On 7/17/06, Timwi timwi@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