[WikiEN-l] Balance of sanction [Was: Arbiter involvement on the Durova affair]

[Andrew Gray]

On 30/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:30:56 +0000, Kwan Ting Chan <ktc at ktchan.info>
> wrote:
>
> >As a result Durova escapes any meaningful sanction for her actions.
>
> What, apart from losing all her credibility, her sysop bit and her
> shot at ArbCom you mean?

Hum.

Before I start, let me clarify that I am trying quite hard not to pay
attention to the specific case, because it's all so damned silly, and
for all I care you can ban everyone involved or give them all
chocolates or do both on alternate weeks. (I believe the latter form
of discipline is known as "parenting", but I digress)

The point brought up here as a result of it, though, is worth
discussing, because it bears very heavily on how the community treats
its members as opposed to outsiders, and how we treat privileged
versus normal members of that community in our internal judicial
processes.

And this divide, or the perception of such, is at the root of a lot of
our current dysfunctionality. So let's talk about it.

----

The sentences immediately following what you quote: "...The argument
from her supporters seems to be that she was punished in having to
resign her admin bit and being made to look foolish. An admin bit is
not some shield that can be used to deflect a blow, something we can
drop in lieu of a sanction" - ie, directly addressing the argument you
raise.

One assumes that the other party has come out of this with no sysop
bit, no credibility, and no chance of getting onto Arbcom. But they've
also had *other* sanctions applied to them, because we determined they
didn't have those to lose.

The argument quoted by KTC seems to be that if two people transgress
equally they should be punished equally, and that equal punishment
involves meting out the same level of punishment rather than reducing
both equally by "loss of X points worth of privileges". (as a
corrolary, we have the assumption that both transgressed equally,
which may or may not be the case but is certainly percieved as such
here)

I'm not sure I entirely agree with that philosophy in all possible
occurences, and there are certainly cases where equal punishment is
unhelpful, but it has a degree of logic and principle behind it.

I mean, take a more general (and more common) case - I, an admin,
edit-war with another user, who isn't. Should we both be banned from
editing for a few days, or should I be prevented from using my admin
tools for a few days whilst he's banned for the same time period? In
the simpler case, the answer would seem to be "punish us both
equally"; why [is / should it be] it different here?

Thoughts appreciated.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk