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

[Ray Saintonge]

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