The "Stressbusters" was founded by User:Exir Kamalabadi to investigate the cause of wikistress (formerly an Esperanza project at WP:ESP/STRESS). Now an inactive group; but with interesting discussions below relevant to stress assessment and future evaluation of or dealing with same.

Add your name to the list - with so much enthusiasm for it (as shown above), it's hard to keep track of who's involved! HappyCamper's cursory glance...it looks like these are participants:

1. 5aret
2. --Ariadoss 05:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Banes
4. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza}
5. Brian New Zealand
6. Celestianpower ^hablamé 20:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
7. Computerjoe's talk 07:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Dakota ^{t e} 19:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
9. Davidpk212 20:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. EMC 00:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Essjay · Talk (Ex officio)
12. Exir Kamalabadi^Esperanza
13. FireFox
14. General Eisenhower
15. Gryffindor 22:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
16. J.Steinbock (Talk Page)
17. JAranda | watz sup 04:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
18. JDH Owens ^{talk | Esperanza} 19:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
19. K-UNIT 01:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Krashlandon (e) 02:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. The Great Llama ^{(now on editor review!)}
22. M2K e 23:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
24. Mamawrites ^{& listens} 09:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC) (like my new signature?)[reply]
25. --M ^o P 07:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. -- Natalya 18:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Omni ND 18:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Paul August ☎
29. PerfectStorm ^{(Hello! Hallo! Bonjour! Holla!)} 00:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC) - I really think we should make our own theme song based on Ghostbusters:P.[reply]
30. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?)
31. Sean|Black 04:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
32. --Slipknot222 01:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Tennessee Wood
34. Terence Ong 15:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 23:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
37. 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC!
38. Wallie 12:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. -- 9cds^(talk) 10:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Bleed Span  ^{Who knows, you might be the victim too... because it's normal!}
41. Jam01 - looks good! Jam01 10:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. I'm in. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . 3} 09:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Excessive stress can be dangerous, which is why we're here. SGFF(Spider-Man) 02:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. WikiStress needs to be removed! --Skenmy^(t•c•n) 20:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. Reporting for duty! :) Randfan 22:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. Been doing what I can already, might as well join!— Editor at Large^(speak) 05:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Skully Collins ^Edits 13:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for WikiStress was a bit more difficult than I thought. I haven't looked into this very much, but one can use Google to search Wikipedia, and restrict the search to a particular site like this:

To search only in English Wikipedia, type in site:en.wikipedia.org <stuff you want to search for>.

Now, I've tried various things like "wikistress", "I'm upset", "I'm sad", plus "October 2005", but these searches are not as refined as I thought they would be. This is most likely because the search is not based on contextual semantics. Anyway, it's a start.

Plus, I didn't even know there was a WikiStress 5! It seems that the people who have this are not actually stressed out, but rather like the picture instead. Or at least, this is my very preliminary interpretation of their current usage. --HappyCamper 00:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...Exir has volunteered to head up the WikiStress initative, so perhaps the two of you could discuss better ways of finding stressed Wikipedians. -- Essjay · Talk 20:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go to WP:RFM. The users that requests meditation usually has a high stress rate (or so it seems)--Exir Kamalabadi^Esperanza 06:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go to WP:TINMC. In fact, bookmark it. Helping destress people there might already solve their problems. If you have people getting into stress due to conflict, dunk it on that page so that someone can look at it. (And if things get really tricky, there's also some pros always watching and willing to help out). :-) Kim Bruning 11:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Try to find the worst WikiStress meter you can find, and check the "File links" at the bottom of the image, that should work —Minun ^Spiderman 19:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When someone has a high wikistress, all we do is to suddenly rush to their talk pages and posting words of comfort. I don't oppose that. But that shouldn't be the only thing that we do. We should also investigate the cause of wikistress. So I decided to start a project for investigating the cause of wikistress. Anyone intrested in participating?--Exir Kamalabadi^Esperanza 01:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there is a way to pre-emptively determine when WikiStress comes in? I think there is. What might you be looking at here? --HappyCamper 03:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we should first determine the cause of wikistress. What I am doing here is to find a way to prevent stress before someone actually gets stressed out. The goal of this project is to prevent stress, akin to vaccinating against a disease--Exir Kamalabadi^Esperanza 03:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Count me in! Jaberwocky6669 03:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I will count you in! Just go and investigate the cause of wikistress. You can also discuss with us the way to prevent wikistress--Exir Kamalabadi^Esperanza 03:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could we create a 'conference room' of sorts? A sole page devoted to setting research goals, methods, and the like? Jaberwocky6669 03:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask essjay about that--Exir Kamalabadi^Esperanza 04:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are we focussing on internal or external stresses? --HappyCamper 10:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my English, but what are the differences between internal and external stresses?--Exir Kamalabadi^Esperanza 13:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, an internal stress would be a stress caused by Wikipedia, or something relating to Wikipedia. An external stress would be something from a user's life outside of Wikipedia, such as a job, a bad relationship, or something else Armedblowfish 02:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please...can I be counted in too? (With a small voice) Banes 12:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone can!--Exir Kamalabadi^Esperanza 13:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thats great. If I may then, I think HappyCamper means being stressed in the real world is closely linked to stress here on Wikipedia. Is that what you mean, HappyCamper? Banes 14:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a great idea. Paul August ☎ 16:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in - as long as I can be "Detective Inspector FireFox" :P FireFox 17:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can have a conference room (and you don't have to ask me, I'm just a figurehead ;-) ) What about Wikipedia:Esperanza/StressUnit? If you'd like, I'll make you an official Esperanza Stress Unit insignia. ;-) -- Essjay · Talk 20:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo wow... sounds good. FireFox^esp 20:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Count me in. I'm confused however by the two lists of members above. Why two? --Celestianpower ^hablamé 20:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because I got confused :-) Feel free to merge the two lists together. --HappyCamper 20:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I getting stressed out by an Esperanza member? His talk page indicate he is very stress and he harrasses me even while we are under mediation cabal. I read that E members have to be civil, but this user is being very uncivil and harrassing me and even has a link on his user pages to monitor my history. User:Stollery who claims membership of Esperanza has proven himself to be uncivil on several occasion to me and other users. Here is the most recent instance:[1] Here are some past uncivil behavior: Judgmental tone in edit summaries: "...ridiculous assumption"[2] Stollery vandalizes[3] my talk page after I already warned him to use the mediation page for contacting me. I warned him not to vandalize my page and reminded him to use the mediation page and he left another uncivil comment[4] His most recent message at my talk page included general incivility which I have archived: User talk:Nikitchenko/Stollery. --Nikitchenko 19:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, for those using the coffee image, I've created a template to make it easy: {{Cafe Esperanza}} -- Essjay · Talk 21:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I added a lot of categories to the Alerts page, so it's easier for us to find users who are a little bit stressed out. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I've created a Stressed Users category for easy listing of users who have been identified as stressed. Titoxd^(?!?) 07:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting that {{Esperanza Voyage}} is ready, and adds to Category:Stressed Users. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I think we need to change the phrase slightly. It sounds too mysterious...too much like a fortune cookie :-) --HappyCamper 22:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want to put there? I can't think of anything... but if you think of something, tell me, or go ahead and be bold. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I changed it... --HappyCamper 21:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. Good work! :) Titoxd^(?!?) 01:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using terminology in a new context here. For Esperanza's purposes, let's say an "internal stress" is anything which causes a user to appear stressed out due to something happening on Wikipedia. That is to say, the stress is directly caused by something on Wikipedia.

An "external stress" is say, someone coming home from school or work, having a really bad day, and taking it out on Wikipedia/Wikipedians.

I don't know...just an idea...Personally, I think we can do this just by analysing edit counts without looking at the contributions themselves. People who wish to leave tend to decrease their edits in a particular manner. Although this method will not be foolproof. --HappyCamper 03:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blah blah blah...I don't think we really need this jargon anyway :-) Stress is stress! --HappyCamper 16:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Either contribute, but a combination is what hurts. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . 3} 09:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's brainstorm here. --HappyCamper 16:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• POV pushing
• Being put up on RFC
• Being scrutinized, such as in peer review or FAC
• Being "WikiStalked"
• Being nominated for Adminship/Bureaucratship/MedCom/ArbCom et cetera...
• Opposing a nomination of any sort
• AfD voting with sockpuppets
• Not being able to get an FPC or FAC approved
• Debating on the various deletion pages such as AfD - especially when it comes to contentious issues such as schools
• Getting a new article (or any article you are involved in general) AfD'd/TfD'd etc.
• Being signed up for too much (i.e. too many WikiProjects)
• Being falsely accused of something such as biting newbies or violating a commandment such as WP:POINT
• Being falsely accused of sockpuppetry.
• Being on the receiving end of personal attacks
• Being bothered by annoying Vandals and Trolls
• Being called a Vandal, a Troll, or worse
• Being threatened by unruly Administrators
• Having to explain etiquette to Administrators who have none
• Being banned on WP by your opposition
• High profile Vandal interventions.

This needs to be a bit more specific to Wikipedia I think. This list is too general - I mean, if any of these happened to me in real life, I'd feel pretty crummy too. Need more refinements! --HappyCamper 17:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heck I felt stressed after I lost my RFA. General Eisenhower 21:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... The list is a start. I personally think that it might need to be refined, but it is pretty good. Well done Happycamper!--Exir Kamalabadi^Esperanza 12:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I have a question though... What is being Wikistalked?

I am borrowing a concept - part of it means getting unwanted attention on Wikipedia. Essentially, some editor insists on following your contributions around, and say removing them or modifying them to irritate you. You tell them to stop, and they still bug you. They might make a bunch of sockpuppets with offensive usernames and draw attention to you. --HappyCamper 14:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You wanna know what Wikistalked is? I can tell you all about that if you care to listen, but it would be a long talk. Yes, I definetly think that points: personal attacks, vandals, trolls, wikistalked, and the likes should be really important. I will help anyone that is the victim of such unacceptable behaviour, because I think Wikipedia unfortunately lets those kinds of abusive users way too much leeway and freedoms, there is no satisfactory mechanism. In the real world such a person would have been socked a long time ago, sorry but it's true I'm not going to mince my words when it gets to such cowardly users hiding behind the internet. Gryffindor 21:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a small cause of wikistress in comparison to everything listed above, so I don't know if it belongs here, but an overloaded watchlist is easily overwhelming. -- Natalya 16:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that one or two rude people can really add a lot of stress to someone, if they're persistent. And one or two kind people can take a lot of stress off. Maybe we should look for examples of rudeness, and leave kind notes for people who were on the receiving end? What do you think? Sarah crane 20:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've started doing that on User talk:Commander Keane, User talk:ScienceApologist, and User talk:Jim62sch. (I stole the garden image from Natalya -- Thanks, Natalya!) Does this seem like a good idea? Sarah crane 15:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The real thanks should go to Fir0002 for taking it! It's certainly a relaxing picture, I'm sure the recipients have appreciated it. -- Natalya 03:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The very existence of wikistress tells us things about the nature of wikipedia itself and some of its users. First about its users, why do certain editors allow themselves to become stressed about something that they can just turn off and walk away from? Second, what kind of a hold does wikipedia hold over those certain editors? I know personally that in the past I have allowed myself to stress over things that weren't worth stressing over. However, before and after those times I have just shrugged it all away. Is it that we hold too much pride over our contributions? (I am a rambler but eventually I may tie all of this together. DOnt worry about my grammar in this particular instance.) The existence of stress may be a good thing! It tells us that people care about wikipedia -- even though they may care about their contributions moreover. Just as a marriage without arguments is abnormal a wikipedia without stress is abnormal. THis is all I have for now more to come Jaberwocky6669 | ☎ 05:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to venture to say it's all of the above. All of it plays a role. The interaction on Wikipedia is sufficiently realistic and richly complex that it causes this to happen. It's easy to get attached to what we contribute, and it's easy to get stressed. After all, we are only human - and when we are attacked, we tend to be defensive. I'm blabbing here too (but it makes it spontaneous and creative and much much much more useful) but it's worthwhile noting that ultimately, sometimes we just don't want to get hurt - even if we are hiding behind a pseudoname, there is still a part of us that always shines thorough. Let's face it - we do care about Wikipedia, and when we're accused of hurting it in anyway, it does feel bad! I don't think the majority of intellectuals here edit-war for the purpose of getting a kick out of it - they edit war because they truly believe that what they say is fact and for the betterment of Wikipedia. It's a hard pill to swallow if someone says to you: "You know, you're not right!"

Anyway, more ramblings...but very very useful. Once we are done, the trick is to go back and comb out all the verbs and adjectives - then, we will have a very good list to work with. --HappyCamper 15:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...more analysis...I think the easiest one to address is "POINT".

Even though the page WP:POINT (P)exists, I don't think it should be used. It should be used for the sake of recognizing that there is such a thing. However, accusing someone of breaking this rule is in my mind, akin to politically accusing someone of having a "hidden agenda". If accused of P, in some sense you are cornerned, or even felt obligated to answer. If no answer is given, it is perceived that the recipient indeed was trying to violate P (which makes it even worse). This is very hard to dissolve away, and I think there are better alternatives than using this. Unfortunately, it is all based on context... --HappyCamper 19:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding claiming WP:POINT can make a lot of users feel less stressed out.--Exir Kamalabadi^Esperanza 10:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea :). Obviously claiming bad faith is bad too :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 10:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These things do serve an important function. Perhaps we could agree that WP:POINT and accusations of "bad faith" should be used:

• very very rarely,
• only with very good cause,
• only after several attempts at engaging the user in civil dialog,
• respectfully, even then. E.g. "You appear to not be editing in a constructive way. Regrettably I have to refer this dispute to the ArbCom. I hope this can be resolved with a minimum of ill feeling"... --Singkong2005 07:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked to see if this user is a member of Esperanza but nonetheless I found this essay: Falcon Kirtaran's Numerical Representation for WikiStress. Might be usefull for our fight of wikistress! Jaberwocky6669 | ☎ 21:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What an interesting concept. I am currently at 1.25. But, I am not sure if that is good or marginal or I am going to explode--though, I feel fine :-). Although I am not sure that Falcon's category encompasses all the possible things that could stress someone, I think this individual has thought about Wikistress in such a way that they would be an asset to the Stress Unit. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist • E@} 15:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At this time mine happens to be -1! Please don't be jealous you worry warts! =) Jaberwocky6669 | ☎ 17:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The cause of wikistress is simply the time that things take. Nobody is stressed by a one second vandal fix. Its the POV pusher, the persistent vandal, the person who goes the extra mile to piss people off that causes wikistress.--Urthogie 13:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totally true. I think a rule should be established to BAN people who push POV, and who Harass other users (Is there such a rule?)--Exir Kamalabadi 00:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One source of stress is false reports upon a person. A user claims so & so does so & so without providing evidence and then others act on the false report because they too busy to do thoroughly unbiased investigation. A wikipedian (all are unpaid) who does a real and fair investigation should be honored and those who don't should be accessory to the crime of false report. --Nikitchenko 19:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started the stressbusters initiative, but soon I was inactive. Why? Because China banned Wikipedia. Well, now I found a way to waive it. Just thought I should make it clear. So, well... I'm back.--Exir Kamalabadi 00:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the true source of wikistress lies in the stress reciever, not the stress deliverer. Simply put, It is the person who feels stressed out that is the problem. If someone annoys you, why bother with him/her? Just delete every message that she/he sends. If he says something rude about you, don't say something back. Just ignore. --ExirKamalabadi^{<font color = green>Esperanza</font>} 00:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I somewhat agree. The aggressor only wants the agressee to respond negatively, thus letting the agressor know he has accomplished what he set out to do. But something like harrassment or wikistalking or anything of that extreme nature cannot and cerainly should not be blamed on the victim. K-UNIT 01:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• In my situation, I added a lot of material to an article. Then someone deleted this material and left a rude note. I couldn't just ignore the guy or all my work would be lost. And I couldn't just revert without talking, or I'd be getting into a revert war. The guy was very rude and inflamatory. So sometimes there's only so much you can do, unless you want to give up on the article. Sarah crane 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• In my experience it is best to turn the tables around. If you are really attacked by anyone, including even an admin, and it usually is an admin, especially if you are called a vandal or a troll, defend yourself vigorously, and explain and prove these insults are unfounded. If more insults come, just ask why are you attacking me? Why are you calling me these names? I have not attacked you!! You are the reasonable one then... and you are trying not to continue the exchange. Do not ever call someone a name back. That is what they want. At that point, they have won. Lastly, get someone else to back you up. Once another gets involved, the attack suddenly stops. Very Important: If you are in the wrong, always say sorry immediately. Wallie 13:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Real life and wiki are incompactible.
• That friendly orange-yellow bar "You have new messages" appears too little, and when it does it's some spam, like Esperanza newsletter :)
• Noone really cares about my edits. No one really cares about the subject I edit. And I feel like I am waisting my time. My watchlist of 900 items generates some 20 completely minor edits a day.
• I love Wikipedia too much too quit. Renata 21:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your work is valuable. Remember that millions of people read Wikipedia, and even more will do so in the future. Long after you and I are dead, your words will provide a valuable historical record. I have shown articles to people at work, and they think that they must have taken years to write, and have been written by professionals. Wallie 12:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "You have new messages," yeah that is great isn't it? Although lately I've been thinking it is something I did wrong that somebody is telling me. I kinda get nervous. It always turns out to be something ok. :) My edits. No body really cares about the Science portal. I was enthusiastic at first at being its sole maintainer (as well as a few other sections in other portals), but I feel like nobody cares about the portals at all, and my maintainment has gone down. I really do love the Reference desk now though. The science one most especially. :) I must check it a hundred times a day! I <3 Wikipedia. I would never stop. I can't stop, addicted to the shin dig... la la la... — [Mac Davis] (talk)

One thing that I have found very stressful is when someone is showing an incredibly amount of hypocricy when dealing with you. They start pointing out rules to you, drop terms like "Good Faith" when in reality they are completely ignoring the very things they are trying to rub your nose in. This generates an incredible amount of stress as you do not even have a path of recourse, the other party being in total denial they have done anything wrong.

1. You create an template and the other party modifies your template by removing a section and states that section is "irrelevant and inappropriate". You feel that the part removed was very appropriate and so you put it back in and state your case as to why it is appropriate. They then take it out again and tell you that you should go to the talk page if you want to have it included????
   • Hypocricy: How can someone claim that you should "discuss" having something re-added to a template yet not have to "discuss" removing it in the first place?
   • Hypocricy: When someone tells you that your revert was in bad faith yet the other party failed to assume good faith and try to find out what you intended with the item in question in the first place?
2. You are in discussion with someone on a talk page, a third party drops in and says everything you have written is garbage. You respond to that person to back up their statement with facts. You are now called a troll because you want them to justify their blatantly rude and unjustified intrusion.
   • Hypocricy: A troll is someone who interferes for no other reason to cause trouble. To be called a troll by the person interrupting causes stress.
3. You add wiktionary links to words which historically have proven confusing, only to have them reverted with an explaination that history proves itself (clearly incorrect otherwise there wouldn't be such confusion in the first place). When you ask why you are told you should discuss it if you want it. They state that order is not important (ie whether it gets discussed before, during or after inclusion/reverting) yet clearly chose to revert it before discussion thus making the order very important.
   • Hypocricy: Why should you have to discuss putting something back in yet they don't have to discuss taking it out?
   • Poor Wiki Rules: If you put something in, and someone else takes it out, then putting it back in again would open you up to be accused of starting an edit war. This basically means anyone can take anything out they like, without justification adn then claim you need to discuss it to bring it back in. At what point does an edit war start? Why shouldn't someone have to discuss the removal of something that was just put back in when it is not absolutely clear that the addition was not providing any benefit? Should a simple difference of opinion be enough to warrent clandestine removal of information and forcing the original author into a situation of being in an edit war as a result?

Thus I believe nothing creates more stress than someone claiming a higher moral ground, throwing terms around and claiming you have broken rules and then believing themselves totally beyond all such transgressions themselves. Enigmatical 23:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool User:Zpb52 looks like he's in need of some Wikilove. :) He sounds stressed out from something that happened on Wikipedia, and he blanked his user page, replacing it with something like "Fuck it all, I'll make edits where I want, its just a fucking website." — [Mac Davis] (talk)

Thanks for pointing that out. You should add him too Wikipedia:Esperanza/Alerts, so that more people can find out. -- Natalya 00:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok, thanks. — [Mac Davis] (talk)

Although I haven't experienced one, it seems RfA's are one of the main reasons why probably tens of thousands of Wikipedians have been leaving. An example of this would be Funnybunny's reason of leaving. This guy looked like he was dissapointed; his RfA failed with a final 14 Supports, 25 oppositions, and 3 neutral - which forced him/her to withdraw before (s)he faces another few days of humiliation. Although I wasn't around during the time of Funnybunny, but his perspective of RfA's as being evil may seem to make new users think that RfA's are reviews from cold-hearted people who seem to watch every single move you make (Wikistalking). Although he made a withdrawal speech about how he would stick around, he hasn't edited anything since August 13th (his real last edit was on September 1st, but that was a dummy edit.) I'm not really sure if RfA is a good idea about appointing faithful users - I suggest abolishing RfAs and just let other administrators review an admin-canditdate's history, then let the bureaucrats appoint him/her. That way, we could avoid stress from humiliating processes and keep useful editors - I mean if an adminsitrator simply rejects you and leaves kind comments on your talk page about how to improve (instead of CRITICIZING), then the editor will keep trying and finally succeed! Whereas, if you get reviewed by several different people you haven't even met in your wikilife, it could get VERY stressful - especially when those people either don't know what they're saying, or they want to criticize instead of leaving a kind note on how to improve when they vote oppose SGFF(@) 23:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While abolishing RfAs might be a tough thing to get to happen, you might be interested in the proposed program about moral support for RfAs, which goes along the same lines of helping people to relax about less-than-positive RfA outcomes. -- Natalya 03:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(see Speedy deleletion patrol)

• New Pages Patrol and Recent Changes Patrol for vandalism, even doing it correctly and without conflict, may add to wikistress.

The purpose of Special:newpages is not to look for articles to Speedy Delete. However, that's just about why I often go there: as a newpage patroller. This task is useful. However, the whole deletion thing is slightly depressing because a conflict may become nascent at any moment and because it's a bit morbid being an executioner. In addition, I could spend 8 hours there and have my contribution page unchanged at the end. Finally, if a new page is funny (either intentionally or especially unintentionally) laughing about it may add to the guilty conscious that may be part of wikistress.

Special:recentchanges is usually not as associated with wikistress. A lot of people are obsessed with it, and usually reverting vandalism is helpful. This is usually only bad because of the following:

Another thing that results from both of the above is classifying users. This may add to wikistress, or may not. With RC patrol, I often have to stop myself from assuming bad faith about an IP address. With newpages, there is a strong tendency to classify users based upon "Having userpages" and "Not having userpages". Especially vanity pages like

hh:mm, # Month 200* USERNAME (hist) ‎[< 1000 bytes] USERNAME (Talk | contribs)

This could lead to faster growth of wikistress, even if it does not contribute directly.

The above has occured to me in solely trace amounts. But there may be others who suffer from these potential symptoms. Gracenotes ^T § 21:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]