User:Leucosticte/Wikipedians in Exile/Handbook for banned users
 | This handbook is kept for informational archive purposes as representing some thought experiments of a particular user at a particular time and should not be construed as representative of any currently-held views by any user. |
I'm banned on en.wp; what does this mean and what do I do?
[edit]On en.wp, you (and all your account[s]) are banned for the length of time specified, or forever (if not specified). However, they are moderately generous about unbanning people, so long as you wait a while (officially a six-month minimum, but more frequently specified as at least one year), don't just create a new account (which is almost always checked and always results in a long extension of the ban), and make a polite request to be unbanned after you've waited long enough. It's called the "standard offer".
Are there some unwritten rules concerning the banning and unbanning process? What are they?
[edit]Of course. Not every practice is written down, and those that are written down aren't always publicly accessible (e.g. ArbCom listserv messages). Besides, there's always the ignore all rules policy.
If an ArbCom member were to provide insight on these unwritten rules, that would be helpful; failing that, some banned users might be able to, by providing the benefit of their experience. Of course, if practices change, that information could become outdated.
What if the ArbCom turns down my unban request even after I've waited a year without socking? Is there any hope?
[edit]Theoretically, there's always hope, since the ArbCom membership changes constantly. On the other hand, the officeholders of the Roman Catholic Church's College of Cardinals and Papacy, or of the U.S. Congress also are constantly changing, but what are the chances that any sort of radical change in their policies or practices will occur any time soon? The Catholic Church is unlikely to saint an abortion doctor, and the U.S. Congress is unlikely to legalize the interstate sale of crack cocaine to 5-year-olds. Theoretically it could happen, but the odds of it happening in our lifetime are slim.
Also, it's useful to bear in mind that bureaucrats like to delay matters and pass the buck, and who better to pass it to than one's successors? If the ArbCom says, "Try again in a year," there's a chance that you'll die or lose interest during that year. At any rate, some of those ArbCom members won't be around a year later to have to listen to your later unban request. Of course, the easiest option is for the ArbCom to simply not respond to your inquiries; since those appeals are conducted by email, the public will not know that they failed to respond, and you won't be able to inform the enwiki community since you're banned there.
I'm banned, but I've been productively editing under an account, and have recently been accused of sockpuppetry. There might not be enough evidence to prove it, though, because I've changed IP addresses and the circumstantial evidence isn't conclusive. However, they want to know whether I admit being that banned user. What should I do?
[edit]You could (1) admit it, and have all your new articles deleted, and all your edits rolled back, and whatever ban clock was running set back to zero, with another black mark being added to your record of misbehavior, which will make it all the harder to get unbanned later. Or you could (2) deny the accusation and quit editing under that account, in hopes of avoiding provoking any further scrutiny. Or you could (3) ignore the accusation and act like you just coincidentally happened to decide to quit editing right around the time you got accused of sockpuppetry. Which sounds better to you?
It's sort of like if you are a productive citizen who happens to have been in some trouble with the law and is therefore on probation; and your probation officer asks, "Did you associate with any felons this month?" If you admit that you did, then you go to prison (at taxpayer expense); lose your job, car, house, and family; and end up with another gap in employment that you will have to explain when you try to get another job. Or you can decline to incriminate yourself. Which sounds like the better option?
Granted, you could simply not break the rules, and you would not be in that position. But the question asks what to do if one ends up in that situation.
Does anyone actually get unbanned by the ArbCom?
[edit]Yes; for example, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion.