[WikiEN-l] The more I think about my ban from Wikipedia, the more I realize how wrong it was.

[Monahon, Peter B.]

> Earlier: "... I joined Wikipedia to write an encyclopedia, not to have
a damn soap  opera every time I say something ..."

Hi fellow Wikipedians and MediaWiki users, 

	... and you have every right, just as everyone else has, to
participate unfettered, even if, especially if, someone else feels
uncomfortable when they read your contribution.

	The whole point is that they were able to read your
contribution.  I want to be able to read it, too, without it being
erased by someone before me who thinks I can't do my own editing for
myself, thank you very much!

	The whole point is that we all are expanded by each other's
contributions - positive and negative, agree or disagree -- and I hate
the thought that someone, anyone, is being denied participation in our
greater community by some self-righteous admin who thinks they have a
better idea of what a community is, and so starts culling people out of
the community.

	A community without all it's members intact is a failure.

	When I go to court, the first thing the judge asks is, "Did you
try to resolve this yourselves?"

	If someone thinks your writing is inappropriate for the
community, they should say so in private to you just to verify if they
understand you right, and offer you a chance to resend if you concur
that your intention has not been fulfilled by your original send.  First
person contact.

	Then, it makes sense to raise the issue in public in the same
place where your writing is, and try to build a consensus and
understanding between the two of you, to verify their suspicion and
confirm your intention.  Second person contact.

	If they still feel uncomfortable after all that, they should
then present their discomfort to a third person, a non-partisan party,
an uninvolved body, for moderation, arbitration, and resolution.  

	Right now, a lazy, misunderstanding admin can skip steps 1, 2
and 3, and jump right to what should be an unavailable step 4, ban you -
all on their own, without a second thought, without a 1st, 2nd or 3rd
thought, as above!  Then we all suffer the loss of yet another precious
community member, and the challenge of yet another arduous battle to
reconnect and repair the shattered community.

	See what I mean by instituting a "no banning" policy?

	We are not here to have a clean experience.  If we want to have
clean, well-protected experiences, then we should all turn off our
computers, televisions, and phones, and stop reading newspapers,
magazines, and books!

	We are here to grow (or die), and no to kill anything.  We are
here to grow ourselves and others, and that's messy.  Gardens are full
of mud and manure -- and flowers and vegetables!

	Imagine if I banned myself from communicating with myself every
time I experienced myself as uncomfortable to myself!  I'd never grow,
develop discipline, skills, and make the most of my talents, I'd never
recover and learn from a mistake, and I'd never risk fulfilling my
dreams, let alone have any dreams in the first place.  The same goes for
our wiki community - we are one, let's keep it that way!

	Banning is bad for the person who bans!

	Banning is bad for the person who has someone else do their
pre-editing, censoring, and banning for them.

	Banning is bad for the person who witnesses the ban and does
nothing.

	Banning is bad for the person who never gets to witness the ban,
who never gets to experience the person who was banned.

	Banning is bad for the person who receives the ban.

	Banning is bad for the community - in part, and in whole.

	Rather than think we save time (as if that's the wiki's goal) by
allowing unchaperoned banning and then cleaning up goofs afterwards,
which take way more time anyway, I suggest that we put in the extra
effort up front to resolve anyone's discomfort without having the
banning tool so readily at hand.

	A wiki, by definition, builds a community.

	Banning, by definition, destroys a community.

	How many more strikes against the current banning policy do we
need before we abandon it altogether, and actually put in the real work
required to just get along with each other as the community the
wiki-idea was supposed to build and support in the first place?

	To reiterate:

		-- Free and open to all -- (no proxy filter blocks)

		-- Multiple co-moderators -- (no admin is all-powerful
or is permitted to use admin powers to resolve their own discomfort)

		-- No banning -- (temporary block spammers and vandals
only, all others get an open discussion page, and have at it!)



- Peter Blaise

	"If we can't resolve our discomfort with each other using words,
I shudder to think of the alternative methods."  -- unattributed
paraphrasal


==