From: BJörn Lindqvist <bjourne(a)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.