On 7/17/06, Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net> wrote:
"Only if" is the converse of "if",
right? So the above statement means:
"If admins are annoyed [at a user], then that user has been bad". This
is the argument that is often used here to justify discriminating
behaviour against a newbie.
Let's not use the very subjective term "annoyed" and instead consider
it as a fact-finding exercise. The question is, if more than one admin
has found a user to have done something wrong, does that make it
likely that they have done something wrong? If the admins in question
get no obvious benefit out of agreeing with one another (i.e. they are
not conspiring), then this is a statement about the ability of
independent assessments by people who are classified as being "known
to be reliable" to arrive at something like the truth. In a
commonsense way this should not be controversial in and of itself.
Okay -- by that argument, invidivual admins are quick
to block and ban
users who they are unhappy about, without making any attempt to
demonstrate that the other admins' level of unhappiness about the user
is significant.
Demonstrate where? How? Usually it is pretty obvious from a disruptive
user's talk page. And if it needs to be demonstrated (i.e., someone
asks), it is usually pretty easy to do so.
Please don't stray away from the argument.
Unsubscribing does not make
them go away -- the users would still get annoyed at the admins, and
would still complain. I am not bothered by the fact that I *see* the
complaints, but about the fact that users are generally unhappy about
the admins and their behaviour towards them.
The question is whether the complaints are valid. Sometimes they are.
Often they are not. We need to take care to differentiate between the
two, which I generally do on the basis of whether or not admin
opinions have been completely one-sided. If there is significant and
well-reasoned disagreement among admins, though, then it is something
which should be taken at least somewhat seriously. But if all admins
come to more-or-less the same conclusion, then the likelihood is the
complaint is "not valid" (which can mean a number of things, usually
"is not resonant with the way things are done on Wikipedia", which is
a relatively non-normative way of putting it).
The complaining users have already done that numerous
times. All of that
evidence is usually brushed under the rug, and the topic changed to
collecting evidence of that user's own wrong-doing (the "tu quoque"
fallacy). I get the impression that the percentage of people on this
mailing list who take any of those evidence-presenting complaints
seriously is alarmingly low.
I try to take them seriously, but most of the time it becomes
abundantly clear that the complaining user is, at best, trying to use
technicalities of rules to game the system, or has absolutely no
regard for any of our core policies. Again, I think complaints should
be evaluated seriously, and admins should not uncritically leap to the
defense of other admins, but I don't find your argument as stated very
compelling.
FF