Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

 * To update this listing, [ edit this template] and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Wisdom of a ban
On the Proposal Page, Carcharoth says: "I think the remedy here is excessive and does little to attempt to turn things around here. A topic ban would likely work better, as a full siteban doesn't give Asgardian the opportunity to change his conduct. It is likely (though I hope I am wrong) that he will resume this conduct after a year-long ban, and end up indefinitely blocked. Suggest something be done to avoid that scenario developing, such as requiring a mentor upon return in a year's time (or following any appeal)."

Asgardian has already been given opportunity after opportunity to change his conduct over the course of the past three years. Arguing that banning him would not give him the ability to change, therefore, is specious. At the very least, since nothing to date has driven home to him the point that he has a problem, banning is the one remedy left that just might.

As for avoiding the scenario of repeated recidivism when his ban expires, if the behavior recurs, the ban can simply be reimposed. But I reiterate the problems with a "mentor", which is that in order for a mentor to work, Asgardian would have to cease not only the behavior in question, but realize and admit that his behavior is problematic. So long as he is allowed to edit again without conceding to each set of wrong behaviors in detail, and to simply give insincere lip service to contriteness as he has in the past, then he will again have free license to go back to business as usual. The problem with this is that the "mentor" in question would have to be well-versed in the behavior in question, and if Asgardian is willing to concede points to him, then why would he not simply do so with any one of the other editors or administrators who have attempted to communicate this problem with him in the past? If he is not willing, for example, to cop to the hypocrisy of condescending to others by calling them "emotive" while giving himself allowances to behave in the same way, what good will a mentor do? If he is not willing to respond when others point out that he reverts while discussing, when he is supposed to discuss instead of revering, and not both, what good would a mentor do to prevent recidivism? And he is willing to listen and respond to a mentor who makes this point to him, then why didn't he simply do so when I or the others did so?

The only solution that would allow him to edit again and prevent this behavior if he agrees to drop both his habit of employing logical fallacies and personal attacks when he is criticized, and his habit of stonewalling when his canards are debunked, and this does not require a mentor. Nothing else will work. Nightscream (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand my point. I'm saying that the type of problems that lead to this sort of ban need thought given about what to do at the end of the year-long ban. Just allowing people to return after a year isn't enough. I'm saying address that problem here and now, rather than wait a year. Either by building in a requirement for a mentor before any return (the block would then be indefinite until a mentor is found), or by building in an indefinite probation whereby the one-year ban can be reinstated without needing a new case. In other words, even though I don't agree with the one-year ban, I'm saying that a one-year ban on its own isn't enough. Just doing that sets things up for failure (and wasted time) further down the road. Much of the rest of your argument is better suited to arguing for a community ban, and this isn't the venue for that (it boils down to the difference between a one-year ArbCom ban and an indefinite community ban). Carcharoth (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The simple answer to what we do a year down the road is observe to see whether the problematic behaviour persists and, if so, re-ban. Wikipedia does not bear an indefinite obligation to attempt to change editors' behaviour, or we wouldn't even have sitebans. Steve Smith (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * When you look at the success and/or failure rate of people returning after year-long bans, the question is rarely asked why some returns end in failure. My point is that unlike short blocks, those returning after a year-long ban should be eased back in, both to protect the community and to protect them (if they genuinely desire to change). It is much easier to take the hands-off approach and leave both them and the community (which has to deal with any disruption) to their fate in a year's time, but I think that is avoiding other options that while they are harder work should be considered. To take a hypothetical example, if a user about to return after a year-long ban approached ArbCom and said "I'm worried that I may run into the same problems as before, can you help me reintegrate into the community?" what would your response be and how would you judge if the request was made in good faith? And in passing, my view on why returns after bans often result in failure is due to lack of communication before the ban expires - I would prefer that all bans are indefinite, and the banned editor is required to contact ArbCom to ask for the ban to be lifted and for communication at that point to decide (if the ban is lifted) what other conditions may be needed. Carcharoth (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC) This discussion is getting too general for this case, and should probably be taken elsewhere.
 * I automatically assume good faith when any editor, returning from a ban or not, exhibits awareness of their own problematic conduct; I think there's been far too little of that here. In your above hypothetical, any advice would have to be tailored to the situation, but it would generally include i. avoid topic areas and editors which have previously proven problematic to you, ii. find experienced editors whose experience you trust but who have not been partisans in whatever content disputes may have led to your ban, and ask them for advice at the first sign of trouble.  Again, though, that's academic here, since Asgardian does not seem to understand the scope of the problems with his/her behaviour. Steve Smith (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"You misunderstand my point. I'm saying that the type of problems that lead to this sort of ban need thought given about what to do at the end of the year-long ban." That's not what you said in the aforementioned quote. What you said was that the remedy itself (i.e.: the ban) was "excessive", would not change his behavior and that something like a mentor should be proposed. If you wanted to emphasize what should be done when it was over, then you should've emphasized that. Saying the remedy is excessive doesn't seem directly pertinent to discussing what to be done with the remedy has run its course.

I agree that that the type of problems that lead to this sort of ban need thought given about what to do at the end of the year-long ban. Pursuant to that, a "mentor" would not work, for the reasons I pointed out above.

I agree with Steve that part of Asgardian's problem involves the refusal to see that he has a problem. The true solution must incorporate his abandonment of this intransigence, once and for all, with the agreement to respond directly and without evasion to specific one-on-one, step-by-step explanations of why certain behaviors on his part are wrong. This is the crux of his modus operandi to date with respect to perpetuating his violations, and not topic areas or editors that are problematic to him, and if he cannot make this concession following his ban, then any return following his ban will simply lead to a resumption of the same violations. Nightscream (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * To respond to your first point, rather than "excessive" a better word I could have used would have been "incomplete" (i.e. the current remedy is incomplete). Having thought on it some more, I now (as I said above) favour an indefinite block with a return only being allowed if certain conditions are met. But as that option is not on the table, and voting is nearly complete, I won't be the one to propose that option. But in some ways the word "excessive" is the right word as well, as if Asgardian did, in your words, "respond directly and without evasion to specific one-on-one, step-by-step explanations of why certain behaviors on his part are wrong", then would any ban still be appropriate? It is a moot point until Asgardian makes such undertakings, and arbitrators would still have to try and judge whether a change of heart at such a late stage was genuine, but such a scenario strikes to the heart of whether arbitration is preventative or punitive or both (I think it is both). When things get to this stage, the amount of wasted time justifies a long break for reflection by any editors getting sanctioned, even if they have a change of heart. Equally, those that take an involuntary leave still thinking they were right need to realise that if they can't work productively with others, then Wikipedia is not the right place for them. It always, without exception, comes back to that. Wikipedia is about working with others, and if you can't do that, and don't have the right temperament for that, then sooner or later you run into problems. In some ways I wish arbitration cases were more about people demonstrating how they can work productively with others, as the adversarial nature of arbitration both exacerbates any argumentative tendencies people have, and focuses on the negative and rarely on the positive. Carcharoth (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Excessive is not the right word, for the aforementioned reasons. He has not responded directly to most of the substance of the charges against him, and when he does, he employs euphemism, logical fallacies and personal attacks, and this is why the word the ban is perfectly appropriate, and not "excessive" at all.

I agree that an indefinite ban that would be lifted only under certain conditions (those I have mentioned) is appropriate. If he is unwilling to do this, then his ban should be extended, in order to prevent, not punish, further continuation of his behavior to date. Nightscream (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And as an addendum, if you wanted the emphasis to be placed on what to do after the year is up, then perhaps you should not have voted to oppose it in the first place. What to do when the ban has expired is a matter to be discussed in conjunction with the ban, whereas your vote on the point would indicate that you want something instead of the ban. Nightscream (talk) 04:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If an arbitrator thinks a rememdy is incomplete or insufficient then it is perfectly reasonable to oppose it even if they agree with the heart of the matter. Simply because you are reading extra intentions into his vote doesn't mean they exist... especially when the person is specifically refuting that reading.  While it would have been preferable (from a clear intention point of view) for Carcharoth to propose a new remedy that fits his liking better, one can easily see that the rest of the commitee has made up its mind.  Forcing them to re-review the case after its been snowed because one Arb see's things differently could be seen as unnessessary (even disruptive).  I think most arb's get voted in because they are above that sort of thing. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth voted to oppose the ban. Thus, when he says he thinks a ban is incomplete, and that he merely wanted to discuss what to do when the ban was over, he is contradicting himself. That's not "reading an extra intention", that's merely reading what he wrote. If he feels the ban is not enough, that's different from being opposed to it. Critical examination of a person's words has nothing to do with reading something into them that's not there.

As for forcing anyone to review the case, I have no idea what you're talking about. Nightscream (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)