[WikiEN-l] Things about admins

[Adam Lorenz]

I think that #2 is an invalid argument, and the action should be defended by
the actual circumstance. If a user is blocked for disruption, and the user
complains, the admin should defend his/herself by citing contribs, or some
other valid explanation.

Adam


On 7/14/06, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
Adam J. Lorenz