From: BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com
There are a number of administrators who are failing in that responsibility, and they are present on this list.
Name them. Take them to ArbCom.
Total Bullshit. That has been done many times by new users who was harassed my some overly aggressive admins. Ofcourse they never suceed because the rules are complex and setup to protect the administrators.
No, the rules are set up so that admins can only be sanctioned for doing things against policy; new users often seem to think "disagreeing with me" or "not putting up with my POV edits" is against policy.
First you have to "file a complaint" which means you have to gather evidence and then submit that for public review to get the ArbCom to accept it. Then you need to get someone else to sign your complaint within 24 hours or else your complaint is automatically rejected and 20 seconds later some admin will come around and delete it so that all traces of whatever it was is gone. The person seconding your complaint obviously cannot be a user someone can suspect being a sockpuppet or a troll or "a known troublemaker". And most important, the other user must also be involved in the dispute between you and the admin in question.
Actually, that's for an RfC, not an arbitration. As for the other conditions you claim, they don't exist, except for known sockpuppets, and I can't fathom why you think a RfC initiated by one person and seconded by his sockpuppet would be valid.
And then, if you succeed with all that, your complaint is accepted for further review in the ArbCom! Woho! Then all that is left is for you to fight in the Wikipedia version of a trial against someone who knows all the rules, while you are a newbie and has lots of powerful friends while you only have enemies.
What a bizarre view of the process.
But what if you, like a hero in Hollywood, manages to beat the unbeatable, win the unwinnable and actually get the ArbCom to issue some kind of verdict AGAINST the admin in question? Well, then you'll forever be known as a troublemaker/troll and the admin will be quickly forgiven by his or her peers because "he/she is a good guy" and only made a mistake/got played by the trolls.
Can you give an example of this happening? Arbcom sanctioning an admin, and the person who brought the case therefore being viewed as a troublemaker/troll?
Jay.