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

[Kwan Ting Chan]

User:Andplus posted an excellent analysis of the disproportionate level
of proposed remedies in this whole affair on [[Wikipedia talk:Requests
for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Proposed decision]] which I shall
quote for ya all to consider.

"The attack on !! in the email was a pretty through job, and one that
would seem to breach many of the policies and guidelines that Giano is
accused of breaching. In my opinion, it is worse than anything Giano
did, as while I can see many of his comments resulting from a rush to
comment before the discussion was sidelined, the mail was obviously
complied at leisure (and distributed to a wider audience with at least
two weeks to be considered and revised before it was made public).
Unfortunately the character assassination of !! occurred off-site, so
the Committee has no authority to issue sanctions against its author.
Giano's offence was to post his comments on-site. Had he gone to another
site, he could have viciously attacked all and sundry, and the community
could have shaken its collective head in disgust and gone back to
editing, safe in the knowledge that such horrible behaviour was outside
the Committee's jurisdiction.

Unfortunately, the case came to Arbitration in this unequal state:
Giano's actions could be dealt with because he kept his argument
"in-house", Durova's could not because she took advantage of off-site
communication.

As a result Durova escapes any meaningful sanction for her actions. 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. Should we issue Giano with an admin bit so
he can be forced to give it up as punishment? As for being made to look
foolish, I dare say that has happened to all of us at some point, but it
is of our own making. That somebody points out how foolish we have been
is perhaps unkind, but had we not been foolish they would not have had
the opportunity. Aside from that, I would hope that the Committee is in
the business of remedies rather than punishments.

For Giano, on the other hand, the Committee has almost unlimited scope
to apply remedies. He has no admin bit to strip, he has no "off-site"
justification for his actions, his actions clearly fall under the remit
of the Committee. He can be banned, blocked, restricted and probably
more. This does not mean it is right to apply such sanctions in the face
of such an obvious deficiency the Committee's authority. Balance is
important here, as is the message sent to the community by the decision
(see my questions to Mackensen for the message I perceive as being sent
from the proposed decision). I do not wish Durova punished: a remedy
should not be a punishment. Instead, I would urge the Arbitrators to
vote against any remedy for Giano that applies a more rigorous sanction
to him than those applied to Durova, and I applaud those who have
already done so.

As a side note, I found this while looking at Wikipedia:Former
administrators, which seems to point to action being possible even when
posting takes place off-site [18]. On the Former administrators page it
says the action was carried out per an ArbCom decision. Perhaps one of
the Arbitrators could clarify their jurisdiction. Andplus (talk) 11:09,
30 November 2007 (UTC)"

-- 
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
  - Heinrich Heine
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20071130/f12edd3e/attachment.pgp