User:Amarkov/Wikipedia gives you plenty of freedom

Every so often, a user starts ranting about how criticizing an admin too much is disruption, Arbcom gives too much weight to established community members, stuff like that. So, let's compare our processes, which everyone should admit work fine sometimes, to that of some other sites I know of.

You do not have disputes with the moderators, because you are explicitly not allowed to question anything they choose to do. If you wish to appeal a ban, then you can expect an automatic message that doesn't remotely apply to your situation, two weeks later.
 * RuneScape

When a post of yours is removed, a quote from the rules is referenced, and it may not always be clear how it applies. The dispute resolution process against a sanction involves appealing to a succession of higher moderators, who can give vague answers, meaning you have to appeal again without getting an answer. Every time you appeal higher up the chain, you are punished, unless it actually gets overturned. And the extra sanctions come in the form of temporary blocks from appeal. So a moderator is abusive to you, but it's only been two days since you appealed another thing and failed? Too bad, you have twenty-eight days to go, and you only have a fifteen day window. Oh, and new users get zero appeal rights, so if a rogue moderator decides to ban you after only 5 days, too bad for you, you can't do anything about it.
 * GameFAQs

"I don't agree with your post, so I'm going to mark it as trolling. Ha ha." Yeah...
 * Slashdot

Oh, and the mere fact that users can post those rants about Wikipedia is testament to the fact that they're wrong. I can't think of any other site that gives users a space where they are allowed to rant about it. -Amarkov moo! 05:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)