Admins are only taken to arbcom by other admins.
Welcome to the basic problem: in zeal to "protect admins from harassment by
trolls" we've made it nearly impossible for a normal user, being abused by
an admin, to protest. Protesting on your talk page leads to being blocked
for "incivility", leads to the admin's friends removing your unblock
request
or just denying it, and by the time it goes up to Arbcom, what you have is
not a record of an admin who is pursuing a user, but rather a record of
someone who "has consistently been blocked by multiple admins for incivility
and vandalism and is trying to file an RFA to harass an admin."
The most egregious account I've seen was brought to us a few days ago, where
an admin blocked a user and then tag-teamed with a non-admin to repeatedly
remove the user's unblock requests, and finally got a third party to lock
the user's talk page for "unblock abuse."
I call that abusive. I know David came up with the red herring that the
reporter is "enviroknot", but I don't care who brought it up: that is
abusive behavior.
On 10/6/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/10/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Because, by design of the system, no arbcom case
can ever be brought,
and
even if it were, arbcom is FIRMLY on the side of
the admin every time.
Think
about it. In order to bring a case to arbcom, you
have to (A) be the
aggrieved party, (B) have someone else sign on to the case at least
twice
(you have to RFC beforehand or arbcom will just
dismiss it), and (C) be
a
"user in good standing."
Admins are never taken to arbcom? Admins are never deadminned? Welcome
to 2006 where this is not the case.
- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l