[WikiEN-l] Another Admin burnout

[Marc Riddell]

> George Herbert 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.

on 12/20/07 2:11 PM, Geoffrey Burling at llywrch at agora.rdrop.com wrote:
> 
> "Admin burn-out" is one of those topics that I've been interested too --
> especially since at any given moment I post on WP:AN (or related pages) I
> am the Admin who's been on Wikipedia the longest; I once described myself
> as starting on Wikipedia back when Jimbo Wales was not even a "God-king"
> but just an aristocrat who bought himelf a magic book. In some cases, I
> have been an Admin longer than some Admins have had Wikipedia accounts.
> (This has been the case since Zoe bailed earlier this year.) And this is a
> distinction I'm not especially happy to hold.
> 
> (Note: there are a number of Admins senior to me still active on Wikipedia;
> occasionally I'll wonder what happened to someone, look at their
> contributions page, & see that she or he made a few dozen edits -- often
> more -- in the last couple of days. However, they keep an even lower profile
> than me, rarely, if ever, appearing on the Admin Noticeboards & related
> pages. Why is that if an Admin doesn't burn out, he retreats to an obscure
> corner of Wikipedia or just limits himself to Wikignoming? Your guess is
> as good as mine.)
> 
> I don't know whether my longevity is because I *don't* try to handle the
> hard cases, edit controversial articles (at least not after I learn the
> hard way that they are controversial) or work very hard at fighting vandalism
> or spam -- in other words, maybe I'm just Admincruft -- or its because I
> stumbled across the secret at surviving the often vicious atmosphere at
> Wikipedia. For anyone who's curious, my strategy has been to remember that
> the problem people always, in the end, get themselves kicked off of
> Wikipedia, & act accordingly. For example, when I'm in conflict in an
> article, & I'm convinced that the other person is a (insert here your
> favorite term of abuse) who is entirely, undeniably wrong (or has been
> doing most of her/his research with the help of illegal substances), what I
> do is ... sit back & wait 3 months, then go back & edit the article.
> Sometimes I make the changes I was originally fighting for, but more often I
> realize that the section in dispute ought to read another way -- sometimes
> the exact text what my opponent was arguing for, but for one reason or
> another I wasn't persuaded. Amazing what a curious mind can learn in
> three months!
> 
> For this admittedly passive attitude towards Adminship (if not Wikiepdia
> in general) to work, obviously I rely on other Admins to do the dirty work.
> For this reason, it would be useful to know how I can support the
> harder-working Admins so they can keep doing what they do. Telling me to
> "keep an eye on them" is not a good solution, since much of my work for
> Wikipedia is researching content -- out of 8 hours I might spend on
> Wikipedia, at least half of it is reading various sources, more often books
> than webpages, & trying to figure out how to usefully integrate it into
> the relevant articles. (BTW, even in my most focussed moments of
> researching, I find that 90% of what I find is not immediately usable for
> one reason or another -- most often because I don't see how I can add it
> to an article.) This means I often learn about the latest "blow-up"
> several hours -- if not several days -- after it appears to be all over,
> & someone has put a "Topic closed" notice on the thread.
> 
> If anything, I find myself more & more arguing with other Admins over how
> to deal with a perceived troublemaker; either there are an increasing number
> of people on Wikipedia who think in black-n-white, think anyone who
> criticizes Wikipedia is more dangerous than _The Register_ (or whoever is
> this week's most dangerous threat), & are upset that we are "too
> easy-going" on the troublemakers, or I am far too laid back. Since I have
> no problem dropping an indef block on people who are clearly troublemakers
> (anyone can look at my Admin log to see that I have dropped the banhammer
> from time to time), I don't think it's the latter. Most of the people
> who claim that Wikipedia's not honest about the claim that "anyone can
> edit" are, undeniably, the ones who got banned for good & understandible
> reasons; but I'm finding an increasing number of cases where newbies are
> getting the bum's rush for obvious newbie mistakes, & end up complaining
> about how Wikipedia is run by some inner circle.
> 
> Geoff
> 
Thank you for this, Geoff. I especially agree with the last part of the last
sentence.

Marc Riddell

-- 
Be direct - be fair - be assertive - but, above all, be civil.