[WikiEN-l] Admin burnout

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
273 messages Options
12345 ... 14
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin burnout

Matthew Britton-2
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?
>

Look, some of us have this thing called "real life" (you may have heard
of it) which sometimes gets in the way of things; and unbelievable
though it may sound, it is more important to us than this stupid little
website, and we just have to call it quits. Like adminship itself, this
should be no big deal.

The way to deal with this is to stop imposing such preposterous
requirements at RfA. Most (not many, MOST) of the current admins don't
measure up to the standards being imposed on new candidates. The supply
of new administrators should be compensating for the departure of old
ones whilst keeping pace with the growth of the project.

-Gurch

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin burnout

Marc Riddell
on 2/9/07 6:48 AM, Gurch at [hidden email] wrote:

>
> Look, some of us have this thing called "real life" (you may have heard
> of it) which sometimes gets in the way of things; and unbelievable
> though it may sound, it is more important to us than this stupid little
> website, and we just have to call it quits. Like adminship itself, this
> should be no big deal.

Perspective! Feels good!
>
> The way to deal with this is to stop imposing such preposterous
> requirements at RfA. Most (not many, MOST) of the current admins don't
> measure up to the standards being imposed on new candidates.

Where do these standards come from?

Marc Riddell


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin burnout

Arne 'Timwi' Heizmann
In reply to this post by Michael Snow
Michael Snow 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.

The big problem with this sentiment is that you think that quantity gets
in the way of quality. That is a major mistake, because it will stop you
from promoting people to adminship who would later turn out to be
high-quality admins.

You can still demote the very-low-quality admins. You are under the
impression that once someone is an admin, they can wreak havoc at will,
but this is precisely the misconception that stops you from having
enough good admins.

Timwi


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin burnout

Guy Chapman aka JzG
In reply to this post by Matthew Britton-2
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 11:48:21 +0000, Gurch
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>Look, some of us have this thing called "real life" (you may have heard
>of it) which sometimes gets in the way of things

What is this real life of which you speak, and where can I download
it?

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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin burnout

Arne 'Timwi' Heizmann
In reply to this post by Joshua Brady
Joshua Brady wrote:

> >  * 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.

Here is this wrong sentiment again. Just because you need admins who
"will focus on handling admin issues", you are (incorrectly) concluding
that people who only "waive the mop around for 2 months and discontinue
use" are somehow worthless and therefore shouldn't be made admins. Even
if someone helps out with some admin tasks for only 2 months, surely
they're worth more than they would be if they couldn't do any of it
because they're denied access to the admin functions. You never know if
one of them stays on and becomes the focussed admin you need.

Timwi


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin burnout

Marc Riddell
In reply to this post by Arne 'Timwi' Heizmann
on 2/9/07 7:05 AM, Timwi at [hidden email] wrote:

> The big problem with this sentiment is that you think that quantity gets
> in the way of quality. That is a major mistake, because it will stop you
> from promoting people to adminship who would later turn out to be
> high-quality admins.

How does the Community define a "quality admin"?

Marc Riddell


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin burnout

audevivere
In reply to this post by Marc Riddell
Over-tendency toward editcounts as criteria in RFA is definitely not good.
The couple months before and after my RFA (a year ago), I averaged 2000
edits/month.  No way that is sustainable for me, considering real-life
demands and priorities.

Since July, my edit count is half that each month -- a more sustainable
level.  Even at that, I may have to cut back more in order to spend more
time doing freelance paid work, in addition to my regular job.  Though this
has nothing to do with wikiconflicts, it may resonate with other folks.

Very unlikely that I would ever quit Wikipedia entirely, but slower and
steady is the way to keep going on Wikipedia in the longer-run and not
burnout.

--
Aude
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin burnout

Steve Bennett-8
In reply to this post by Marc Riddell
On 2/9/07, Marc Riddell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> How does the Community define a "quality admin"?

Duh. 100% edit summaries. 3000 edits, well distributed across article
space, project space and article talk space. Never having pissed
anyone off. Ever.

Steve

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin burnout

Marc Riddell

> On 2/9/07, Marc Riddell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> How does the Community define a "quality admin"?
>
> on 2/9/07 8:10 AM, Steve Bennett at [hidden email] wrote:

Never having pissed anyone off. Ever.


Steve,

Are you really serious about this one?

Marc


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin burnout

Arne 'Timwi' Heizmann
In reply to this post by Marc Riddell
Marc Riddell wrote:
> on 2/9/07 7:05 AM, Timwi at [hidden email] wrote:
>
>>The big problem with this sentiment is that you think that quantity gets
>>in the way of quality. That is a major mistake, because it will stop you
>>from promoting people to adminship who would later turn out to be
>>high-quality admins.
>
> How does the Community define a "quality admin"?

Why do you need such a definition?

What you need a definition for is a "low-quality admin", because those
are the ones that you want to demote.

While I don't claim that "low-quality admin" is easier to define, I
think that common sense can go a long way there. If an admin performs
controversial actions regularly, then you might consider they cause more
disruption than they benefit the project. Etc.

Timwi


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin burnout

Mike R-2
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-8
On 2/9/07, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 2/9/07, Marc Riddell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > How does the Community define a "quality admin"?
>
> Duh. 100% edit summaries. 3000 edits, well distributed across article
> space, project space and article talk space. Never having pissed
> anyone off. Ever.
>

And you can't have made the 3000 edits over too long or too short a period
of time.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin burnout

Keitei
In reply to this post by George William Herbert
On Feb 8, 2007, at 21:29, George Herbert 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?

I don't suppose it has anything to do with the, "We are the priests;  
you are the janitors. Now shovel our crap." mindset.

In order to become an admin, one must have an impeccable track record  
and have been aiming for adminship for quite some time. Then one must  
jump through all sorts of flaming hoops while all the people one gets  
along with the least gather to heckle. Then having become an admin,  
one gets treated like shit by newcomers pissed that one has deleted  
their page, trolls pissed that one has blocked them, POV pushers  
pissed that one has protected their page, users insistent that one is  
just the same as them and does not have any greater level of trust  
and should never be given any level of slack, users convinced that  
one is abusing one's powers, and "valued contributors" insistent that  
one does not matter and should go to hell because they do so much  
more and are so much more important to the encyclopedia.

It's a wonder all the admins haven't left the project.

And from my experience as an admin at other wikis, it's not the  
newbies or the vandals that get you down. It's the bitter resentment  
from invested users targeted at you over and over and over again. As  
if because the admins have such unspeakable power, they have to be  
abused to keep them down, so they won't take over in power-mad fits.  
It just gets to the point where one is like, "Fine! If you don't want  
me around so much, I'll leave. Have fun."

And why shouldn't they? Nobody is obligated to stay and if admins  
aren't valued, why would they want to?

--keitei

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin burnout

geni
In reply to this post by James Forrester-2
On 2/9/07, James Forrester <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 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).

Do you blame them? People have seen the amount of damage admins can do
before being stopped. They know that if the admin is smart enough and
not unlucky it is highly unlikely they will be stopped.

So what is the rational response to this situation. To elect safe
admins who you have a fairly good idea how they will act. That means
electing admins who respect policy and don't like getting into fights.

>Let's do it - if it doesn't work, we can always return to
> the era of the Spanish Inquisition RfA.

It is already the de-facto standard that every oppose has to give a
reason. It changes nothing.
--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin burnout

Rich Holton
geni wrote:
>
> Do you blame them? People have seen the amount of damage admins can do
> before being stopped. They know that if the admin is smart enough and
> not unlucky it is highly unlikely they will be stopped.
>
> So what is the rational response to this situation. To elect safe
> admins who you have a fairly good idea how they will act. That means
> electing admins who respect policy and don't like getting into fights.
>

Because I really don't know and am curious, can you give an example to
illustrate the amount of damage an admin can do?

-Rich

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin burnout

Marc Riddell
In reply to this post by Arne 'Timwi' Heizmann

> Marc Riddell wrote:

>> How does the Community define a "quality admin"?

on 2/9/07 8:35 AM, Timwi at [hidden email] wrote:

>
> Why do you need such a definition?


Timi,

I would think for the same reason that, before you decide something is
substandard, you would first need to define what the standard is.

Marc


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin burnout

geni
In reply to this post by Keitei
On 2/9/07, Keitei <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I don't suppose it has anything to do with the, "We are the priests;
> you are the janitors. Now shovel our crap." mindset.
>

Never really run across that one.

> In order to become an admin, one must have an impeccable track record
> and have been aiming for adminship for quite some time. Then one must
> jump through all sorts of flaming hoops while all the people one gets
> along with the least gather to heckle. Then having become an admin,
> one gets treated like shit by newcomers pissed that one has deleted
> their page,

Their feelings can be understood although in some cases their
behaviour can be kinda cute.

>trolls pissed that one has blocked them, POV pushers
> pissed that one has protected their page,

These form a fairly minor part of admin tasks. the number of pages
protected per month to stop edit waring is pretty low.

>users insistent that one is
> just the same as them and does not have any greater level of trust

That was the general theory.

> and should never be given any level of slack, users convinced that
> one is abusing one's powers,

Fairly easy to deal with.

> and "valued contributors" insistent that
> one does not matter and should go to hell because they do so much
> more and are so much more important to the encyclopedia.
>

Generaly there are few reasons to have dealings with such users beyond
those required by policy.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin burnout

geni
In reply to this post by Rich Holton
On 2/9/07, Rich Holton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Because I really don't know and am curious, can you give an example to
> illustrate the amount of damage an admin can do?

Userboxes. Take admin powers out of that fight and things would have
been a lot less ah dramatic.

Other than that there were the ones who facilitated the Bobby Boulders
troll. Many things are best left buried. A significant number of those
involved are still admins.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin burnout

Death Phoenix
In reply to this post by Mike R-2
On 2/9/07, Taco Deposit <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 2/9/07, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/9/07, Marc Riddell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > How does the Community define a "quality admin"?
> >
> > Duh. 100% edit summaries. 3000 edits, well distributed across article
> > space, project space and article talk space. Never having pissed
> > anyone off. Ever.
> >
>
> And you can't have made the 3000 edits over too long or too short a period
> of time.
>

If you want find an admin who's nifty,
First you ask these questions fifty.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin burnout

Keitei
In reply to this post by geni
On Feb 9, 2007, at 9:00, geni wrote:
> On 2/9/07, Keitei <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I don't suppose it has anything to do with the, "We are the priests;
>> you are the janitors. Now shovel our crap." mindset.
>>
>
> Never really run across that one.

. . .If the janitors with mops are to make some vital "decisions" in  
this temple of knowledge, I will be the first to walk away. Admins  
are not priests but janitors. When janitors prevent priests from  
performing their duties (i.e., editors from writing the articles),  
priests should evacuate the temple. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:56, 23  
December 2006 (UTC)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/ 
IncidentArchive167)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin burnout

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by geni
On 09/02/07, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 2/9/07, Keitei <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > I don't suppose it has anything to do with the, "We are the priests;
> > you are the janitors. Now shovel our crap." mindset.

> Never really run across that one.


Giano and team.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
12345 ... 14