[WikiEN-l] Another admin burnout

[Nathan Awrich]

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 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> George Herbert wrote:
> > On Dec 19, 2007 7:03 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Dec 19, 2007 8:00 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Dec 19, 2007 4:49 PM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at 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 at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>