Wikipedia:Editor review/Dennis Brown

Dennis Brown
I've been here 6 years now, over 28,000 edits and have never had a review. I became an admin back in April (my RfA) and felt it best that I subject myself to peer review from time to time. Just as I try to be direct and honest (but polite), I would ask the same from others here, to express any concerns or perceived shortcomings in a polite but direct manner. After careful reading, I've discovered that I am a WikiElf of sorts, spending most of my time working with people rather than articles, which is why a review by my peers is important. It has taken a couple of months to get used to being an admin, but I think I have settled in enough to warrant review by those who have entrusted me with the tools. The purpose of this review is actual feedback and to find new ways to improve as an administrator AND an editor. I'm not seeking any new bits at this time. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * As an admin, most of my time is spent dealing with editor disputes, trying to solve problems. I also spend a fair amount of time clerking at WP:SPI, and I'm a common face at WP:ANI.  I founded WikiProject Editor Retention, and while the other members tend to run the place, I do spend a great deal of time focusing on issues that affect Editor Retention in general, which is why I have chosen to work in the most contentious areas.  I also try to do a little at WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, WP:DRN and other venues to insure I have a general understanding of how the system works and to understand the perspective of all editors.  As for editing, I do focus more on NC related topics but also use the Random article feature to simply comb through and improve articles.  I do a fair amount of editor reviews for admin, have nominated two candidates (both successful), and I usually have at least one editor that I am mentoring at any given time.  I don't get to edit nearly as much as I used to, as most of my time is spent helping others, fix problems and settling disputes.  I think my skill set is such that the best use of my time is helping others who are content creators do what they love and do best, create content.  What I'm most pleased about, I don't know really.  I am aware that I am a flawed individual, so when I make a mistake, I try to fix the problem or apologize in as public a manner as the mistake was made.  While I don't take being an admin all that serious, I do try to take the responsibility seriously and attempt to maintain a professional attitude and a neutral perspective when dealing with my fellow editors.  I try to be tolerant, patient and open minded in all things, and use the block tool only as the last resort, instead relying on discussion and education of editors rather than sanctions when it is possible.
 * 1) Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
 * I haven't been in an actual content dispute myself in a very long time, and as to how I would deal with one, likely the same way I tell others: Use the process. It is flawed, it is slow, it doesn't always get the desired result, but it is the best system we have and only by everyone agreeing to the same set of rules can we actually move forward as a project.  I tend to have a calm demeanor in a heated situation and a willingness to listen and compromise, so personal disputes aren't particularly worrisome.
 * 1) How have your fellow Administrators responded to some of the new attitudes and new ways of doing that you have brought to their workplace? Do you (and they) see opportunity for change or have you experienced "back-room" roadblocks?
 * My fellow admin have responded in a variety of way, from disagreement to adoption of new ideas. I haven't felt any hostility from any admin, even when they have strongly disagreed. As for "backroom" roadblocks, I genuinely haven't seen or felt anything that approaches that.  I have had private discussions with many admins over the last several months and we don't always agree, but I actually feel like there has been mutual respect and both sides have been willing to compromise equally.  I admit doing things a bit different at times, but not just for the sake of being different.  I'm more prone to depend on common sense than policy, which is in the eye of the beholder I suppose.  But generally speaking, I have no complaints as to the willingness of my fellow admins to consider my point of view, even when they are skeptical.  At the same time, I've learned many of the "old" ways also have merit, and I've tried to listen and learn from them as well.  Overall, I feel I've been given the same respect I've given to them.  As for future change, success paves its own road, and if they see a better way, they will adopt it, so the burden would be on me to demonstrate a new method is better, while being mindful that "new" doesn't always mean "better".
 * 1) From your recent experiences at ANI, SPI etc, if you could get the consensus for a change of one policy or guideline, what would the change be, and why? Or alternative, if you wouldn't change anything, why not?
 * The biggest change that I actually work on is our culture, rather than our policies, which is a lot harder to change but is often more effective. I guess if I could change any policy, it would be to disallow blind blocking based on "bright line" rules.  Using Full Protection more and blocking less in 3RR cases is a the best example, and it really bothers me to see some well established editor get blocked at 4RR, with no warning, no prior problems, in an obvious situation where they just got carried away.   I hate that expression "bright line", by the way.  I find it harmful since it sounds like a license to block without considering the human element.  We all can get caught up in the moment, overreact, or just have a bad day.  We are all human.  Admins should always try to first warn with personal but blunt note: Stop reverting or you force my hand here, you are already at 6RR, lets talk about it on the article talk page, for example.  Not a template, just a polite but blunt message to get their attention.  Then go to the talk page, maybe full protect if needed, and have the good faith to at least TRY dialog instead of a hit and run block based on them passing an imaginary line in the sand.  Of course, if they revert again, then the block will have been well earned.  So it takes changing the policy and the culture of the admin corp to get there. 
 * 1) From your recent experiences at ANI, SPI etc, if you could get the consensus for a change of one policy or guideline, what would the change be, and why? Or alternative, if you wouldn't change anything, why not?
 * The biggest change that I actually work on is our culture, rather than our policies, which is a lot harder to change but is often more effective. I guess if I could change any policy, it would be to disallow blind blocking based on "bright line" rules.  Using Full Protection more and blocking less in 3RR cases is a the best example, and it really bothers me to see some well established editor get blocked at 4RR, with no warning, no prior problems, in an obvious situation where they just got carried away.   I hate that expression "bright line", by the way.  I find it harmful since it sounds like a license to block without considering the human element.  We all can get caught up in the moment, overreact, or just have a bad day.  We are all human.  Admins should always try to first warn with personal but blunt note: Stop reverting or you force my hand here, you are already at 6RR, lets talk about it on the article talk page, for example.  Not a template, just a polite but blunt message to get their attention.  Then go to the talk page, maybe full protect if needed, and have the good faith to at least TRY dialog instead of a hit and run block based on them passing an imaginary line in the sand.  Of course, if they revert again, then the block will have been well earned.  So it takes changing the policy and the culture of the admin corp to get there. 
 * The biggest change that I actually work on is our culture, rather than our policies, which is a lot harder to change but is often more effective. I guess if I could change any policy, it would be to disallow blind blocking based on "bright line" rules.  Using Full Protection more and blocking less in 3RR cases is a the best example, and it really bothers me to see some well established editor get blocked at 4RR, with no warning, no prior problems, in an obvious situation where they just got carried away.   I hate that expression "bright line", by the way.  I find it harmful since it sounds like a license to block without considering the human element.  We all can get caught up in the moment, overreact, or just have a bad day.  We are all human.  Admins should always try to first warn with personal but blunt note: Stop reverting or you force my hand here, you are already at 6RR, lets talk about it on the article talk page, for example.  Not a template, just a polite but blunt message to get their attention.  Then go to the talk page, maybe full protect if needed, and have the good faith to at least TRY dialog instead of a hit and run block based on them passing an imaginary line in the sand.  Of course, if they revert again, then the block will have been well earned.  So it takes changing the policy and the culture of the admin corp to get there. 

 Reviews 


 * Review by Boing! ysaid Zebedee / on Tour (talk)
 * That'll do ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee / on Tour (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Review by Go Phightins!
 * Ever since I saw you at WP:ANI a month or so ago, I have always found your opinions to be valid, thought-out, and reasonable. You inject well-needed common sense into debates. I personally think you're an excellent admin. My suggestion would be that sometimes (and this is my personal opinion...I've been called nuts by many people, so feel free to take this with a grain of salt), you don't take a "hard enough line", so to speak in that you sometimes seem to be more eager to finish a discussion/debate whether or not a good solution has come to be. I don't have any specific diffs or debates to cite, but that's just the general sense I get when I come across you on ANI. Maybe I only have seen a few isolated incidents, but that's my only piece of advice...Overall, keep up the terrific work. Go Phightins! (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and one more thing! I've found you to be very helpful and knowledgeable of Wiki-Policies (if that's a word)--Go Phightins! (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've heard the two points you've raised before about not being "hard" enough, and closing discussions quickly.  I'm torn, as often discussions degrade into general conversation and that is something it is important to avoid at ANI.  What might not be obvious is that often after I close an ANI, I actually go to the talk page of the affected user(s) and hash things out there.  ANI can be a slugfest and some problems are better dealt with on a user talk page, so it doesn't end up discouraging them or turning into dramah, and instead is an educational experience.  I only do this when I'm comfortable that they will be receptive.  I say this not to take away from your criticisms, but to add some context you might not be aware of.  Some still disagree with my methods, and I of course respect that.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree that ANI is not the place for general discussion and fully respect closing debates when it turns in to such. I guess I had seen one instance where you did hash it out at a user's talk page, but I guess I never made the connection that that wasn't necessarily an isolated incident. Thanks for the clarification, and again keep up the good work!
 * Thank you! I think this means I need to be more clear when I close discussions, as to not create confusion about my intent, which I will try to remember.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Review by INeverCry
 * I think you handled my good faith mistakes in an unnecessarily heavy-handed and abrupt manner. Whether it was your intention or not, you've made me feel unwelcome on Wikipedia. I  Never  Cry  02:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was blunt. You did put 4 incorrect vandalism templates on user page in less than 15 minutes, and even you now agree they were inappropriate.  They may have contributed towards a block as well.  The editor isn't perfect, but they were still treated rather bluntly by you as well.  The message I left you  was to the point, but not threatening in any way, and I will leave to the opinion of anyone passing by.  Might I have been less blunt?  I can always word things different, we all can, so sure.  But I don't think I was unnecessarily heavy-handed as my only response was that brief comment.  As to making you feel unwelcome, I've explained on my talk page that this is the last thing I would want to do.  Keep in mind, I also don't want other editors feeling unwelcome by being falsely (and heavily) accused of vandalism, and that is what begun this chain of events, necessitating some kind of response by me.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 02:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The user that Cry tagged is a disruptive editor and a suspected sock. And the fact remains that you treated a seasoned, trusted editor as if she was an IP. Did you check her editing history before your "blunt" comments? Now she has left the project. A tragic loss of talent for Wikipedia! ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

DB is not a rubber stamp administrator. His involvement and input into whatever comes within his circle is truly remarkable. I don't know where he finds the time. He seems able to multi-task and give each task his full attention. Doesn't sound possible, I know, but the results are there. His concern for new editors and his capacity to mentor them is a teaching experience. Some new editors are a bit fragile and, in spite of what some might say, DB treats them with repect and understanding. He takes the time to research the situation (which, as we all have experienced, doesn't always happen). I recently welcomed a new editor who immediately fell into the swamp of WP problems and situations. DB showed up and assisted the editor with a genuine concern for his longevity and personal growth. Not quite a success story yet but DB had much to do with changing the direction that the editor was headed. His conversational way of communicating, his capacity to understand the limited viewpoint the new editors sometimes take (they see the limited article; DB points out the encyclopedia and expands their range), his willingness to jump into things with both feet; all these and more speak to Admin Brown's capacity. I've dealt with more than a few admins over time and watched others from the sidelines. DB has brought a new look and way of being to the Wide World of Wikipedia Administrators. The Community is lucky he said yes. ```Buster Seven   Talk  15:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Review by Buster7

I think Dennis does enormous amount of work, and he is one of the most capable administrators. For example, in this comment Dennis tells: ''I hate to see good people go. Most people know that I think ANI is an ugly place, which is why I work it very hard every day, to try to keep the drama level down, and not point fingers.'' Yes, that is what he does, although I would rather not provide any examples. Keep the drama level down and allow good contributors to contribute. I know, this is very hard, and not only for administrators, but that is exactly what everyone suppose to do. My very best wishes (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC) One thing about this editor/Administrator is clear, he leads by example. He has a great deal of patience when dealing with those that misunderstand situations, policy and Wikipedia procedure. There are no editors that are ever finished learning. Just like articles, we are never fully complete. While many admin feel a need to watch editors in order to restrain them, this admin's goal is to assist individuals to help improve both their contributions as well as their experiance on Wikipedia. This seems rare to me. My opinion of Dennis is that he has helped many editors in danger of, not just leaving Wikipedia, but helping them (in a huge way) focus on how to work in a manner that improves the encyclopedia as well as themselves as editors.......continually, on their own.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Review by My very best wishes
 * Review by Amadscientist

I'm not sure if this counts as a review, a this is your wikipedia life reconstructed history lesson, or a repetition of some things you already know, but here goes: Things are bullet pointed so you/others can comment
 * Review by IRWolfie-


 * You are generally acknowledged to be doing good work as an Admin, SPI etc. Known for your fairness etc etc, so I thought I'd focus on other aspects for a bit. You appear to be fairly prominent admin at the moment, or at least I keep seeing you everywhere :)
 * Your recent AfD noms are very thorough and solid. You seem to have a heck of a lot of experience at AfD, I've seen the amount of work you've done there when looking through the wikispace logs! You also maintain good humour at AfDs where there was sockpuppetry and canvassing. Your arguments in AfD are generally good, so I looked at where your vote didn't match the result, I'll note ones here that I had some thoughts on:
 * Your nom here Articles for deletion/Aspen Capital was fairly fine as the sources were of low quality, although that the sources are all local seems to have been missed as a possible argument.
 * In this AfD: Articles_for_deletion/White_Lightning_(band) and the counter arguments weren't great, but you didn't seem to respond beyond making the Nom.
 * While there are exceptions, I do tend to nominate an article and respond sparingly, usually only to clarify and rarely to counter any argument unless it is blatantly flawed or misleading. I wrote the essay WP:BLUDGEON, and I cut my teeth in AFD back in 07 and 08, when AFD was a huge drama fest, so I naturally avoid over-commenting as both a sign of respect to allow others to express themselves un-badgered, and from habit developed in the dark years at ANI. Perhaps I do too much, but it isn't from a lack of concern.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 02:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Pols_in_Ahmedabad was like the previous Nom, the counter arguments weren't great but you didn't respond. Also your nom was far too short; you need to go into the details of what notability requirements are not met, and what you did for searching for sources, and any other issues.
 * Your argument here about POV etc Articles for deletion/War on Women didn't seem to consider that the topic could be stubified if it had systematic POV issues, and that the current state of an article isn't generally grounds for deletion (except if it's pure and utter crap, but it doesn't look like it from ); the issues looked solvable considering the avalanche of sources directly on topic presented in the AfD by Binksternet.
 * I've never edited an article similar to you, so I never encountered you much before you became an admin (I can't recall much wikispace interaction), despite your 7.5K edits to article space. Your edit breakdown I find interesting, it suggests to me that you mostly work on non-controversial edits and additions to articles, i.e wikignome, since your talk page contributions are so low. I checked and this appears to be the case, as well as tagging issues you have spotted with articles, many of your recent contributions in article space are admin related. It may be interesting to bring your calming influence to talk page discussions which can get quite heated. Most of your talk page activity appears to be as a result of admin activity.
 * I used to be more gnomish before the bit, and still am when it comes to article content. Honestly, it is because I do not consider myself a great author, so I focus on areas where I can make a difference: sourcing, cleanup, tagging, etc.  Before having the admin bit, my article contribs were over 40 percent of my total. Arguably, my time is better spent helping others who are good writers, by peacefully resolving disputes and personality conflicts, so they can get back to creating content.  That is my primary focus on enwp, literally a janitor.Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 02:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The major bulk of your work is on the wikipedia namespace, SPI clerk work, ANI, RFA etc. Your early meta work was mostly AfD related (A blast from the past, I would disagree with your general reasoning here (not the specifics of the case), I think a nom improving an article can be a good thing if it removes the fluff; unless the editor removes the material which actually shows notability). You seem to have made a transition from AfD to ANI, sometime around April/March, with some RFPP work, and then SPI around June or so. I've noticed you particularly at ANI. Keep up the good work.
 * CSD work is Good, no issues.
 * The bulk of your work is on the wikipedia namespace, SPI clerk work, ANI, RFA etc. Your early meta work was mostly AfD related (A blast from the past, I would disagree with your reasoning here, I think a nom improving an article can be a good thing if it removes the fluff; unless the editor removes the material which actually shows notability). You seem to have made a transition from AfD to ANI, sometime around April/March, with some RFPP work, and then SPI around June or so. I've noticed you particularly at ANI. Keep up the good work.
 * On your fairness and whether you are harsh or not harsh enough; I wouldn't try and change anything too drastic with what you are currently doing; you have a good balance which suits your style, though I don't necessarily always agree with your leniency on some things.
 * On your user talk page, you have 208 watchers, you engage with many editors there and on other userpages, as well as SPI work, admin work, and good editor retention work . IRWolfie- (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Very thorough and direct, and I appreciate it. Several things for me to ponder on.  I've been tracking the talk page watchers as well, the volume of which I find a bit baffling. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Added small clarification of a minor point. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Would have to say that Dennis is a very good and very nice editor and admin. I have worked with him on some articles and he has always been there to help when I have had questions about some things. He has a good knowledge of many different WP noticeboards and guidelines. Dennis appears to really take his time on issues and isn't a "drive-by" admin who just flies through discussions and closes or "fixes" tons of things at a time. I know he has stated before that he would like to work on articles more, but would have to say that, whether it is editing or administrating, he has performed well. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Reviewed by JoannaSerah

You are one of our most patient administrators, and you are known especially for your great work as both a Patrolling Admin, as well as an SPI Clerk. Additionally, you are known for your calm and polite demeanor, which can be seen evidently through your work at AN/I. Your great work at WP: RETENTION does not go unnoticed and I'm confident that many users (including myself) would not be here without you. Keep up the great work! Electric Catfish (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Review by Electric Catfish

You are a valuable and patient administrator, and you are very well known for your calm demeanor. You appear to have taken your time to think things over. Whenever you are editing or administrating, you is doing very well. Keep up the jolly good work! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Review by Sjones23

Worked with Dennis on a couple occasions and he is, as everyone says above, a very good editor, great admin, sticks with threads until they are finished (not a "drive-by" kind of admin) and is willing to help with even the silliest of questions (I have had a couple). -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 02:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Review by Neutralhomer

I am not sure why Dennis decided to put himself up to review, but in any case I have very good impressions of his activity on what is called "drama boards" (actually directed at reducing the amount of drama at those boards), and I did not notice any downsides of his Wikipedia activities.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Review by Ymblanter
 * Since others have asked, I put myself up because I do edit articles as well as act as admin, and I'm certainly flawed as both an editor and admin, and always looking to improve in both aspects of my Wiki-career. And secondly, I think all admins should put themselves up every year or two and let others poke them with sticks a bit.  Keeps us humble.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 18:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Wisdom over. --Dweller (talk) 09:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Review by Dweller
 * One of your strongest attributes is the ability to perceive and value the individual editor as an individual, not just another member of the collective. It seems that this can lead to a weakness when defending the individual against the collective - you might forget that the collective doesn't really exist; it is merely a whole load of other individuals you genuinely care about.
 * Extended metaphor time: your passion is a two-bladed sword - remember to use the right side. The wrong side of the sword is wrong, even if being used in the right cause.
 * Hillel the Younger said, "In a place where there are no men, strive to be a man".Your ability to reflect and apologise is sadly rare round here - which makes it all the more commendable. You are definitely a man.
 * No, you are definitely one of the good guys.
 * Thank you for taking the time to thoughtfully and tactfully express your observations. Perhaps it is a type of paternal instinct, but it is one I have yet to master.  Like all of us, I'm a work in progress and the flaws aren't always obvious at first sight, but I do try to be as public in my correction as I was in the mistake, which helps in preventing making the same mistake again.  Thanks again for your insightful remarks, which alone made this review all the worthwhile. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Totally unnecessary request for review. If you don't know already what a grand job your doing, you never will. Just don't go soft on the incorrigible vandalism, trolling, incivility, and CIR, but don't be deterred from dedicating your excellent diplomatic skills on those who truly deserve it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Review by Kudpung

What Kudpung said so well.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC) What Bbb said. Also, I appreciate the work at SPI. Now get back to article writing. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Review by Bbb23
 * Review by me.
 * I'm trying! Something always comes up with so many irons in the fire.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 21:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Although I've only been actively editing for about two years, you're one of the best editors (and admins) I've seen around here. I love WP, but there's an awful lot of drama and I can always count on you to restore (or bring) reason and sanity to a dispute or an issue. Keep on keeping on.  Miniapolis  ( talk ) 00:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Review by Miniapolis

With respect to administrators I think we should take a page from Lenin — "Better fewer, but better." You're among the best. Keep up the excellent, thoughtful, well-considered work. Carrite (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Review by Carrite

Not been here long on Wikipedia, but this chap seems like a very nice, gentle fellow. Certainly one or two admins I've encountered could learn from him. Best wishes to you, Dennis Brown! ColaXtra (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Review by ColaXtra

Mr. Brown is a solid guy, and a solid editor, and a solid admin. He always keeps a cool head, avoids injecting himself into the conflict and instead helps control it externally and peacefully resolve it, and available whenever you have a question or need help regarding a certain issue. His use of the CheckUser tool is excellent, and will happily perform it where appropriate and necessary.
 * Review by Jethro B

In short, his editing and his position as an admin is right on! Keep up the good work. -- Jethro  B  05:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note, I request checkuser at SPI quite often, but I'm actually not a checkuser myself. Very recently, I have considered asking for the tools next go around as we have lost 4 CUs in the last month and we were already shorthanded in that area. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Calm, cool and collected. Dennis Brown is an example others would do well to emulate. One of the finest admins I have ever encountered. Binksternet (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Review by Binksternet


 * Review by User:Epipelagic
 * I think of you primarily as an exceptional mediator and facilitator, and see you as an exemplary model for the rest of us, not just administrators, but all of us.  More than anyone else, you have brought an important and sorely needed steadying influence to Wikipedia. I have two main concerns about your future. The first concern is to do with the flawed nature of the current administrative structures. No matter how hard you work to inject sanity and decency into the system, once you withdraw your energy the system will return to its old ways. The second concern is that you work very hard, and I wonder how long you can do that without burning out. The way things are at the moment, we can't afford to lose you. I think you have a key educational role on Wikipedia, educating all of us through essays and by example on how to deal with each other in more constructive ways. At the moment you have to work extra hard overcoming unnecessary dysfunction in the system. The sooner the system is overhauled, the sooner the community will get the full benefit of you being here. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I also worry about burn out, and try to be proactive in preventing it. I'm currently working at half pace in "admin" duties, and instead focusing on actual editing, including starting a few new small articles and one major article  that is still in the rough.  I've also had a couple article sent to DYK recently, and hoping to seek a GA and FA this year or early next.  This keeps me out of a rut, and helps remind me of how tough it is to just edit at a high standard.  I'm not the greatest author, so it is a learning experience for me as well, a plus.  I haven't found the right balance yet (as I am full employed, too), but actively trying as to keep from getting burned out. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 12:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)