Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ban appeals reform 2015

Purpose
During the last discussion of reforming the Ban Appeals subcommittee (BASC) there appeared to be a rough consensus to change the way the subcommittee is structured, moving it away from a duty for active arbitrators. However, no consensus was reached as to what exactly the new committee might look like. This second phase is intended to complete the process of changing the subcommittee to some new form, or possibly to do away with it altogether.

Additionally, there is some concern that the Unblock Ticket Response System is experiencing issues involving backlogs of large numbers of requests with no merit, is simply replicating the on-wiki request for unblock process, and as such is suffering from a lack of interest.

Note that this discussion applies to the review processes for bans or long-term blocks imposed by administrators. It does not affect bans imposed by the Arbitration Committee or through a community based process such as discussion at WP:AN.

Proposals
Several proposals are presented below, each with a section for discussion. Users may support or oppose as many of these proposals as they wish, but should note that some proposals are mutually exclusive of one another. It is therefore suggested that users review all proposals before deciding which to support or oppose.

Anyone is free to add new proposals, but should carefully read existing proposals first. If you only wish to see a minor change to one of the existing proposals, the best way to do that is to just say in that proposal's discussion section instead of presenting it as a whole new proposal.

Just get rid of BASC
Review of email ban appeals have taken up a large amount of volunteer time with little benefit to the project. BASC is therefore permanently disbanded. Talk page appeals and WP:UTRS will be the only avenues of appeal.

Discussion of just get rid of BASC

 * Conditional support: I'd like to see some additional leeway for administrators to establish conditions attached to unblocks, which is currently the only advantage that the BASC system has over straight unblock request/UTRS request. What isn't necessarily obvious is that the vast majority of BASC appeals are decided by a single arbitrator as well, and many are automatically rejected because the user hasn't jumped through the right hoops.  Risker (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you have a good point there. On the surface it may look like all BASC decisions are put to a vote, but those of us who have seen it from the other side know that often is not really the case. In a great many cases the appeal is so obviously without merit that the first arb, whether an "official" BASC member or not, who sees the email will just reject it out of hand and add soemthing at the end of their reply along the lines of "if any of the other arbs disagree they will be in touch. In other cases the requests are briefly discussed among random arbs, and in a very small number of cases it actually goes to a vote. That's really not how you would think it works from how it is presented on-wiki.
 * I also think the scattershot nature of how the requests are handled, where they are just one small part of the near-daily avalanche of arbcom email, is a big part of why appeals currently average over a month to get processed. That's really not acceptable. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, reduces transparency. NE Ent 16:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, This will make the appeal process more public and clear. Public appeal at talk page and only appeals related to private information to UTRS.--GZWDer (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - BASC appears to be a drag on its members, and very few appeals are actually granted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - per my other comments on this page. - jc37 03:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Question: if this were adopted, would a UTRS administrator be empowered to overrule an ANI consensus? (See my comments below for why this will sometimes be necessary.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support per Risker. I agree that UTRS should be able to impose restrictions where it would benefit the community.  Re: to NYB.  My own choice is that nothing should be able to overrule the community (not even Arbcom).  However, I question that ANI is a true representation of "the community". — Ched :  ?  22:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That is precisely the point. A block/ban discussion on ANI will generally reach the correct, or at least a reasonable, result, but "generally" is not the same as "always." Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is one of the several reasons of why we elect people like you, and even have an arbcom. As others have stated, BASC is now just an unnecessary step between the community and the committee. And of course we can throw in WP:BURO if you like : ) - jc37 21:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Limit role: BASC should only handle site bans. Few BASC block appeals are actually granted. Esquivalience t 15:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "few" are actually granted means. What percentage of appeals accepted would justify keeping BASC in some form? Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sort-of support. Now that we have UTRS and it's become established, there shouldn't be much, if anything, for BASC to do. I believe appeals of arbitration remedies are made to the committee as a whole rather than to BASC, and I'm not comfortable with the idea of it being an additional layer of appeal on top of appeals on the wiki and UTRS (if somebody's been declined in both cases, the chances are the appeal to BASC isn't going to meet with more sympathy. We could retain BASC or something like it for off-wiki appeals of community bans, but I don't see why that couldn't be handled by, say, three admins on UTRS in consultation with a checkuser if necessary, assuming we give them the power to impose conditions. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – Appears to be the only workable solution, given the opposition to other proposals below. I think what Risker said is the heart of the matter. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose,"per Beeblebrox: Having a final avenue of appeal that operates differently from the on-wiki process is an important safety valve."  It's a FEATURE that it's slow - part of what makes it different - promotes reflection, throttles volume. (Though it should not be slower than its documented to be - looks like the stock email sent (as seen on-wiki) mentions 2 weeks, but the backlog is reported at ~ 6 weeks on-wiki.)  --Elvey(t•c) 19:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose after 3 months experience, I can see that it's slow and might be improved, but I don't see any of the other suggestions as viable or fair. The on-wiki email needs to be changed, thanks for noting that Elvey. Dougweller (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolute Opposition - Having recently been through the BASC process to regain my own editing rights after a 2 year gap, I can only say that the BASC process requires no slimlining or cutting down or disbandment. BASC is an essential part of this wiki, helping to look at particularly difficult areas of unblocks which I don't feel other parts of this site can reasonably cope with.  Could we perhaps get an idea from  or someone else on the BASC as to precisely how much work they actually get, and whether they feel lumbered with a job they'd rather not have? What does the Fish say? &#124; Woof!  20:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to go through and count, but my general sense would be somewhere on the order of 25 appeals a month, quite a few of which are utterly frivolous. Courcelles (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * With those which as you say, are utterly frivolous, I would imagine they can be pretty much dismissed outright without a whole lot of discussion. Do you feel that the workload you currently get weighs down on what you do elsewhere on WP, and - should it come to this - would you be in favour of having the BASC neutralized?  I would like to see something similar in place where sensitive or complicated issues (like mine were) can be brought without being aired in too much of a public environment. Thanks :) What does the Fish say? &#124; Woof!  13:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The obviously frivolous appeals tend to get declined very quickly, sometimes by the first arb to read them. (Yeah, some are really that baseless.  Some are for short blocks, which BASC only very, very rarely deals with, which can also be dismissed quickly.)  I think there is always going to need to be a BASC in some form, because there has to be a way to appeal checkuser or oversight blocks, or those with some private component.  (The full committee, not BASC handles appeals of ArbCom imposed, or discretionary sanction imposed, sanctions).  I really don't think of BASC as a timesink individually, but as a corpus, it can be.  Anything that divides the first few opinions takes a while to resolve. (We all know that getting arbitrators to all look at something can be akin to herding cats.)  Arbcom in general sort of takes all your WP-time away, but BASC is a small portion of that.  I think 85+% of what BASC heals with should be handled by the community, but that's based on philosophy, not workload. Courcelles (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Just get rid of UTRS
The Unblock Ticket Response System has become an intermediate step between on-wiki appeals and BASC. It is essentially a needless extra layer of process that denies almost all appeals it receives. UTRS will therefore be considered a deprecated process, talk page appeals and BASC (or whatever may replace it as a result of this process) will be the only remaining avenues of appeal.

Discussion of just get rid of UTRS

 * While it may not always be extremely speedy, in general UTRS works quite well. I'm inclined to leave it alone as it is. It is not unreasonable to have more than one suitable forum for making an unblock request, and this is an appropriate process when one needs to discuss information unsuitable for a talk page.  Risker (talk) 07:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, reduces transparency. NE Ent 16:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , I'd like to point you to Category:Requests for unblock, which has just in the last 24 hours added the list of UTRS unblock requests, which will be automagically updated. This should address your concerns about transparency, I think. (Kudos to DeltaQuad for writing the script.) Risker (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No; simply knowing an UTRS request exists without access to the content does not significantly increase transparency. NE Ent 19:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep UTRS, although don't worry about it being backlogged or slow. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Though it should only deal with blocks, not bans in any way. - jc37 03:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I think there needs to be something like UTRS to address these things. re: to Jc37 - I think it depends on the nature of the "ban" in whether is was able to be overturned.  I think a better "checks and balances" would benefit the project greatly. — Ched :  ?  22:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The "checks and balances", as you call it, is WP:ARBCOM. Overturning a ban should require the whole committee, not some quasi-subset. In general, policy is that they only have the ability to "overturn" the community when acting as a whole body. BASC violates that. Overturning a WP:BAN lies only in the hands of the community and arbcom (and "appeal to Jimbo", if we want that still).  I understand the concern of being overworked, but bans are one of the clear things that arbcom is there to discern. Otherwise BASC is just a "mini arbcom", which I strongly oppose. - jc37 16:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose (as in keep UTRS). UTRS is useful for people who want to appeal quietly or don't 'get' wiki markup or want to discuss slightly sensitive issues that they don't want plastered all over the wiki. It's not perfect, and its role in policy could do with being cleared up (it seems that UTRS admins often end up acting as go-betweens between the blocked editor and the blocking admin, which is a bit of waste of time), but it's better than anything else we've got. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Keep UTRS. I believe it's a necessary channel for discussions that requesters may wish to keep off-Wiki. Everyone has the right to privacy in their personal communications.  Philg88 ♦talk 20:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As an active UTRS volunteer (and tool-admin), I find that its characterization by some commenters is flawed. Of course, a simple majority of appeals are declined -- spam/promo, banned users with no intent to reform, and the general silliness. However, I have personally approved a number of requests: some were simple mistakes (autoblocks mostly), some were unblock-to-rename, some were old VOA blocks (I'm talking 7+ years), some were standard offers which I have submitted to AN on behalf of the user and they were unblocked-with-conditions per consensus, some were for very active editors that got involved in some mess and saw their talk-page-revoked but a few days into their few-weeks-long block they obviously made amends and I unblocked after consulting with the blocking admin, some are benefit-of-doubt/ROPE unblocks... to say that the near-totality of UTRS appeals are declined in, IMO, simply incorrect. To say that unblock conditions for non-ArbCom-reviewed blocks aren't a thing is also incorrect -- I've myself imposed (and logged) a few for unblocks reviewed by the community at large, or by agreement between myself, the blocking admin and the user. And so far they've all found success. We also already don't deal directly with bans -- we normally refer to BASC, or in exceptional cases, file an AN thread on the user's behalf. In one case, a banned user made a UTRS appeal I found reasonable and I posted it on AN on their behalf, which seems like common sense - UTRS provided the context, but I would've done the same had the user actually e-mailed me directly. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  23:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Deprecate option
Both BASC and WP:UTRS have reported that the vast majority of appeals they review are denied. Response times for both processes have suffered due to apparent fatigue/disinterest caused by this situation. Therefore, both BASC and UTRS  will be considered deprecated, leaving talk page appeals as the only remaining avenue of appeal.

Discussion of deprecated option

 * I support this option. I don't understand why Wikipedians are so willing to placate known troublemakers. No one goes through this process because of a simple misunderstanding or political machinations. Banned editors are a net negative to the project. Their editing has caused hassle for productive Wikipedians and they've already been scrutinized at various noticeboards before they're sanctioned. By the time they submit an appeal they're essentially irredeemable, to my mind. Let's get our productive editors back to writing an encyclopedia. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you really of the opinion that once someone is banned there is no possibility that they could return to be a productive member of this community? Don't get me wrong, in a lot cases this is true, but not in every case. Sometimes it turns out that banned users were actually young kids, and they can mature a lot in just a year or two. Or they may be someone who was having serious problems in "the real world" that have clouded their judgement. It's even psssible they may just realize how stupid they were acting and decide not to be that way anymore. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Obvious. Stop wasting time on this garbage Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm in the peculiar position of being a formerly banned editor who appealed and won an unbanning through a rather arduous AN discussion. BASC and UTRS were worthless (as was the unblock channel on IRC -- actually that place was worst by far). jps (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How did you post the appeal to AN? By a request in your talk page? And if an administrator unjustly revokes talk page access? --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 21:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * By asking a user who is not banned to post the appeal for me to AN. jps (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How'd you get in contact with this not-banned user? --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 00:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support I've worked UTRS, and finally gave up. I don't think I saw a legitimate appeal in the time I worked it. It's clogged with a combination of block reviews that are simple timewasters generated by our bizarre username policy (why people would rather editors that are editing on behalf of an organization not have a username that reflects that relationship escapes me ... they aren't going to become better editors because of a name change) and repeated unblock requests that will simply never be granted.
 * The other problem is that having such a byzantine unblock system creates an illusion of importance to the blocking process that is wholly unnecessary. Being blocked from editing Wikipedia is a minor event in a person's life and not worth a lot of emotional energy by either the blocked person or us. A trivially small number of people have something special to contribute. Most of the rest are relatively interchangeable, and eliminating the disruptive ones quickly, permanently, and with a minimum of fuss should be our goal. That makes working here more pleasant for the rest of us.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose. I also oppose both of the proposals above, but the "nuclear option" would be especially unwise. If a user gets his talk page access removed without any other places to appeal, it's essentially over for good. Not to mention that individual admins would have too much power under a system, as a single block-happy admin could instill a large amount of fear in regular users by threatening to block, and then finding some excuse to remove talk page and email access. This would essentially be the equivalent of being indef banned without a chance of appeal, except that it could be done by one person rather than through consensus. -- Biblio worm  18:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Oppose. Biblioworm's objection is precisely what happened to me in early January 2015.  A harassing Administrator named EvergreenFir was brought in by her crony editors to block me from editing the EURO article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European-American_Unity_and_Rights_Organization), and then when I used my remaining access to my user-talk page to expose what they were doing, I was blocked from even that user-talk page for phony reasons! No appeal works. My experience is that the appeal system of WP simply does not operate in any correct and useable way. It is designed to be a sham.   Frysay (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No. As much as I hate to say "as per user", Biblio summs up my thoughts pretty well. Talk page appeals can be blocked at the will of a single administrator, and leaving no possibility of appeal past that would be simply reckless. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 21:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see where CU or OS blocks could be appealed if we went to this. --Rschen7754 05:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * AUSC could be shoehorned into the role, they don't have much to do and the actual number of appeals received by BASC based on CU or OS is pretty small. I don't actually support this option but that is one way it could work. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per Kww. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to offer a time-consuming multilayered heirachy of appeals courts for users who are blocked. If this is not successful, I think that at the very least blocks less than one week should not be able to be appealed, as that is a massive timewaster and in my experience is widely used as a soapbox for users who have been blocked, almost all of whom immediately post an unblock request immediately. I also strongly do not like the idea that for minor blocks admins should be second-guessing each other, especially for minor blocks. That completely devalues the dissuasive aspect of a block and as has been discussed to death gives a lot more power to the second mover (ie the unblocking admin).--Tom (LT) (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is already BASC policy that they do not hear appeals of short-term blocks. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - I believe that we need an absolute poilicy of never locking the doors to editing Wikipedia to any person, no matter how bad they behave, in a completely permanent way. This proposal means doing just that. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support in conjunction with "it's a wiki" proposal below, which addresses the locking the doors concern. NE Ent 17:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Reluctant oppose. There needs to be somewhere where blocks based on private information can be appealed, however I agree wholeheartedly that editors who are not able and/or willing to improve Wikipedia should be removed from the project as efficiently as possible. MER-C 07:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. When constructing this RFC I tried to add options to represent all viewpoints, as well as a few novel ideas for new ways of doing final appelas. I am quite surprised that this over-the-top option is so far receiving the most support while more thoughtful proposals are largely ignored. While I am well known for being tough on disruptive users, I do feel that we need some form of final appeal that is different fromt he on-wiki process. I think getting rid of off-wiki appeals will put us in a very dangerous place, where a single admin can just decide that a user is effectively perma-banned and revoke their TP and email access, and that's it, they will have no means whatsover to appel that decision. This would encourage both administrative abuse and sockpupettry. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - UTRS appears to serve a necessary purpose. BASC though should be deprecated. - jc37 03:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose most per Od Mishehu. There are times talk page access gets blocked due to flareups, and even if there is good reason for it = if it happens to an "indef" block, this basically removes any and all appeal processes. It's all to easy to "forget" about an "indef" when a voice is silenced, and that should never happen. — Ched : ?  22:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose: If talk page access is revoked of a blocked user (sometimes unfairly or unjustly, without consensus), then that user can't appeal, even if the block or revocation of talk page access was unfair or unjust. Esquivalience t 15:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Everybody should be able to get one, final private decision on the merits of their block, because blocks can be imposed by a single admin and talk page access can be revoked on a whim. I do appreciate the sentiment of some of the supporters, though—we shouldn't have long, bureaucratic, pseudo-legalistic processes for hearing appeals from disruptive editors. Wikipedia is not about justice or fairness, it's about building an encyclopaedia; if that's not for you, that's fine. Go somewhere else. Note that in the real world, a convicted criminal doesn't get to appeal over and over again—for all intents and purposes, they get one appeal. We should be more willing to tell people that we won't hear any further appeals. But they should have the opportunity to present their case to somebody, away from the peanut gallery, so that they can understand the reason for the block (or at least understand that it wasn't an abuse). We also need a venue for cases like people caught in rangeblocks or other cases of indirect blocking where they prefer not to have to give personal information out on the wiki. Experienced editors will usually know an admin they can email, but not everybody will. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose while rehabilitating banned users isn't a very productive activity I don't think it's fair to deny some of them any possible avenue of appeal, especially for blocks based on non-public information that can't be disclosed on-wiki.  Hut 8.5  20:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. and   sum  this up  quite adequately. While the majority  of blocks/bans are perfectly  justified, those that  raise a query  also  stir up  a lot  of dust, just  as contentious issues always do, and then give the blocking/banning  processes and admins in  general, a bad name. I  generally  restrict  my  blocking  to  clear cases of vandals on  a spree or blatant  advertising but  I  do  review a lot  of talk  page block appeals and I'm not  always 100% sure that  an admin  has acted in  the best  interests of the blocked user and the encyclopedia -  I'm certainly  not  inferring  any  kind  of admin  abuse here, but  there is a grey  area that  would be better off for some kind of debate instead of a unilateral  admin  decision  to  unblock  or decline an appeal. There is nowhere on Wiki  where, like a court  of law, one can watch from  the back  of the room  without  being  allowed to  comment,  and block/ban appeals need a venue where they  can be heard without the anti-admin brigade, the peanut  gallery, and eager-beaver admin  wannabes  chiming in. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose It would make it all the more likely that legitimate requests will be ignored (no one would have to do anything, whereas the present system at least puts pressure on us to do something and show when nothing's been done). And there times when information that should be kept confidential needs to be discussed. Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Admin panel
Five administrators will comprise the subcommittee. They will be selected through a process that mirrors the current WP:AUSC selection process. No additional permissions will be granted to appointees. In the event that reviewing an appeal requires access to private information such as checkuser data or suppressed material the case will be referred to the the arbitration committee. Members will be subscribed to Arbcom-appeals-en. Active arbitrators will be also be permitted but not required to subscribe to the list.

Discussion of admin panel

 * Practically guaranteed to slow down the process even more than it is now. Also, no need to involve Arbcom. Risker (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, reduces transparency. NE Ent 16:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose' any such replacement committees. - jc37 03:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as makework. We should be reducing bureaucracy, not increasing it. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A good idea but I'm  reluctant  to  create a new bureaucracy to replace another. We  just  successfully  got  rid of RFC/U which  was a good move to  reduce the spaghetti of red tape that  is threatening  to  strangle Wikipedia. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Combine with WP:AUSC
While ban appeals come in on a near-daily basis, the audit subcommittee heard only thirteen cases in a twenty month period from April 2013 to November 2014, almost all of  which resulted in a  finding that there was no misuse of advanced permissions. Therefore, the two subcommittees will be combined into a single body to handle both tasks, and the number of non-arb members will be increased from 3 to 5.

As with the current AUSC, Members of this new combined subcommittee will be identified to the Wikimedia Foundation, given the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, and have access to the Arbcom-audit-en, Arbcom-appeals-en Functionaries-en, Checkuser-l, and Oversight-l mailing lists and archives, the CheckUser and Oversight IRC channels if requested, and the  OTRS queue. Alternative (or reserve) members of the subcommittee do not have such rights unless they are appointed to the subcommittee during their reserve term.

Discussion of combine with WP:AUSC

 * No thanks. This is a good argument for abolishing AUSC, but it has nothing to do with unblocking. They are not the same skill set. Risker (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The only benefit I can see to this is that it might be better than what we have now. Iff none of the other new structures gain support I would favor this over the status quo but that's as far as I'd go. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Risker is right. Entirely different activities.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - wrong venue, and this is just replacing a committee with another committee. (aka, per Risker.) - jc37 03:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose .. per above. — Ched :  ?  22:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. AUSC should be next on the hitlist of over-bureaucratic processes that contribute little to the encyclopaedia. Considering we have a global Ombudsman Commission (which is basically AUSC but not entirely ornamental), an ArbCom, and three dozen functionaries who should be overseeing each other, we should be looking at getting rid of AUSC rather than rolling it into a BAUSC with all the attendant bureaucracy. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose What Risker said. --Dweller (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I am not  privy  to the actual  cases discussed at  AUSC, but  I  don't  see what  that  sub-committee's job  description has to  do  with  block/ban appeals or why  one should be considering  adding  something to  their purview. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

New UTRS team will replace BASC - Appointed by Arbitration Committee
Currently, BASC indicates it will only hear appeals from users who have already had an appeal denied on their talk page and an appeal denied via the Unblock Ticket Response System. This has resulted in a situation where UTRS has become an extra layer of process users must appeal to before submitting an appeal to the subcommittee, despite the fact that UTRS decisions, like onwiki unblock appeals, are usually handled by a single admin.

Therefore, the current BASC will be dismantled and open membership in UTRS will be considered deprecated. The two processes will be combined into one team, similar to the functionaries team. UTRS will assume the role currently filled by BASC and will no longer hear appeals of short-term blocks. The Arbitration Committee will appoint users to serve on this body after an advisory process similar to (and optimally concurrent with) the one used to select functionaries. There will be no fixed terms and no fixed number of members. New volunteers will be called for as-needed, as is done with Checkusers and Oversighters currently.

All members will be subscribed to the arbcom-appeals-en mailing list so that they may discuss appeals amongst themselves. Sitting arbitrators will be subscribed to the list on an opt-in only basis and their participation in this appeals process will be strictly voluntary. Participation by current functionaries is strongly encouraged so that in the event that checkuser data or suppressed material is relevant to a specific case it can be handled without being referred elsewhere. In all other cases admin members of the team may participate and take action as needed.

The Arbitration Committee will establish standards as they have for functionaries establishing minimum participation thresholds and other criteria for removal from the team.

Discussion of new UTRS team will replace BASC - Appointed by Arbitration Committee

 * Support as proposer. Actually I came up with all of these first seven proposals, but this one is far and away my favorite. It would reduce the level of beuracracy and create a flexible body that should be far more capable to deal with appelas in a timely fashion. There's no real reason ban appeals have to be heard by an arbitration subcommittee, the broader admin and functionary teams should easilty be able to absorb this task if it is structured this way instead of just being four or five specific users. This is more or less exactly how the suppression team operates. Most decisions are obvious, for anything that isn't we have a discussion and act on whatever consensus is found, and it pretty much never takes four to six weeks like BASC currently does. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why the Arbitration Committee should be involved at all; one of the whole points of changing the unblock review process is to reduce Arbcom workload, and this proposal doesn't do that. Will make a separate proposal that does not involve Arbcom. Risker (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but it isn't really fair to say this won't reduce arbcom workload. They wouldn't be involved in the day-to-day unless one of hem wanted to, just like with functionary business. The only thing they would still have to do is appoint new people once a year or so. Probably wouldn't time out right this year but once this was up and running they could do it concurrently with CU/OS appointments and the workload would be minimal. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're still not explaining why Arbcom should have anything to do with unblocking, which (contrary to what some including current arbitrators) was not in the original mandate and literally is something Arbcom decided to make up one day when there was someone they wanted unblocked. The original mandate included review of *bans* only, of which at the time there were less than 50 total for the entire site; as best I can tell, none of those early site bans have ever been overturned.  Risker (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For the same reason they are involved in selecing functionaries. Somebody has to do it, and the community, last time it was left entirely to them, did not produce an acceptable result. At least that's what I remember you guys saying at the time. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But this is unblocking. It's something any administrator can do right now, this minute. It is a task that requires community vetting, which has already been done. You've shown no evidence that the community is failing at unblocking accounts that should be unblocked. There's no reason for Arbcom to be involved in this at all.  Risker (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as being exactly the same as this is more of a final appeal and if they assume the same authority as the current BASC they can bar users from re-appealing for six months or a year., That being said, this particular detail isn't one I'm willing to go to the mat for. If the community would rather do the selection that's fine so long as they actually do it. That's really my only concern, that this job have an appropriate level of people available to handle it, which is currently not the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So, in other words, Arbcom takes over an existing functioning process, kicks out all the admins already working there effectively and puts in its own chosen appointees. Can you see what is wrong with this picture? Bottom line, there is no need for three levels of appeals, and Arbcom never needs to be involved in unblocks. Appeals of its own and the AE sanctions, definitely Arbcom. Community ban from a noticeboard like AN/ANI goes back to the broader community.  Unblocks and "de facto" bans (i.e., blocks that nobody is willing to overturn) can be addressed by any administrator. There's no need for arbcom at all in those.  Risker (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still processing all the points above, but the case that concerns me is one in which an editor is blocked (indefinitely or for a long time) in an ANI discussion that reaches an unjust result. (There's a presumption that an ANI discussion open for a decent amount of time reaches the correct result, but it's a rebuttable presumption; there are certainly times that AN/ANI misfires, for reasons we needn't rehearse here.) No individual administrator is likely to (or, probably, should) grant an unblock request that is overtly against the adjudged ANI consensus, whether it's an on-wiki appeal or UTRS. So there needs to be a body for that user to take his or her final appeal to, and the ArbCom is the logical place for that unless and until another place is defined. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

From what I've been hearing, UTRS actually hasn't been doing so great lately because they are, just like BASC, constantly swamped with requests for unblock that have no merit. We are on the same page regarding not needing three levels for appeals. This idea to combine two of them happens to be the option I prefer. You can continue to attack it in this fashion if you like but I think I'll be disengaging from discussing this with you now since it is obvious you hate this idea and are willing to just keep coming up with new reasons to hate it, includng willingly mischaracterizing it as you have done several times now. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, reduces transparency. NE Ent 16:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - Per my comments on this page. For one thing, there is a difference between a block and a ban. For another, I really don't like the idea of arbcom being even partially out of the loop on ban appeals. - jc37 03:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per . We should be reducing, not increasing, bureaucracy and ArbCom workload. Besides, UTRS was created to fill a gap; if you abolish the gap-stop, the gap doesn't go away, it ends up being filled by something else, be it BASC (with a much-increased workload) or UTRS v2. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - reduces transparency, normal editors do not get say on who is on committee.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

UTRS team will replace BASC - No involvement of Arbitration Committee
Currently, BASC indicates it will only hear appeals from users who have already had an appeal denied on their talk page and an appeal denied via the Unblock Ticket Response System. This has resulted in a situation where UTRS has become an extra layer of process users must appeal to before submitting an appeal to the subcommittee, despite the fact that UTRS decisions, like onwiki unblock appeals, are usually handled by a single admin.

The current UTRS processes require only a single administrator's decision to be final. Revising this process slightly, requests that result in an unblock may be handled by a single administrator, but all denials will be handled by a minimum of two administrators; if there is disagreement between the two administrators, further opinion will be sought from at least one further administrator. (In other words, all denied requests must be signed off by at least two administrators.)

Any requests made to UTRS that are specific to a sanction placed through an Arbitration Committee sanction or an arbitration enforcement sanction will be referred to the Arbitration Committee.

Discussion of UTRS team will replace BASC - No involvement of Arbitration Committee
CharlieTheCabbie|paġna utenti| diskussjoni 11:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This increases eyes on individual requests while also reducing the workload of Arbcom, and also reduces bureaucracy. Risker (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note - I'm not closely attached to having two admins involved, and would be just fine with leaving UTRS as it is, and actively recruiting additional admins to participate. Risker (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, reduces transparency. NE Ent 16:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is the best of the options presented here, though there should be provisions to summarily reject frivolous appeals. MER-C 08:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I oppose this is this is not done 'blind', that is, the second reviewer shouldn't know that he is the second reviewer and another administrator has declined the request. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as transparency goes; it would be good if for each request, with the permission of the requestor, the discussion is archived on-wiki, or that a note is made on-wiki that a request was made, but that the requestor didn't want it published on-wiki. Non-public information from the request could be stripped, and things that would be revivsion deleted or suppressed shouldn't end up on-wiki off course. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - difference between a block and a ban. And this is worse, due to lack of Arbcom involvement. - jc37 03:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support ... although I'd prefer to see 3 admins agree. — Ched : ?  22:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Bureaucracy for the for the sake of bureaucracy. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: The original statement on this section is not correct. BASC will also hear appeals from users blocked on a CU or Sock basis directly, regardless of whether unblock requests on their talk pages or via UTRS have already been made.

Status quo
Despite the apparent consensus from the previous RFC, there is nothing so wrong with current appeals processes that they require radical changes. Both UTRS and BASC should therefore remain as they are now.

Discussion of status quo

 * Support. I'm thinking about some of the other options, but I'm going to go with the "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" option for now. -- Biblio worm  18:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * An unfortunate side effect of the way both processes work is that what they do is virtually invisible on-wiki. In fact my opinion of how UTRS functions is based solely on comments others who are or have been active there, but BASC is certainly broken. On-wiki appeals are usually handled within a few hours. Ac ouple of days is unusually long. BASC, on the otherr hand, is currently running 4-6 weeks out on new requests. An older incarnation of arbcom decided to take over this responsibility and now it has become a white elephant for succesive committees. I believe if you ask current or former arbs they will pretty much all tell you that BASC should at the very least not be comprised completely of already-overworked arbitrators. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per Beeblebrox annd reduces transparency. NE Ent 17:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It sounds like the BASC committee should be deprecated. - jc37 03:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a wiki
Unlock banned users talk pages. Permit them to post a new type of "unban" request. Have a broad discussion on the users talk page about the unban request, and find consensus, on wiki. If there's consensus to unban, great. Otherwise, lock the talk page for 365 days (default) or another time to be consensused upon and do the process again after that time period.

Discussion of Its a wiki

 * I mean, I should get paid for these obvious ideas. Support Hipocrite (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Having just spent a year on BASC I think it does fill an important role exactly because it is off-wiki. People in these situations are often rather upset about it. It can be easier for them to have a calm discussion with one or two others by email than to be subject to a free-for-all on their talk page. Having a final avenue of appeal that operates differently from the on-wiki process is an important safety valve to prevent needlessly keeping people blocked, it just doens't need to be done by arbcom. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If the individual in question can't be calm on their talk page, why exactly should they be unblocked? Hipocrite (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not a psychiatrist or a sociologist so I'm not sure I can say exactly why, but for some reason some people seem to calm down and behave more rationally once they get to the point of appeals by email. Not everybody, not even a lot, but some. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are we considering ban appeals from people who need extra-wiki aids to "calm down and behave more rationally?" Hipocrite (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because sometimes mistakes are made all around and banning people isn't actually something we want to do? If you know my history around here at all you know I am not someone who is soft on people who constantly disrupt things. In fact during my recent arbcom term I was often at odds with some of the other arbs because I felt they tried way too hard to avoid banning people who really needed to go. But I still think itis important to have an avenue of final appeal that is distinctly different fromt he random way on-wiki unblocks work. Others may disagree, which is why we are having this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems like providing people a magical channel where they can have their ban reviews done calmly and quietly with a nice cup of tea and all kinds of people fawning over them trying to calm them down is a waste of resources if they aren't able to keep their shit together on their talk page. Hipocrite (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You're really missing the point. That's not how it is at all. Nobody fawns over these people, in fact probably 95% of appeals to BASC are rejected and the appellant told to go away for a minimum of six months. And when they do agree to give someone another chance it is almost always with take-it-or-leave-it terms for their return. It is simply a way of having a private conversation with those few who actually have a chance to return without unhelpful or inflammatory comments from random busybodys getting in the way. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"It's a wiki" ie. we are here to build an encyclopedia. These unban processes which consume a lot of volunteer time and effort are not helping to build the encyclopedia and indeed are one of its many byzantine aspects. Nowhere is it written that we have to offer method upon method upon method to let banned users appeal, this is time-consuming and these energies could be spent elsewhere. It adds a lot of needless drama and stress to a process that should be a minor process, not one laced with acrimony that, owing to unblock requests, may linger on and on, even for minor bans. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support improves transparency. Editors should be informed using the "ping" to bypass the restriction to their talk page will not be tolerated, and banned editors should be limited in how often they can appeal. (e.g. 6 months, then 1 year, 2 years, etc.) The important thing is that the penchant from removing talk page access for the usual ranting and raving must be stopped -- folks who don't want to see the ranting and raving should simply stop reading it. Very much like the adult way to deal with a child's tantrum is to ignore it and wait until it's out of their system. NE Ent 17:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I find your point about transparency very pertinent. Although it hasn't been brought up thus far, I think that it is one of the most persuasive arguments for why a non-wiki venue shouldn't be used to review bans. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose because it does not provide a venue for the discussion of blocks based on non-public information. MER-C 08:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Has anyone blocked on the basis of non-public information ever been unblocked? Regardless, in that case, the appropriate party is the party of the sufficiently-advanced usertool that initially blocked the person. Hipocrite (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per my comments above. And yes, people who were blocked based on private information have been subsequently unblocked. Why? For the same types of reasons anybody else can get unblocked: either there was a problem with the block to begin with, or after some time and reflection the person realized what they had done wrong and made a compelling request to be given another chance. Remember that this category includes checkuser data, and not all people who sock are really being malicious, some of them are just misguided or don't realize how seriously that is taken here, unlike most of the rest of the internet. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support --GZWDer (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now - we disable user access to the talk page with a block; unless we have a technical means of adding a temporary flag of "Prevent this user from editing their own talk page" without shortening the block, this isn't doable without a bot and a lot of block log mess. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support if technically feasible to fix the issues Od Mishehu brings up. I understand the issues Beeblebrox brings up. In my estimation they are because when using email, people feel they are talking to a person, rather than to an amorphous mass. We should be able to provide the same thing on-wiki. Whether or not it is technically feasible to have a talkpage block expire, but the rest of the block not expire, I don't know. It sounds it should be feasible though, but it would probably need a volunteer to write to software for us. Do we have one? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Provisional support - That we aren't just unblocking all talk pages, but rather only if an appeal is being requested on appropriate grounds, etc. And I agree that blocking and unblocking talk page access should be a separate user-right/action/log than completely blocking an editor from editing the rest of the encyclopedia. - jc37 05:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Jc37 — Ched : ?  22:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose even if the technical issues with this could be resolved this proposal doesn't address the issue of blocks involving non-public information and invites abuse of talk pages (blocked users don't get their access to their talk page revoked unless someone with a block button thinks they're abusing it).  Hut 8.5  21:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, why limit a usertalk page at all? The talk page is off-wiki, and the banned editor can make no contributions outside of their own talk page. It allows a public location where the ban, and other topics of concern to the banned editor can be discussed. If another editor doesn't want to read what the banned editor writes, it's as simple as not reading that editors talk page. I understand the idea of limiting the ping ability of the banned editor during the banned period, as continued pinging can be seen as a form of online bullying, making it uncomfortable for an editor to continue to edit of a banned editor constantly pings the editor(s) they have issue with.
 * For off-wiki concerns, perhaps a way to email a group of editors/admins/buro can be created (if it doesn't already exist), with that group required to give a redacted summary of communications (keeping hidden required off-wiki things being discussed) to provide for transparency.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, user talk pages are definitely on-wiki, and policies like NPA, BLP and copyright rules apply to every page regardless of namespace. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  21:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * IMHO, although those policies apply, it doesn't lessen the proposal being suggested here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Lines of appeal

 * As I was reading through this page, I was thinking that there seems to be a lot of WP:BURO being proposed on this page with not a whole lot of benefit. Courcelles comments in the general section below very much struck a chord with me (as did Od Mishehu's comments of "I believe that we need an absolute policy of never locking the doors to editing Wikipedia to any person, no matter how bad they behave, in a completely permanent way." )
 * That and did we somewhere lose the old distinction of "the difference between a block and a ban"?
 * Anyway, if we need to have a process...


 * First line of appeal: Talk page request (with a template which triggers a notice posted to some noticeboard - for watching/tracking purposes) - If you can't get even a single admin to unblock you following such a discussion, then enjoy your time away from Wikipedia, period. If your talk page access has been blocked, then there should be an email list (or ticket system or whatever) just for that - merely to request talk page unblock to allow for appeal request. And requestees should be made very aware that abusing that process can lead to future refusal of talkpage block removal. As noted, to remove talk page block requires block adjustment (I think it would be nice if that was split into a separate admin tool with a separate log.)
 * Second line of appeal: If there are some privacy issues, or whatever other reason to appeal "behind the scenes", then "some system" should be in place in which at least one person "in the know" concerning the blockee's history should be involved in the unblock. And if privacy is involved, arbcom should be notified/involved. And my understanding is that they have a wiki set up to record such things of institutional memory. So with that in mind, I think that this "second line of appeal" really does need to be arbcom or at least arbcom members, since only they have such access.
 * I realise that arbcom wants to drop some of its many tasks, but it seems to me that in general, the real problem of the current system is that we have apparently opened up processes to a bunch of requests that could/should be handled at the first line of appeal, which arbcom need not be involved with at all. Now that said, setting up some guidelines on how often one may repeat appeal and other such things, might be a good way of moving forward, but otherwise, going offwiki should only be for those cases which "need" to be taken offwiki.
 * And unless we want to add a final layer of "appeal to Jimbo", I think that's all we should want or need.- jc37 18:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of Lines of appeal

 * Support (obviously : ) - jc37 18:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the first line of appeal, as proposed here, means two things: Firstly, if a user's talk page access was revoked, the user must go through a separate bureaucratic level to get unblocked - first, get talk page permission back, then request an unblock. Secondly, if a user has already made too many "abuses" of the uhblock request system, the user will never be given an other chance - which goes back to my statement above about an absolute poilicy of never locking the doors to editing Wikipedia to any person, no matter how bad they behave, in a completely permanent way. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I totally agree with you : ) - when I said "refuse" I didn't say or mean "permanently". I merely was trying to prevent wasting the community's time with those who would otherwise pointlessly re-request daily or monthly or whatever. As for the other, I really wish that changing talk page protection wasn't be part of the block tool, and I would like to see that changed. But yes, given the choice between the current bureaucracies and merely having a blocked/banned user go through the steps to request for talk page access returned so they can appeal, then yes I'll go for the latter, definitely. So in that, I suppose we disagree. - jc37 20:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Tighten and streamline existing system
At the risk of adding further to this rather confusing and multi-threaded discussion, I offer the proposal that we retain the existing system but make it more specific - this is similar to Jc37's Lines of Appeal suggestion above. I'd envision something like this: There are a couple of hypothetical cases where this system might need to be IARed, for example if the evidence for unblocking included sensitive information (in that example, I would suggest that BASC would be the appropriate venue). However, simply making the two email channels more specific in this way would, I think, go a long way towards reducing the backlogs and increasing the transparency of the unblock process. Yunshui 雲 水 11:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) All unblock appeals should take place on the user's talkpage.
 * 2) However, if their talkpage access is revoked, they are able to appeal to an administrator via UTRS. UTRS should automatically decline any request from a user who can still edit their talkpage, and should treat requests from users who cannot do so exactly as though they were posted on the user's talk (i.e. any uninvolved administrator could make a decision over whether or not to unblock).
 * 3) BASC would continue to exist for the appeal of site bans only. BASC would automatically decline any request from a user who is not subject to a site ban.

Discussion of Tighten and streamline existing system

 * Support, though I'm very open to suggestions for improvement of the specifics. Yunshui 雲 水 11:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't this how it currently works, leastwise with respect to BASC, anyway?  Roger Davies  talk 11:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * BASC still seem to get the odd unblock request from users who are not actually subject to site bans, and UTRS is regularly used by blocked users who still have talkpage access. I'm pretty sure the above is how things are supposed to work, but it couldn't hurt to make the purposes of the different mechanisms a bit clearer, especially to those users that are likely to want to make use of them. Yunshui 雲 水 10:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Partial Support - especially restricting UTRS to unblock'ing requests (not bans), which would include requests to unblock talk page access. But I think that BASC should be deprecated and thus site ban appeals should go to Arbcom directly, for various reasons. - jc37 03:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, with the proviso that any user who had their talk page access revoked due to abuse of the unblock process has their UTRS appeals summarily rejected. MER-C 01:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support May need a few tweaks, but this also seems fairly simple and straightforward.  — Ched :  ?  22:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Simple way to reform the complicated system. Esquivalience t 15:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I support this over any of the other processes because it keeps things simple and doesn't over-bureaucratise there he goes, using that word again, do you have any idea how many times I've corrected my spelling of it before saving? the process or confuse it with concepts of fairness and justice. We need a fairly lightweight process that doesn't keep too many people away from the encyclopaedia for too long. This fits that bill better than anything I've seen so far. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support - one of the best, most sensible proposals that I've seen. Admittedly, we'd need to be more specific than that, meaning further discussion would most certainly be needed. --ceradon ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as a sensible proposal for streamlining, although I think BASC should have explicit authority to review blocks involving non-public information. (If we are going to ignore a rule routinely in this situation then it's better to just change the rule to start with.)  Hut 8.5  21:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I like my idea better as it is intended to create a single, flexible team that could handle all of this, but nobody is supporting it and this is at least something. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Beeblebrox. --Rschen7754 02:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support But I think we need a public report for all (approved and declined) UTRS/BASC cases with a brief (i.e. don't leak confidential information).--GZWDer (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Insufficient. Prefer closing down, as I said above. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks to be a very neat and tidy way to clean up something which right now, is messy, complicated and ugly. CharlieTheCabbie|paġna utenti| diskussjoni  11:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as a compromise. Are there any plans to close this discussion? --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 00:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - but I would amend 3 to read "BASC would normally continue to exist for the appeal of site bans only. BASC would automatically decline any request from a user who is not subject to a site ban, unless there was privacy or other important issues to be considered. But they would have the option to allow talk page access for appeals in the usual fashion, if that had been disabled." --Mrjulesd (talk)  23:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – As is, internally inconsistent. Poorly described; contradictory.  BTW any policy change should include requiring that the blocking/banning admin be notified x days prior to any overturn.--Elvey(t•c) 19:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on what you think is inconsistent/contradictory, and what needs further description? I'm more than happy to improve the wording if there's a better way to phrase it. Yunshui 雲 水 10:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're stating there's a secret/undocumented process for when the evidence for unblocking includes sensitive information that contradicts step 1 ... Doesn't seem transparent to me.--Elvey(t•c) 03:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the bit about referring sensative appeals to BASC? If privacy issues are involved (a pretty rare occurrence, admittedly) then we do still need a process whereby blocks can be appealed off-wiki, and BASC seems to me to be the most obvious candidate for that. Yunshui 雲 水 11:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If privacy is involved, that then should go to the arbcom committee-as-a-whole. My understanding is that that was one of the several reasons we even have an arbcom - to address something in committee rather than as a community. In this, arcom represents the community. This is part of why BASC should go - it's a representative committee of a representative committee. - jc37 17:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, but one of the current problems we have on BASC is that often appeals languish whilst they await input from one or more members of the committee (and I should add that I'm as guilty of holding things up as anyone else in this respect). If the entirely of ArbCom were to review appeals, I suspect that the length of time it takes to complete a review would be extended still further, since we would be waiting for more opinions and/or votes before concuding a discussion. A smaller committee like BASC is able to come to a decision faster, since there are fewer people involved. Ideally, it would make sense for ArbCom, as an elected representative of the community, to make the decisions, but I believe that in practice, doing so would slow an already sluggish process almost to a halt. Yunshui 雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 08:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as a sensible reform for the existing system. APerson (talk!) 12:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, I do have some concerns about appeals on open access talk page. In so much, that if the person is being hounded by editors who oppose their return, who are watching the blocked editors talk page, than it could lead to non-constructive discussions. If there is a way for the editor to have their block reviewed by non-involved administrators, and my them alone, than this might be something interesting to discuss.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Ask the members of the BASC how they feel.
Surely the best people to tell us what would be the best thing to do with the BASC, are the BASC themselves. It's all very well us sitting and discussing the future of a body which does a lot of useful and sensitive work within our fold, but has anyone (besides me) actually asked them what it is like for them? How heavy their work is? Do they feel it would be prudent to knock it on the head? What we need is a combined statement from a representative of the BASC (after consultation) giving us a direct reaction on this whole sorry process. We need to know how they feel in order to decide how this whole thing should proceed. What does the Fish say? &#124; Woof! 13:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

General discussion

 * I see the merit in shutting down UTRS, as UTRS is as overworked and as inefficient as the old unblock mailing list was. I'm just going to comment here, rather than on all the proposals.  What I think needs to happen is BASC's scope dramatically reduced.  AE and ArbCom actions are already outside BASC's scope.  Those appeals have to be heard by the full Committee anyway.  Also, lets remember, BASC as it exists doesn't work as a formal sub-committee; each appeal is heard by an ad hoc assembly of whatever arbs decide to comment.  In my opinion BASC should be constituted by community members who are identified to the Foundation, and selected with full knowledge they may come into contact with some private information. ArbCom shouldn't be picking the BASC members, but a couple arbs should be there at least as non-voting liaisons; sometimes ArbCom is aware of things other folks aren't.  BASC's scope should be very limited; perhaps to only long-term blocks where a noticeboard appeal (or similar) has already been denied.  We need some form of 'court of last resort' and a BASC as reformed can be it, but the 'last resort' part is what will keep it from being bogged down.  Separating BASC will also allow ArbCom to focus only on appeals for actions that were already within the arbitration process, which is a distinct, yet important, minority. Courcelles 19:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * At the risk of being unnecessarily crude, this page is at risk of disappearing down its own navel. Just do it. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate if the above proposals could be clarified to explain how users with blocked user talk pages would make appeals. Some if the above proposals, it appears, give no such option to these users. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree to some extent with, but I favour getting rid of BASC and redistributing its workload: anything ArbCom-related to ArbCom, anything else to UTRS, with a dedicated queue within UTRS for bans and functionary blocks. These should be handled by a team of trustworthy, identified admins wither in consultation with functionaries or assigned CU or OS as necessary for the sole purpose of that appeal. Everything else should be handled as it currently is. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My thoughts are this: Editors make mistakes. Admins make mistakes.  It's very easy to jump on a bandwagon to make someone shut-up.  Good people have been tossed and lost, we can't change the past; but we can do better in the future.  People get pissed when they get blocked, and they tend to blow-off steam - that doesn't make them a permanent undesirable resource.  If a little bit of time and patience saves one editor, one article, one concept - then we should make that effort.  Perhaps it's AGF in the extreme, but it's the way I am (usually).  In the heat of the moment it's often easy to block talk-page access, and even appropriate at times.  Still, in the wake of the silence, it's often all too easily forgotten.  When an editor stops showing up on the watchlist - it doesn't take long to forget.  Sometimes a little 'one-on-one' discussion can do wonders, and mistakes can be corrected.  We need to be salvaging more from our pool than we currently are. — Ched :  ?  21:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am aware that this RFC has been in progress for about 6 weeks now, with a few differing proposals on the floor. Is there any given timescale for an RFC of this nature?  If it's going to become action, who decides when and on what basis?  I think we should have some idea. CharlieTheCabbie|paġna utenti| diskussjoni  20:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. And not to pre-guess the close or anything, but the results appear fairly obvious at this point (first and last section pass, the rest do not due to opposed or no consensus). The only thing that might need to be discussed is - if the first section passes, will a new discussion be required to decide how to implement Risker's suggestion the admins be allowed to set criteria - which I thought admins could already do - I've seen it often enough when someone is unblocked due to an unblock request. So does this need to be "codified" somewhere? - jc37 21:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't want to pre-guess the close either, jc37, but I would hope the last section would get the go ahead personally. It looks like a neat, clean option with not too much messing about.  I wouldn't want to see the BASC closed altogether, simply limited drastically in its role.  Anyway, a time limit is what we need here - this is only a request for comment, not a movement for action.  Basically, does this actually mean anything? CharlieTheCabbie|paġna utenti| diskussjoni  23:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)