On Dec 19, 2007 4:49 PM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)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. 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(a)gmail.com

On Dec 19, 2007 5:00 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)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

on 12/19/07 9:41 PM, Luna at lunasantin(a)gmail.com wrote: We can't look inside the person; but we can look inside the Project. Marc Riddell

On Dec 20, 2007 12:31 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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?" -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

On Dec 19, 2007 7:03 PM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 william herbert george.herbert(a)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? On Dec 19, 2007 11:06 PM, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/20/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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. I don't know that a temporary break solves much in these situations, if the underlying causes haven't changed. Steve

on 12/19/07 11:34 PM, Steve Bennett at stevagewp(a)gmail.com wrote: 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 20/12/2007, Michael Noda <michael.noda(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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.

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(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.

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(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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(a)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 12/19/07 11:06 PM, Todd Allen at toddmallen(a)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.

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(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- Rjd0060 rjd0060.wiki(a)gmail.com

on 12/19/07 7:49 PM, Steve Bennett at stevagewp(a)gmail.com wrote: on 12/19/07 7:49 PM, Steve Bennett at stevagewp(a)gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Physchi m6> 2 If you see Wikipedia as "any internet project" you will be blind to its individual needs. 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(a)comcast.net> wrote: That's not an excuse to ignore the ways in which it is in fact the same. 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, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 -- ~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...