[WikiEN-l] Things about admins

[Gregory Maxwell]

On 7/14/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > On 7/14/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> >>Given that this massive influx of annoyed complaints plainly
> >>demonstrates that users are much more commonly and much more seriously
> >>the ones that get annoyed,
> >
> > If one one thousandth of the users complained, how many people would that be?
> > What percentage would signify something of significance?
> > What percentage has complained thus far?
>
> You have just undermined my argumentation. The amount of annoyed users
> is obviously strictly greater than the amount of annoyed e-mails we
> actually see. We actually see an annoyed e-mail from a new user almost
> every day. But how many similarly annoyed e-mails do you see from admins?

I suspect you didn't intend to say what you said, and thus you
wouldn't enjoy my thanks for admiting your failure.. :)

In any case, You're making a significant logical error....   You are claiming:

*Users get angry if admins take action against them
*admins get pissed if users are bad
*there are strictly more pissed users than pissed admins
thus
*Admins are taking action against good users because otherwise we
would expect equal numbers of angry users and angry admins.

There are a number of mistakes with this line of reasoning. The most
important of which is that admins don't always get pissed when users
do bad... The claim you are referring to made is that only if users
are bad admins are pissed, not if and only if.  Your argument also
makes questionable assumptions about the probability of an annoyed
person speaking up.

I am quite sure that mistakes are made... and that we even have a few
low quality admins. ... But I've seen no information which causes me
to believe that this should be considered a high priority problem