"The price of freedom is constant vigilance" -- attributed to Thomas Jefferson

--

I don't think this discussion will ever go away. I don't think this discussion SHOULD ever go away.

I don't think we all disagree, essentially or penultimately; we only disagree superficially. What I think happens a lot is that we all end up each of us talking about different things in the same discussion, and then we don't know it, and think we're arguing. Some of us see the encyclopedia on it's own, and consider the people around it to be secondary or expendable. Some others of us are looking at the people first. If one of us writes, "The most important thing is such-and-such...", the reader might be unaware that the writer is looking at a different part of Wikipedia than they are, and so the argument spirals, untethered to any disciplined, preliminary, agreed-upon common experience.

For example, we could be talking about how horrible, or great, are the pyramids. One of us thinks that if some workers are killed during construction, that's fine - it's the cost of the job. Some of us want that pyramid to always be subordinate to the members of the community building it. So, then, we're not talking about the same thing. One is talking about the pyramids themselves, the other about the people.

Same here. Those of us writing about Wikipedia without regard for the people are thinking of something completely different from those of us who are writing about the people. So, conversely, am I writing about the people without regard for the Wikipedia? I don't think so. I have trust that the encyclopedia will get built, and will be even better, if it comes from a healthy, all-inclusive community . But, I suppose that I can see how someone else might think that I don't care about the encyclopedia at all. Just as I might see someone talking about Wikipedia without regard for the people - that may be an erroneous impression, also.

--

Earlier: "... being a democratic community is not our goal ... we sometimes ban people because they do not, will not, or can not contribute positively to the encyclopaedia ..."

Peter Blaise responds: "We" sometimes ban? No. ONE person sometimes bans another person ... and they do it because they CAN. Banning is an expression of that one person's impatience, that one person's misunderstanding, that one person's whim, that one person's malice, that one person's inability to spend the time and energy needed to resolve the problem inclusively, with respect for the other person upon whom they blame their frustration.

Aside: Help me with the source of the following story, true or false, but it illustrates for me the opposite of a "banning admin":

"Two chess champions were struggling in a tournament when one stood up mid-game, cleared the board with an angry swipe of their arm, and yelled, "I can't believe I'm loosing to such an idiot!""

I other words, the first player didn't know how to beat their opponent, whom they considered inferior, but honored that their opponent was going to win that game nevertheless, and so decided to let them win by default, rather than by the first player actually putting in all the work for an entire game, and loosing anyway. My point here is to suggest that admins caught up in a personal snit should bow out gracefully and let someone else address their "opponent" next, rather than ban their opponent.

--

Earlier: "... Wikipedia's community is a co-dominate oligarchy with high class mobility ..."

Peter Blaise responds: I'm beginning to understand that democracy is always underneath any other supposed form of governance - democracy is the base note underneath any community regardless of it's claim to another form. I find democracy to be the least offensive and lowest common denominator of all communities. I also find that non-democracies are essentially inflicted by a few powerful individuals for their own convenience, people who value something other than the community.

Also, admins don't ban people because those people ARE bad for the community and Wikipedia. Admins ban people because THEY THINK something about the people they ban, and because THEY CAN. Period. The tools of governance aren't intelligent. They don't distinguish intention from result. They do not know when they are being used as a weapon for good or evil. A ban is a ban is a ban is a ban, to paraphrase Gertrude Stein.

Perhaps we agree on an "end" goal: - Anyone unhealthy for the community and encyclopedia should be separated from the community until rehabilitated.

Perhaps we disagree on the "means" to that end: - Who should decide? For how long? What tools / weapons should an individual have at hand? What tools / weapons should the community have at hand?

--

Earlier: "... Bans are not the decision of one person - they are the decision of 1200 people ..."

So, 1,200 agree unanimously? Or, is it 601 people that must agree BEFORE a ban is inflicted? Do they all have to also agree on the extent of the ban? How does the banned person seek relief or recourse?

Or, is it more likely that any ONE admin, sysop, bureaucrat can do any dang banning they please, for any dang reason they please, accurate or inaccurate, real or imagined. Then the poor banned person, if they can figure out a way, can try to find someone to appeal to, and you suggest there are 1,199 other admins who are ready, willing and able to respond to an unban request on demand?

Sounds fair to me.

NOT!

Let me put it this way:

(a) I believe 100% that anyone who is destructive of Wikipedia or any of it's members should be separated from Wikipedia articles (if that's where their crime took effect) and or from discussion / talk pages (it that's where their crime took effect) - essentially BANNED - until they have fixed what they have broken and have taken steps to prevent themselves from doing it again. On this I agree wholeheartedly.

(b) I believe 0% in the Wikipedia power distribution and judicial system, so I think banning should NOT be permitted as a tool /weapon in their hand.

Otherwise, banning is fine by me, just so long as no one has the power to ban - that is, no ONE has the power to ban!

==========

Next problem - how to prevent stealth sabotage and take over by ominous powers, like the energies of, say, for instance, the China government. I suggest that Wikipedia is a POWER because of it's global influence, not the least of it from Google's high-ranking reporting on Wikipedia's popularity. Add to that the power to ban, and it makes any take-over absolute, even if it's "just" a corner of Wikipedia's many topic areas, even if only for a short period of time - that may be all that's needed to produce their desired effect. This challenge is different than a rogue, whimsical admin flexing their ego. This is, perhaps, a subtle, 10-year plan by some covert "secret service", maybe not even so far away as China, though on the Internet, everyone is equally close! No one has addressed the challenge to prevent that.

I put it to us all that the features of the wonderful, incredible Wikiscanner http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ and it's users, independent of Wikipedia, are insufficient to the challenge.

However, removing the banning tool altogether helps level the playing field, along with diminishing the powers of the "we ain't no democracy (meaning: we have the power)" proponents.

I suppose the Foundation can try to reclaim Wikipedia, or whatever part has been co-opted after such an incident - why prevent something we don't believe, or even imagine, can happen?

--