Is it just my own observation, or is it that most active admins who are wielding the banhammer towards normal users tend to be the least productive editors? For instance look at the following:

HJ Mitchell - only 30% of contributions are actually in article space (including possible semi-automatic work). Seems like he spends over half the time (34+18=52%) participating in bureaucracy and content disputes.
http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/ind...iki%3Dwikipedia

Gwen Gale - same thing, only 40% contributions in article space.
http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/ind...iki%3Dwikipedia

Timotheus Canens - a bit more interesting, 17% article space contribution, about 50% is spent on Wikipedia namespace (probably fiddling with the edit filter - a la Abd controversy)
http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/ind...iki%3Dwikipedia

I guess the norm at Wikipedia is now that people who are rewarded with administratorship tend to be those who are not article writers and instead tend to be people unskilled labourers who just happen to stick around longer, and administrators are really the people who are running the show on Wikipedia.

So if these people are not really academics but just a bunch of unskilled labourers, how can they be the ones deciding the content disputes and conflicts if they don't even know what the dispute is, just that they are quick to put the banhammer down on whichever side the admin supports.

There are quite a few admins who are heavy content contributors, and many are...um...contributing content. I try to encourage anyone who does alot of content to run for adminship. I was never enamoured of the idea of "content editors" vs "admins" (or "arbs" for that matter) and am pleased when folks get mixed up in all different areas of the wiki
Cas

Some administrators not only add no content to Wikipedia, but block content contributors. So the question is, if you are you also pleased when bully administrators block content contributors for nothing,like in this case for example
How many bad blocks an admin should to make to be desysoped?
How many times an admin should misuse her tools to be desysoped?

There is a nice list of those administrators kept here.



Sorry Cas.

Your case is a special one. It looks like there was a community support for your unban , but GovCom decided against it.
Or let's for example take a look at this user So far he has not came back after the ban, a ban that was made because the user was harassed by a dirty troll tarc, and responded to that harassment.
Wikipedia is a strange place. It bans its best content contributors to satisfy the trolls, the trolls that are worse than just an empty space

I wasn't talking about me. I was just teasing Casliber. It was an easy joke.

It's been that way as far back as I can remember...the admins that do the least real work are the ones most inclined to use admin tools against other users.