I think I'm trying to expand the thought of "banning" beyond the usual "minor" squabbles and quibbles (and flame wars) between moderators and users as we've seen previously in smaller chat subject-oriented groups (user groups and other so-called Internet communities).

Wikipedia, and other wikis, are becoming globally influential, and as such, are garnering much more attention because of their real power. I postulate that the banning power moderators had in small chat groups is inappropriate in Wikipedia, and in other public and encyclopedic wikis.

It's time to grow our self-control to be in concert with our growing power. Otherwise, that power will be concentrated in the hands of admins, and will be outside the control of the community itself.

Andrew wrote: ... there exist problems with the functioning of communities that can be solved by means *other* than duplicating the American constitution in microcosm ...

Peter Blaise responds:

Such as ...?

Please, do tell.

And, by the way, - separation of the powers of enforcement, lawmaking, and judgment; - innocence until proven guilty to an impartial, independent body; - forgiveness and an opportunity to rejoin the community; - and no death penalty, ... are not only NOT uniquely "American" nor U.S., and are not uniquely modern. However, I see absolutely no valuable in identifying the origin of such ideas as if it were determinant on their value.

I put it to you that any community that cannot incorporate all it's members with equivalent consideration - bans them instead - is not a *functioning* community.

Again, let me ask you to consider:

Peter Blaise wrote: ... I propose that there be NO BANNING except for:

• spammers
• vandals

... and even these be subject to [public] review ... ... I propose that there NEVER be permanent banning! ...

------------------------------

Thomas wrote: ... you have to take appeals into account. Yes, there is the occasional admin that blocks unreasonably, however those blocks don't last long (and in cases as bad as the ones you are talking about, neither does the admin's mop).

Peter Blaise responds: Appeal?

To a "higher authority"?

There should be no higher authority than the community. If you're banned, how do you then appeal to the community from which you have been banned from appealing to?

Please, do tell!

Again, let me ask you to consider:

Peter Blaise wrote: ... dealing with subtle or blatant co-opting of our wiki's administration by commercial, political, and religious interests ... intentional subterfuge and sabotage by covert admins ... the wikis are now seen by powerful bodies out there as potent vehicles for their own propaganda distribution. All this is happening now, and we are not monitoring it. Banning permits these people to gain power and quash other viewpoints from the public access the wiki was built for in the first place! ... [a no-banning policy] reduces the power of admins, and therefor reduces the draw to become an admin [and] gain superior power over other contributors in the community ...

I'm just saying, we can solve these problems by instituting an intelligent no-banning policy, as suggested.

- Peter Blaise