[WikiEN-l] Recent goings-on

[JAY JG]

>From: BJörn Lindqvist <bjourne at 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.