[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority

[Poor, Edmund W]

-> > Hysteria?  I have to support Zoe here; Lir is a disruptive child, and she
-> > should probably be banned.
-> 
-> I disagree here, but I'm not familiar with all evidence (which is why a  
-> "Problematic users" page, as a record of evidence, might be helpful). I  
-> followed much of Lir's actions today and saw nothing too problematic.  
-> She's antagonistic, sometimes silly and certainly not as smart as she  
-> thinks, but I believe we can deal with here as long as she doesn't  
-> vandalize pages.

Thanks to the power of banning, plus a lot of coaching (and coaxing) from me.  After she was banned, and then un-banned, I reminded her that I stuck up for her. I also told her to stop teasing Zoe. 

You'll note that of all the remarks she has erased from her talk page, she left up my "stuck up for her" and "stop teasing" comments. I think this means she knows which side her bread is buttered on.

I also likened Lir to a 14-year-old girl. She accepted this designation, and added it to her user page: i.e., she concedes that she ACTS like a 14-year-old.

Why didn't fight back against my three adverse comments? She could have argued or erased as she has done in other cases. 

I believe it is because of a combination of three things:
* she wants to contribute
* she perceives that I care about her
* she perceives me as embodying the authority of the community

Now don't go off half-cocked (throbbing or otherwise): I'm not claiming any special status. None has been granted me. I'm talking only about what I guess is Lir's perception.

I myself follow a fairly consistent pattern of "soft security" (as Cunc. puts it). I try to educate, not berate.

I don't want anyone to tease others (like, call them names, impugn their integrity) -- so I try very hard not to tease them. (Except Cunctator, who seems to like it :-)

I don't want anyone to revert others' edits peremptorily, so I don't do that to them. On the few occasions when I revert, I generally copy the offending passage, comment on it, and invite the other contributor to address the issues I've raised. This works pretty well.

Sometimes, like Larry, I lecture people. "You guys are acting like a bunch of..."

I would really like to see a rule that would stop people like RK from continually saying "reverting so-and-so's vandalism" when it's just an edit he disagrees with because of RK's own failure to grasp or attain POV. A "no teasing" rule would stop him in his tracks. 

Don't call people a "vandal" if you disagree. Just attribute their point of view, e.g., "Some people think the Torah requires Jews to do X every day." The comment would be "Attributing POV" -- not "reverting ultra-Conservative VANDALISM".

Soft security is good, and even if Jimbo nixes any of ideas about granting Moderator or Arbitrator rights, we still need to codify our values and our enforcement procedures.

We are growing too large as a community to do otherwise.

Ed Poor
"My opinion probably bears no resemblance to my employer's."