Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
Hello all, New here; first post. I'm a longtime Wikipedia user and recent first-time editor. Had a rather discouraging incident with regard to my first article on the site, rather an eye-opener as I've attempted to study up on how things work -- or are supposed to work, and finding out that the loftier philosophies of the site really don't seem to hold a great reverence within the system. This is not just based on my one experience -- I was trying to save the article I'd written from deletion and trekked around the site looking for proper reasons it should survive. And I found them! Presenting them -- another matter. I then researched other such situations and found a very common theme. I also found external articles with numerous examples of discouraged editors -- and especially former editors. So on point with this situation, how do you talk the guy off the ledge -- naturally that's situational, but after that's resolved, the good question for prevention is why did he get there? And from what I've seen, there seems so much room for frustration, and so much room for conflict. The site has an article for so many internal situations, too -- and it almost begins to seem like the Bible in that someone can find a section to address nearly every circumstance. i.e., you can justify both yes and no some way or another. Hard to believe then, that conflicts arise? The site sounds so wonderful as you enter -- Come on in! Start writing! Be bold! Break the rules! and you're heartened by the seeming generosity of spirit. Until you actually encounter some experienced editors. The problem here then becomes something I've seen over and again in my own career -- people are actually more comfortable with rules than with vague standards which could allow for wiggle room. They all KNOW about the pillars and IAR and pay lip service -- but in practice, they have little real application. What's surprising is -- administrators seem to behave the same! My own philosophy as a supervisor/manager in my own career has been: if you're only there to make sure the rules are adhered to -- then you make yourself obsolete. No company needs a walking, talking version of the policy manual. What a supervisor exists for is more toward making sure the spirit of several objectives are met, including the policy's intent weighed against what's actually best for all concerned. If the policy says you close at 6:00 and the customer gets there at 6:01, you can turn him away and be right but suffer loss of goodwill and business for the company -- so how good was your judgement in that situation? And would you expect the company's owner to pat you on the back after that customer gets ahold of him? This may be overly simple in an interest to keep this short-ish, but it feels like the starting point of sorts would seem to lie with these administrators. Maybe they are just editors with better tools, but they have the experience with the site and they are the ones looked to for fair judgement and good example-setting. Special attention should be given to them as they are the de-facto frontline conflict resolution sources, and their education on how to do that well will serve to stave off larger conflicts and ALSO keep conflicts from escalating into the laps of the higher-ups, who would likely rather spend their time dealing with loftier matters! I don't know what the actual screening process is here; perhaps it does contain elements of the higher intentions of the site before approval is reached. Usually as advancement goes in most companies, a front-line worker does a good job and expects a promotion -- but everything he learned as a worker is not geared toward supervision. Soon after that promotion, his former fellow workers start grumbling and complaining about his power trips. Because -- as a new supervisor, he is overly diligent toward that policy manual, and tries to gain respect by insisting on his authority. So who really trained him on wiggle room and earning respect? Who teaches them that real power is had by knowing how to lead without carrying a sledgehammer by one's side? That's part of the goal then -- to get rid of the sledgehammers so that people don't keep getting clobbered. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
Hi Mr. Goodman, I think you are talking about me when you mention the genius that sometimes accompanies valuable and important people who unfortunately tend to put on displays of individualistic irascibility that are unacceptable. As Manhattan Samurai, I was one of the best at this. I'm fortunate that I was eventually kicked off the English Wikipedia and most of my work progressively deleted. You'll now find my bibliography of William Monahan much improved at Squidoo, along with a web page about Dining Late with Claude La Badarian: http://www.squidoo.com/William_Monahan_Bibliography http://www.squidoo.com/Claude-La-Badarian I even have a blog: http://nypress-studies.blogspot.com/ Keep on truckin' Bill From: David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, July 14, 2010 2:06:03 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge? Frankly, I see that as unwarranted pessimism. The sets of people who want to change things and people who want to cause trouble are not identical, though there is a substantial intersection. Admins who have the lack of judgement to try to force their desired change into policy by using their arbitrary power of their ability to bully people, are at least as much a problem as the over-conformist. Indeed, I think it my role as an admin to be a conformist, and do only what is generally supported. When I want to work to get something different, that has to be done without the presumed immunities and special power of an administrator. To a certain extent the role does require tolerated the other admins, but that is just analogous to the requirement that an editor tolerate other editors. In both cases, the difficulty is that we have no usable sanctions until things become outrageous. Mild disapproval over the distance of the internet is very easy for someone to ignore entirely, until they have gotten themselves into an impossible position. My personal view remains that we should not tolerate insult even from the best and most established editors or administrators. A more civilized environment in these respects will help us get many addition new good editors and administrators to replace the ones who can not work in an acceptable fashion. Joining in a collective work is not the place for displace of individualistic irascibility, even when accompanied by genius--such people are very important and very valuable, but they should be working creatively-- and independently. On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 9:54 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 July 2010 02:07, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: The expectations upon admins are the pivot point for that. See [[ User:FT2/RfA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/RfA]]. Any ideas how we can get somewhere like that? FT2 Well to start with you could chuck your requirements out of the window. Your requirements like most at RFA are selecting for 3 things 1)some degree of editing skill 2)Not appearing to cause trouble 3)A decent set of wikipolitics skill It's two and three that cause the problem. Anyone whith a decent set of wikipolitics skills is going to archive 2 by playing safe going along with the flow and not challenging things. Almost anyone actually passing RFA is going to have got into the habit of going along with the ah bad faith combined with mob justice. The people who might actually try to challenge such things are unlikely to pass RFA because either they lack the wikipolitics skills needed in order to pass (you would tend to fail them under the nor into politicking clause among others) or because they are not prepared to use them in a way that would let them pass. Upshot is that we have for some years now been promoting a bunch of admins who will go with the flow rather than challenge low level bad behavior by admins and long standing users. The tiny number of rebels and iconoclasts left are from years ago and have little to day to day stuff. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
Jon Q wrote: The site sounds so wonderful as you enter -- Come on in! Start writing! Be bold! Break the rules! and you're heartened by the seeming generosity of spirit. Until you actually encounter some experienced editors. The problem here then becomes something I've seen over and again in my own career -- people are actually more comfortable with rules than with vague standards which could allow for wiggle room. They all KNOW about the pillars and IAR and pay lip service -- but in practice, they have little real application. What's surprising is -- administrators seem to behave the same! You make some good points. Of course Wikipedia isn't utopian - nothing is, and even less so on the Internet with no screening of editors. Translating from the world of wiki to the world of work, as you do later in your post, what we really lack in admin selection could perhaps be summed up as a standard psychological test that could reveal who would show up in tense situations with an understated, reasonable, but firm approach. This thread originated in an issue where there must have been some failure to observe such standards, and not just on one side. I don't think there is any consensus as to what should be done. I'm of the school that thinks that admins should get on with editing and routine tasks, and only get involved with issues as they crop up (but should never duck those that do). The trouble with the other, more authoritarian approach typefied by AN is that it produces both wrong outcomes and an adverse reaction that now reveals itself as nay-saying in the community. My two cents. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
Fred Bauder wrote: It is likely the reason he got into trouble was because he wasn't confident that others would back him up, so he did it himself. Which is, of course, the third rail. What is missing is the knowledge that sometimes, even if you are right, others will not, for one reason or another, not back you up and you will fail. And can't do anything about it. Fred IOW, Wikipedia isn't a suicide pact? Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
Fred Bauder wrote: It is likely the reason he got into trouble was because he wasn't confident that others would back him up, so he did it himself. Which is, of course, the third rail. What is missing is the knowledge that sometimes, even if you are right, others will not, for one reason or another, not back you up and you will fail. And can't do anything about it. Fred IOW, Wikipedia isn't a suicide pact? Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen Ideally, Wikipedia is a life-long avocation. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:32 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: On 14 July 2010 02:07, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: The expectations upon admins are the pivot point for that. See [[ User:FT2/RfA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/RfA]]. Any ideas how we can get somewhere like that? FT2 Well to start with you could chuck your requirements out of the window. Your requirements like most at RFA are selecting for 3 things 1)some degree of editing skill 2)Not appearing to cause trouble 3)A decent set of wikipolitics skill It's two and three that cause the problem. Anyone whith a decent set of wikipolitics skills is going to archive 2 by playing safe going along with the flow and not challenging things. Almost anyone actually passing RFA is going to have got into the habit of going along with the ah bad faith combined with mob justice. The people who might actually try to challenge such things are unlikely to pass RFA because either they lack the wikipolitics skills needed in order to pass (you would tend to fail them under the nor into politicking clause among others) or because they are not prepared to use them in a way that would let them pass. Upshot is that we have for some years now been promoting a bunch of admins who will go with the flow rather than challenge low level bad behavior by admins and long standing users. The tiny number of rebels and iconoclasts left are from years ago and have little to day to day stuff. -- geni Yes, that does seem to be the main requirement, a successful candidate must never have taken a stand. This for a job that requires taking stands. Fred I failed my first try, and could have failed my second if I hadn't made a serious effort to ameliorate a negative perception from taking a stand earlier. The edge of the knife that we must balance on is both being willing to take stands, and be open to feedback from the community and from other admins if we take the wrong stand. Balancing there all the time is very hard. Being willing to admit you're wrong on something and still come back the next day willing and ready to make a hard call on its merits is not easy. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com Somehow this thread became about RFA standards. What happened? - causa sui ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
Ryan Delaney wrote: Somehow this thread became about RFA standards. What happened? True. We seem to be missing the point that the trouble with the Administrators Noticeboard is at least in part that it is a noticeboard, i.e. not a process for which there is a charter, but an unchartered discussion forum. Any claims that AN has the authority to do anything are complete nonsense, and admins act entirely as independent, responsible agents whatever thread they are pivoting off from. I don't see why this has to be the case, and have not done so for around three years. The community can require more. In fact it should require more. AN has long been something that should have been the subject of an RfC. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
Fred I failed my first try, and could have failed my second if I hadn't made a serious effort to ameliorate a negative perception from taking a stand earlier. The edge of the knife that we must balance on is both being willing to take stands, and be open to feedback from the community and from other admins if we take the wrong stand. Balancing there all the time is very hard. Being willing to admit you're wrong on something and still come back the next day willing and ready to make a hard call on its merits is not easy. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com To tie this back to the original post: It is this sort of insight that enables a person to continue to participate and contribute over long periods of time. That sort of insight has been developed by people who have participated in the give and take of making decisions, some of which have worked out, while some have not. So how can we, in a practical way, socialize administrators in the skills involved in continuing to participate effectively in an important project when everything isn't going as you might like. This happens in all large organizations. I keep thinking that stories of our adventures are relevant. That's what happens in other social situations, building the culture of how difficulties are coped with. Stories of successes and disasters; I'm afraid most of that lore has been closely held by insiders and not widely shared in the administrator community, as much of what when on was confidential for one reason or another. We'd like people who get into trouble to work through it and continue to contribute on a long term basis. That is a different path from someone getting into trouble, then we're done with them. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Fred I failed my first try, and could have failed my second if I hadn't made a serious effort to ameliorate a negative perception from taking a stand earlier. The edge of the knife that we must balance on is both being willing to take stands, and be open to feedback from the community and from other admins if we take the wrong stand. Balancing there all the time is very hard. Being willing to admit you're wrong on something and still come back the next day willing and ready to make a hard call on its merits is not easy. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com To tie this back to the original post: It is this sort of insight that enables a person to continue to participate and contribute over long periods of time. That sort of insight has been developed by people who have participated in the give and take of making decisions, some of which have worked out, while some have not. So how can we, in a practical way, socialize administrators in the skills involved in continuing to participate effectively in an important project when everything isn't going as you might like. This happens in all large organizations. I keep thinking that stories of our adventures are relevant. That's what happens in other social situations, building the culture of how difficulties are coped with. Stories of successes and disasters; I'm afraid most of that lore has been closely held by insiders and not widely shared in the administrator community, as much of what when on was confidential for one reason or another. We'd like people who get into trouble to work through it and continue to contribute on a long term basis. That is a different path from someone getting into trouble, then we're done with them. Fred This is good stuff and I think it's a good thing for people to learn how to cope with adversity in general. Mistakes and stressful situations are inevitable, and working in an administrative capacity is inherently more likely to attract flak when people don't like the decisions you make. I developed a pretty thick skin doing RCP, for example. I was harassed and received death threats as a result of blocking vandals or protecting pages on The Wrong Version during a content dispute. It happens all the time. Some people don't deal with that well, especially when they're also getting second-guessed by the community, and the project would be well served if administrators had psychological tools available to them to handle the inner conflict. The other side of that coin is that when there are systemic problems that necessarily reduce in stress or even abusive treatment of administrators, you ought to be identifying and correcting that. Right now, you have exactly such a situation. Working toward identifying and correcting whatever cultural aspects of Wikipedia community compound rather than relieve the stress and suffering caused to administrators doing their jobs is an important priority not to be crowded out by the thinking that we need to learn to deal with oppressive bureaucracy or a culture of mob justice. With that in mind, there is a diplomatic pitfall to the approach you suggest. In same cases, focusing on helping administrators learn to cope with the pressure inherent to the jobs they've volunteered to do is going to come off patronizing. I certainly heard it that way when people made this kind of suggestion in real-time, because it was another example of someone telling me what *I* needed to be doing differently. I didn't feel like the problem was that I needed to learn to accept that I was being treated badly; it may well have been better for my peace of mind if I had, but that is not a solution that is going to help the project. So from a strategic perspective (retaining human resources) it's perilous, but also it might lead you to develop blind spots to real and solvable problems. You don't want to get into a situation where any time a problem comes up you recall that Stressful situations are inevitable, we need to [take a break and cool down / come back later / apply whatever other therapeutic technique we've prescribed] because then you'll not do what you need to do to fix a serious cultural problem that necessarily gives rise to administrator flame out. My skin was already plenty thick. A lot of the people who have burned out or resigned as a result of this were experienced editors who knew what it was like to be under pressure for making a decision someone didn't like. You can't do everything right, but you can recognize problems and take steps toward addressing them. Helping people learn to cope with stress may be one prong of your attack, but it can't be the only one -- not here. - causa sui ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
The other side of that coin is that when there are systemic problems that necessarily reduce in stress or even abusive treatment of administrators, you ought to be identifying and correcting that. Right now, you have exactly such a situation. Working toward identifying and correcting whatever cultural aspects of Wikipedia community compound rather than relieve the stress and suffering caused to administrators doing their jobs is an important priority not to be crowded out by the thinking that we need to learn to deal with oppressive bureaucracy or a culture of mob justice. With that in mind, there is a diplomatic pitfall to the approach you suggest. In same cases, focusing on helping administrators learn to cope with the pressure inherent to the jobs they've volunteered to do is going to come off patronizing. I certainly heard it that way when people made this kind of suggestion in real-time, because it was another example of someone telling me what *I* needed to be doing differently. I didn't feel like the problem was that I needed to learn to accept that I was being treated badly; it may well have been better for my peace of mind if I had, but that is not a solution that is going to help the project. So from a strategic perspective (retaining human resources) it's perilous, but also it might lead you to develop blind spots to real and solvable problems. You don't want to get into a situation where any time a problem comes up you recall that Stressful situations are inevitable, we need to [take a break and cool down / come back later / apply whatever other therapeutic technique we've prescribed] because then you'll not do what you need to do to fix a serious cultural problem that necessarily gives rise to administrator flame out. My skin was already plenty thick. A lot of the people who have burned out or resigned as a result of this were experienced editors who knew what it was like to be under pressure for making a decision someone didn't like. You can't do everything right, but you can recognize problems and take steps toward addressing them. Helping people learn to cope with stress may be one prong of your attack, but it can't be the only one -- not here. - causa sui Yes, we need to address the problems, not blame the victims and help them cope with nightmares. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: The other side of that coin is that when there are systemic problems that necessarily reduce in stress or even abusive treatment of administrators, you ought to be identifying and correcting that. Right now, you have exactly such a situation. Working toward identifying and correcting whatever cultural aspects of Wikipedia community compound rather than relieve the stress and suffering caused to administrators doing their jobs is an important priority not to be crowded out by the thinking that we need to learn to deal with oppressive bureaucracy or a culture of mob justice. With that in mind, there is a diplomatic pitfall to the approach you suggest. In same cases, focusing on helping administrators learn to cope with the pressure inherent to the jobs they've volunteered to do is going to come off patronizing. I certainly heard it that way when people made this kind of suggestion in real-time, because it was another example of someone telling me what *I* needed to be doing differently. I didn't feel like the problem was that I needed to learn to accept that I was being treated badly; it may well have been better for my peace of mind if I had, but that is not a solution that is going to help the project. So from a strategic perspective (retaining human resources) it's perilous, but also it might lead you to develop blind spots to real and solvable problems. You don't want to get into a situation where any time a problem comes up you recall that Stressful situations are inevitable, we need to [take a break and cool down / come back later / apply whatever other therapeutic technique we've prescribed] because then you'll not do what you need to do to fix a serious cultural problem that necessarily gives rise to administrator flame out. My skin was already plenty thick. A lot of the people who have burned out or resigned as a result of this were experienced editors who knew what it was like to be under pressure for making a decision someone didn't like. You can't do everything right, but you can recognize problems and take steps toward addressing them. Helping people learn to cope with stress may be one prong of your attack, but it can't be the only one -- not here. - causa sui Yes, we need to address the problems, not blame the victims and help them cope with nightmares. Fred What do you propose? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
Yes, we need to address the problems, not blame the victims and help them cope with nightmares. Fred What do you propose? Personally, what I'm going to do is participate more on noticeboards. Adapting that to a general solution would involve experienced administrators paying more attention to the give and take on the noticeboards and jumping in more when something seems to be going wrong. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Yes, we need to address the problems, not blame the victims and help them cope with nightmares. Fred What do you propose? Personally, what I'm going to do is participate more on noticeboards. Adapting that to a general solution would involve experienced administrators paying more attention to the give and take on the noticeboards and jumping in more when something seems to be going wrong. Fred Good luck to you, then. I hope you can help turn it around. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: I'm pretty sure that the main solution to this is to make the wiki experience better, not trying to specifically treat people that are getting frustrated's experience better. I agree. It works both ways. New editors, who may not fully understand all the details yet, get frustrated as well. Get experienced admins, new editors, and people who hand out advice at ANI without fully looking into something, and you often end up with a mess. To answer Ryan's point, I think a *lot* of built-up frustration can be traced back to people falling into a defend the wiki mentality and seeing a never-ending siege mentality stretching away in front of them. I find the best thing to do is mix things up a bit. Chop and change. Not so much that you lose focus, but enough that you don't become overly focused and lose perspective. And never ever feel that you are the only one able to do something, and if you think you are the only person dealing with some routine task, ask for help. Get others interested, offer to train them up if it is complex, give them advice, and go away secure in the knowledge that whatever it is, it is now in safe hands. It is all part and parcel of working together on such a massive project as this. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 7:48 AM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: snip I have had to walk away from recent changes repeatedly. Picking up on the walking away bit. There are, of course, those who find themselves *unable* to walk away. Either because they are deeply involved, or because they find themselves being drawn back time and time again. Or because they enjoy the drama. I've fallen into that trap a few times myself. I'm sure it is in some essay somewhere, but the ability to be able to walk away is an important one (though not allowing yourself to be *bullied* away of course). The other aspect is that different users exhibit different levels of maturity depending on their current state. Being able to ease past that without responding in kind or allowing your frustration to show, is one strategy (though calling people out for any immaturity is also important, you need to pick the right place and moment). Remonstrating with someone in the middle of a discussion about something else ends up being a distraction. I find it best to try and refocus people on the substance of what is being discussed, and then to take up the other issues later. Carcharoth I don't think this can be regarded as any kind of permanent solution. Walking away would have done nothing in my case because I was the one being hounded. - causa sui ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
The expectations upon admins are the pivot point for that. See [[ User:FT2/RfA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/RfA]]. Any ideas how we can get somewhere like that? FT2 On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.comwrote: So to speak more generally, what I'm trying to draw your attention to is the idea that there are much more profound cultural problems on Wikipedia than that we need to make it more fun or People who are getting angry need to take a break and cool off. David Goodman did a rough-and-dirty diagnosis of the problems with what is going on at WP:AN/I, which now that I take a look at it is just as bad as ever. In general, I found the widespread assumptions of bad faith combined with mob justice appalling to say the least and it thoroughly erased whatever belief I had that I could depend on community support. I don't see why any other administrator discussed in this thread, or any of the others who find themselves subjected to ad-hoc firing squads on AN/I, should feel any differently. - causa sui ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
On 14 July 2010 02:07, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: The expectations upon admins are the pivot point for that. See [[ User:FT2/RfA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/RfA]]. Any ideas how we can get somewhere like that? FT2 Well to start with you could chuck your requirements out of the window. Your requirements like most at RFA are selecting for 3 things 1)some degree of editing skill 2)Not appearing to cause trouble 3)A decent set of wikipolitics skill It's two and three that cause the problem. Anyone whith a decent set of wikipolitics skills is going to archive 2 by playing safe going along with the flow and not challenging things. Almost anyone actually passing RFA is going to have got into the habit of going along with the ah bad faith combined with mob justice. The people who might actually try to challenge such things are unlikely to pass RFA because either they lack the wikipolitics skills needed in order to pass (you would tend to fail them under the nor into politicking clause among others) or because they are not prepared to use them in a way that would let them pass. Upshot is that we have for some years now been promoting a bunch of admins who will go with the flow rather than challenge low level bad behavior by admins and long standing users. The tiny number of rebels and iconoclasts left are from years ago and have little to day to day stuff. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
Frankly, I see that as unwarranted pessimism. The sets of people who want to change things and people who want to cause trouble are not identical, though there is a substantial intersection. Admins who have the lack of judgement to try to force their desired change into policy by using their arbitrary power of their ability to bully people, are at least as much a problem as the over-conformist. Indeed, I think it my role as an admin to be a conformist, and do only what is generally supported. When I want to work to get something different, that has to be done without the presumed immunities and special power of an administrator. To a certain extent the role does require tolerated the other admins, but that is just analogous to the requirement that an editor tolerate other editors. In both cases, the difficulty is that we have no usable sanctions until things become outrageous. Mild disapproval over the distance of the internet is very easy for someone to ignore entirely, until they have gotten themselves into an impossible position. My personal view remains that we should not tolerate insult even from the best and most established editors or administrators. A more civilized environment in these respects will help us get many addition new good editors and administrators to replace the ones who can not work in an acceptable fashion. Joining in a collective work is not the place for displace of individualistic irascibility, even when accompanied by genius--such people are very important and very valuable, but they should be working creatively-- and independently. On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 9:54 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 July 2010 02:07, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: The expectations upon admins are the pivot point for that. See [[ User:FT2/RfA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/RfA]]. Any ideas how we can get somewhere like that? FT2 Well to start with you could chuck your requirements out of the window. Your requirements like most at RFA are selecting for 3 things 1)some degree of editing skill 2)Not appearing to cause trouble 3)A decent set of wikipolitics skill It's two and three that cause the problem. Anyone whith a decent set of wikipolitics skills is going to archive 2 by playing safe going along with the flow and not challenging things. Almost anyone actually passing RFA is going to have got into the habit of going along with the ah bad faith combined with mob justice. The people who might actually try to challenge such things are unlikely to pass RFA because either they lack the wikipolitics skills needed in order to pass (you would tend to fail them under the nor into politicking clause among others) or because they are not prepared to use them in a way that would let them pass. Upshot is that we have for some years now been promoting a bunch of admins who will go with the flow rather than challenge low level bad behavior by admins and long standing users. The tiny number of rebels and iconoclasts left are from years ago and have little to day to day stuff. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
On 14 July 2010 02:07, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: The expectations upon admins are the pivot point for that. See [[ User:FT2/RfA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/RfA]]. Any ideas how we can get somewhere like that? FT2 Well to start with you could chuck your requirements out of the window. Your requirements like most at RFA are selecting for 3 things 1)some degree of editing skill 2)Not appearing to cause trouble 3)A decent set of wikipolitics skill It's two and three that cause the problem. Anyone whith a decent set of wikipolitics skills is going to archive 2 by playing safe going along with the flow and not challenging things. Almost anyone actually passing RFA is going to have got into the habit of going along with the ah bad faith combined with mob justice. The people who might actually try to challenge such things are unlikely to pass RFA because either they lack the wikipolitics skills needed in order to pass (you would tend to fail them under the nor into politicking clause among others) or because they are not prepared to use them in a way that would let them pass. Upshot is that we have for some years now been promoting a bunch of admins who will go with the flow rather than challenge low level bad behavior by admins and long standing users. The tiny number of rebels and iconoclasts left are from years ago and have little to day to day stuff. -- geni Yes, that does seem to be the main requirement, a successful candidate must never have taken a stand. This for a job that requires taking stands. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: On 14 July 2010 02:07, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: The expectations upon admins are the pivot point for that. See [[ User:FT2/RfA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/RfA]]. Any ideas how we can get somewhere like that? FT2 Well to start with you could chuck your requirements out of the window. Your requirements like most at RFA are selecting for 3 things 1)some degree of editing skill 2)Not appearing to cause trouble 3)A decent set of wikipolitics skill It's two and three that cause the problem. Anyone whith a decent set of wikipolitics skills is going to archive 2 by playing safe going along with the flow and not challenging things. Almost anyone actually passing RFA is going to have got into the habit of going along with the ah bad faith combined with mob justice. The people who might actually try to challenge such things are unlikely to pass RFA because either they lack the wikipolitics skills needed in order to pass (you would tend to fail them under the nor into politicking clause among others) or because they are not prepared to use them in a way that would let them pass. Upshot is that we have for some years now been promoting a bunch of admins who will go with the flow rather than challenge low level bad behavior by admins and long standing users. The tiny number of rebels and iconoclasts left are from years ago and have little to day to day stuff. -- geni Yes, that does seem to be the main requirement, a successful candidate must never have taken a stand. This for a job that requires taking stands. Fred I failed my first try, and could have failed my second if I hadn't made a serious effort to ameliorate a negative perception from taking a stand earlier. The edge of the knife that we must balance on is both being willing to take stands, and be open to feedback from the community and from other admins if we take the wrong stand. Balancing there all the time is very hard. Being willing to admit you're wrong on something and still come back the next day willing and ready to make a hard call on its merits is not easy. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
on 7/11/10 3:29 PM, George Herbert at george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: Admin Rodhullandemu just retired after being blocked for blocking Malleus Fautorum to win a dispute For reference: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_notic eboard#Block_review On and off wiki I have mentioned before that we are really bad, as a project, at identifying people who have worked themselves into an angry corner and feel that they must blow up and leave, and then talking them down and defusing the situation. This is in my experience the typical (or at least, a major and common) exit mode of longtime highly involved contributors. Our existing policy and precedent really don't address this problem. We have had individual admins and experienced editors spot the pattern start and work to calm situations down on an individual basis, with mixed results. But typically the pattern is not really recognized until it's too late. Posed for consideration - This is a problem worth putting more time and effort into, and which the project will benefit significantly from getting right over the long term. The question is - what exactly do we do about it? Many, if not most, companies, major non-profit organizations and virtually all government agencies have a Human Resources department. Or, as I have established for many of them, a Person Team Relations section. This consists of a group of persons trained in the art science of human behavior; most especially in inter-personal inter-group relations. They are persons not involved in, but are knowledgeable of, the day-to-day activities demands of the organization. Their sole purpose is to prevent valuable employees who are experiencing acute burnout, or feel they have reached impasse in a particular situation, from leaving the organization. Would this be a possibility for the Wikipedia Project? Marc Riddell, Ph.D. Clinical Psychology/Psychotherapy ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: Many, if not most, companies, major non-profit organizations and virtually all government agencies have a Human Resources department... Would this be a possibility for the Wikipedia Project? ___ tl;dr version of the below ~ possibly, but perhaps a shower of wikilove is adequate. ___ No doubt *some* form of group could be set up to address such issues, the big question is whether it would be staffed. At Wikimania a chap from .de gave a talk on mentoring schemes. They appear to have quite a successful one. Our adopt a user programme [1] is much less so. Without care and diligence being given to the HR idea it may well lay fallow. What would probably be better is for people to just be more encouraging of each other in general, more supportive and more recognition given to editors (which was another point raised at Wikimania). In this way at least when someone is getting frustrated there's a counter-balancing atmosphere of positivity. I find that I spend hardly any time feeling part of a social atmosphere on Wikipedia. This will be in part because the community is so vast that I don't bump into the same people very often. Joining a Wikiproject would help, but I change my interests all the time and won't commit to a subject area. My editing activities often feel like floating on a vast ocean in a raft without companionship. For me, that's OK, I'm a misanthrope anyway and I get my social buzz from another site. It is easy to make enemies on Wikipedia and far less easy to make friends. It appears to me that most Wikipedia friendships arise in the real world with meet-ups and 'Manias. But I was one of the people writing proposals for the strategy wiki about adding social features [2] which, one would hope, could bond people together a bit more. It is correct to be concerned, however, that people might start spending too much time socialising and not enough time doing work :O) I read something recently about Facebook using our articles as some kind of seeding facility for their groups structure. I can't find any stories about this now (anyone?) [3]. Perhaps if we were to embrace that, and actively collaborate with Facebook, people who have accounts on each could socialise on the Facebook/Wikipedia mash-up leaving WP much as it is; ie work-focused. I'm digressing a little; to return to cases where long-term, valued users reach the end of their tether perhaps something quite simple like a page for people to log that they have left the project and asking them to give their reason would give us an opportunity to get in touch with them and try to persuade them to return (perhaps after a wikibreak). There was a survey done recently though (also covered at Wikimania), sent to users who had left the project and it turned out most of them described themselves as not having left, despite not having edited for 3 months. The idea of a survey of former admins, to establish reasons for leaving the project, appears to have started up in May and looks like it's still in the planning stage [4]. Perhaps we can return to these issues when the results are in? In this specific case I suggest anyone that knows the user to go and show some Wikilove. _ [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ADOPT [2] http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_features [3] ??? [4] http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Community_Health/Former_administrators_survey _ en.User:Bodnotbod ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 12:29 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote: Admin Rodhullandemu just retired after being blocked for blocking Malleus Fautorum to win a dispute For reference: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_review On and off wiki I have mentioned before that we are really bad, as a project, at identifying people who have worked themselves into an angry corner and feel that they must blow up and leave, and then talking them down and defusing the situation. This is in my experience the typical (or at least, a major and common) exit mode of longtime highly involved contributors. Our existing policy and precedent really don't address this problem. We have had individual admins and experienced editors spot the pattern start and work to calm situations down on an individual basis, with mixed results. But typically the pattern is not really recognized until it's too late. Posed for consideration - This is a problem worth putting more time and effort into, and which the project will benefit significantly from getting right over the long term. The question is - what exactly do we do about it? -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com You most definitely do have this exact problem and I am one of many test cases. I find myself replying to these topics due to my still-passionate belief in the value of the project being balanced out by my equally convictional belief that Wikipedia culture is so thoroughly broken on this issue that it would be truly foolish for me to try to continue to help. As you might have already gathered from the tone of the previous paragraph, as well as another email I recently wrote to this mailing list about it, I'm still sufficiently sore about this that I might descend into ranting if I get on to the topic -- I have a lot of lingering resentment about this still, with all the attendant (and irrational) expectations of apology and reconciliation. Suffice to say that the process of AN/I is extremely ill-suited to handling allegations of administrator misconduct for reasons you and David Goodman insightfully and accurately diagnose. I want to make clear to some, including Charles Matthews (though he is not the only person to suggest this 'wikibreak' idea to me and others in similar situations) that I am most definitely not on a Wikibreak. This isn't an issue of me getting angry and needing to 'cool down' -- it's an issue of me coming into contact with first-hand knowledge that administrators doing difficult work on the worst parts of Wikipedia will absolutely not find themselves supported by the community for doing so -- to the contrary, they will often find themselves cut down. Only a fool would continue to do difficult administrative work in this environment, regardless of his or her mood at the time. Although I would very much like to see the situation improved, I have no intention whatsoever in editing in any administrative capacity until I see evidence of improvement. So, as I see it, the only road forward that is consistent with both my faith in Wikipedia as a concept and my unwillingness to edit in an administrative capacity is to make whatever small contributions I can to people like you who want to know what is going wrong, what could be handled differently or better, and what the experience is like for people in my situation. - causa sui ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
I'm pretty sure that the main solution to this is to make the wiki experience better, not trying to specifically treat people that are getting frustrated's experience better. -- -Ian Woollard ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
It is likely the reason he got into trouble was because he wasn't confident that others would back him up, so he did it himself. Which is, of course, the third rail. What is missing is the knowledge that sometimes, even if you are right, others will not, for one reason or another, not back you up and you will fail. And can't do anything about it. Fred Admin Rodhullandemu just retired after being blocked for blocking Malleus Fautorum to win a dispute For reference: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_review On and off wiki I have mentioned before that we are really bad, as a project, at identifying people who have worked themselves into an angry corner and feel that they must blow up and leave, and then talking them down and defusing the situation. This is in my experience the typical (or at least, a major and common) exit mode of longtime highly involved contributors. Our existing policy and precedent really don't address this problem. We have had individual admins and experienced editors spot the pattern start and work to calm situations down on an individual basis, with mixed results. But typically the pattern is not really recognized until it's too late. Posed for consideration - This is a problem worth putting more time and effort into, and which the project will benefit significantly from getting right over the long term. The question is - what exactly do we do about it? -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
Yes, AN / ANI is part of the problem. The formal procedures of arb com and the consideration by a small group of highly selected very experienced people who devote almost their full wiki-time to it, result after weeks or months of discussion at the most in desysop, a one year block, and a topic ban. The informal never-codified procedures at AN ANI with judgement rendered by whomever care to do so after a moment;'s thought among the 700 more or less active admins, can result after a few hours in permanent bans. When arb com asks for arb enforcement in an ongoing issue, they limit it typically to blocks of one week, slowly progressing upwards. At ANI, there's no limit. Because of this sort of problem, we long ago rejected a community sanctions noticeboard after a brief test for the perceived injustice of its over hasty procedure. But it seems to have crept in again. We have a standard question for admin candidates, what is the difference between a ban and a block, for which the only approved answer is, that a ban is a block that no admin is willing to reverse. If that were followed, it would limit the bans to the undoubted trolls. But it is not: a ban at present is whenver a group at ANI can get temporary consensus to have one. This is rough justice running amock. I have previous expressed some discontent with a good deal of arb com's work, but most of it has been when they shortcut their own procedure--they too have been carried away by the rush to dispose of problems quickly rather than fairly. Even at their worst, though, they do better than the recent verdicts by the community at ANI. We seem to have adopted the Red Queen's Rule: whoever executes someone first settles the case. On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: It is likely the reason he got into trouble was because he wasn't confident that others would back him up, so he did it himself. Which is, of course, the third rail. What is missing is the knowledge that sometimes, even if you are right, others will not, for one reason or another, not back you up and you will fail. And can't do anything about it. Fred Admin Rodhullandemu just retired after being blocked for blocking Malleus Fautorum to win a dispute For reference: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_review On and off wiki I have mentioned before that we are really bad, as a project, at identifying people who have worked themselves into an angry corner and feel that they must blow up and leave, and then talking them down and defusing the situation. This is in my experience the typical (or at least, a major and common) exit mode of longtime highly involved contributors. Our existing policy and precedent really don't address this problem. We have had individual admins and experienced editors spot the pattern start and work to calm situations down on an individual basis, with mixed results. But typically the pattern is not really recognized until it's too late. Posed for consideration - This is a problem worth putting more time and effort into, and which the project will benefit significantly from getting right over the long term. The question is - what exactly do we do about it? -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin / experienced user flameout - how do we talk people down off the ledge?
This particular situation is now the subject of a pending request for arbitration, so I'll comment on that on-wiki (probably in the morning), but my comments there may have some relevance to the broader issue being raised here. Newyorkbrad On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 8:50 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, AN / ANI is part of the problem. The formal procedures of arb com and the consideration by a small group of highly selected very experienced people who devote almost their full wiki-time to it, result after weeks or months of discussion at the most in desysop, a one year block, and a topic ban. The informal never-codified procedures at AN ANI with judgement rendered by whomever care to do so after a moment;'s thought among the 700 more or less active admins, can result after a few hours in permanent bans. When arb com asks for arb enforcement in an ongoing issue, they limit it typically to blocks of one week, slowly progressing upwards. At ANI, there's no limit. Because of this sort of problem, we long ago rejected a community sanctions noticeboard after a brief test for the perceived injustice of its over hasty procedure. But it seems to have crept in again. We have a standard question for admin candidates, what is the difference between a ban and a block, for which the only approved answer is, that a ban is a block that no admin is willing to reverse. If that were followed, it would limit the bans to the undoubted trolls. But it is not: a ban at present is whenver a group at ANI can get temporary consensus to have one. This is rough justice running amock. I have previous expressed some discontent with a good deal of arb com's work, but most of it has been when they shortcut their own procedure--they too have been carried away by the rush to dispose of problems quickly rather than fairly. Even at their worst, though, they do better than the recent verdicts by the community at ANI. We seem to have adopted the Red Queen's Rule: whoever executes someone first settles the case. On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: It is likely the reason he got into trouble was because he wasn't confident that others would back him up, so he did it himself. Which is, of course, the third rail. What is missing is the knowledge that sometimes, even if you are right, others will not, for one reason or another, not back you up and you will fail. And can't do anything about it. Fred Admin Rodhullandemu just retired after being blocked for blocking Malleus Fautorum to win a dispute For reference: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_review On and off wiki I have mentioned before that we are really bad, as a project, at identifying people who have worked themselves into an angry corner and feel that they must blow up and leave, and then talking them down and defusing the situation. This is in my experience the typical (or at least, a major and common) exit mode of longtime highly involved contributors. Our existing policy and precedent really don't address this problem. We have had individual admins and experienced editors spot the pattern start and work to calm situations down on an individual basis, with mixed results. But typically the pattern is not really recognized until it's too late. Posed for consideration - This is a problem worth putting more time and effort into, and which the project will benefit significantly from getting right over the long term. The question is - what exactly do we do about it? -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
