Wikipedia's attitude to blocking

[zordrac]

I found it interesting that on Wikipedia if you get blocked or banned, you can only appeal if you accept that they were right to block or ban you. If you in any way object to being banned then you can't appeal. You're not allowed to.

Just imagine if our legal system worked like that.

You've been found guilty of murder but they stuffed it up because someone else has confessed and it was a case of mistaken identity, but in order to appeal you first have to admit that you did it - even though you didn't.

You can see why they do it like that, of course. Then they are just permanently congratulating themselves.

To call it corrupt is an understatement.

You don't even need examples for why this is wrong - it's self-evidentiary.

Even for a privately-run entity, this is wrong.

I run a computer game and sometimes ban or punish people, and if someone says that it was wrong, I consider whether it was wrong. I don't expect them to apologise if they didn't do it. In fact, if they apologise but they didn't do it, I find it really annoying.

What the hell, Wikipedia? How is that a fair system?

How is it fair if a true accusation can be undone but a false one means you are banned for life? That's crazy!