[WikiEN-l] Admin burnout

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
273 messages Options
1234567 ... 14
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Admin burnout

The Cunctator
On 2/9/07, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> 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.


Or simply make admin powers an automatic process after hitting some
reasonable editing benchmarks.
_______________________________________________
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

Guettarda
In reply to this post by The Cunctator
On 2/9/07, The Cunctator <[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?
>
>
> Why assume we're doing anything wrong? Some degree of churn is, I think,
> healthy.


Turnover isn't a bad thing.  People go from active, to inactive and back to
active all the time.  But burnout is a problem when it comes from conflict
and causes a person to leave feeling upset and ill-served by the community.
_______________________________________________
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 geni
geni wrote:
>
> Editors are people. Being blocked hurts. Haveing your work deleted hurts.

Think about this a bit more. Being blocked hurts. Is it so much of a
stretch of imagination to realise that (for some if not most people)
being excluded from adminship also hurts? It is, after all, functionally
the same as being "blocked" from the extra features.

People probably don't realise this readily because it's a qualitatively
different kind of hurting -- it's not a singular event like being
blocked or a page being deleted, which is like a stab in the chest which
may (or may not) heal. This is different; it's more like a nagging
headache that doesn't go away.


_______________________________________________
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

Stan Shebs-2
In reply to this post by Guy Chapman aka JzG
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 07:54:06 -0800, Stan Shebs
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  
>> There are also quite a
>> few editors who are inclined to regard admins unfavorably to begin, as
>> tiny manifestations of the The Man(tm), and who I'm sure are secretly
>> gleeful when admins are taken down. It's not an organized program of
>> divide-and-conquer, but the net effect is the same.
>>    
>
> Seen the ED page on MONGO?
>  
Um, yeah, but what's real and what's vandalism on it? I couldn't tell.
ED is a useful example of why WP needs to be tough on vandals and
trolls, so we don't end up the same way.

Stan


_______________________________________________
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 The Cunctator
The Cunctator 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?
>
> Why assume we're doing anything wrong? Some degree of churn is, I think,
> healthy.

I can't speak for George (the OP), but I don't think I'm working from
the assumption that we're doing anything wrong. I come to the conclusion
that we do.


_______________________________________________
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

Pilotguy
In reply to this post by Arne 'Timwi' Heizmann
Wow, look at all these messages. I don't have time to read them all, so I'll
probably be saying more of the same, but here my perspective on this.

Being an admin is not what it is made out to be. People think, once you are
an admin, you get a big office on the top floor with a massage chair. This
is not the case, especially for the more hardworking ones like (in my
opinion) Alkivar and others. The situation is that we do something like
clear out hundreds of pages in CAT:CSD, and instead of getting support and
encouragement for doing a task that's a pain in the ass, we get yelled at by
everyone. Whether we delete pages, or even remove CSD tags, we get harassed,
threatened, and yelled at, sometimes by established editors who know better.

My point? The hardworking admins who help clear the backlogs and do
janitorial work get zilch, while the rest go about their daily business
without being worried whether some pissed off lunatic is going to call them
while they're at work and frighten them.

The close-knit community of yesterday is gone, and I want it back. Less
bitching, more supporting.


On 2/9/07, Timwi <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> geni wrote:
> >
> > Editors are people. Being blocked hurts. Haveing your work deleted
> hurts.
>
> Think about this a bit more. Being blocked hurts. Is it so much of a
> stretch of imagination to realise that (for some if not most people)
> being excluded from adminship also hurts? It is, after all, functionally
> the same as being "blocked" from the extra features.
>
> People probably don't realise this readily because it's a qualitatively
> different kind of hurting -- it's not a singular event like being
> blocked or a page being deleted, which is like a stab in the chest which
> may (or may not) heal. This is different; it's more like a nagging
> headache that doesn't go away.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



--
Pilotguy
[hidden email]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pilotguy

http://pilotguy.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________
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

Guettarda
In reply to this post by Marc Riddell
On 2/8/07, Marc Riddell <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> 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


I'd have to say a resounding NO.  The article quality philosophy says that
we have enough articles and we should put higher priority on improving the
ones we have than adding new ones.  That philosophy isn't workable with
admins.  The more popular Wikipedia gets, the more crap there is to deal
with.  With a few notable exceptions, the people who do most of the admin
work burn out in a few months.  Managed well, they go back to being
productive editors.  Managed poorly, they quit the project.  "Quality over
quantity" would demand more of these people who are willing to do think kind
of work, which would probably mean that they are more likely to quit than to
return to the pool of editors (where they are still available to do admin
tasks).

While I agree that admins can do an immense amount of damage
(unintentionally or maliciously), we have raised some standards too high,
while neglected others.  Edit counts are almost meaningless, but the
baseline keeps going up.  That's fine for people who go AWB and get a few
thousand edits moving the stub template below the cats & interwiki links and
calling it "cleanup"...but that means that people who took the time to learn
about the community by editing articles and interacting with people on talk
pages, and thereby learning about policy and being socialised to the
community, are at a disadvantage.

I know lots of people who have been around a couple years, accumulated
2-4000 edits over than time, who know policy and help out newbies, who
contribute content...but who have little chance of being an admin because
people expect huge edit counts.  On the other hand, when the hyper-active
editors, who do 2-3000 edits per month for 6 months become admins they (a)
may not know policy all that well, and (b) may be reaching the end of their
brief, hot flame of contributions.
_______________________________________________
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 Pilotguy
Pilotguy wrote:
>
> Being an admin is not what it is made out to be. People think, once you are
> an admin, you get a big office on the top floor with a massage chair. This
> is not the case [...]. The situation is that we do something like
> clear out hundreds of pages in CAT:CSD, and instead of getting support and
> encouragement for doing a task that's a pain in the ass, we get yelled at by
> everyone. [...]

This is probably all true. But that's not the problem we're discussing.
You see, no matter how many people you tell this story, the majority of
new users will still view adminship as "having a big office on the top
floor with a massage chair". Why? Not because they've been there and
seen it or anything, but simply because people start out /without/ it
and, if accepted by the community, are elevated to this "higher status".
That is enough already to create this impression that admins are
(considered by the community to be) "better people".

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

The Cunctator
In reply to this post by Arne 'Timwi' Heizmann
On 2/9/07, Timwi <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> The Cunctator 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?
> >
> > Why assume we're doing anything wrong? Some degree of churn is, I think,
> > healthy.
>
> I can't speak for George (the OP), but I don't think I'm working from
> the assumption that we're doing anything wrong. I come to the conclusion
> that we do.


Okay,  how have you come to that conclusion?
_______________________________________________
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 Stan Shebs-2

> Marc Riddell wrote:
>> on 2/9/07 9:36 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG at [hidden email] wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There is a culture of baiting these admins until they crack.  A recent
>>> example was MONGO.  There are others.
>>>
>>> Guy (JzG)
>>>
>>
>> As I suggested in a post a while back, perhaps there needs to be an
>> identified, organized support system within WP that an embattled admin can
>> turn to for encouragement and perspective. In this way they may not feel
>> they are so alone in a given situation.
>>
on 2/9/07 10:54 AM, Stan Shebs at [hidden email] wrote:

>>
> It would be continuously attacked, as proof positive of the evil admin
> cabal. That's all part of the baiting culture. There are also quite a
> few editors who are inclined to regard admins unfavorably to begin, as
> tiny manifestations of the The Man(tm), and who I'm sure are secretly
> gleeful when admins are taken down. It's not an organized program of
> divide-and-conquer, but the net effect is the same. One of the reasons I
> don't do more admin work is that I see what happens to other admins who
> stick their necks out, and it's just not worth it to me.

Stan,

I hear ya. But, by not having such an organized support system for the
reasons you stated, don't the wackos win? Who gives a damn if they see it as
a cabal or whatever, the benefits can far outweigh the bullshit. I don't
mean to belabor this, but, as you might guess, I'm a great believer in
interpersonal support systems.

Marc


--
If you're restricted to what is - you are cut off from - - what could be.


_______________________________________________
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

Guettarda
In reply to this post by Pilotguy
On 2/9/07, Pilotguy <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> The close-knit community of yesterday is gone, and I want it back. Less
> bitching, more supporting.


In my experience, the days of a close-knot community were long gone by the
time you joined.  I'd hate to think what Stevertigo or David or Ed think of
as "the days of the close-knit community"
_______________________________________________
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 The Cunctator
The Cunctator wrote:
>
>>I can't speak for George (the OP), but I don't think I'm working from
>>the assumption that we're doing anything wrong. I come to the conclusion
>>that we do.
>
> Okay,  how have you come to that conclusion?

I've already explained this elsewhere, so I'll only give a quick summary
here. Wikipedia does something _right_ by letting everyone edit. The
underlying philosophy is that everyone starts out as innocent, and is
blocked from editing only if they show misbehaviour. Adminship is the
wrong way around. Users start out as being viewed with caution and
suspicion, and must "earn" their admin "privileges" by fulfilling some
ridiculous set of criteria. The _right_ way would be to demote the ones
who misuse it, not to prevent the constructive ones from being constructive.

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

gamaliel8
On 2/9/07, Timwi <[hidden email]> wrote:
  The _right_ way would be to demote the ones
> who misuse it, not to prevent the constructive ones from being constructive.

And who would be empowered to de-admin people?  Those people would
become the cabal with the "special" "privilieges" instead of admins.

_______________________________________________
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 Stan Shebs-2
On 09/02/07, Stan Shebs <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Marc Riddell wrote:

> > As I suggested in a post a while back, perhaps there needs to be an
> > identified, organized support system within WP that an embattled admin can
> > turn to for encouragement and perspective. In this way they may not feel
> > they are so alone in a given situation.

> It would be continuously attacked, as proof positive of the evil admin
> cabal. That's all part of the baiting culture. There are also quite a
> few editors who are inclined to regard admins unfavorably to begin, as
> tiny manifestations of the The Man(tm), and who I'm sure are secretly
> gleeful when admins are taken down. It's not an organized program of
> divide-and-conquer, but the net effect is the same. One of the reasons I
> don't do more admin work is that I see what happens to other admins who
> stick their necks out, and it's just not worth it to me.


c.f. the attacks upon #wikipedia-en-admins, which are largely a proxy
for attacks on Kelly Martin.


- d.

_______________________________________________
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 gamaliel8
On 09/02/07, Rob <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 2/9/07, Timwi <[hidden email]> wrote:

>   The _right_ way would be to demote the ones
> > who misuse it, not to prevent the constructive ones from being constructive.

> And who would be empowered to de-admin people?  Those people would
> become the cabal with the "special" "privilieges" instead of admins.


The ArbCom does this now.


- d.

_______________________________________________
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

Earle Martin
In reply to this post by Arne 'Timwi' Heizmann
On 09/02/07, Timwi <[hidden email]> wrote:

> You don't need to define "good quality" in this case because the "medium
> quality" admins can stay just as much as the "good quality" admins. You
> only need to define "bad quality" admins because those are the ones you
> need to find in order to demote them. "Bad quality" can be determined on
> the basis of specific incidents (e.g. continued disruptance).
> ...
> Although the current system makes it difficult for a genuinely
> bad-quality user to become admin, it also misses out on "good enough
> quality" admins because of specious criteria like "not enough edits".
> This way (potentially) hundreds of users are prevented from helping
> constructively.

Hear, hear.

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/

_______________________________________________
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

gamaliel8
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On 2/9/07, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 09/02/07, Rob <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 2/9/07, Timwi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >   The _right_ way would be to demote the ones
> > > who misuse it, not to prevent the constructive ones from being constructive.
>
> > And who would be empowered to de-admin people?  Those people would
> > become the cabal with the "special" "privilieges" instead of admins.
>
>
> The ArbCom does this now.

Of course, but they'd hardly be able to handle the extra workload in
their current form.

_______________________________________________
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 David Gerard-2
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 17:17:58 +0000, "David Gerard" <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>The ArbCom does this now.

LOOK! LOOK! CABAL!

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

Keitei
In reply to this post by geni
On Feb 9, 2007, at 9:42, geni wrote:

> Editors are people. Being blocked hurts. Haveing your work deleted  
> hurts.

Why does being blocked hurt? If a block is just what happens when you  
do such and such (like revert three times), why would that be a blow  
to the ego? You wait it out, you can edit again, no big deal.  
Ideally, you don't do anything which would lead to a block and  
nothing happens.

I think that probably punitive blocks would have less drama and be  
better received overall. Currently blocks mean "this person is a  
danger to the community." A punitive block would just mean "this  
person did such and such" and would both prevent further unwanted  
actions and not stigmatize it more than needed. But I will not be  
pushing for a rewrite of the blocking policy. I just think it really  
ought to be no big deal.

--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
On 2/9/07, Keitei <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Feb 9, 2007, at 9:42, geni wrote:
>
> > Editors are people. Being blocked hurts. Haveing your work deleted
> > hurts.
>
> Why does being blocked hurt? If a block is just what happens when you
> do such and such (like revert three times), why would that be a blow
> to the ego? You wait it out, you can edit again, no big deal.
> Ideally, you don't do anything which would lead to a block and
> nothing happens.
>

Problem is the out of process blocks. In that case the problem is two
fold. When something is within process it looks like everyone is
working from the same rulebook and for the most part admins can avoid
takeing flack since thier actions are not really personal.

Once you step outside process you have the problem that it appears the
rules only apply to the little people and that it looks a lot more
personal. Worse still it may be more than apearence.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
1234567 ... 14