[WikiEN-l] Another admin burnout

[Todd Allen]

Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 12/20/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen at 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 at 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.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20071219/b6ff601f/attachment.pgp