly the proportion of problems is so lo because some of the admins who would otherwise have been problems have become inactive. A few even say they are leaving to avoid stress,.
Quiet burnouts are possibly more problematic than noisy ones precisely because we don't know about them. And good hardworking volunteers burning out is bad in general.
- d.
It has always seemed to me that those who take a, how do I say it, harsher interpretation of Wikipedia rules, policies and guidelines (e.g., deletionists, those adamantly against fair use image usage, etc) have always been able to create more of an impact on the project than those that have a less harsh view. Sometimes I really wonder where this project will be in five years.
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 2:02 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another admin burnout
On 20/12/2007, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Possibly the proportion of problems is so lo because some of the admins who would otherwise have been problems have become inactive. A few even say they are leaving to avoid stress,.
Quiet burnouts are possibly more problematic than noisy ones precisely because we don't know about them. And good hardworking volunteers burning out is bad in general.
- d.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may constitute as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, notify us immediately by telephone and (i) destroy this message if a facsimile or (ii) delete this message immediately if this is an electronic communication.
Thank you.
On 12/20/07, Majdan, Nik nmajdan@aplmc.com wrote:
It has always seemed to me that those who take a, how do I say it, harsher interpretation of Wikipedia rules, policies and guidelines (e.g., deletionists, those adamantly against fair use image usage, etc) have always been able to create more of an impact on the project than those that have a less harsh view. Sometimes I really wonder where this project will be in five years.
Nik, not to go too far off topic here, but your confidentiality notice can hardly apply to a public mailing list, and it also takes up more space than your message. Is there any way you can modify your signature here? Thanks.
Risker
-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 2:02 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another admin burnout
On 20/12/2007, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Possibly the proportion of problems is so lo because some of the admins who would otherwise have been problems have become inactive. A few even say they are leaving to avoid stress,.
Quiet burnouts are possibly more problematic than noisy ones precisely because we don't know about them. And good hardworking volunteers burning out is bad in general.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may constitute as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, notify us immediately by telephone and (i) destroy this message if a facsimile or (ii) delete this message immediately if this is an electronic communication.
Thank you.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 12/19/07 11:06 PM, Todd Allen at toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
For most admins, though, a marked change in the way they react to people (especially toward the negative) should be a good reason for someone to gently suggest they take a voluntary and temporary break from the tools before they're given an involuntary and permanent one. Ideally, this would be someone the person knows and trusts, and that the person being given the advice would be hesitant to simply brush off as a troll or a fool. As to those trusted people, the best thing you can do for those you trust and care for is to be honest with them, even when that honesty might sting a little.
Todd,
To me "civility" in a community of persons includes resources being available for the individual to reach out to for assistance when they need it. Within WP we have a lot of technical resources, with experts available, when a Community Member needs this kind of help (and, believe me, I've been one of them many times :-). But are there any resources available to someone who is needing some emotional support?
Many, many persons bring many, many pieces of emotional baggage to the Project. And we certainly can't do anything about that. But, when the emotional dilemma a person finds themselves in is a direct result of some activity in the Project, could we not provide some first step with an ear where the advice might, in fact, come down to the person needing a break? This could be something as simple as a list of persons who are willing to make themselves available to listen and offer some input. I find this process a lot more civil than just letting the person flame out on their own.
Marc Riddell
I respect the sentiment, but I don't think Wikipedia needs to get into the habit of providing emotional support systematically to editors. There are a lot of people out there with a lot of problems. Folks need to take responsibility for their own wellbeing and their own actions. Flameouts are a fact of life and always have been - not just on the Internets, either. I think the last thing we need is a coordinated Wikiproject to provide emotional support to troubled editors, or a set of templates like "You seem stressed out, do you need a temporary Wikibreak?" that are nicely designed and completely standardized and impersonal.
On Dec 20, 2007 6:34 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 12/19/07 11:06 PM, Todd Allen at toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
For most admins, though, a marked change in the way they react to people (especially toward the negative) should be a good reason for someone to gently suggest they take a voluntary and temporary break from the tools before they're given an involuntary and permanent one. Ideally, this would be someone the person knows and trusts, and that the person being given the advice would be hesitant to simply brush off as a troll or a fool. As to those trusted people, the best thing you can do for those you trust and care for is to be honest with them, even when that honesty might sting a little.
Todd,
To me "civility" in a community of persons includes resources being available for the individual to reach out to for assistance when they need it. Within WP we have a lot of technical resources, with experts available, when a Community Member needs this kind of help (and, believe me, I've been one of them many times :-). But are there any resources available to someone who is needing some emotional support?
Many, many persons bring many, many pieces of emotional baggage to the Project. And we certainly can't do anything about that. But, when the emotional dilemma a person finds themselves in is a direct result of some activity in the Project, could we not provide some first step with an ear where the advice might, in fact, come down to the person needing a break? This could be something as simple as a list of persons who are willing to make themselves available to listen and offer some input. I find this process a lot more civil than just letting the person flame out on their own.
Marc Riddell
-- Be direct - be fair - be assertive - but, above all, be civil.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Just thought I'd say I agree with Nathan on this. It is a nice sentiment, but not feasible.
On Dec 20, 2007 7:08 PM, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I respect the sentiment, but I don't think Wikipedia needs to get into the habit of providing emotional support systematically to editors. There are a lot of people out there with a lot of problems. Folks need to take responsibility for their own wellbeing and their own actions. Flameouts are a fact of life and always have been - not just on the Internets, either. I think the last thing we need is a coordinated Wikiproject to provide emotional support to troubled editors, or a set of templates like "You seem stressed out, do you need a temporary Wikibreak?" that are nicely designed and completely standardized and impersonal.
On Dec 20, 2007 6:34 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 12/19/07 11:06 PM, Todd Allen at toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
For most admins, though, a marked change in the way they react to
people
(especially toward the negative) should be a good reason for someone
to
gently suggest they take a voluntary and temporary break from the
tools
before they're given an involuntary and permanent one. Ideally, this would be someone the person knows and trusts, and that the person
being
given the advice would be hesitant to simply brush off as a troll or a fool. As to those trusted people, the best thing you can do for those you trust and care for is to be honest with them, even when that
honesty
might sting a little.
Todd,
To me "civility" in a community of persons includes resources being available for the individual to reach out to for assistance when they
need
it. Within WP we have a lot of technical resources, with experts
available,
when a Community Member needs this kind of help (and, believe me, I've
been
one of them many times :-). But are there any resources available to
someone
who is needing some emotional support?
Many, many persons bring many, many pieces of emotional baggage to the Project. And we certainly can't do anything about that. But, when the emotional dilemma a person finds themselves in is a direct result of
some
activity in the Project, could we not provide some first step with an
ear
where the advice might, in fact, come down to the person needing a
break?
This could be something as simple as a list of persons who are willing
to
make themselves available to listen and offer some input. I find this process a lot more civil than just letting the person flame out on their own.
Marc Riddell
-- Be direct - be fair - be assertive - but, above all, be civil.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 12/19/07 11:06 PM, Todd Allen at toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
For most admins, though, a marked change in the way they react to people (especially toward the negative) should be a good reason for someone to gently suggest they take a voluntary and temporary break from the tools before they're given an involuntary and permanent one. Ideally, this would be someone the person knows and trusts, and that the person being given the advice would be hesitant to simply brush off as a troll or a fool. As to those trusted people, the best thing you can do for those you trust and care for is to be honest with them, even when that honesty might sting a little.
Todd,
To me "civility" in a community of persons includes resources being available for the individual to reach out to for assistance when they need it. Within WP we have a lot of technical resources, with experts available, when a Community Member needs this kind of help (and, believe me, I've been one of them many times :-). But are there any resources available to someone who is needing some emotional support?
Many, many persons bring many, many pieces of emotional baggage to the Project. And we certainly can't do anything about that. But, when the emotional dilemma a person finds themselves in is a direct result of some activity in the Project, could we not provide some first step with an ear where the advice might, in fact, come down to the person needing a break? This could be something as simple as a list of persons who are willing to make themselves available to listen and offer some input. I find this process a lot more civil than just letting the person flame out on their own.
Marc Riddell
I'm also not really sure this works in practice. Such relationships tend to be best if they develop on their own, since that way genuine bonds have time to develop. By the time the friend has to say "Look, you seem really stressed out, why don't you take a couple weeks away?", bonds of trust have developed and the person might really pause to think "You know, I really have been out of line the past month or so." I'm not really sure such a thing can be replicated artificially though. When we have, for example, dispute resolution, it is -ideal- that the mediator, arbitrator, what have you, not know any of the participants well. That's not really so for someone offering help on what may be personal and sensitive issues.
on 12/19/07 7:49 PM, Steve Bennett at stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/20/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Psyschim62 is blowing up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Physchi... 62/Proposed_decision#Request_for_clarification_.28before_case_closure.29
I think in retrospect there were signs earlier, but it's becoming more clear.
on 12/19/07 7:49 PM, Steve Bennett at stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Do you have a pointer to the actual issue? Maybe I'm not familiar enough with RfA's but even this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Physchi m6> 2
doesn't seem to explain what the issue itself was.
Other than that, this looks like a fairly normal admin life cycle. He apparently joined the project in late 2004, became an admin some time after that, and leaves 3 years later claiming the project has been overtaken by trolls and has strayed from its original purpose. Is this unusual for anyone's involvement with virtually any internet project?
If you see Wikipedia as "any internet project" you will be blind to its individual needs.
If there's a broader issue we should be discussing here, please tell us what it is.
Perhaps the reasons really are that it has been "overtaken by trolls and has strayed from its original purpose".
Marc Riddell
On 20/12/2007, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 12/19/07 7:49 PM, Steve Bennett at stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Other than that, this looks like a fairly normal admin life cycle. He apparently joined the project in late 2004, became an admin some time after that, and leaves 3 years later claiming the project has been overtaken by trolls and has strayed from its original purpose. Is this unusual for anyone's involvement with virtually any internet project?
If you see Wikipedia as "any internet project" you will be blind to its individual needs.
That's not an excuse to ignore the ways in which it is in fact the same.
If there's a broader issue we should be discussing here, please tell us what it is.
Perhaps the reasons really are that it has been "overtaken by trolls and has strayed from its original purpose".
I've been here nearly four years and don't think it has. It's MUCH BIGGER now, but that's a different thing.
- d.
On 20/12/2007, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 12/19/07 7:49 PM, Steve Bennett at stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Other than that, this looks like a fairly normal admin life cycle. He apparently joined the project in late 2004, became an admin some time after that, and leaves 3 years later claiming the project has been overtaken by trolls and has strayed from its original purpose. Is this unusual for anyone's involvement with virtually any internet project?
If you see Wikipedia as "any internet project" you will be blind to its individual needs.
on 12/20/07 3:30 AM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
That's not an excuse to ignore the ways in which it is in fact the same.
David, but it is not its sameness, but its uniqueness, that presents the problems that need the focus.
If there's a broader issue we should be discussing here, please tell us what it is.
Perhaps the reasons really are that it has been "overtaken by trolls and has strayed from its original purpose".
I've been here nearly four years and don't think it has. It's MUCH BIGGER now, but that's a different thing.
In a great many ways, it has. And are you saying that its size is the primary problem now?
Marc
On 20/12/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I've been here nearly four years and don't think it has. It's MUCH BIGGER now, but that's a different thing.
- d.
As someone also here for nearly four years, and an admin for over 3 years, I disagree. I think it has changed a lot, even if it is simply a natural evolution due to the modus operandi of the project. Even in the sphere of Irish-related articles (my area of frenetic activity when I was editing more) things seem to have become less pleasant - there were not so many problems back in the day with disputes say, over articles relating to Northern Ireland.
I occasionally come across articles that used to be coherent and useful, and whatever about having more info, or better sourced (though not necessarily), many are a bit of a mess now. Indeed some articles have even been deleted entirely, merged when inappropriate, split for POV reasons (the well known stereotype, still goes on as long as the instigators are the more persistent), etc.
There's other great work still going on, but already I see those enthusiastic editors who are working frenetically building up articles just as I did, also starting to get bogged down in unconstructive discussion and disputes. I will guarantee the enthusiasm cannot last in the face of that, even if said editors avoid a complete burnout or final dispute that gets out of hand.
Ultimately, one of the problems is that there is only so far one is going to go as a volunteer in dealing with persistent disputing editors. Realistically, those who are more persistent are always going to win out, and they are likely to be those who are less rational. And who is actually right (i.e. not only is editing from NPOV, but actually has a clue about the subject matter and has the correct facts) is even less relevant!
I'd like to see the modus operandi of Wikipedia change, but then, it probably wouldn't be Wikipedia then!
Still, I'm certainly staying up to date on things and hoping for a swing to the positive.
Zoney
On 12/21/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
evolution due to the modus operandi of the project. Even in the sphere of Irish-related articles (my area of frenetic activity when I was editing more) things seem to have become less pleasant - there were not so many problems back in the day with disputes say, over articles relating to Northern Ireland.
The stakes are higher now. A few years ago, Wikipedia was a cute internet project. Now, it's an authority which is much harder to ignore.
I'd like to see the modus operandi of Wikipedia change, but then, it probably wouldn't be Wikipedia then!
Given that 'modus operandi' is a term from crime fiction, what do you really mean? The processes by which we build the encyclopaedia? What would you like to change about them in particular?
Fwiw, I agree - I think Wikipedia went through a rapid period of change early on, inventing policies, concepts like IAR, NPOV etc...then stagnated. Some of those policies that were designed to maximise participation at the expense of quality etc, could now be reviewed. If anyone wanted to.
Steve