Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Soliloquies

Fatigue tiredness frustration and all the other Wiki ills
Mastcell, editors become frustrated, tired, and fatigued all the time on Wikipedia and feel they have to leave or retire. Time off sometimes rests them, and they then feel they can continue. I think its poor form to go after any editor who either retires or takes a break however that fatigue takes them. Kicking someone who is down comes to mind. It does no one any good.(olive (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC))
 * Retreaved from Editor Mast Cell's talk page on 5/21/2013:


 * Olive, I understand that editing can be stressful, and we all occasionally reach the point where our frustrations get the better of us. But we should encourage people to deal with their frustration in healthy, constructive ways. Do you remember playing ball when you were young? And there was that kid who, every time a call didn't go his way, would pitch a fit, stomp his feet, and make a big show of storming off and promising he'd never come back? And then he'd be back the next day, as if nothing happened? Did you like playing with that kid? That kind of attention-seeking immaturity is really disruptive to a collaborative project like this one. Anyone can have a bad day, but when this sort of behavior becomes a habit, then it's a problem. It's hard to have a serious discussion when an individual reacts by storming off in a melodramatic huff. And when that same editor, who was so outraged that he quit "for good", pops back up 6 days later, then it just feels incredibly cynical and manipulative. We have enough immature and childish behavior on Wikipedia - I'm not interested in reinforcing or enabling more of it. And frankly, it's especially disappointing to see an admin behave this way, because his serial histrionic pseudo-retirements set a bad example for others of how to handle frustration and conflict. If people are stressed and need time off, then they should take time off. I've done it myself; I was upset enough about a situation on Wikipedia that I stopped editing for a couple of months. I've been there. And I've even done the "retired" thing early in my career here, before I learned (from good role models) that there are better ways of handling things. If you're interested, there's some highly apposite material at Don't feed the divas and meatball:GoodBye. MastCell Talk 21:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You are badly colouring a situation in a simplistic manner while ignoring years of excellent admin work. Its easy to tell someone else they are behaving badly, to judge that a given response is incorrect because we might feel it is incorrect for us. Dreadstar has apologized in the past for behaviour he felt was inappropriate. That takes maturity, and frankly I see very few editors on Wikipedia with either the insight into themselves or the guts to publicly admit to mistakes and apologize. If we had more of that Wikipedia would be a place where we as editors could breath rather than suffocating in the often toxic atmosphere created by editors with no insights into their own behaviour let alone anyone else's.   What I do see is lots of back pedaling and coverups hidden under the guise of mature behaviour, but there is no truth is such manipulation. Collaboration means different kinds of people working together with the understanding that we are unique in our responses to stressful situations, that one size never fits all, and unless we walk a mile in someone's shoes I'd suggest we shouldn't be telling them how to wear them. We should always behave as if that person is us which creates real maturity. The rest seems superficial. Thanks for your comments. I appreciate the thoughts.(olive (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC))
 * You're right that it's easier to criticize others than to model good behavior oneself. (In fact, that's at the root of my criticism of Dreadstar). And I'm not suggesting I'm perfect in that regard; part of my point is that I have walked in these shoes, and been fed up with Wikipedia, and sometimes I've dealt better with it than other times. I share your concern about the toxic atmosphere on Wikipedia, but let's take the next logical step and recognize that melodramatic pseudo-retirements contribute to that toxic environment. The "retirement" adds heat rather than light to the discussion, and people who are naive trusting enough to take the retirement at face value get really worked up because someone was "driven off the project", and then it's that much harder to have a serious discussion. It also trivializes the fact that some people are driven off the project for real; retention is a real problem, but every pseudo-retirement makes it look that much less serious. MastCell Talk 23:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You insist on focusing on the fact that an editor walked out the door rather than on his years of service. That bothers me. You suggest a retirement was pseudo rather than a point of very real frustration and a desire to leave which with time off meant the editor gave it another try. Do you not see that for any of us to make this kinds of judgement call is less than humble and lacks understanding. You seem to be suggesting that Dreadstar's point of departure somehow influences retention. That's a big  stretch. And none of us walks in anyone else shoes; the mistake is in thinking one's experience is like someone else's.  It can't be, ever. Finally don't confuse my arguments with naivete. We instead, disagree in a most fundamental way. (olive (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC))


 * Let's be clear: I believe that the frustration was very real. I just think that the way in which it was handled was immature and childish. And the atmosphere of rampant immaturity and childishness on Wikipedia plays a big role in driving good editors off the project. Where's the stretch? In any case, I'm starting to repeat myself, so I'll leave it there. MastCell Talk 03:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)