Requests_for_comment/Ban_appeals_reform_2015

[Michaeldsuarez]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ban_appeals_reform_2015

There's a major flaw here: The people who suffer through bans and the appeal process don't have a voice in the discussion. That's like having a discussion about policy brutality and reform without inviting blacks to the discussion.

My proposal:

Get rid of the "blocks are preventative" mantra. That's the Number One reason so few appeals are successful. As I've stated in 2012, the "blocks are preventative" mantra prevents people from professing their innocence. People should be able to profess their innocence and then be released from the ban once their time has been served. Yes, a "blocks are punitive, not preventative" system would be better and more humane than the current "blocks are preventative, not punitive" system.

The problem with every proposal that's currently on the RfC page is that they're blaming the infrastructure (BASC, UTRS) when they should be blaming the principles, mantra, and excuses ("blocks are preventative") used to keep people banned. Reshaping the bureaucracy isn't going to fix the problem.

[Hersch]

Get rid of the "blocks are preventative" mantra. That's the Number One reason so few appeals are successful. As I've stated in 2012, the "blocks are preventative" mantra prevents people from professing their innocence. People should be able to profess their innocence and then be released from the ban once their time has been served. Yes, a "blocks are punitive, not preventative" system would be better and more humane than the current "blocks are preventative, not punitive" system.

More often than not, it's "blocks are the dominant team taking the scalps of their fallen opponents."

[EricBarbour]

I'll say it again, Michael: you're trying to apply reason and logic to a mob of people who are anything but "reasonable". Wikipedia is no different than any number of other fora and social websites. The moderators of all such "communities" inevitably become power-mad and petty little people defending their miserable little "territory" like rabid wolves. They operate more like old-fashioned pirates than like "moderators".

[Wonderer]

Another example of process over substance. Those idiots are taking themselves so seriously you'd think a nuclear arms drawdown is at stake. To participate in an MMPORPG where the admins can kick you out for whatever silly reason they want and then expect you to beg like a dog to get back on their good graces... No thanks.

Anyone who is thinking of starting to edit Wikipedia should take a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee (T-H-L). For example:

Explain clearly but succinctly why your ban or block should be overturned – such as what lessons you have learned from the block or ban, how you would conduct yourself differently if unblocked or unbanned, or why you believe the block or ban was unfair or erroneous. Please remember that multiple appeals on the same grounds may be summarily dismissed.

Where the hell do these dumb asses get off? What could possibly justify such a high level of arrogance? If you have never edited Wikipedia, don't ever put yourself in a position where arrogant idiots like that can have that sort of power over you: don't appeal a ban or block by not getting yourself banned or blocked in the first place by never editing Wikipedia in the first place.

[Peter Damian]

Explain clearly but succinctly why your ban or block should be overturned – such as what lessons you have learned from the block or ban, how you would conduct yourself differently if unblocked or unbanned, or why you believe the block or ban was unfair or erroneous. Please remember that multiple appeals on the same grounds may be summarily dismissed.

A struggle session was a form of public humiliation used by the Communist Party of China in the Mao Zedong era to shape public opinion and to humiliate, persecute, and/or execute political rivals and class enemies. In general, the victim of a struggle session was forced to admit to various crimes before a crowd of people who would verbally and physically abuse the victim until he or she confessed. Struggle sessions were often held at the workplace of the accused, but were sometimes conducted in sports stadiums where large crowds would gather if the target was famous enough.
Struggle session (T-H-L)

[Triptych]

This is part 2 of Beeblebrox trying to stomp out any appeal avenue for blocked users. His motivation is that he gets his self esteem from blocking others and rejecting appeals. That was his main pitch when he ran for Arbcom: "Vote for me because of all the editors I've blocked." If anyone goes back through his history to look, there's rampant abuse and bullying, such as where he and Bwilkins took turns slugging that poor Vietnamese guy that protested the "Apache" article about the fictional Viet Cong torture woman. Beebs is also an infantile personality, runs around calling his enemies "laaaame" and "laaaame sauce." Maturity level is that of a elementary school playground bully.

Since his self esteem is threatened whenever someone even thinks about unblocking one of his victims, this RFC is shaped subtly for his real aims, which are to make things even more autocratic. The "imperial admin" model. He wants blocked user talkpages locked to the user for a year as default. Shorthand of Beebs' psyche: if it makes the blocked user feel bad, it makes Beebs feel good.

He once told the story of having to lay off an employee at that hospital supplies store he manages in Homer, He said that was a really tough and sad thing for him to have to do. I guarantee you he was grinning ear to ear and recalls that as one of the most pleasurable days of his life.

I don't know if this RFC will go anywhere. It's the usual cretins running off at the mouth to feel important. Then again sometimes they are able to eliminate things, as with the RFC/U process. If you look back at that one, it's astounding all the people saying how awful RFC/Us are, without one single example, from top to bottom. That one was inspired by the RFC/U on Bwilkins. Robert McClenon set out to get rid of the only way for editors to examine an administrator's behavior. And did so. So maybe they'll get rid of BASC. I dunno though, are BASC and AUSC constituted in the Arbcom charter? Probably can't just kill them with an RFC if so.

[Notvelty]

Explain clearly but succinctly why your ban or block should be overturned – such as what lessons you have learned from the block or ban, how you would conduct yourself differently if unblocked or unbanned, or why you believe the block or ban was unfair or erroneous. Please remember that multiple appeals on the same grounds may be summarily dismissed.

A struggle session was a form of public humiliation used by the Communist Party of China in the Mao Zedong era to shape public opinion and to humiliate, persecute, and/or execute political rivals and class enemies. In general, the victim of a struggle session was forced to admit to various crimes before a crowd of people who would verbally and physically abuse the victim until he or she confessed. Struggle sessions were often held at the workplace of the accused, but were sometimes conducted in sports stadiums where large crowds would gather if the target was famous enough.
Struggle session (T-H-L)

It is the gold standard of judgement under the terms of the "moralista".

"Believe what we do, accept it and show that you like it. To argue is to be punished; to object is to be othered."

It's because they know better; just look at how they show that they are better.