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.