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

[Monahon, Peter B.]

 > Earlier: "... What is the point of posting a
 > vague alarmist description of apparent
 > terror imposed on the list by ostensibly
 > totalitarian mods ..."

Peter Blaise responds: 

I think we're mixing stories, and I appreciate it's a messy set of discussions - this and the [Who's moderated?] and other threads.  I suggest that everyone reading revert to the general nature of the discussion, and separate from thinking that any of it is specific anymore.  I think three things are in these discussions, and the background incidents are not related to each other, and are no longer the specific topic of any thread here:

- banning on Wikipedia

- moderating on this list

- moderating and banning elsewhere

Sorry if each post wanders without specifics anymore as to which incident anyone is writing about at the moment.  However, the general point I garner from the discussion so far is NOT to address specific incidents, but now to address the general policies.  As such, trying to whittle these discussion threads back down to one set of particulars in order to remedy one single incident is no longer what's happening in the discourse.  At least as far as I am concerned.

--

 > Earlier: "... it's reassuring to those of us
 > concerned about this if there's an open
 > dialog about moderation ... knowing
 > who's on moderation would assist in
 > clarifying the situation ..."

Peter Blaise responds:  

On the lists I co-moderate:

- there is no banning, and anyone can look at the list of banned people to see that it's blank.  

- EVERYONE is moderated at first to confirm they are not a spammer, then no one is moderated after their first post, and the list participants have at it.  

- if a someone reveals themselves as a spammer on subsequent posts, the co-moderator deletes it, and disconnects the spammer's membership.  They then have to try rejoining, and passing first-post-moderation all over again.  But even then, no one gets banned.  It keeps the banning list nice and clean and empty and easily auditable by anyone.

- If things get unruly - a flame war, or extended off-topic posts - a co-moderator might step in WITHOUT FLEXING POWERS, and often NOT even announcing that they are a co-moderator.  They try to bring equanimity to all parties using words, using posts - the same tools, resources and powers everyone else has.  Sometimes a co-moderator or volunteer will spend some time off list to address the misunderstanding.  Regardless, when banning is not available, it's impressive how people either don't misbehave, or work really hard to resolve problems amicably and keep the community intact with all it's members on-board.

Sometimes the "fire" puts itself out, sometimes the co-moderator helps.  We've never found the need to do more than that.

Some members quit of their own accord, tired of the meta-discussions, preferring a list that's more tightly controlled.  We miss them.  We hope the qualities of the list invite them back again, but we honor their voluntary actions, their choice to leave.

On the groups where there's banning available, they only have to do it once, and then everyone else gets the point.  With the taste for blood, bullies start trolling the list, looking for their next victim.  They pounce and have a hay-day when they find someone to ridicule, and banning co-moderators from one group will even join in another group to reinforce the message of beating up on the little person, the odd voice, the different one, the one who dares to speak up.  

Does banning cause evil behavior?  I don't think so.  I think we all have fears and self-protective mean-streaks.  I think banning being available at all sparks and empowers mean, self-serving behavior, and encourages a community to shift it's focus from "How can I help?" to "Who can I cull next?"

For sure, this is not always the case.  I myself have started many groups, and as "owner" I could ban anyone, but I have not.  Why?  Am I a saint?  No.  I just honor what I promise.  Also, I turned the groups over to multiple co-moderators around the world to promote other co-moderators around the world, and I merely check in occasionally to remind them I'm watching, and they better figure out how to get along and build a community without using the banning tool - OR ELSE!  Or else ... they'll see me actively participate once again, and nobody wants that - a threat worse than death!  Hahahahah!

Oddly, I have found that trouble is mostly with the centrists not with the extremists in the group! The centrists call for banning the extremists, and end up making more of a noisy distraction averse to the group theme than the extremists to which they were objecting.

Everyone gets uncomfortable about something now and again, and expects someone else to sooth them and take care of it for them - it happens to us all.  We find that "avoiding discomfort" is not worth creating rules around, especially whipping out the banning tool to salve some admin's sense of hurt.  The remedy to such feelings of discomfort?  Growing up.  Even my grandparents are still trying to learn that lesson, and teach it to me!

--  Peter Blaise