Skip to main content
Community Building Beta

Return to Question

Question Protected by CommunityBot
added 715 characters in body; edited title
Source Link
FraidyCat
FraidyCat
  • 301
  • 1
  • 5

How to handle users who spend a lotuser whose heavy participation causes minority of time on a site, but needbad contributions to be a lot of babysittingdrain on moderator resources?

I have a user on a StackExchange site who. He is very well-intentioned, enthusiastic about the site, and his contributions to the site areare improving gradually after a rough start.

The problemHis participation is that he spends amainly with edits, meta posts and comments, and comments on questions to help new users. These are all things users are lotencouraged to do.

Most of time andhis participation is very active on the sitegood or neutral, andbut let's say 20% of the contributionstime they are often a little... off. He wouldn't be a problem if he participated a normal amount, but since he participates a lot, it has an outsized impact.

For example, lately has been making a huge number of edits (about 8x more than the next non-mod user down). Many of these are retags, about 20% of which need fixing because he adds an objectively incorrect tag. Many others are matters

  • Edits: Many of these are retags, about 20% of which need fixing because he adds an objectively incorrect tag. Many others are matters of editing style to match his personal preference, which is different from the style we've had on the site until now. I feel like I need to check up on all his edits after the fact, since a non-trivial portion of them need fixing.
  • Comments on posts by new users, advising them on how best to use the site: Sometimes his advice is bad ("You should also post this on Workplace" without mentioning that cross posting is not allowed) or comes across condescending (unintentionally).
  • Meta: He argues on and on in comments until the person he's talking to just gives up. He also wants moderators to spend a lot of time talking to him in chat to explain site policy on various matters.

All of editing style to match his personal preference, whichthis is different from the style we've hadbehavior that is generally tolerated on theour site until now. I feel like I need to check up on all his edits after the fact, since so manyas long as more of them need fixing.

He also adds comments on posts by new users, advising them on how best to use the site. Sometimes his advicea user's behavior is badneutral or good ("You should also post this on Workplace"as his is). He's not malicious or comes across condescendingin violation of site rules.

He gets very upset and personally offended when people disagree with him or raise issues about his behavior or his contributions on meta. He always has to have the last wordIf he participated a normal amount, and argues on and on in comments until the person he's talking tohe'd just gives upbe an average, maybe slightly annoying, user. He also wants moderators to spendBut he spends a lotLOT of time talking to him in chat to explainon the site policy. So the non-trivial minority of incorrect or annoying behavior has an outsize effect. (If you participate as much as he does on various mattersthe site, you had better be 99.9% perfect or you'll have a negative impact.)

All of thisThis is a huge drain on moderator time. I've easily spent more time on him than all other individuals on the site, put together. But he's

It doesn't seem like he should be banned. He's definitely well-intentioned, and his contributions are improving (albeit slowly) - 20% bad edits is a lot better than what he used to be.

I also can't ignore him - the minority of bad contributions need correcting, or they'll have a negative impact on the site.

I don't think it would be possible to tell him (tactfully) that he should spend about 500% less time on the site. Historically, he has taken criticism very, very, badly.

How to handle users who spend a lot of time on a site, but need a lot of babysitting?

I have a user on a StackExchange site who is very well-intentioned, and his contributions to the site are improving gradually after a rough start.

The problem is that he spends a lot of time and is very active on the site, and the contributions are often a little... off. He wouldn't be a problem if he participated a normal amount, but since he participates a lot, it has an outsized impact.

For example, lately has been making a huge number of edits (about 8x more than the next non-mod user down). Many of these are retags, about 20% of which need fixing because he adds an objectively incorrect tag. Many others are matters of editing style to match his personal preference, which is different from the style we've had on the site until now. I feel like I need to check up on all his edits after the fact, since so many of them need fixing.

He also adds comments on posts by new users, advising them on how best to use the site. Sometimes his advice is bad ("You should also post this on Workplace") or comes across condescending.

He gets very upset and personally offended when people disagree with him or raise issues about his behavior or his contributions on meta. He always has to have the last word, and argues on and on in comments until the person he's talking to just gives up. He also wants moderators to spend a lot of time talking to him in chat to explain site policy on various matters.

All of this is a huge drain on moderator time. I've easily spent more time on him than all other individuals on the site, put together. But he's definitely well-intentioned, and his contributions improving (albeit slowly) - 20% bad edits is a lot better than what he used to be.

How to handle user whose heavy participation causes minority of bad contributions to be a drain on moderator resources?

I have a user on a StackExchange site. He is well-intentioned, enthusiastic about the site, and his contributions to the site are improving gradually after a rough start.

His participation is mainly with edits, meta posts and comments, and comments on questions to help new users. These are all things users are encouraged to do.

Most of his participation is good or neutral, but let's say 20% of the time they are a little... off.

For example,

  • Edits: Many of these are retags, about 20% of which need fixing because he adds an objectively incorrect tag. Many others are matters of editing style to match his personal preference, which is different from the style we've had on the site until now. I feel like I need to check up on all his edits after the fact, since a non-trivial portion of them need fixing.
  • Comments on posts by new users, advising them on how best to use the site: Sometimes his advice is bad ("You should also post this on Workplace" without mentioning that cross posting is not allowed) or comes across condescending (unintentionally).
  • Meta: He argues on and on in comments until the person he's talking to just gives up. He also wants moderators to spend a lot of time talking to him in chat to explain site policy on various matters.

All of this is behavior that is generally tolerated on our site, as long as more of a user's behavior is neutral or good (as his is). He's not malicious or in violation of site rules.

If he participated a normal amount, he'd just be an average, maybe slightly annoying, user. But he spends a LOT of time on the site. So the non-trivial minority of incorrect or annoying behavior has an outsize effect. (If you participate as much as he does on the site, you had better be 99.9% perfect or you'll have a negative impact.)

This is a huge drain on moderator time. I've easily spent more time on him than all other individuals on the site, put together.

It doesn't seem like he should be banned. He's definitely well-intentioned, and his contributions are improving (albeit slowly) - 20% bad edits is a lot better than what he used to be.

I also can't ignore him - the minority of bad contributions need correcting, or they'll have a negative impact on the site.

I don't think it would be possible to tell him (tactfully) that he should spend about 500% less time on the site. Historically, he has taken criticism very, very, badly.

added 89 characters in body
Source Link
FraidyCat
FraidyCat
  • 301
  • 1
  • 5

I have a user on a StackExchange site who is very well-intentioned, and his contributions to the site are improving gradually after a rough start.

The problem is that he spends a lot of time and is very active on the site, and the contributions are often a little... off. He wouldn't be a problem if he participated a normal amount, but since he participates a lot, it has an outsized impact.

For example, lately has been making a huge number of edits (about 8x more than the next non-mod user down). Many of these are retags, about 20% of which need fixing because he adds an objectively incorrect tag. Many others are matters of editing style to match his personal preference, which is different from the style we've had on the site until now. I feel like I need to check up on all his edits after the fact, since so many of them need fixing.

He also adds comments on posts by new users, advising them on how best to use the site. Sometimes his advice is bad ("You should also post this on Workplace") or comes across condescending.

He gets very upset and personally offended when people disagree with him or raise issues about his behavior or his contributions on meta. He always has to have the last word, and argues on and on in comments until the person he's talking to just gives up. He also wants moderators to spend a lot of time talking to him in chat to explain site policy on various matters.

All of this is a huge drain on moderator time. I've easily spent more time on him than all other individuals on the site, put together. But he's definitely well-intentioned, and his contributions improving (albeit slowly) - 20% bad edits is a lot better than what he used to be.

As a moderator, what can I do to reduce the degree to which this user consumes moderator resources, without letting him have a negative impact on the site?

I have a user on a StackExchange site who is very well-intentioned, and his contributions to the site are improving gradually after a rough start.

The problem is that he spends a lot of time and is very active on the site, and the contributions are often a little... off. He wouldn't be a problem if he participated a normal amount, but since he participates a lot, it has an outsized impact.

For example, lately has been making a huge number of edits (about 8x more than the next non-mod user down). Many of these are retags, about 20% of which need fixing because he adds an objectively incorrect tag. Many others are matters of editing style to match his personal preference, which is different from the style we've had on the site until now. I feel like I need to check up on all his edits after the fact, since so many of them need fixing.

He also adds comments on posts by new users, advising them on how best to use the site. Sometimes his advice is bad ("You should also post this on Workplace") or comes across condescending.

He gets very upset and personally offended when people disagree with him or raise issues about his behavior or his contributions on meta. He always has to have the last word, and argues on and on in comments until the person he's talking to just gives up. He also wants moderators to spend a lot of time talking to him in chat to explain site policy on various matters.

All of this is a huge drain on moderator time. But he's definitely well-intentioned, and his contributions improving (albeit slowly) - 20% bad edits is a lot better than what he used to be.

As a moderator, what can I do to reduce the degree to which this user consumes moderator resources, without letting him have a negative impact on the site?

I have a user on a StackExchange site who is very well-intentioned, and his contributions to the site are improving gradually after a rough start.

The problem is that he spends a lot of time and is very active on the site, and the contributions are often a little... off. He wouldn't be a problem if he participated a normal amount, but since he participates a lot, it has an outsized impact.

For example, lately has been making a huge number of edits (about 8x more than the next non-mod user down). Many of these are retags, about 20% of which need fixing because he adds an objectively incorrect tag. Many others are matters of editing style to match his personal preference, which is different from the style we've had on the site until now. I feel like I need to check up on all his edits after the fact, since so many of them need fixing.

He also adds comments on posts by new users, advising them on how best to use the site. Sometimes his advice is bad ("You should also post this on Workplace") or comes across condescending.

He gets very upset and personally offended when people disagree with him or raise issues about his behavior or his contributions on meta. He always has to have the last word, and argues on and on in comments until the person he's talking to just gives up. He also wants moderators to spend a lot of time talking to him in chat to explain site policy on various matters.

All of this is a huge drain on moderator time. I've easily spent more time on him than all other individuals on the site, put together. But he's definitely well-intentioned, and his contributions improving (albeit slowly) - 20% bad edits is a lot better than what he used to be.

As a moderator, what can I do to reduce the degree to which this user consumes moderator resources, without letting him have a negative impact on the site?

Source Link
FraidyCat
FraidyCat
  • 301
  • 1
  • 5

How to handle users who spend a lot of time on a site, but need a lot of babysitting?

I have a user on a StackExchange site who is very well-intentioned, and his contributions to the site are improving gradually after a rough start.

The problem is that he spends a lot of time and is very active on the site, and the contributions are often a little... off. He wouldn't be a problem if he participated a normal amount, but since he participates a lot, it has an outsized impact.

For example, lately has been making a huge number of edits (about 8x more than the next non-mod user down). Many of these are retags, about 20% of which need fixing because he adds an objectively incorrect tag. Many others are matters of editing style to match his personal preference, which is different from the style we've had on the site until now. I feel like I need to check up on all his edits after the fact, since so many of them need fixing.

He also adds comments on posts by new users, advising them on how best to use the site. Sometimes his advice is bad ("You should also post this on Workplace") or comes across condescending.

He gets very upset and personally offended when people disagree with him or raise issues about his behavior or his contributions on meta. He always has to have the last word, and argues on and on in comments until the person he's talking to just gives up. He also wants moderators to spend a lot of time talking to him in chat to explain site policy on various matters.

All of this is a huge drain on moderator time. But he's definitely well-intentioned, and his contributions improving (albeit slowly) - 20% bad edits is a lot better than what he used to be.

As a moderator, what can I do to reduce the degree to which this user consumes moderator resources, without letting him have a negative impact on the site?