[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.