[WikiEN-l] Admin burnout
Locked
1234
... 14
1234
... 14
[WikiEN-l] Admin burnout
 
|
We apparently just lost Alkivar (hopefully just on a stress relief
break, but he says he's out of here indefinitely). We're doing terribly at keeping identified, overstressed admins from ending up going over the edge. What are we doing wrong, or what do we need to learn to do right? -- -george william herbert [hidden email] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
On 2/8/07, George Herbert <[hidden email]> wrote:
> We apparently just lost Alkivar (hopefully just on a stress relief > break, but he says he's out of here indefinitely). > > We're doing terribly at keeping identified, overstressed admins from > ending up going over the edge. What are we doing wrong, or what do we > need to learn to do right? > > > -- > -george william herbert > [hidden email] > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [hidden email] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > We need esperanza! -ducks- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by George William Herbert
Perhaps it's the fact that we only really promote to adminship the
workaholics or veterans who slipped through the cracks and we forgot to nominate, so we end up with a backlog of everything. There is a lot of pressure on admins and admin candidates to act perfectly, all of the time. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin burnout
|
|
In reply to this post by Pedro Sanchez-2
On 2/8/07, Pedro Sanchez <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 2/8/07, George Herbert <[hidden email]> wrote: > > We apparently just lost Alkivar (hopefully just on a stress relief > > break, but he says he's out of here indefinitely). > > > > We're doing terribly at keeping identified, overstressed admins from > > ending up going over the edge. What are we doing wrong, or what do we > > need to learn to do right? > > We need esperanza! > > -ducks- Nobody expects the Spanish Waterfowl? -- -george william herbert [hidden email] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by George William Herbert
To keep burned out admins from leaving, we need to give them praise and
encouragement. They need to be seen as some of our most valued contributors. We might also want to set up incentives. | Tyler | Zorin Deckiller | | Wikipedia Administrator | Former SWU member | | _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deckiller_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deckiller) | | _http://www.myspace.com/redsectora_ (http://www.myspace.com/redsectora) | _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by ikiroid
ikiroid wrote:
> Perhaps it's the fact that we only really promote to adminship the > workaholics or veterans who slipped through the cracks and we forgot to > nominate, so we end up with a backlog of everything. There is a lot of > pressure on admins and admin candidates to act perfectly, all of the time. I confess that when somebody offered to nominate me for adminship, I declined. It was partly that I didn't feel quite up to the have-you-done-everything-a-lot filter in RfA voting, and partly because it looked like a major time commitment, with a lot of hair-pulling involved. I don't know if it's correct, but my impression was that ten hours a week was about a minimum to do it right. I felt like staying an editor let me keep the ability to put in time as schedule and stress level allow. Now that I think about it, though, maybe I got that impression from watching the busy ones burn out. William _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin burnout
|
|
In reply to this post by SonOfYoungwood
On 2/8/07, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
> To keep burned out admins from leaving, we need to give them praise and > encouragement. They need to be seen as some of our most valued contributors. We > might also want to set up incentives. I agree with this, but we also have the problem that a common (but not universal) near-the-end trait is blocks or other user admin stuff which turn out to be very controversial. How do you say "we really like what you've done for the project and we want you to stay" and "...but can you stop beating up newbies this badly?" at the same time? If it were just a matter of WikiLove it would be easy. -- -george william herbert [hidden email] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by George William Herbert
George Herbert wrote:
> We apparently just lost Alkivar (hopefully just on a stress relief > break, but he says he's out of here indefinitely). > > We're doing terribly at keeping identified, overstressed admins from > ending up going over the edge. What are we doing wrong, or what do we > need to learn to do right? Alkavar also recently had three of his horribly poor speedy deletions challenged, and I'm not sure how bad his image deletions were within that context, or any others. What do we need to do right? Maybe elect more admins who can do things right so they don't get challenged, stressed, and then bail? -Jeff -- Name: Jeff Raymond E-mail: [hidden email] WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com IM: badlydrawnjeff Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else." - Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by George William Herbert
George Herbert wrote:
> We apparently just lost Alkivar (hopefully just on a stress relief > break, but he says he's out of here indefinitely). > > We're doing terribly at keeping identified, overstressed admins from > ending up going over the edge. What are we doing wrong, or what do we > need to learn to do right? On the other side, his message isn't really just about admins, but editors in general. People who edit articles simply are not valued on this project anymore. Tha'ts a big problem, since it's people who edit articles that got us to this point. -Jeff -- Name: Jeff Raymond E-mail: [hidden email] WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com IM: badlydrawnjeff Quote: "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else." - Sen. Rick Santorum on the war in Iraq. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jeff Raymond
On 2/9/07, Jeff Raymond <[hidden email]> wrote:
Alkavar also recently had three of his horribly poor speedy deletions > challenged, and I'm not sure how bad his image deletions were within > that context, or any others. > > What do we need to do right? Maybe elect more admins who can do things > right so they don't get challenged, stressed, and then bail? > > -Jeff A certian percentage of any user type will always walk away. Admins are no exception. Some turnover is even required as long as we promote fast enough and enough experenced people stay on. Speedies could be helped by getting people to prod rather than false speedy tag but that is always going to be an issue. -- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by George William Herbert
on 2/8/07 9:29 PM, George Herbert at [hidden email] wrote:
> We apparently just lost Alkivar (hopefully just on a stress relief > break, but he says he's out of here indefinitely). > > We're doing terribly at keeping identified, overstressed admins from > ending up going over the edge. What are we doing wrong, or what do we > need to learn to do right? This is tricky because it involves the personal side of a Wikipedia Community Member. He would need to want to stay badly enough to confront the reasons he is leaving. Marc Riddell _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by George William Herbert
ikiroid wrote:
> Perhaps it's the fact that we only really promote to adminship the > workaholics or veterans who slipped through the cracks and we forgot to > nominate, so we end up with a backlog of everything. Along these lines, one of the huge problems with edit-count-creep is that we have created a process that systematically selects *against* people who are careful, take their time, and think before acting. It's not surprising if the current system generates more people who burn out, because sometimes their activity reflects their volatility. We are supposed to be focusing on quality, not quantity, with respect to the encyclopedia articles. It's high time we did the same for administrators. --Michael Snow _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
on 2/8/07 10:34 PM, Michael Snow at [hidden email] wrote:
> We are supposed to be focusing on quality, not quantity, with respect to > the encyclopedia articles. It's high time we did the same for > administrators. A resounding YES! Marc _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by George William Herbert
Jeff Raymond <[hidden email]> wrote:
>On the other side, his message isn't really just about admins, but >editors in general. People who edit articles simply are not valued on >this project anymore. Tha'ts a big problem, since it's people who edit >articles that got us to this point. They aren't? Unless you're equating being valued with being an administrator, I see no evidence of that. -Amarkov --------------------------------- Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and always stay connected to friends. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by George William Herbert
On 2/8/07, George Herbert <[hidden email]> wrote:
> We apparently just lost Alkivar (hopefully just on a stress relief > break, but he says he's out of here indefinitely). > > We're doing terribly at keeping identified, overstressed admins from > ending up going over the edge. What are we doing wrong, or what do we > need to learn to do right? We are putting way too much on an admin pool, where only a small group handle 60% of the load. We all need to remember, adminship is *NOT* a big deal. You are not and should not be defined by your edit count. Everyone is quick too jump on prospective admins, without examining it all, and getting to know how someone will handle things. Without requiring 5,000 edits (Which yes, is not hard to obtain.). Now this doesn't mean there are occasions where something needs to be WP:SNOW'ed away. Threats from unknown sources, I know when my RfA went through, I received a few threats against myself. Now, while I am quite used to it, not everyone is. No one should be subjected to them. I am not sure if these were from actual editors, trolls, or what-have it. Abuse does happen, and when it does happen, even in small amounts it builds up a group of people who turn and look at the admin pool as if it was full of abuse and corruption (There is no cabal, becomes, There is a cable and we haven't found the leader yet.). Which when this happens, it puts stress on the admin pool. Vandalism continues to happen, and is something we will never stop. But we can slow it down, and rather than just block half the internet, we need a stronger relationship with the tech community to handle the abuse at the account end (You can't pull a new IP, if you have no account.). We need to make it known, childish pranks *WILL NOT* be tolerated, and blatant vandalism will result in more than just a block and a reset of your modem/router/connection/tin can on a string. Some proposed solutions: * Wikipedia doubles every 6 months, we need an admin pool to compensate it, and we need those who will focus on handling admin issues, not waive the mop around for 2 months and discontinue use. So lets not look at a new admin based on his edit count, but his contributions and WILLINGNESS. * ArbCom needs 9 new appointments (3 per term), ArbCom yes has great arbitrators who do a wonderful job, but it is the same people doing it, and slow down those eager to mediate disputes. So I propose we, not take away from those arbitrators doing a great job already, but give them more help. Arbitration is a very time consuming job, and these should be people willing to mediate. (I do not propose we remove the arbitrators currently serving, but we add more.) * ArbCom needs an "internal affairs" department to look at complaints of abuse and decide if they are just base less complaints which can hurt an admins rep, or if the complaint is actually abuse, then forward it to ArbCom. The committee should consist of non-ArbCom members, and contain atleast 2 non admins. * Admin actions need to be supported. You can not have an admin take a good action, a user jump them, and other admins choose to take the popular route in hopes of not pissing someone off. * We need to get more of the people who are reading articles, and just reading, to edit. Devising a strategy to do this, is not something I personally am an expert in. I'm better involved in other ways. > -- > -george william herbert > [hidden email] Regards, Joshua Brady [[User:Somitho]] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
Joshua Brady wrote:
> We are putting way too much on an admin pool, where only a small group > handle 60% of the load. We all need to remember, adminship is *NOT* a > big deal. You are not and should not be defined by your edit count. > Everyone is quick too jump on prospective admins, without examining it > all, and getting to know how someone will handle things. Without > requiring 5,000 edits (Which yes, is not hard to obtain.). Now this > doesn't mean there are occasions where something needs to be > WP:SNOW'ed away. > Yeah, I was pretty astounded at how RfA worked when I went there after a long period of not looking at it. I became an admin back in mid-2003 sometime, after being active on the project for about 6 months, with maybe 400 or 500 edits. I didn't have to answer some 20-question-long interview, and nobody really pored over my edit history with a fine-toothed comb. If I had to go through some bureaucratic process, I would probably tell the process-wonk asking me to answer some questionnaire where he could stick it. I had been around for six months, seemed to know what was going on and hand't done anything stupid, and so of course I was given adminship upon request. Why don't we do that now? It's still not hard to take back adminship if someone badly misuses it, so IMO all RfA candidates should get adminship by default, with the burden of proof being upon anyone who thinks they should be denied it to argue why. More concretely, any unexplained "no" votes should not be counted. -Mark _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin burnout
|
|
On 09/02/07, Delirium <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I had been around for six months, seemed to know what was going on and > hand't done anything stupid, and so of course I was given adminship upon > request. Why don't we do that now? It's still not hard to take back > adminship if someone badly misuses it, so IMO all RfA candidates should > get adminship by default, with the burden of proof being upon anyone who > thinks they should be denied it to argue why. More concretely, any > unexplained "no" votes should not be counted. Fully agreed. It seemed to work with many, including me (well, I'll leave that judgement to the reader ;-)); the current system seems to be negatively selecting against people who will "be bold" or "ignore all rules", too, which suggests a slow corruption of our community's spirit (note that I do not suggest that this is in any way deliberate). Let's do it - if it doesn't work, we can always return to the era of the Spanish Inquisition RfA. -- James D. Forrester [hidden email] | [hidden email] | [hidden email] [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin burnout
|
|
In reply to this post by George William Herbert
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:29:54 -0800, "George Herbert"
<[hidden email]> wrote: >We're doing terribly at keeping identified, overstressed admins from >ending up going over the edge. What are we doing wrong, or what do we >need to learn to do right? Ultimately the only way to fix this is probably to be more willing to chuck out people who resolutely refuse to follow policy. Look at the crap Carnildo got simply because he was bot-tagging images which violate our copyright policies. A lot of Alkivar's problem is that there are quite a few editors who flatly refuse to accept that an image scraped off the net somewhere is not an inherently legitimate illustration for any vaguely related article. That's probably the biggest cause of friction. The second major cause of admin burnout in my opinion is trying to keep insidious POV pushers and off-wiki warriors apart. As soon as you step in and prevent one action, you are immediately seen as "involved" and are no longer trusted by the other side - the best that can happen is when both sides decide you are biased against them. Wikipedia is the number 1 destination for people seeking to fix problems without he outside world, and the editors who come here to pursue these agendas have endless time to pursue them. Caring even slightly about the neutrality of the project means that you *will* get stress. The third biggest cause of friction is groups who believe they "deserve" a Wikipedia article because they are so great, even though there are no reliable secondary sources. I am getting crap at the moment about the General Mayhem forum, which is of surpassing significance to its members and (as far as I can tell) nobody else. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin burnout
|
|
In reply to this post by George William Herbert
George Herbert wrote:
> We apparently just lost Alkivar (hopefully just on a stress relief > break, but he says he's out of here indefinitely). > > We're doing terribly at keeping identified, overstressed admins from > ending up going over the edge. What are we doing wrong, or what do we > need to learn to do right? You can't prevent burnout. What you're doing wrong is you're making it too hard for new admins to fill up the "vacancies". _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jeff Raymond
on 2/8/07 10:12 PM, Jeff Raymond at
[hidden email] wrote: > People who edit articles simply are not valued on > this project anymore. What is valued? Marc _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
«
Return to English Wikipedia
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |