Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Preliminary statements

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; therefore, they may not be edited or removed.

Browsing ANI, I have come across a discussion involving the admin Scottywong in which the community is showing a strong consensus to submit a case request here. I am acting as an uninvolved editor who agrees that the xenophobic comments made by Scottywong highlighted by 192.76.8.65 [1] are extremely unbecoming of an admin. As of writing, 10 editors have supported "Send[ing it] to Arbcom" [2] while a suggestion has come that any further "support" !votes should instead be a case request.[3] I am BOLDly making that request. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  23:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to strongly disagree with Dennis Brown when he says, "and the offense was pretty minor because he was making a rude comment about the charset, not the individual..." Yes, it was a reference to the charset, but the remark itself very much looks to be directed at ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ personally. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  21:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The outpouring of condemnation at ANI has caused me to do some soul-searching, because at first I honestly didn't understand why there was such a big uproar about this event. Don't get me wrong, I realize that I said some things to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ out of frustration that I shouldn't have, but I was still initially confused by the scale of the outcry at ANI. It can be confusing when the intention behind your message and the perception of that message are very far apart. But, as T.S. Eliot once said, "Most of the evil in this world is done by people with good intentions", and I don't want to be an evil person. So, I'd like to use the remainder of my 500 words to be as crystal clear as I can about what happened here:

1. A brief history for context: ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ operates a bot that fixes lint errors. I had several discussions with them where I made my personal opinion clear that the annoyances caused by the bot outweighed the benefits of fixing these errors. I added a {{nobots}} template to my user talk page archives in the hopes that it would prevent future bot edits to those pages. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ noticed this and decided to edit those pages manually from their main account instead of their bot account. It frustrated me greatly that they would do this despite my clear indication that it was unwanted. This is what prompted my messages on their talk page, which were written and delivered while I was in that frustrated state.
2. I intended my comments to be forceful, to convey my frustration, but I went overboard. I did not intend my comments to be belittling or insulting. I can see now that they were perceived that way by virtually everyone, and therefore I apologize for my inappropriate comments.
3. The comments about non-English characters in usernames were not even relevant to the situation, and should not have been included in my message. My intention was to make a statement along the lines of WP:LATINPLEASE. I did not intend to make statements that were xenophobic, but I can see now that they were perceived that way by virtually everyone, and for that I feel terrible and I apologize for those comments. I consider myself the opposite of xenophobic/racist, so having made comments that were perceived as such is quite distressing.

I'd like to apologize personally to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ for this entire interaction, and I hope that their recent wikibreak wasn't a result of our discussion. As I mentioned at ANI, I'd like to retract all of my messages on their talk page, and reaffirm my intention to respect their request to stay off their talk page.

I'm not a perfect person. Sometimes I make mistakes, and sometimes I say the wrong thing. This is one of those times. I like to think that I can admit my mistakes and learn from them. Owing to the aforementioned gulf between intention and perception, this time it regrettably took me a little longer than it should've to do so. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 07:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Enterprisey: CIR had been brought up in the past regarding the bot task, because MalnadachBot was routinely making large numbers of edits to the same page (sometimes dozens) to fix all of the lint errors on a page, clogging up watchlists and page histories, and resetting the "last edited" date that shows up in searches. I recall discussions that centered around whether the bot operator had the technical competency necessary to combine all of those fixes into a single edit per page (which indeed, it later turned out, they did). Thus, my reference to CIR was a vague reference to those historical discussions as well as the questionable decision to use their main account to manually fix errors on pages with {{nobots}}, along with the regrettable addition of other irrelevant and inappropriate references to items like their username, font choice, and page borders. All that notwithstanding, I agree that bringing up CIR at all was unnecessary and inappropriate. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears settled that this request will be accepted and turn into a full case. My honest intention was to resign the admin bit if it came to this. I even emailed Arbcom about this intention a day or two ago (not in an attempt to sway their vote, but to ask for sufficient time to resign before the case is started, forgetting that there is already a 24-hour buffer between case acceptance and the start of a case). I went to WP:BN this morning and typed out my request for them to remove my administrator access under a cloud, and... I stared at it for a while. Something didn't feel right about this. I told myself that I'd resign because it's not worth the hassle: I'm not even particularly active here anymore, it doesn't really matter if I have admin access, and I don't want to waste the time of editors and arbitrators to dig through my contribution history and generate copious amounts of discussion about me just for the chance to keep the bit. But really, at its core, it was about fear. Fear of criticism, fear of ridicule, fear of being the center of attention, fear of receiving a "dishonorable discharge", etc. Once I named these fears, I quickly realized that they are all silly things to be scared of. Besides, I beat cancer less than a year ago, so my capacity for operating in the face of fear has been tested and significantly strengthened (some might even say I have the dead-eyed steel of a shark), and the prospect of being the subject of an Arbcom case doesn't even compare. I'm also heartened by some editors coming out of the woodwork in support (while not letting me off the hook for my mistakes), both publicly and privately, on- and off-wiki, reminding me of some of the good I've done here over the years, and I'm very appreciative of that. It reminded me that I'm proud of the work I've done here, and shouldn't throw it away so hastily. So, I've decided to let the chips fall where they may, and allow the case to go forward. Please note that I'll be traveling during much of this case, so it's likely that I won't be a heavy contributor to it, and I don't want any lack of activity to be misinterpreted. I'll try to stay abreast as much as I can, and answer any questions or offer any explanations that are required. Otherwise, I'll allow my contribution history to speak for itself, and give the community space to decide the best course of action moving forward. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I can confirm that I had no knowledge of any of this at the time. In fact, I'm still not sure I've fully wrapped my head around what's happened here. It goes without saying that further comments from me about non-Latin character usernames or user ethnicities are very unlikely. However, I do think it would benefit everyone to have another look at WP:LATINPLEASE and ensure that it still accurately represents the community's position on the subject, because it seems difficult for anyone (including sitting arbs) to broach that subject without garnering negative attention. (To be clear, I will not be volunteering to be part of the group that discusses that subject.) —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc37: I appreciate you making the effort to clarify the language on those pages. I agree that unifying the message will reduce the confusion between how non-Latin usernames and non-Latin signatures are treated. As to whether or not the revised language accurately reflects the community's sentiment on this topic, I can't comment, because I'm clearly not an authority on the subject. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 03:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: @SilkTork: FYI - My comments about Manning were already litigated at ArbCom 10 years ago, and no sanctions were given. Does the concept of double jeopardy exist at Arbcom? See: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Proposed decision#Discriminatory speech by Scottywong and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop#Discriminatory speech by Scottywong, not to mention my unambiguous renunciation of those remarks 7 years later at ACE2020. I understand that there's a desire to ensure that there isn't a long-term pattern of discriminatory/bigoted/xenophobic behavior on my part, but if the Manning comments have already been contemporaneously examined by Arbcom and found to be unproblematic (albeit ill-advised and unhelpful), why are we still bringing them up as something that might be examined again as potential evidence? Might this Arbcom conclude that the Arbcom from 2013 was wrong in their decision to decline taking any action on my comments? —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scottywong's remarks were very unbecoming of an admin, incivil, insulting and xenophobic, IMHO. If a newbie said this they'd be indeffed by now, and if a non admin said this they would be immediately blocked for violations of the harassment policy. -- Prodraxis^talk_contribs 23:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a point at this stage to post to the AN/I thread.

But just a couple thoughts spring to mind.

First, if I was clowning with one of my friends and one of us called the other "Mister Squiggles", I think we'd all laugh and that would be the end of it.

But words which may be fun and innocuous in a friendly, collegiate atmosphere - in my opinion - can be very much not, when used as "name-calling" in an adversarial situation.

I don't think anyone thinks that this was appropriate. And Scotty Wong has apologized. Was that apology perhaps "forced" by the circumstances? Possibly, but it's done.

I'm also not thrilled with the dismissive, intentional disengagement from AN/I. Normally, I might try to AGF, and accept that as a disengagement response to a WP:Boomerang, but this wasn't that. Clearly there has been multiple non-positive interactions between the two editors. And hoping that AN/I will go away, probably wasn't the best course for an admin who is being asked to explain their behaviour.

But beyond that I am remembering the ancient past.

And I am concerned.

Because I don't think people should start digging in his past edits when his username was "Snottywong" ages ago, and try to build some case against him. Unless it's been a continuous ongoing thing, I think that's unfair. We should address any current or ongoing situations, not dredge up old ones from the past.

Do I think that this well deserves an Arbcom admonishment? absolutely. Please do.

Have I lost trust in him as an admin over it? I'm on the fence, and when I'm on the fence, I tend to lean away from punishment. Better to not over-punish, if we are not certain. But this really, really was not good.

And I think we'd all like to hear some sense that he really does understand the problems with his actions, both as an editor, and as an admin. There are several places where I think he's missed the mark, and showing he really does understand the issues would, I think, go a long way.

But if not, well, then maybe Arbcom should accept this case. - jc37 00:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see the apology. Is it perfectly worded? No (though I think he tried), but - what seems to be the heart of what he seems to want to convey - what one intends to mean when placing words on a page, may not be how they come across.

In this specific situation, I haven't seen where he used used/mis-used the tools in the current situation, nor that he did use being an admin as a part of the contention. That said, we do tend to hold admins to a bit of a higher standard because admins are entrusted by the community with extra tools and responsibilities. So I personally still am on the fence about that, if looking at all of this as an isolated event.

That said, I haven't investigated the past history provided by Moneytrees and SilkTork, so I don't know if there's more to be known there. But to reiterate from above, if these are past events that have been dealt with and addressed, I'm concerned that we don't ourselves cross the line and re-punish someone who may have already "done their time" for past mistakes. Even outside of Wikipedia, it's often a challenge for a court to determine whether past offenses should be taken into account.

I do think that deciding to disdain and avoid what he (and others) call "the drama board", but then going to an external "drama site", is probably not the best look right now. He did continue to engage at AN/I after that initial post though, as Cabayi notes. So I dunno.

Scotty Wong aside, I agree with Barkeep49. If looking at the current situation, then everyone involved's actions should probably be looked at. I'm not sure I understand the issue about the Lint errors, but I think it would be informative to find out why someone decided to manually bypass nobots - which seems to be the initial action (which of course does not in any way justify the response they received, that is now being discussed). - jc37 17:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CaptainEek, do we know if users on other, non-English, wikis, typically have different account names than on en.wiki? I'm looking at Wikipedia:Unified login, and am somewhat confused by your (and Scotty Wong's initial) assertions. - jc37 17:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon what some others have now said, CaptainEek, might you consider recusing yourself? I'm not asking you to do so, I'm merely asking that you please consider it. I trust you have the self-awareness to personally know best where you are with this. - jc37 22:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC) - Striking, per your struck comments and follow-up statement. Thank you for taking the time to do a self-assessment. - jc37 23:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If even only because arbcom appears to be the correct venue at this point, I think arbcom should address the various issues of this situation - whether as one or more motions, or as a case. - jc37 21:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GeneralNotability (per the note of Nythar), It appears you were the checkuser in question. I see the link in your edit summary to the check-user wiki. Is there anything there that can be shared concerning this situation? I understand if that's not an option. - jc37 20:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GeneralNotability - Thank you.

At this point, I think NYB makes some decent points.

If the user was an LTA, then I suppose we don't need to do a finding of fact (etc) on the initial contentions. Per BAN (even if some of the user's edits may be seen as positive...etc.).

As for Scotty Wong, I think that arbcom would probably be remiss if they didn't do "something" to address/answer the communitee's concerns. But I'm not sure that a case is needed anymore, unless there is some ongoing evidence that needs to be addressed. Perhaps a motion about whether the past evidence is or is not worth examining. (If it is, then maybe a case is necessary?) And maybe another one stating what's been said by several arbs already about the inappropriateness of what was said, and how we should treat other editors regardless of the characters in their username.

As far as de-adminship, I think I'll just second what NYB said. Hopefully everyone's learned a bit more about being more accepting of others. - jc37 21:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Scottywong - per your comments about Wikipedia:Signatures#Non-Latin_usernames and Wikipedia:Username_policy#Usernames_with_non-Latin_characters. One of them popped up on my watchlist (someone else had done an edit), and since there has apparently been some confusion here about them, I went ahead and boldly cleaned up and then unified the text of the two pages. Unifying in particular should help, I think. CaptainEek's comments about confusing username with signature was an indicator that there may have been an issue with them, and when looking at the two guidances, though the same intent appeared in both, they were written quite disparately. If you have the time or inclination, please take a look at both. They should hopefully be much clearer for the reader. - jc37 00:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. I don't know if this rises to the level of desysop, but yeah, belittling somebody because you can't pronounce their name written in their native character set really is beyond the pale. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork responding to your comments vis-a-vis SW's opinion of IP editors, I see a substantial difference between that and his treatment of editors with non-latin usernames. In the former case, he's objecting to a choice the editor made. They chose not to register (or at least chose to edit logged-out). There are consequences to that, which SW explained. I would have preferred to see SW's explanation delivered with a less harsh tone, but anybody who has followed my own participation in various RFCs will know that I share much of SW's viewpoint on IP editing.

By contrast, the "Mr Squiggles" comment was directed at something an editor is. They are (ostensibly) from a particular country, where people use a particular language, written in a particular character set. None of these are choices the editor made. My civility meter is more sensitive to digs against a person's identity than to digs against their voluntary actions. I say "ostensibly" because the socking brings that into question, but at the time the comment was made, that was the assumption. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the ANI, Scottywong initially characterized his disturbing and profoundly saddening comment about the editor's name as being a "bit blunt". Subsequently he admitted that while "[he] can see how a superficial glance at [his] comments might cause someone to believe they come from a place of racism or xenophobia, that is a gross misinterpretation of [his] intent". But, even if a gross misinterpretation, a comment that would cause someone to believe that is substantially worse than "bit blunt". At the same time he described the comment as "borderline rude"... At that point it really seemed as if Scottywong did not understand that "bit blunt" and "borderline rude" can not be anything but a gross mischaracterization of a comment that looks as if it comes from a place of racism or xenophobia. Such a comment, i.e. the comment that he made, is worse than blunt, and worse than rude. It's just on another level of bad. In his last apology-type reply, Scottywong described his comment as "insensitive" (and just "rude", as opposed to "borderline rude") which is qualitatively better. Still, it is also worse than insensitive; it was incredibly insensitive, very blunt, and supremely rude.

Obviously, Scottywong is especially talented at thinking up offensive and upsetting remarks. /After it was pointed out that Scottywong was not being inventive at all in his choice of individual words, I don't think this anymore [15:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)]/ This was at least in the vicinity of a serious disruption of Wikipedia through incivility (does not have to be sustained), and an example of egregious poor judgment (does not have to be consistent i.e. repeated), and I respect calls to desysop Scottywong, but I personally feel like he can do better.

He could commit not to make any insensitive, blunt, or rude comments in the future. But if he doesn't grasp the true dimensions of offensiveness of said comment, and believes that insensitive, blunt, or rude comments are among the occassional mistakes afforded to him under WP:ADMINCOND, he could still be expected to make a number of comments that are, on his scale, "slightly insensitive" / "almost a bit blunt" / "borderline rude-ish", but are worse than an average person's offensive comment. So he would need to commit to only make comments that are not insensitive even in the slightest, not blunt even in the slightest, and cannot possibly be seen as rude, and that when he is in a "frustrated state" he should not edit at all. In addition, he should promise to take some time off to think about how not to make comments that could cause someone to believe they come from a place of racism or xenophobia.

• After reading the later statements, and the arbitrators' opinions, I concur, above all, and in all respects, with Boing! said Zebedee. 14:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll echo multiple people: a non-admin would've been indeffed for a statement like that. It's insane how people can get away with this just because they've got a better rank than others... I guess it's something Wikipedia has in common with real life. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional statements from LilianaUwU

Well, Malnadach being blocked as a LTA is an interesting turm of events. I don't know how to react to that. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly, I view User:Izno and User:Primefac as WP:INVOLVED with respect to the dispute between Scottywong and ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ, and hope they will be recusing here. Folly Mox (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try for quotes and diffs ( Done 18:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)), but I'll start with threads and work my way there. ReplyTool is freaking out with the high activity on this page so I'm composing this offline.

The salient conversations for arbs Primefac's and Izno's involvement are Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 17#Review of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MalnadachBot 12 where Scottywong brings Primefac into the review at the opening, in Primefac's capacity as the BAG member who speedily approved Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MalnadachBot 12. Primfac explains their rationale for speedy approval Special:Diff/1068483074; Izno concurs and supports the task Special:Diff/1068495046. Primefac explains they were hoping ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ could improve the efficiency of the bot by giving blanket approval for all lint fixes Special:Diff/1069047214. In the subthread Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 17#Why not resolve this in MediaWiki? Izno defends the task Scottywong has brought under review Special:Diff/1070385898 and Primefac provides a personal use case for how the bot task benefits their workflow Special:Diff/1070476264. (In a subsequent subthread, Enterprisey participates by discussing ways to improve the task's efficiency / impact, in a way that doesn't come off quite as partial).

Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 17#MalnadachBot and watchlists, a few months later, is revisiting the same issue, although the parties are different and Scottywong only shows up later. Primefac replies to Scottywong Special:Diff/1092440222 again defending the necessity of the lint fixes on archived pages which Scotty positions as unnecessary. This thread is also good background reading for anyone unfamiliar with the history between Scottywong and ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ wow my phone just autofilled that!

Subsequently at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 179#RFC: Clarifications to WP:COSMETICBOT for fixing deprecated HTML tags, where Scottywong came to the wider community to halt MalnadachBot's signature fixing task, Izno !votes to permit MalnadachBot to continue Special:Diff/1140819840 (Disclosure: I was there too, !voting neutral and making a tangential comparison Special:MobileDiff/1138687229).

I might be holding Izno and Primefac to a higher level of INVOLVED than the letter of the policy indicates, but the arb "tools" are more powerful than the admin tools, so a higher standard makes sense. To be clear, it is the consensus position, especially amongst botops and BAG members – who are represented on the present Committee almost to the degree of comprising a quorum by themselves – but also amongst the community, that MalnadachBot performs tasks that should be continued. Scottywong is very clearly on the other side of this, and Primefac and Izno have consistently defended and promoted the idea that fixing lint errors in all cases is a necessity, regardless of the impacts. Here I think the standard should be appearance of involvement, and although I trust Primefac and Izno to act as neutrally as they're able, they do appear to be involved in this part of the dispute.

I'm aware that the scope could potentially broaden to other inappropriate remarks by Scottywong, although anything over ten years old should probably be super inadmissible, but nobody likes the idea of partial recusal, so I'd kindly and respectfully as Primefac and Izno to recuse. Folly Mox (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC). Diffed 18:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: my sincere apologies for causing an abrupt return to activity after just having worked as drafter on the longest case in history. I think we're looking at things from different angles: I'm seeing the incident that sparked this case request as the latest and pointiest exchange in a long history of oppositional interactions between Scottywong and ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ, which are tied inexorably in every case to the lint-fixing tasks that helped MalnadachBot perform its c. 11,000,000 edits, and which I feel Primefac and Izno have participated in as regular editors outside any administrative capacity (and also Primefac administratively, which doesn't count towards INVOLVED).

I don't have other evidence to submit: VPP decided in favour of ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ and there's no intractable dispute. Folly Mox (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The question that is immediately before ArbCom is not whether to take action against Scottywong. It is whether to accept a case that will decide whether to take action against Scottywong. Often both the preliminary statements by editors and the preliminary reasoning given by arbitrators seem to ask whether final action, such as desysopping, is necessary. That isn't the question at this point. That will be the question after the parties and other editors have submitted evidence and the arbitrators have reviewed the evidence. At this time the arbitrators should decide whether it is in order to open evidentiary proceedings, and decide based on the evidence whether to take action against Scottywong.

At this point, we know that Scottywong used extremely poor judgment in at least one case, to an extent that questions are raised about his continued suitability to be an administrator. If this was a one-time departure from a record of otherwise exemplary conduct, a warning may be in order. If such behavior has continued off and on for years, ArbCom may reasonably decide that it has lost confidence in an administrator. The only way that the arbitrators will know which is the case is by receiving evidence. There is enough information to conclude that ArbCom should conduct a full evidentiary phase to be followed by a decision. ArbCom should accept this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More Comments by Robert McClenon

I have a few comments on what the ArbCom should say when it decides the case of Scottywong, since the arbitrators sometimes comment on what the principles should be in a case.

ArbCom does not make policy, but ArbCom does restate policies in its statements of principles, and sometimes the restatement of policies is an important reminder to the community. Maybe the policy on non-Latin names needs to be restated, and possibly clarified.

Sometimes ArbCom states some principles that are consequences of existing policies or that follow from policies. A statement, as a principle, about apologies for incivility may be in order, stating that the value of an apology depends on several factors, including how it is worded, how soon it is offered, and how willingly it is offered. Maybe ArbCom needs to state that incivility by administrators is not acceptable, and that a pattern of incivility extending back over years is of special concern. Maybe something should be said about the value or lack of value of ancient reports of uncivil behavior..

Those are some of the ideas that should be considered in an ArbCom case about Scottywong. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One More Thought

This may be a strange and difficult case. This ArbCom has shown that it could handle a differently strange and differently difficult case. I have confidence that it can handle this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is tricky to move forward. The original comment is grossly out of line, as supported by the vast majority of participants at the AN/I thread. Many comments focus on the belittling of the name, and this is indeed egregious, but it is also worth noting how full of invective the entire post is. It's utterly unbecoming of an editor, let alone an admin. With that in mind, it is also worth continual understanding that people have emotions and make mistakes, and whether or not it should be, removing adminship is quite a significant step on en.wiki (perhaps even more so for issues related to WP:CIVIL, that perpetually debated pillar). If Scottywong had simply accepted the issue that occurred, I doubt we would be here. However, their response was to give a complete non-apology that excused their behaviour and completely dismissed any concerns. "In my opinion, there was no reason to bring this conversation to the drama board. I won't be monitoring this thread..." That is not only dismissive of the specific complaint, but seems not at all in line with the expectations of WP:ADMINACCT. That alongside their later doubling down means the issue is more than the one post, it is the apparent refusal to accept what was wrong about that post. Their later apology was forthright, but did not demonstrate an understanding of the issues at hand. So here we are.

I don't know what the best past forward is with that all in mind, but I would posit the following thoughts to ARBCOM: If a non-admin had made the original comment (and it had been noticed at the time), there is quite a high chance they would have been immediately blocked for personal attacks. In such a case, the blocked user would be expected to show that they "understand what [they] are blocked for", which in this case I do not believe has been done. Lastly, the level of accountability for an admin should surely be equal to if not higher than that of regular users. CMD (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Troubled by some comparisons here to other instances of incivility. Civility is not a binary, and the comparisons so far haven't pointed to something similar to what we are looking at here. I would also like to second Trey Maturin's wording of something I was trying to say in a much clearer manner: that we are here not because people are eager for harsh punishment, but because the community was effectively asked "what are you going to do, take me to ARBCOM?", and the community does not have mechanisms to deal with that. CMD (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've recused from this request as I asked Scottywong critical questions during ACE 2020 and ended up re-blocking Dutchy85 for copyright violations after he had unblocked them, adding 10,000 more edits to their CCI -- I made my unhappiness with this clear at the time and it partially prompted this ANI post of mine. While the current ANI was developing, I left a comment at SW's talk page, where I explained my perspective on the "personal attack" angle and pointed out previous incidents SW has been involved in. I ended with But in my opinion, the best course of action is to retract your remarks and apologize to Malnadach, and also try to move more carefully in the future. I think SW's later comment at the ANI thread did well on the apologizing and retracting end and I thought it was a decent step forward. Scottywong has been a valuable contributor in the technical areas of Wikipedia and the early days of New Page Patrol.

That said, I'm not really happy with how this has played out outside of Wikipedia. I'm still on the fence with how this factors into repeated concerns with Scottywong; aside from the Dutchy85 unblock and re-block, SW has faced controversy and proposed sanctions at a few different venues for different reasons. There's several ANI threads related to SW's long term feud with Eric Corbett; 2019 ANI thread, 2014 ANI thread, 2012 ANI thread, another 2012 ANI thread, and ANI thread near the end of 2012 where Drmies and SW were blocked for personal attacks (these block were later undone). There's additionally this 2012 ANI thread involving COI issues (Note Worm That Turned's comment there). Still, I want to hear from Scottywong before this case move forward too much, unless doesn't feel like responding. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 05:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi I would answer "both" and will elaborate over email since this involves "private" stuff.

Scottywong's apology at ACE2020 in response to my question about the Manning comments seemed genuine enough to me-- I don't think those need to be gone over again, and if referenced should only be looked at as part of a "pattern". The Dutchy85 unblock and re-block from my questions there is more recent and relevant.

@CaptainEek, since I brought up the Eric Corbett interactions, I don't think your comment Instead, folks are suggesting we also examine Scotty's past conduct. But it looks like we'd have to dive pretty far back is completely accurate and I don't agree with your decline rationale. There's been concerns outside of Eric Corbett over about a decade, and the most recent was at the end of 2020. I don't think these need to be "re-examined", really; I'm more thinking this shows a pattern of concern with SW's status as an admin over the years and shows there is a potentially "intractable dispute/issue" here. See also SW's year counts. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ScottyWong had numerous chances to unreservedly apologise, and they didn't. I ask ArbCom a question: What would happen if ScottyWong made the same comments as a new editor? Would this have risen beyond administrators? JML1148 (talk | contribs) 08:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This request is not just about the recent conflict with User:ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (whose username, again, I copied and pasted in just a few seconds). There's a history of Scottywong behaving aggressively, and apparently out of anger, and he's apologised before (though in this case, I think the "I apologise, but..." approach is not adequate, even if I do believe he genuinely regrets some of his words). I won't list other events here, but they can be raised in the evidence phase if the case is accepted.

Generally, if someone is liable to go off explosively like this from time to time, then I don't think they have the temperament to be an admin. And that's even if they do genuinely, remorsefully, apologise each time. Editors should not be expected to volunteer their valuable time with the threat of a hair-trigger admin hanging over them.

I specifically asked Scottywong if he had any thoughts on how to manage his occasional anger in the future, but he did not respond (though it was at ANI, so not the ideal circumstances - maybe he can address that question here, and satisfy Arbcom that there's a way forward?)

Other than that, I supported Scottywong's RfAs both times, and it pains me to be here writing these words now. I do note, however, my words in his first RfA: "I think it's fair to say he has, on occasions, expressed himself perhaps a little more forthrightly than is ideal, but I do see some mellowing with experience and I trust him to use the tools dispassionately." I think I was right on the tool use, but the "forthrightly" thing still appears to be a problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I can just add a few words now we've had a lot more input... I think the statements above by Scottywong would have been a near perfect response to the issue raised at ANI, and if we'd seen something close to it a few days ago we wouldn't be here now. The fact that it took as long as it did is disappointing, and admins really should be open to taking feedback/criticism at the time it's made rather than instantly adopting a defensive stance and then taking time to come round to properly thinking about their own behaviour. But we're not all the same, we all respond differently to personal criticism, and some people find it harder to take than others (I blame it on Sigmund Fraud Freud - if he hadn't invented ego, we'd all be fine ;-). That's an issue for admin aptitude, for sure, but we shouldn't expect perfection. I still think ArbCom should take the case, if for no other reason than they're the only people who can examine admin behaviour with any power to do anything - and a clear community consenus has requested it (so that's two reasons...). But if the Arbs are satisfied that this is a rare aberration and is unlikely to be repeated, then I hope we can progress from here with no drastic action. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What SW said was poor for an admin. The non-apologies made it worse. He's (eventually) given a proper apology. But it is a proper apology. Unless Arbcom believes there are grounds for considering whether this is part of a wider problem with SW (Moneytrees above seems to suggest there is - I have no view) I would suggest this incident alone is not enough to take this case. Having said that, if there's procedurally a way of not taking a full case but, at this stage, admonishing SW for this incident then that would be a reasonable outcome. DeCausa (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per Leprivark, JPxG, Barkeep, and WaltCip. While I said I had no view on Moneytrees's (and others) suggestion on a wider issue, now I do. DeCausa (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be growing and absurd hyperbole around Captain Eek's comments. It's only what we have in WP:LATINPLEASE, and for very good reason. DeCausa (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, Primefac just to be clear: what Lourdes wrote wasn't a direct quote. It's based on two posts from SW here and here. It's an adapted version of some of the wording from each post with some additional wording from Lourdes (eg "As for you people", "Anglo-imperialistic views" etc). Not saying what SW wrote wasn't bad but Lourdes has spiced it up. DeCausa (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been participating in an off-site discussion with Scottywong in a members-only section of a well-known Wikipedia criticism site which some Committee members also belong to. If this case is accepted, which I believe it should be, I intend to share evidence gathered via my participation on that site. The Committee might advise whether they want this evidence to be shared publicly or privately. That site's moderators have decided to keep it private, at least for now. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement retracted. Unsure whether I have authority to remove it as Committee members and their clerks do. wbm1058 (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Storm in a teacup has become a teacup in a storm. The community referral is moot now; send it back to the community. Arbitration Committee cases aren't really equipped to handle sock puppetry, especially if the socks are blocked so they can't make statements. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After making 2 non-apologies here and here, they did eventually apologise here however in that apology they state and I quote "Particularly, the "Mr. Squiggles" comment about this user's non-English username, while not intended to be insulting, belittling, or xenophobic; was still insensitive and an unnecessary addition to the primary topic I wanted to discuss with the user." (emphasis mine)

As I noted in the ANI thread You don't take the mick out of someone's name unless you're intentionally trying to be insulting, belittling, or xenophobic. Friends can have a laugh over each others names but these 2 aren't friends nor was it intended as a joke.

Had any editor be it newbie or veteran made such comments they would've been blocked for a long time potentially indeffed.

Whilst Scotty didn't abuse his tools he imho was still acting in an admin capacity and as such given his comments and lack of remorse I hold no trust or confidence in this admin and given the previous linked ANI threads, his recent comments, the non-apologetic apologies and his overall demeanor I doubt that will ever change for me.

I suspect Arbs are already aware but he's also been making comments at the well known criticism site which I haven't reviewed so take this comment with a pinch of salt. –Davey2010^Talk 13:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I've seen the argument that a non-admin would have been indeffed, but that's really just an unprovable hypothetical. Non-admins get away with incivility all the time." - Lepricavark sorry but I partially disagree there, They certainly would've been blocked for a long time (maybe not indefinitely depending on the person but they still would've been blocked),

Regarding your second comment I agree admins and editors alike do get away with incivility but as far as I'm aware not racial/xenophobic incivilty, Telling someone to fuck off etc is a lot different to making racial/xenophobic remarks about a fellow editors name. –Davey2010^Talk 21:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per this—which distils every single arbcom case ever into a single sentence—I avoided the AN/I and intended to avoid this. Partly because I'm certainly no friend of SW, although I can't provide the diffs, so my opinion, for now at least, is purely subjective.

But at the risk of calling Vig's wrath down upon me, I'd like the record to show in all-caps firey bold font that if we are really having to dig so deep as to bring up decade-old comments that were/weren't dealt with at the time, but were fully addressed and retracted during ACE2020, then the case must be pretty flimsy. "Must do better", as the red ink would say. SN54129 14:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to draw the committee's attention to what Martinp has just written; without (I hope!) patronising him, I think it's probably one of if not the most sensible thing anyone's said on this page so far. SN54129 13:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I hate stating the obvious to people who are smarter than I, but I think (if true) going off to some Wikipedia criticism site with his problems here would be unbecoming and in and off itself require desyssoping.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main points have been made well by others so I will limit myself to reinforcing them (with the exception of the off-wiki claims which I have no basis to comment on and won't until I see them). First of all I want to continue the echo that is resounding through these halls: admins are not a divine class, they should be given *less* leeway in terms of behavioral issues than regular editors not more. What has been said about what would happen to a brand new editor is completely correct, that a new editor would be judged more harshly than an admin for the same comment boggles my mind. As other have noted, I take issue with the forthrightness of the apology "while not intended to be insulting, belittling, or xenophobic;" does not appear to be an genuine summary of their actions because it doesn't actually give any explanation of why the comment was posted in the first place and if it wasn't intended to be "insulting, belittling, or xenophobic;" I have no clue what was intended by it (it certainly wasn't intended to be funny, friendly, lighthearted, constructive, or civil). A real explanation needs to be given, not obfuscations and half truths. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The idea being bandied about that it is right and proper to discriminate against those with names not in the latin alphabet is as much a non-starter for me as the idea that it would be right and proper to discriminate against me if I decided to post on the Thai, Traditional Mandarin, Russian, Hebrew, Icelandic, Arabic etc versions of wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes editors are asked to have a thick skin for situations more painful than than ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ endured and I consider the offense to be serious but not fatally serious. And the only-90% mea culpa that was pretty well done might be the best a prudent person can give in our environment. But given some other things noted, I think that they need to self-review for systemic problems that can lead to these types of things and fix them rather than just avoiding repeating the particular current offense. And the bar for admin conduct is and should be high, and doubly so if someone routinely has spirited interactions with editors while inevitably wearing that imprimatur, even if not explicitly declaring that they are operating in an admin role or using the tools. Something needs to change and possibly only Arbcom can trigger that change. My gut feel is that in this case something short of desysop can successfully accomplish that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Scotty's second of three statements on AN/I (the first two being to dismiss the whole business, the third to apologise) they wrote If that doesn't do it for you, or if you believe you've found a pattern of xenophobic behavior in my editing history, then by all means, block me and/or ship me off to Arbcom immediately. Otherwise, there isn't much more to say. This matter being taken up by the committee would appear to be at their own request, for which there is precedent to accept. — Trey Maturin™ 16:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WaltCip has a good point below, which is (forgive my paraphrasing, Walt): there's a gap in our community processes.

The current choices for a serious issue with an admin not involving tool misuse boil down to "have a business on AN(I) that comes to nothing" or "send the matter to Arbcom". There's nothing (that actually works) in-between.

This type of thing is sufficiently rare that we probably don't need to worry about it, but I note that Scotty appears to have spotted this gap and stepped into it, with their first responses being 'drop the matter or Arbcom me, I'm outta here'. — Trey Maturin™ 17:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am very uncomfortable with the first two paragraphs of CaptainEek’s decline rationale. — Trey Maturin™ 22:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“You murdered that guy!”

”Yeah, but it turns out they once drove a car without wearing a seatbelt.”

“Oh, that’s fine then.”

As we all agree, victims must be 100% perfect or otherwise they’re not victims at all. Case dismissed. — Trey Maturin™ 22:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) My thoughts tend to align with Barkeep. Normally, when an arbitration case is brought forth about an administrator, there needs to be a great deal of strong evidence of ongoing misconduct that the community has tried but failed to take the appropriate remedy on. We have these comments that just now happened which obviously speak for themselves, as a breach of WP:CIV, but I also don't think that going back 10 years ago to a recanted comment is entirely appropriate nor pertinent to this situation. Any evidence-gathering to build a case around Scotty's behavior would probably need to focus on more recent instances of his interactions with Malnadach. The fact that no one rushed forward to file a case and that such evidence has not yet been provided beyond the 2012 incident could mean that such evidence either hasn't been found or it does not exist. That is going to hurt the chances of arbitration creating a remedy that I think most of the angered respondents to the ANI thread seem to want.

On a side note, I think what bothers me the most is how the community seemed unable to coalesce around any meaningful response other than demanding apologies, then asserting the apologies didn't go far enough because they didn't use the right magic words, and then falling apart when it came to proposing a one-way IBAN. If the comments were so disgusting that no apology provided from this user would be sufficient, then what is the point of even asking for them? If a block or de-sysop is what is wanted, then just make that clear from the beginning. --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both JPxG and Lepricavark. Either the case needs to be declined as not amounting to the sort of violation that would merit an Arbcom case (which most of the time will end in a de-sysop), or multiple people need to be made parties to this case, including participants in the ANI thread. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Showing up to make a blatantly obvious comment on the merits of the case just for the sake of making a comment, I suppose.

I don't think a non-admin user should be indef-blocked for a rude talk page comment if they apologize for it afterwards, and I don't think an admin should either. I am rather troubled by the emerging precedent that, if you want to drop a truly sick pwn, you are permitted and encouraged to hunt through somebody's contribs to find diffs from two, five, ten years ago where they said something that is now considered crass or unpopular (and, in this case, which they already took back and distanced themselves from). I would call this "tumblr-level discourse", but I have more respect for tumblr than that: it is downright redditous. jp×g 18:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I do think it is rather important that we lint all the stupid damn <center> and <blink> and <marquee> tags out of old archives, since if these pages have any utility at all (clearly they do, or else we would delete them entirely!) they have enough utility that we should make it possible to view them in a Web browser a score ago, today, a score hence, and a century hence. jp×g 19:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, Scottywong's comments were bad and he should have recognized this sooner than he did. On the other hand, it's clear that some editors will not be satisfied with any apology and simply want ArbCom to impose the harshest sanction imaginable. I've seen the argument that a non-admin would have been indeffed, but that's really just an unprovable hypothetical. Non-admins get away with incivility all the time. Consider, for example, the following excerpt from the statement above by Alalch E.: Obviously, Scottywong is especially talented at thinking up offensive and upsetting remarks. That's a cut-and-dried personal attack that, as best I can tell, has drawn absolutely no response at all from anyone until now. No block, no warning, nada. I realize that it's sort of an open season on Scottywong right now, but perhaps some of his critics should recognize that their SuperMario Effect complaint may not be as valid as they claim. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Deepfriedokra: not only are you not stating the obvious, but I'd contend that you are flatly incorrect. More than a few admins, including current members of ArbCom, participate at the aforementioned Wikipedia criticism site. That's hardly grounds for a desysop. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Heavy Water: of course a new editor with two edits would receive very little leeway. They haven't earned any benefit of the doubt. While I'm strongly opposed to letting veteran editors get off scot-free because of their editing history, I do believe they should be given more rope than a complete newbie would be given. Would a brand-new editor have been indeffed for the same comments that Scotty made? Perhaps, but why should we be treating Scotty like a brand-new editor? (Hint: we shouldn't, and it belittles his many years of contributions to suggest that we should.) IMHO, that oft-repeated line of reasoning has been a red herring this whole time. As for your other point, there was a recent thread at ANI (I won't link it, but many of you will recall) that was prompted by overtly xenophobic comments from a long-term non-admin. While the thread resulted in a tban, the editor was not blocked. Therefore, I continue to reject the unsupportable assertion that a veteran non-admin would have been blocked under these circumstances, and I likewise reject the unsupportable assertion that Scotty is benefiting from the SuperMario Effect. I'm afraid that the calls for a desysop have very little basis on which to stand. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty much the phrase used at SPI in private. To do so in public, a little rude, but Scotty has addressed it. Unbecoming of an admin? That is a bit of a stretch. He wasn't doing anything "admin-like" (which only matters a little) and the offense was pretty minor because he was making a rude comment about the charset, not the individual, after the individual demonstrated problematic behavior. Unprofessional? Yes, but everyone at enwp can be on a regular basis, this isn't a paid job. Should it be noted? Sure, but slap his hand and move on, which I think has already been done, so we can move on. This oversensitivity to minor things isn't helping us grow. You have to have thick skin to participate in a collaborative environment, and this comment, while a little rude, is far below the threshold we would even sanction for at ANI. Again, slap his wrist and lets move on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage ArbCom to accept this case solely on the fact that this involves off-wiki conduct/evidence and that regardless of whether Scottywong needs to be desysopped, the community is looking to ArbCom in the very least to make a statement about admin behaviour related to xenophobia and accountability. Sometimes accepting a case is about more than just whether the two involved editors have resolved their differences. This has dragged the community into it and I'm not seeing agreement this has run its course. Mkdw ^talk 22:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CaptainEek's comments are appalling. Mkdw ^talk 22:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CaptainEek, while I appreciate you withdrawing your comments, I still have trouble with the heart of what you said because all that seemingly changed is that your opinion went from being perceived as policy-supported to not policy-supported. I question whether, outside the policy, you still believe that "non-Roman character usernames are often a problem because...they are not in the English language." And, that we as a community "tolerated these names" and that it should be "recognized that they are not conducive to a common editing environment." The acceptance of "non-Roman character usernames" long pre-dates single login finalization and still today that is not the reason why we allow them.

A username is one of the few personal identifiers on Wikipedia and broad discretion was and is granted on the understanding that editors from all over the world, from many different language backgrounds, are welcome to edit Wikipedia. "Be open, welcoming, and inclusive" was part of the WP:FIVEPILLARS on which Wikipedia was founded. That is the reason why we shouldn't view usernames from other alphabets as something that we "tolerate" or that stands in the way of a "common editing environment". Just as we don't say accessibility features and other protected human rights areas on Wikipedia are inconvenient to implement or honour. I think you are understanding of this viewpoint and hope you reconsider the framing of why this provoked such a reaction in the community. The username and the language background from where it came had nothing to do with the locus of the dispute. It was brought up for an ignorant reason. Just as it would have been as inappropriate to single out their gender identity, sexuality, cultural background, ethnicity, disability, etc. Inconvenient. Too sensitive. Absurd. You're imagining things. Not normal. Unintentional. All of these things have been used to attack and dismiss each one of these protected grounds throughout history. They're all very effective in prevent protected grounds from being recognized and enforced. Mkdw ^talk 01:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: My comments were harsh because they matched my emotional reaction to comments that I saw as validating Scottywong's bigoted comments. It wasn't because I merely thought you misread a policy -- on that part you've corrected -- but it's immaterial to the most important issue I reiterated in my response. You haven't answered my question about whether you believe (policy interpretation completely aside) that names from other languages are a problem, the community tolerates these names (as if seemingly to point out the inconvenience of them), and these names are not conductive to a common editing environment.

I personally don't care whether Scottywong believe he's a not racist, just like I don't care that most people accused of racism never seem to think their comments or actions (intentional or otherwise) are racist. I don't care if we have a policy or not that says editors can insult someone over their ethnic or racial background on the English Wikipedia. I don't care if we have an example of a RFA that might have implications of being a glass ceiling. Just as the fact that no 2SLGBTI+ person has ever been elected to run for the US Presidency, does not therefore justify for anyone to say gender identity and sexuality are a problem but tolerated. We have a problem as a community if the conclusion is that the alphabet used to spell a username is more important than the character of a person and the language they use to insult others from different language backgrounds. We're acting like this hasn't propagated and emboldened a bunch of other ignorant comments and caused a harm in the community.

Other comments in this ARC are trying to position this as rhetorical shields, just a joke, not something this person has said often, "perceived" feelings, or dismiss this as hyperbole. Some have gone on to say Scottywong was right to say what he did and that is appalling. Calling someone Mr. Squiggles about their Tamil name was as much an insult as would calling someone with a Mandarin name Mr. Ching Chong. If any of us went to a colleague from an Arabic background, someone we weren't friends with and perhaps were known to actually dislike, and called them Mr. Squiggles referring to their Arabic name, it would be more than sufficient grounds for a discrimination grievance. It's being contested here because of the effective efforts to dismiss or deny how a part of the community has come here to say what happened and what is being said here has made us feel unwelcome. Mkdw ^talk 08:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I second the concerns that CaptainEek's comments are appalling. علاء is one of the most respected stewards. Does that mean they cannot do anything on enwiki? --Rschen7754 22:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a former steward, I found those comments shocking. All Arbs are CUs, and (generally) subscribed to checkuser-l where there has to be some sort of global cooperation, so that raises some questions there - not to mention what sort of optics of our own project that we want to show the rest of Wikimedia and the effect that those comments from de facto leaders of the project have on those optics. --Rschen7754 18:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've been too hasty in assuming that because non-ascii script usernames can be denigrated as crypto-xenophobia (that is, the good reason is "it's too difficult to type that name", while the real reason is "I don't like foreigners"), that is not the only reason one can be frustrated with such usernames. I'll note that if User:Fæ, a user who came to the committee's notice during my tenure, hadn't had User:Fae as a doppelganger account, discussing that since-checkuser-blocked editor would have been much more difficult. As a participant in some of those discussions, I experienced annoyance that, to the best of my recollection, I never took out on Fæ for choosing a username with extended set characters. If ScottyWong says his statement was born out of frustration rather than malice, we are ABF'ing if we do not believe him and treat it as an intentional attack, instead of poorly chosen words. Jclemens (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Must admit, it would be a bad feeling for me if my behavior back when I was on Prednizone had driven another editor away. But it didn't, and I was forgiven. Gentle reminder as this appears to be evolving into a case, please remember to get a good view of the whole picture. Subject has done a lot of good things for this project over several years; no one is perfect. Sincerely hope that MK returns and has learned a few things and forgives SW. Hope that SW has learned a few things, as well. Then we can all get on with continuing to build the world's most awesome reference work. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 01:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally

So... the "victim" gets indeffed, and now... who's the victim? It seems that this case should be denied and SW should get a parade of a different color. It appears to me that SW turns out to be a hero of sorts. Were his unpleasant edits, for which he has been brought here to this page, actually some kind of prescience? WP is not a crystal ball, but that does not mean that some editors don't have one. At this point we should call things even to be sure we do not become arbiters of bad justice! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 00:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To editor GeneralNotability: the victim who is no longer a victim would not have been blocked from editing WP indefinitely if it were not for very good reason. So no and no. No my additional statement was neither "poorly signaled", nor was it meant to be sarcastic. It's time to recognize that SW has been victimized by all this ABF attention, and several "Accept"s need to be transformed into "Deny"s. End of story. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 00:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To editor GeneralNotability: yes, we appear to agree that when a wise person argues with a fool, it's an argument between two fools. Deeply sorry that you think my attitude unacceptable. It's a gift... and a curse. SW should be exonerated; if I err toward the extreme, it's only because this entire ANI and ARBCOM process against SW has been a bit too extreme in my humble estimation. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 01:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To editor ­small jars: understand the relationship between "punitive" and "just", and while blocks are not supposed to be punitive, everything said thus far against SW does lead one to think that editors wanted punitive acts against SW. Here is where justice enters the picture. A justified block of Malnadach Konkno should sever the punitive bonds and any further actions against SW would be, imho, quite unjust. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 01:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To editor ­small jars: don't see this interaction as excessive, it's just the comments of editors who are concerned that my additional statement is perceived to be too far to the extreme. If so, then it may be that I am inadvertently attempting to right the wrongs that have been perpetrated against a long-term excellent editor and admin. I don't think I misread your comment as "user rights are just, not punitive" "removals of user rights are just, not punitive". And sorry if I have been unclear. I was only trying to relate the terms "just" and "punitive" and to show that I understand that the use of blocking should not be related in any way to those terms. Malnadach Konkno's block is meant only to prevent any further disruption to the project, and certainly not to punish that user nor to serve justice against that user. Perhaps SW should have blocked Konkno in the first place? He could have done that, but didn't. Is it too retrospective or too extreme to ask why he didn't? If he had, then perhaps none of this would have happened. Or it may have happened very differently. In any case, I think it's time to call for this to end on a positive note if possible. SW should no longer be vilified and instead be acquitted of any wrongdoing in the eyes of his fellow editors. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 02:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Newyorkbrad: don't mean to seem unhelpful; just don't think kicking a dead horse is productive. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 01:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To editor ­ibicdlcod: most deep and sincere apology to you and all who think the same. To clarify, I am not generally happy with editor SW, not by a longshot. He could have prevented this ANI/ARBCOM business by blocking the disruptive sockpuppet in the first place, but instead he was rude to the disruptive sockpuppet, which allowed the disruptive sockpuppet to continue disruptive editing. However he (SW) is not here for not doing his job and blocking the disruptive sockpuppet, he is here under discussion for being rude to the disruptive sockpuppet. At this point perhaps many of us, all of us even, should be gently reproved for being a part of this train wreck. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should turn WP:Anchoring into a blue link and make it a formal policy for all RFARs (i.e., don't name case requests after the accused editor). Banedon (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I've suggested this to the committee in the past there hasn't been a majority in favor of it (can't recall if I have tried with this year's committee or not so I will). I continue to support the concept. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CaptainEek writes I have long found MalnadachBot to be an unnecessary annoyance..., which I partially agree with, but would posit that the behavior of Scottywong has contributed to making the situation worse than it should be. This includes hijacking constructive proposals to continue griping and then filing an obviously bad-faith RfC. I describe it as "obviously bad-faith" because of the attempt to deliberately confuse people by proposing a change, but drafting it such that "Oppose" means implement the change, and "Support" means status quo. It's pretty un-collegial to say you don't have time for drafting an RfC (entirely fair), but then two days later spring it on everyone, without allowing the "other side" to equally present counter-arguments or compromises.

When this was pointed out to them, they claimed the RfC had been open for too long already that changes would be disruptive. I found that to be disingenuous, pointing out that it had been one day, and the way it was set up was actually making it harder to find common ground and compromise. Never got a reply, but sure enough, the community soundly rejected Scottywong's point of view, which only set back his "side".

In isolation, what I described is clearly not desysop worthy, but collectively with the username comments and previous history, I think it adds to the pattern of holding grudges, being disruptive and then not being able to drop the stick. Legoktm (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the near 2 decades I have contributed here, I have rarely been on the side of any admin. accused of anything. But as I said at AN/I, this has far more the feel of a puerile, frustrated exchange (for which formal warning rather than removal of Admin. rights would be suitable). There are some fairly hefty and unproven allegations being thrown about, presented as fact, including claims of xenophobia. I am a bit concerned at the level of what appears to be righteous indignation expressed in some of the statements. If Arbcom accepts this case I hope they will scrutinise the accuracy of these assertions. Leaky caldron (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's shocking that an Arb does not know a non-complex policy (WP:NONLATIN) well. I think 90% of laity-Wikipedians know it. CaptainEek should be trouted and recused from this case (yes she misread it, but an Arb should know it already unless the policy in question is recently changed)

I think many people in the ANI thread demand harsh sanctions against ScottyWong because they think ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ is supposedly driven out of the site. If he were to remain on Wikipedia the thread won't be so harsh. I hope ArbCom and/or the community do something good for editor retention from this incident (as we have lost so many from countless unfortunate incidents already). ibicdlcod (talk) 08:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: CaptainEek claimed an RFA was declined due to non-English username. I indeed found said RFA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/力 2, in which 1) a significant but minority of oppose votes are due to username 2) the user's primarily edits are to English Wikipedia 3) the user have a name of power~enwiki which is Latin and intentionally changed to 力 prior to RfA, which was seen as an attempt to disrupt other people's communication with him. So the whole picture is very different from this case. I would like to see someone elaborate how WP:NONLATIN apply to potentional administrators through.

:As someone who use a Latin username but also outside Anglosphere I put a nickname in my native language at the top of this section specifically as an act of defiance, because both English Wikipedia and the entire Internet is Anglocentric enough to damage everyone other than the Western Elite (for example, back in 2020 the only non-Western source rated green by WP:RSP is Al Jazeera, all others are Western media). ibicdlcod (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC) Apparently this does not make a healthy atmosphere, striking out.[reply]

And I removed it per WP:POINT. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes, the English requirement applys to article mainspace rather than a user's self-identity (especially their own userpage, for which much leeway is given). I am actually contemplating a recommendation for non-Latin username users to have Latin-script doppelganger account and redirect user and user talk page to the main account, for ease of English communication (and made this a requirement for admins). ibicdlcod (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes: Sarcasm is really helpful. Perhaps next time you should bother the template ^[sarcasm]. ibicdlcod (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally: User:Paine Ellsworth probably need to be admonished for disruptive defending of SW, just like MVBW in a previous case. ibicdlcod (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To editor ­Paine Ellsworth: SW is not a Checkuser. He probably have no divine method to know ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ is a sock at the time of conflict. In the last ARBCOM case they find Volunteer Marek has often correctly identified editors as socks of Icewhiz, but VM were still sanctioned, due to his other behaviour.

Dear Arbcom, if I may comment on behalf of Wong (I can use 'Scotty' if the English prefer it), please stop with this annoying useless case already.

And dear those with non-English user names, I don't even know what to call you all -- there is a potential WP:CIR problem here...with your usernames that use non-English characters, to the hideous fonts on your user pages, to the annoying rainbow border on your user pages, etc., etc., etc. As for you people, I have no hatred for your language or culture and certainly hold no "Anglo-imperialistic" views apart from the view that when you're collaborating on a project that is exclusively dedicated to English-language content...or entering an English bar... well, you understand, don't you... Lourdes 09:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(The above are lines (sarcastically) copy-pasted from SW's diatribe against the non-English editor. If the above left a tough impression on you, imagine what the other non-English editor would have gone through... Food for thought for the committee, esp considering these as words from an administrator... Lourdes 11:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC))[reply]

If you are directly quoting, please put the quoted material inside of {{tq}} tags so that it is more clear that you are quoting and not stating these as your own opinion. Primefac (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the unpleasant bit of bigotry from another administrator (Lourdes) in the section just above this one, it would appear that Scottywong is not the only one who is capable of attacking others with kneejerk Anglocentrism (or let's just call it what it is, which is racism.) Perhaps we could add Lourdes to this case? Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Lourdes, perhaps it'd be a good idea to ensure that it's clear that you're quoting someone else next time? I did think it wasn't in character for you, but since there wasn't any indication ... Black Kite (talk) 12:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JPxG, I too am disturbed by such things, like when the lone oppose !voter on an RfA finds themselves in hot water, sometimes even indeffed, suspiciously soon after their !vote, and with support !voters leading the denunciations. But Scotty specifically said "If that doesn't do it for you, or if you believe you've found a pattern of xenophobic behavior in my editing history, then by all means, block me and/or ship me off to Arbcom immediately." That sounds like he's encouraging people to analyze his history as a whole (which would make sense for someone hoping to prove this was a one-off incident). That's not to say I believe the Manning incident is relevant, as he's long since apologized for it, or any clashes with Eric Corbett (there's a reason Corbett's banned).

Also, Lepricavark, there are two distinctions to be made: the disparity between how someone who registered yesterday and has made two edits and an experienced non-admin like Alalch would be treated, and the disparity between how an incivil comment perceived as xenophobic and a run-of-the-mill incivil comment would be treated. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 16:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lepricavark: I just brought that up to note how people might be using "non-admin" and be thinking of an experienced editor or someone brand-new, not say Scotty should necessarily be considered the same way (for what it's worth, I think he should be treated as he would if he were an experienced non-admin; noting the experience there in my view only figures into things like this because it is demonstrable a person isn't always engaging in disruptive behavior). Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 22:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have lost confidence that ScottyWong's judgement and temperament meet the community's expectations of admins. As a former admin (desysopped years ago for inactivity) they sure don't meet mine.

The lengthy ANI discussion showed only ArbCom has the tools under our current system of governance to deal with this situation. Many editors made it clear at the ANI discussion they wanted ArbCom to take this on. I will be very disappointed if ArbCom doesn't; reading the discussion among arbitrators below, it appears some arbitrators see this problem as no big deal.

Your call now. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Things just turned weird with the checkuser block of ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ and even weirder that some of ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ‘s sock puppets were accounts that he had ostensibly contended with.

This still leaves ScottyWong. I still lack confidence in his judgement and temperament. I have never wanted to see him blocked but I’ve thought ArbCom should desysop him with the door left open for him to regain his tools at RFA.

Given how muddled everything has gotten, I understand this may not happen. If so, is there a way to put him on some sort of ArbCom double secret probation for immediate admin privilege removal in the event of future issues?

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much discussion is centered on whether ScottyWong is truly racist and xenophobic or just spoke inartfully. Others are bringing up alleged transphobia from a past incident.

To me, those are just “icing on the cake”. This is fundamentally a case about respect for other people. People’s names matter a great deal; even the screen names they may chose here matter. We should treat them with respect. “Mr. Squiggles” is insulting regardless of script or ethnicity.

Besides the name issue, the tenor of the whole comment just shows lack of respect for a fellow editor.

I think his parents would cringe.

Admins need a basic degree of emotional self-control. They’re not here to indulge their own whims. They represent all of us. They should be held to a higher than normal standard. This includes off-Wikipedia behaviour when commenting on Wikipedia matters.

Please remove ScottyWong’s tools pending a second RfA.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, please have a try for CD, especially in this case. By using this tool, you can ping a user without even pronouncing this user's name. Really helpful.---Lemonaka‎ 02:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TBH, I couldn't believe pronouncing name can be the last straw for desysopping. -Lemonaka‎ 02:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend decline. The "possibility of extra evidence" being brought up is the sort of acceptance criteria I'd only expect to see in a pro witchunt community. Of course there's a possibility of extra evidence, several editors are likely well motivated to trawl through his contribs looking for dirt to dredge up. It was scotty who landed the last blow on Malleus, an outstanding contributor who rightly remains popular among some to this day. Granted, when Scotty started feuding with Malleus, it was the latter who was much more powerful, but that doesnt stop some here seeing the feud as an example of Scotty liking to "punch down". In reality, contrary to how some are trying to frame it, Scotty is the total opposite of a racist bully. They say the best way to really know someone is to f*** them or fight them. Back around 2010/ 2011 Scotty was for a short while antagonist no 1 to the ARS. But we in the rescue squad soon developed a strong respect for Scotty. Largely as we saw as he was only attacking us as he viewed us as a gang of bullies (a surprisingly number of intelligent editors have briefly perceived things that way over the years.) I remember back in 2011 when the Colonel & I met up in RL to help out a mutual friend (nothing to do with wikipedia) but in a quiet moment we had a 15 minute discussion about Scotty. Even the Colonel, far from the sort to aggrandize fellow editors, had lots of good things to say about Scotty. Btw, how could we have discussed a fellow editor by voice if he'd had an unpronounceable name like ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ ? This is one of many things folk seem to be forgeting when they suggest a non latin username is issue free. To be clear I agree Scotty's interaction with ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ was a mistake, esp. due to how his admin status risk making the potentially belittling remarks carry extra weight, and the CIR mention more scary. Scotty deserved the severe trouting at ANI. But seeing that he didnt' double down & instead apologised, there's no way a desysop is warranted. As this page shows, even some Arbs didn't have a full grasp of WP:LATINPLEASE. Huh, even top diplomats dont' always show perfect cross cultural sensitivity ( Examples of their mistakes are in The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Training which I recently cited ). It's a good thing we're aiming to be inclusive to folks from all four corners of the globe, but we should also be inclusive to those who lack an IQ of 230+ and the ability to perfectly grasp and apply all policies all the time! FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note here, ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ has been indefinitely blocked by a checkuser as an LTA. Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scottywong should sincerely promise not to make any more crass or boorish remarks, including any comments that can reasonably be perceived as ethnically insensitive, even if not intended to be so. Scottywong should then be sure to keep that promise, including by stepping away from the keyboard any time he's tempted to say something that could potentially bring us back here. If Scottywong makes that promise, the arbitrators should find a way to avoid the month of drama that this case would represent, while emphatically confirming that they'll open a case or adopt a motion against Scottywong PDQ if he breaks his promise to behave himself. The denizens of Wikipediocracy (and yes, I have been one), including both the Wikipedians and the Wikipedia-haters who post there, should remember that Wikipediocracy is not an adjunct to the requests for arbitration page. And lastly, from my own point of view, this remains a good year not to be an arbitrator any more. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The checkuser finding seems to be that the user who threatened to kill kittens and puppies unless Malnadach changed his username was Malnadach himself, editing between dedicated wikignoming runs of bot-fixing thousands of lint errors. That would seem, um, counterintuitive bordering on unbelievable, except that the Archtransit weirdness happened in my first few weeks as an arbitrator, and after that not much about the lengths some people are willing to go to troll can surprise me. Assuming the CU finding is correct, one can argue that intellectually it is irrelevant, since obviously Scottywong didn't know about it when he made his unfortunate comments. But intellectual reasoning isn't the only thing that matters, and my instincts tell me that this finding makes it even more desirable to bring this matter to a close without spending another month discussing it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trey Maturin: Analogies benefit from a complete background and from a sense of proportion. In relative terms, Scottywong's bad comments were not murder, and Malnadach's misconduct was not a traffic violation. Read the LTA page please. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: Tacking to the opposite unreasonable extreme doesn't help either. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the CU block of ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ as an LTA, may I suggest the the committee decline the case per WP:DENY, or deal with it through a reminder/admonishment motion?

Fwiw, I think ScottyWong's mocking of the user as "Mr Squiggles" and questioning their competence based (partly) on the username script, was wrong. But just as ScottyWong and the community have come a long way since their comments about Manning were tolerated, I believe that they and the community can grow out from these biases too. However, the adversarial environment of an arbcom case, with the specter of an LTA having led us to this, is not a good venue for the needed introspection and discussion. Abecedare (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: You are correct that the CU block is intellectually irrelevant to the case, but I can't imagine what "instincts" would make you think SW should be left off the hook in light of it, apart from the feeling that two wrongs make a right. @Abecedare: If you want to bring DENY into this, it needs to be noted that if ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's intent was to bait SW into doing something nasty, then SW's response could itself be described as a catastrophic case of feeding the troll. Baited or not, SW's comments came from himself and reflect the character of his conduct. To let him keep admin tools without full scrutiny is to promote an environment that makes people from outside the... “romanosphere" (?) feel less comfortable to edit. small jars tc 23:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: Your "there is no victim" rhetoric misses that removals of user rights are preventative, not just. The victim is the non-native editor in abstracto, who only appeared to SW in the form of ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ, and who risks further victimisation for as long as this kind of conduct is not taken seriously. small jars tc 00:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: From your response, I have to assume you misread my comment as removals of user rights are just, not punitive. I'm not trying to demand anything further from you either way, as it seems people have now begun to dogpile on your comment excessively. small jars tc 01:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BusterD: if enough admins turn out to have the same propensity demonstrated by SW to act completely uncivilly when trolls "explode themselves on" them, that it would be possible to execute a kind of DOS on civil admin behaviour, this site is in dire straits indeed. Admins should be held to a far higher standard than that. A troll might have provided the spark, but SW still needed significant gunpowder in his own veins for him to make this kind of outburst. small jars tc 14:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the new developments, I believe this case should be declined as it muddies the waters on what to do. Instead it should be declined with a motion that Scottywong should be more civil and that further incivilty could lead to loss of admin privileges or bans. Lightoil (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scottywong's comments were rather uncivil, and it's taken a while for them to respond appropriately to the community reaction to them. I have every confidence in Arbcom's ability to decide whether there is a broader pattern requiring their involvement, or if this was an isolated burst of frustration, now adequately resolved.

That said, I am quite befuddled by the strong accusations of racism, xenophobia, being "bigoted", etc. that are flying around, and the assertion that the initial frustrated and uncivil remark, especially the Mr Squiggles part, would/could have merited an indef for a different editor making them. As context, I am an immigrant who has faced xenophobia; and my name in real life uses diactritics that confuse English speakers leading to it being mispronounced, or sometimes people avoiding using my name. People having trouble with my name, even if doing so suboptimally, are not necessarily being xenophobic or bigoted. I consider it *my* responibility to guide people to a version of my name that is both pronouncable for them and recognizable for me. Therefore I consider the guidance in policy that on Wikipedia we welcome users of all stripes, accept nonLatin usernames and signatures, but encourage them to guide us to ways to address them that don't require the use of copy-paste, very reasonable.

There is much racism, xenophobia, and bigotry around that needs fighting against. There are also routine frictions that need de-escalation rather than raising the temperature (even if such routine frictions may be part of a pattern that may -- independently -- need addressing). Let's not jump to assuming the former when there's reasonable likelihood it's just the latter. Martinp (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Scottywong made suboptimal comments and they have since signaled appropriate regret. In view of ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's recent block, I still have no difficulty with the committee observing Scottywong's behavior and rendering an outcome. I suspect the process will boring and uneventful, since Scottywong is in most ways a model wikipedian and IMHO little outside of this current fury is likely to be presented. I will also acknowledge this process has been triggered by a now known bad actor (one with 90K edits on this pedia). I fear like wikislaughterbots, future bad actor accounts may just choose to explode themselves on admins in order to trigger Arbcom intervention and hinder their tough stances on bad behavior. A denial of service attack. For now Arbcom is the process we've agreed to, and I'm sure Scottywong would weather such probing. BusterD (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SmallJarsWithGreenLabels: Anyone can have a bad moment and say something really stupid. I do it all the time. But the slaughterbot analogy is useful in that, with hundreds of new accounts created daily and unlimited time to observe and test provoke any individual, bad actor accounts could be created specifically designed for a specific target. The software is in plain sight. BusterD (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer SW not be an admin. I don't think he would pass an RFA, which is my imperfect measure of being admin-worthy. If there were a functioning community desysop/reconfirmation process, I do not think his adminship would survive intact. If this were a one-off, a warning would suffice. But I can think of 2 other things he has done over the years that - either one of which - demonstrate a character I don't think lends itself to adminship. He seems to have benefited from spreading them out over a long enough time that (looks into crystal ball) Arbs are ultimately going to discount them, and give him a warning that next time he's in trouble.

So I know in my head that NYB is right, and this will end up not being worth the cost. But in my heart, I have some hope that ArbCom will recognize that people who obviously wouldn't pass an RFA today shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt just because they passed an RFA 11 years ago.

And just in case SW is being completely honest about how sticking this case out is the honorable thing to do: the even-more-honorable thing would be to resign, and then request the admin bit back in a new RFA. Similar levels of pain, probably, but it would only last a week instead of a month, and it would give the community a chance to decide something they should be able to decide.

I'm trying to imagine myself clinging to my own admin bit if I knew this many people didn't want me to, but I can't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]