It takes one admin, and then the rest follow like zombies most of the time not daring to oppose. It goes for blocks or opinions about stuff. They're so maleable that at times it even become pathetic for them. This was probably already raised before since it really is wide spread. One admin account and you can bias a whole bunch of them and if you are manipulator enough you can make other admins do whatever you want. Damn the system is really a failure from top to bottom. It isen't even about lazzyness, it's like they trully are acting like zombies.

Even if you recognize that what an admin does may not be right, it's usually useless to complain about something wrong. You can maybe get one or two things overturned if you're really good at arguing. But after that, you start getting accused of harassment, and you can't really do much. Look at what's happening to Viridae.

It's not just that, it's the false belief that admins are somehow more reasonable than common editors as if being reasonable or ''right'' is determined by the fact that you have some extra tools. Not to limit this to my wiki-experience but when I was blocked for three days the first time; I contested my block, I had my words as some editor and the word of an admin who was obviously really unfit to administer anything. I fought hard to be unblocked for a clearly abusive block and when I requested the unblock no one even answered. I had answers by cowards by emails but no one dared to do anything. Another admin finally after admitted not seing anything worth the block but that was all. The stupid admin even has gone on IRC lying about the reason of the block and taking satisfaction as if it was something cool.

There is really something unhealthy in keeping silence about almost everything particularly when some editors are in a situation of power and when this power is misinterpreted and people are fooled believing that being an admin is a sign of a higher level of credibility. What credibility? It's almost the easiest thing to do on Wikipedia, to be voted as an admin. You just have to register an account and not engage in any controversial stuff(what's more easier than this?), then browse randomnly and fix stuff, have some stupid templates on your userpage opposing vandalism and then wanting more power to have the tools to oppose it? And? How ''this'' editor with extra tools is anyway more credible than another? How is it that the simple editor do not have as much impact and that the zombies only follow the crowd of other zombies.

So you can only kill an admin with a headshot?

According to Cyde Weys, an automatic shotgun would be best, and you would not have to worry about getting a headshot.

These AA-12 "assault shotguns" are no laughing matter. I gave my nephew one for Christmas, along with a dozen 40-round drums loaded with explosive shells, and let's just say that the manufacturer's definition of "clean out a room" is significantly different than my sister-in-law's.

indeed, though this wasn't always the case. Back when I was an active admin, overturning another sysop's action wasn't viewed as much more serious than reverting someone's edit: if the two of you were reasonable people, you'd discuss it calmly and try to reach an agreement on what to do. That started to change around the middle of 2005, as I recall; Everyking's ban from questioning other sysops' actions just accelerated a process that was already in motion. Nowadays the widespread hatred of "wheel warring" makes it simply not worth the enormous effort one needs to overturn another sysop -- unless one thinks the case is extremely important.

I'm convinced that the vast majority of admins are in high school, college, unemployed, or underemployed. And they like eating your tasty brain.

I think it's gone beyond the point where talking to admins will work. They've gone way further than their original mandate of keeping random cursing and penis pictures off the articles. This is a compromise Jimbo made in order to get enough people to volunteer for what otherwise would be a pretty boring job. He needs more content and more participation, and if getting people absorbed in the drama works then why not? For every sane person that gets turned off by it there are fifty social misfit kids and assorted kooks willing to work day and night to get the "tools" and the respect that goes with them.

Has there ever been a documented case where one of those "unblock" thingies on someone's user talk page has yielded an actual investigation into the circumstances of the block?

NO! NO! AND NO!!! Less when the percieved disruption originated from an answer to a more grave disruption which the admin who performed the block (probably widespread) obviously didn't have the required judgement to understand.

There is no investigation, and when a member ASK and CLAIM that there is no point in the block, the investigation resumes with either the administrator who performed the block justifies it and his words are taken for granted, or that the rest of the crowd follow. And ironically the most valid and legitimate blocks you see around are performed by Admins who skip and do not justify them and then are maleable enought under pressure to change their initial thought. Those are the other type of admins. (passive admins who just don't want headaches)

As an administrator more dumb you are more you consider policies and guidelines as paper works. You'll perform the most obvious tasks like checking for civility or vandalism but skip the more important stuff which is about what is actully in the articles themselves.

Administrators ''fight'' is something interesting to watch, there is always two or three ones who take the lead, then you have the zombies. But wait the moment that one side is the admin and the other just an editor, then you have all the zombies being attracted to one side.