User:BaSH PR0MPT/Proposal for Good Behaviour Record Expunge for Rehabilitation and Reconcilitation

After an in-depth discussion with members at an anti-wikipedia corruption website I turned to for help after my ban experience, I came up with an idea that many users there embraced and thought was a brilliant way to stop corruption and agenda pushing, whilst also removing a lot of the ego elements of administrators wielding power or abusing power in some users cases. This is the proposal, as poorly structured as it is, that I made on Wikipedia_talk:Oversight to try and obtain information on how to proceed.

In almost all nations' legal systems, once a penalty or sentence is exhausted it is expunged, and to discriminate against them on the grounds that they have undergone a penalty or sentence is a criminal offence. It stands to reason that what is meant to be an enlightened community with an academic focus should at least display the same kind of humanitarianism that a cold clinical legal system presents.

If you have any input you can provide on this subject, please post any comments or suggestions in the comments field at the bottom of the page. Feel free to make them unsigned if you would prefer to remain anonymous.

Proposal
I'd like to propose that users be allowed to have their records expunged after a certain time limit (something significantly long like a year) so that they may be able to assist with the project more in depth over time. I started editing back when wiki began, and I am definitely not the first person to cop a ban for something that wasn't super bad who's going to have to wear that forever. A brief google search shows that arbitrary bans for silly reasons, and lack of GAB being the ONLY assessment criteria used (as I have personally experienced where admins expected far more than accepting, understanding, reforming, and rehabilitating as the main criterion) which caused me to become increasingly irate every time my unban requests were declined because I didn't seem penitent enough, and I made quite an ass of myself.

In Australia (I cannot speak for other nations on this one) there is legislation in place to ensure that people are allowed a fair go in life. Especially with online matters, where kids now are going to be facing hell as adults or even adults now who, rightly so, have changed their views or opinions but were previously dicks. These issues are new to us as we are still walking blindly into a brave new world when it comes to technology, and it would be entirely unjust to allow people to be unable to attain a job or marry their girlfriend or live in a certain area purely because of something they said in the past while angry, or not thinking rationally. We all make dicks of ourselves sometime, and it's not fair that we should have to live with that forever.

No where in the world will you find anything but law enforcement (tracking serious offenses only) keeping an immortal permanent record on you, however Wikipedia is one of the few places you will encounter this. This isn't equitable as people need not have to explain their past, especially something so long ago, every time it is brought into question; and as all of you can agree many irate users will scrutinise you and throw stuff back at you as they see fit (I do a lot of third opinion and dispute resolution stuff and have had and can see having that happen as people get heated when they feel you're part of some grand conspiracy against them).

I've brought this issue up at an anti wikipedia corruption forum where it had significant support, especially amongst users who have been or still are arbitrarily life banned for various (yet surprisingly not serious) reasons, but I am unsure how to go about proposing this formally. This Oversight method seems like the best means, but how would I go about suggesting it?

At present there are literally in excess of 2,000 users on the anti-corruption site I was lurking after my ban encounter, many of which rubbed an admin up the wrong way, and many were banned (I've experienced this myself) in a way that they cannot appeal the ban as the ban template suggests, most are too naive to dig around and find the obscure one line entry giving you an email (if you know where to look) to contact, and after my ban's appeals (which required sock puppetry and ban evasion to appeal, of which I was rebanned for at one point, which is just asinine and naturally compounded the problem) I literally gave up and couldn't find the email and by no means am I less than resourceful with such matters given my profession so if I failed, many others do too.

Of these users, should they return to Wikipedia (many are actually very educated people too, including a dozen or so professors, authors, researchers, and one nobel prize winner (all verifiable)) they will never be able to take an active role due to their past, they will never be able to assist in administration or formalised roles with the topics and fields that they have spent half a century or more serving in the real world, or in some cases in fields that they were a keystone in the development of and existence of.

My experience was an eye opener, and whilst I had it coming and really didn't help myself by getting shittier and shittier the more irrational the ban decline was (as I said above, penitent reactions aren't in GAB, or they'd literally decline because they didn't like your tone) and I know that if it happened to me, it happens to others, the website I went to left my mind blown, and it truly saddens me that we are arbitrarily ostracising such important people rather than rehabilitating, educating, or explaining things to them and instead using them as the amazing and priceless resource they are and then letting them resume contribution without a black mark against their name.

Could someone please suggest how I could go about mobilising such a project? I am backing up this request on my talk page, I will link it here when I do, and I would welcome any advice publicly here, or privately there if any philanthropic soul who truly believes in the betterment of the project by being rehabilitative rather punitive or revengeful and appreciate you lasting this long reading this (quite rambling) request. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

 * 5 years is a better idea.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Five years is insane. Given how many thousands of editors and even entire IP blocks are banned monthly, we'll run out of editors and most will have a black mark against their name.

In almost all nations legal systems once a penalty or sentence is exhausted it is expunged, and to discriminate against them on the grounds that they have undergone a penalty or sentence is a criminal offence. It stands to reason that what is meant to be an enlightened community with an academic focus should at least display the same kind of humanitarianism that a cold clinical legal system presents? BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)