From: BJörn Lindqvist <bjourne(a)gmail.com>
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
or "not putting up with my POV edits"
is against policy.
No, the rules are set up so that admins are protected from all
complaints. Admins often seem to think that new users seem to think
that "disagreeing with me" or "not putting up with my POV edits" is
Sigh. Can you leave the "I know you are but what am I" type comments off
the mail-list please?
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,
the person who brought the case therefore being
viewed as a
Umm... It has never happened, so obviously I can't.
Then how can you claim it as fact?
But you can
yourself search the archives to find countless examples of how
mistakes and harassments by admins have been brushed off as "everyone
does mistakes sometimes".
Can you provide some of those "countless examples"?
And also of countless number of examples in
which users have been branded trolls for brining up valid complaints
That they were valid is solely your opinion.
For a very clear example see the OP's post,
who even found it best to post anonymously, and then was outed by two
admins who don't like him/her.
Didn't like him, or didn't like the smears he was posting anonymously? I
don't know what makes you so sure it was the former.