Hi,
There is one thing I don't really quite understand, and I was wondering if someone could explain this to me in very simple and easy-to-follow terms...
Basically, I seem to be making the following two recurring observations:
(1) Users who are unhappy with some admin action or other post to the mailing list - sometimes angrily, sometimes rationally, but always making explicit that they are annoyed - complaining about what they perceive to be "admin abuse".
(2) Admins sometimes defend their actions by using the argument, "If you've managed to piss off several admins, chances are you've done something wrong."
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, and supposing that the argument #2 is applicable, doesn't it follow plainly obviously that the admins are doing much more significant wrongs?
The only ways out of this dilemma appear to be either to admit that a larger proportion of users are right in their "cabal" accusations than is widely assumed, OR... to accept that argument #2 is invalid.
If we accept that argument #2 is invalid, then it must logically follow that admins getting annoyed is no indication of user behaviour being wrong. If that is so, then what sort of non-wrong behaviour gets them pissed off and why?
Timwi