User:Brews ohare/Clear sanctions

Example: justice, or crapshoot?
Here is an example of applying ArbCom rules to a violation: A sanction hypothetically imposes a block for a violation, ranging from a day to two weeks at the discretion of admins. Admin A thinks a violation is minor, and would assign a block of a day. Admin B thinks that the best psychology is to smack 'em hard, and if they repent, soften up. He'd assign two weeks. What happens?


 * If Admin B arrives first, the two-week block is implemented. Admin A arrives second. Appeal is made. Admin B goes into a defensive crouch and Admin A searches for an opening. By the time the appeal is done, the long block has expired. It really doesn't matter what the moderate camp wants, its all too late. Justice denied.


 * If Admin A arrives first, the one-day block is implemented. Admin B can appeal for a longer block. Admin A and Admin B make their cases. The short block expires while court is in session. A judicious length is selected, but will a second block be imposed? Maybe justice is done, maybe not

Under present rules, it's a crapshoot: results vary according to random events. ‘Which admin was quickest on the draw?’ ‘How fast can the Marshall act?’ All depends on what was done first and how long decisions take. This process is a mess unless fast decisions can be made about violations. Speedy decisions require clear formulations, not debatable ones.

Formulation: no debate, or debate with no end

 * See also: Filtering ArbCom cases

Often appealing enforcement of ArbCom sanctions to Committee is slow, much too slow. How is that problem fixed? Here is a fix: make sure that violations and their sanctions are so darn clear that even the mentally handicapped cannot escape seeing what has to be done: KISS. A hearing will take 2 minutes, and dispute will be very rare. (In fact, violations also will be rare, as violations are obvious, and reprisal is certain.)

For example, a page ban is cut and dried: anyone knows whether a violation has occurred. That is a clear rule. A decision takes no time, and majority consensus is easily found to avoid any hearing at all.

As an opposite case, topic bans are common sources of dispute, simply because they are hard to formulate without unanticipated large gray areas. Because of gray areas, it's unclear whether a violation is accidental, or indeed, even whether a violation has occurred. As a fanciful example, a ban against discussing "politics" could be taken to restrict discussion of LBJ's treatment of his dogs, because comments on his picking them up by the ears could be taken as politically motivated (or not). Should inadvertent violations be sanctioned? Are complaints falling within a gray area serious, or are these complaints only predatory excuses to gain advantage? Who knows? Decisions take months.

The onus is upon the Committee to make sensible and clear statements of violations and sanctions. Otherwise, they are going to be tied in knots. Unclear formulations are the cause of a great many of the interminable cases being looked at today. Slow decisions are incompatible with fair enforcement.

Formulation of discipline, or discipline in formulation?
Disputes arise over formulations with gray areas. Unfortunately, such a debatable infraction often is taken to be a disciplinary issue (“What punishment will induce reform?”) instead of difficulties in the statements themselves (“Is it clear a violation took place?? Does a violation harm WP??”) This mistaken emphasis is one cause of the unpleasantness in ArbCom hearings. These hearings would be better if they included the question “How can this violation and its sanction be reworded so infractions and their consequences are obvious. Then we can settle this matter at once.”