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

[Monahon, Peter B.]

[We each respond in our own time cycles - I don't read the list by the
hour, more by the day or week.  If you've had enough thoughts on this,
please scroll on!  Otherwise ... this is more about Wikipedia banning,
not this list, and I try to remove any personal references.  Here are my
thoughts ... 1,388 words:]

--

> Earlier: "... As is it if you know how [so-and-so] acts on IRC ...
Many ops suspect that [they] did a few of the bot attacks on #wikipedia.
(Maybe just suspicion, but nevertheless, it's suspicious.) ..."

Great - ban someone on Wikipedia because of their (suspected) actions
OFF Wikipedia!

And the logic is ...?

We're building an incentive for admins to spend their time looking for
people to ban, and look even harder by looking OFF Wikipedia to invent
reasons to ban them.

We are incentivizing building a Wikipedia Secret Police!

We should be incentivizing building a Wikipedia community, building an
encyclopedia!

Does anyone have any ideas how to incorporate ALL our members into the
Wikipedia community?

> Earlier: "... Isn't this list moderated? ..."

Hahahahah.  I get it.

But, seriously, if we ask others to ignore us if they're not interested
in our posts, then we must agree to also scroll on past other people's
posts that do not interest us, rather than ask a moderator to guess what
we object to, and do our editing/censoring for us, as if that were a
service, as if anyone needs that as a job description: Mind Reader.
What a useless waste of time and energy for a moderator to read these
posts for content, then delete anything that's not spam.  Let it all
through - I'll do my own scrolling down and deleting, thank you very
much!

> Earlier: "... If ... the mailing list becomes disagreeable to the
majority of its active users ... to the point that they leave and go
elsewhere, what has been gained? ..."

What's been gained?

People taking responsibility for themselves!

... rather than abdicating their responsibilities to a moderator to
second-guess for them and make life supposedly easier for them - read:
sterilized!

Banning and deleting are not the only ways to "moderate" a list, or
Wikipedia.  Why not dive in, moderate, set an example, and inspire BOTH
sides to play well together more effectively?

> Earlier: "... it's the blatantly repetitive/redundant/non-contributing
stuff that we reject ..."

Hey, cut that out!  I mean, DON'T cut that out!  I mean ... let it all
through!  It may be redundant to you, but everything's new to newbies
... and I'm at that point in life where everything old is new again,
with every new dawning day.  Sometimes I blink or sneeze and
everything's new for me once again after that!  =8^o  Life is good!
(Versus?)

Let me simplify our lives as a moderators, admins, and sysops:

-- delete spam only --

... uhmm, that's it!  

We can take it from there!  Anyone who complains that the list is too
noisy should start another list under their own name and call it
"Josie's Clean Wikipedia Chat" or whatever, and do their own moderation
to their own heart's content.  

Otherwise, if there's a "Wikipedia" on the name, keep it open for
everyone, all the time, always.

> Earlier: "... [they] had two accounts ... [they] used one to recommend
the other be unblocked without making it clear you controlled both.
That's abusive use of sockpuppets, and the blocks are valid ..."

Oh, puleeze!

Let's assess the contents of any writing on it's merits alone, ignore
the source, don't prejudice ourselves against actually thinking and
being empathetic with our fellow community members, with what we would
do if we were in the situation.  "I wouldn't let it happen to me."  Oh
yeah?  By allowing others to ban AT ALL, we risk letting it happen to
ourselves!  It could happen.  Let's not be so fast to say, "Banned, eh,
what'd YOU do to get banned?"

Let's not create the need for everyone on Wikipedia to have at least
three accounts, so if one of them gets banned, we can use the second to
ask for relief, and then use the third to contribute unrelated to
whatever admin/sysop got their head full of kaka over the first two.  I
like to edit under my own name because it's easy, and I don't mind
people knowing about me and contacting me -  I've really been just me
since before the web was the web, since I was on dialup modem bulletin
boards, and then on CompuServe, and so on, to today!  Same me.  Same
non-spamming, non-vandalizing me for 30 years. "Why should I suddenly
only exist anonymously?" -- Zen Cohan  

As it is now, with even recommendations from list members here to log-in
under additional pseudonyms to avoid confrontations, why not just make
everyone in Wikipedia anonymous all the time, have no accounts at all,
and open up the proxies, and then judge any writing on the merits of the
content itself, and ignore the reputed source altogether?  I'm serious!

How disingenuous do we want our relationships to be?  What are the
unintended consequences of our Wikipedia policies and actions?  I always
think of the incentives hidden in what are otherwise, on first blush,
seemingly wise policies.  After all, we want someone to clean up the
junk, don't we?  So, of course we want them to be able to ban ... don't
we?  Then we get banned, and it ain't so pretty!

The point is to build a great Wikipedia, and that requires a great
community.  So, let's get to it.  Let's set an example.  Let's stop
sniping at each other, even at those of us who are sniping at each
other.  Okay?

> Earlier: "... I receive ... private emails from Members of this List
Community ... persons ... NOT banned or moderated ... but who fear
ending up that way [anywhere] if they voice their opinions ..."

Ditto.  Some of my most valuable correspondents are off list.  I'm even
maintaining a connection with one moderator (of another list) who banned
me for actions not on the list - another Zen Cohan if ever there was
one!


>  Earlier: "... Dialogue is crucial; I personally would like to engage
those who fear they will be moderated, because I cannot think of a
reason they would fear that ..."

Here's a reason: at least because people get banned from one place for
their actions elsewhere!  So, if Wikipedia had a no-banning policy, all
this noise and destructiveness would come to a grinding halt, and ALL
venues would open up to be more effective vehicles for community
integration!  Really.  It works.  Freedom, though messy, is contagious,
and is way easier and more inclusive in the long run than the
alternative.

> Earlier: "... What disturbs me ... is the responses of some users who
are just too quick to find fault, or who have so glued themselves to
literal [interpretations of] rules [such] that they are unable to seek
any kind of alternate resolution.  One person who apparently imposed the
block seems more intent on justifying [their] own actions than
attempting any kind of reconciliation ..."

Tah-dah!  The power to ban itself is the problem.  "We have met the
enemy, and it's us." -- Pogo, Walt Kelly, a Zen Cohan if ever there was
one!

> Earlier: "... engaged in behavior that should result in [their]
moderation? What exactly is that behavior? ..."

What behavior warrants moderation?  Let's keep it simple: spam and
vandals only.

Otherwise, let the readers do their own editing, deleting, and
scrolling-on.

Simple, no?

> Earlier: "... few lists have mods as lenient as this list does ..."

But, I want STRICT moderators, admins, and sysops.  That is, with very
few, simple tools.  And BANNING is not among them!  Strictly dialoging,
strictly moderating, and strictly participating in community building.
Stick to that strictly, please!

Let's start thinking of our own time on Wikipedia as an investment,
rather then thinking of other people's time as if it were an expense! 

-- Peter Blaise




----------




> Earlier: "... I am not about to make you think of an elephant ..."

Okay ... go ahead.