Andrew Gray wrote:
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.
Indeed! Sometimes I think that we have persons in position of middle
management before they have developed the maturity needed for such a
role. Experienced people should know better; they cannot credibly rely
on ignorance for their misdeeds. They have the advantage of having
established friendships that they can rely upon in a dispute. Newcomers
who view things to be wrong are faced with an opaque decision-making
system that isolates anyone with proposals for improvement. It's
understandable that direct changes to policy pages would be discouraged,
but then too a talk-page proposal can be safely ignored. Nothing short
of a programme of scheduled policy review would overcome that.
This is not to deny that there are some newcomers whose frustrations
turn to outright hostility, or who are just plain problems for anyone to
get along with.
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 saw that proposal as more a premise than a philosophy. I certainly
have not looked at the Giano situation enough to suggest anything in his
case. If that premise has any validity it does not imply that because
Durova somehow received a lower penalty her penalty should be increased
to achieve equality. Nobody is arguing for that.
Remedial solutions are applied to restore peaceful collaboration. If
punitive actions are to be a part of this they should never exceed what
is absolutely necessary to accomplish this. Blocks or bans for
arbitrary amounts of time do not accomplish this.
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.
If you are taking advantage of your superior privileges
that's a sin
that is unavailale to the ordinary user. Equal punishment would derive
from equal guilt.
Ec