[WikiEN-l] Do NOT appeal bans, for your own sake (was Re: Admins who do not have email this user enabled (list inside))

[Marc Riddell]

>>> On 16/09/2007, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Come to think of it, appealing blocks of
>>>> any kind can often result in being attacked.
>>>> Therefore, my advice to blocked or banned
>>>> users who have disclosed their real name or
>>>> a long-standing pseudonym is this:
>>>> DO NOT APPEAL.  Simply request any
>>>> courtesy blankings / deletions you want,
>>>> hoping that by not appealing you don't
>>>> become 'notable', by some odd defintion
>>>> that Wikipaedia uses as a justification for
>>>> destroying the online and offline reputations
>>>> of banned users, and then go poof!  Unless
>>>> your requests for courtesy blankings and
>>>> deletions are refused, or worse yet
>>>> responded to with more attacks, in which
>>>> case I guess you are screwed.
>>>> blah blah
>>>> 
>>> 
>> on 9/18/07 8:50 AM, Vee at vee.be.me at gmail.com wrote:
>> 
>>> Oddly enough I actually agree with this. If I was banned I wouldn't kick up
>>> a huge fuss fighting it (even if it really was unfair) because in those
>>> cases people tend to react against you even more and you'll never hear the
>>> end of it. Best to just drop it and move on.
>> 
> On 9/18/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:

>> Vee,
>> 
>> They react against you because you protest being banned!? And simply the
>> fear of this is enough to deter you?!
>> 
>> Doesn't sound like a very friendly, mature culture!
>> 
>> Marc Riddell
>> 
>> on 9/20/07 7:39 PM, K P at kpbotany at gmail.com wrote:

> No it doesn't.  But deterence due to fear sounds smart.
> 
> People did seem to enjoy, with malice, how irritated I got at being
> banned by an administrator who had plenty more history of bannable
> actions than I did.  Protesting a wrongful ban was pretty stupid,
> because of the way the administrator involved took it as AN INVITATION
> to berate, attack, and insult me to all of AN/I.  And, again, as far
> as I can tell, the other administrators really enjoyed it.
> 
> Armed Blowfish is giving good advice in the current climate at Wikipedia.
> 
There appears to be a great deal of power resting in the hands of a
relatively small group of persons in this huge Community. And, from what I
can ascertain, they are given this power as a result of a popularity contest
and edit count. The decisions of these persons have the power to impact not
only the substance and credibility of the Project, but the credibility,
reputations and emotional states of its Members.

As the Project grows more complex, I believe the screening process involved
in selecting the persons who administrate it should also grow more complex.
In short, a crucial question that must be asked: is the person emotionally
mature enough to handle such a powerful and sensitive position?

A major principle involved here is fairness: to the Project, to the
Community, and to every single Member of that Community.

Marc Riddell

PS: This process of choosing administrators in the Project sounds very much
like our own American political process - and look what that has produced as
our most recent "administrator".