Initiated by ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  at 23:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• GhostOfDanGurney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Scottywong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]
• [2]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Discussion at ANI

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 [3] are extremely unbecoming of an admin. As of writing, 10 editors have supported "Send[ing it] to Arbcom" [4] while a suggestion has come that any further "support" !votes should instead be a case request.[5] 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]

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]

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]

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. 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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

(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]

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]

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]

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]

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)[reply]

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

Dear Arbcom, if I may comment on behalf of Wong (I can use 'Scotty' if the English prefer it), please stop with these 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]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
For this case there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

• Recuse Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I would recommend that SW think about why everyone's (correctly) mad about this, do some legitimate self-reflection, and try again with the apology. (Sorry if that was brusque, I'm trying to be efficient.) I would particularly recommend SW address the CIR comment; while the name comments are egregious, I feel that comment is rather more indicative of what SW thought of Malnadach while writing it. Invoking CIR isn't even remotely appropriate in this situation, to say nothing of the reasons given for invoking it. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept per my low standards of accepting admin cases because the community can not sufficiently address the issue with the tools they have. Money points to some longer-term issues we need to look into. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 07:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Moneytrees, re: "how this has played out outside of Wikipedia" - does this refer to off-wiki evidence or to commentary from bystanders?

The WP:ADMINACCT aspect of a run-away-and-hide response would bring this into ArbCom's remit but, despite that initial response, Scottywong contributed to the discussion 3 more times in the next 18 hours. Still contemplating... Cabayi (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scotty's ACE2020 renunciation of his 2013 opinion on Manning & gender is more of a positive indicator imo. "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there." - Cabayi (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept, ∃ off-wiki evidence → it's on our plate. I'm open to persuasion on whether it's handled by motion or case. Cabayi (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. This incident by itself is concerning, though could perhaps be explained by personal friction between users, but when I followed Moneytrees' link to the ACE 2020 questions and read this comment by Scottywong about Bradley Manning (as named then - now named Chelsea Manning): "What would we do if Manning came out tomorrow and said that he'd like to be considered a dog instead of a human, that we should refer to him as Rover, and use "it" instead of "he/she"? Manning can say that he wants to be a girl all he wants, but the fact remains that he's not." I got the impression that Scottywong has more than once made statements that are disturbing. I think it is appropriate to look more deeply into Scottywong's past behaviour. SilkTork (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify my position as discussion continues. I'm unsure that there is currently enough evidence in the bot incident for a desysop without a case. That's not to say I would or wouldn't support a motion, but at the moment I haven't seen enough to make a decision either way. I'm also aware that the Manning comment was ten years ago, and Scottywong has regretted making that comment. However, when two such incidents are found in one admin's account history I think it would be remiss of the body appointed to look into admin conduct not to actually look into that admin's conduct. I understand the view that if an ArbCom case is opened to look into an admin's conduct that such a case will inevitably end in a desysop; however, this does not always happen - I recall the GiantSnowman case, for example. For me, given what has been presented to us here, there are sufficient grounds to examine Scottywong's behaviour via an ArbCom case. SilkTork (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    While it's true that cases focusing on administrator's solely don't always end with a desysop they overhwelmingly end with a sanction per User:Maxim/ArbCom and desysops. That said in my comments below I'm obviously thinking about the same things as you - we should have a lower bar to open than to sanction (and frankly if arbs think there's enough to sanction at the case request stage we should consider a motion rather than a full case). Barkeep49 (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I think we're in agreement. SilkTork (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • As regards the request for Izno and Primefac to recuse, I'm not convinced that is needed as I don't see inappropriate contact between those two arbs and Scottywong. The discussions about Malnadach's bot, including approving of the bot, appear to be part of normal Wikipedia activity. If there are examples of friction between the two arbs and Scottywong, then I am sure they would recuse without being asked. SilkTork (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• There was an ask, because of the request for recuasals, for some of the inactive arbs to go active for this. So here I am. Per my criteria what's on my mind is I just can't see myself putting someone through a full case on the chance that enough evidence to merit a sanction appears through the ArbCom process. It does mean... "Are the allegations, if proven true, enough to merit a sanction?" <note: one of the 3 questions I ask myself when considering a case request> is more likely to come to "yes" as an answer because Admins have additional standards of conduct expected of them that non-admins don't. So I am particularly interested in whether a potential case has a scope beyond Scotty; Folly Mox in their recusal request seems to think so but some evidence of why would be helpful. If the scope is an Administrator conduct case for Scotty, I think I need something more than hateful comments from 2012 which have been renounced and this to justify removal but not necessarily more than that to accept which goes back to the full case question I posed above. As for the editors upset at SUPERMARIO, I can understand this concern. However, I don't think it's true that a non-admin editor would be blocked for having said them - both because of the delay between when the comments were made and when they were reported and because as a different recent ANI thread where ArbCom was mentioned points out that lots of non-admin editors can cross lines without getting blocked given that it took multiple admin warnings for the temperature to be dialed down. I think the better SUPERMARIO argument, judging by that ANI thread, is around the lack of traction about a 1-way IBAN but I don't know that this rises to the level of needing ArbCom to fix (which if it did, could be done by motion rather than full case). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• wbm1058, ArbCom would likely take that evidence in private.

  Folly Mox, I think I recognize why you are requesting our recusals, but could you provide specific links and/or diffs that you believe justify that request? I have provided the discussions I believe are of interest internally for my fellow arbitrators to help judge. Izno (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks @Folly Mox, those were the discussions I had already highlighted internally. Izno (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Scotty identified the right problems, with the wrong approach. Scotty sees two issues that I have also noted with Malnadach: his username, and his questionable bot. Non-Roman character usernames are often a problem because...they are not in the English language. Here on the English language Wikipedia, having such non-Roman character usernames is beyond the keyboard or understanding capabilities of most users. We've tolerated these names, but it should be recognized that they are not conducive to a common editing environment. As you might note from the fact that I've referred to said editor as Malnadach, rather than his username, it reflects that his username is not a helpful way to identify him. I can't just go type Malnadach's username in my search box, so I instead have to find a page where he's signed, or go to MalnadachBot and work backwards. Its also why his bot is named MalnadachBot.
  On that note, I have long found MalnadachBot to be an unnecessary annoyance, especially when it edits old talk page archives. Perhaps I'm just a technical ignoramous, but I fail to see the value in fixing old html code on obscure archives. I think Scotty was rightly annoyed when he put nobots on his archives, only to find Malnadach manually fixing said errors. I'd have also told Malnadach off.
  But where Scotty has erred here is the way in which he approached the conversation with Malnadach. Instead of being collegial and understanding, and trying to provide some helpful suggestions, Scotty came off as very aggressive and entitled. Especially coming from an admin, that is problematic. But with that said, Scotty seems to have realized that he screwed up. So I'm not seeing a strong reason to open a case on those grounds alone. Instead, folks are suggesting we also examine Scotty's past conduct. But it looks like we'd have to dive pretty far back. Sure, the comments made around the Manning issue are the sort of thing we'd probably block for today. But that was also...a decade ago. Times change, and people do too. Beyond that, I don't see how Scotty's feuds with Eric Corbett are something we should open a case over. Eric Corbett was a very problematic editor and was rightly banned; in no way am I looking to relitigate the issue. So that leaves us again with not much to go on around Scotty, and ultimately makes me a decline. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ has been active on over 160 WMF projects. Why should the convenience of enwiki editors prevail in their choice of username? Cabayi (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, our username policy explicitly allows usernames in non-Latin scripts: There is no requirement that usernames be in English. Furthermore, contributors are welcome to use usernames that are not spelled using Latin script or other ASCII characters.... To be blunt, the idea that we have "tolerated these names" is a substantial understatement of policy, and the concerns raised are deeply ethnocentric. I believe that marginalizing contributors whose native languages don't use our alphabet is far less "conducive to a common editing environment" than asking users with a qwerty-keyboard to use the copy-paste function to accommodate contributors whose home wikis are not ours. I say this from experience. An editor I collaborate with has heWiki as his home, and a username in Hebrew which is not only not on my keyboard but also written in a different direction. We have managed to collaborate just fine. I don't believe the wiki has been harmed because of his writing system, but I do think it would be harmed if we marginalized him because of his language and writing system. So a word of caution: disagreeing with an editor's contributions doesn't mean we are allowed to be less tolerant of their policy-compliant name. — Wug·a·po·des 21:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  On reflection, I withdraw my argument around the username, it was based on a misreading by me. I read WP:LATINPLEASE: To avoid confusion and aid navigation, users with such usernames are encouraged to use Latin characters in their signature., and for some reason I read signature as username. Maldanach does not use Latin characters in their signature, which is in part what I was contemplating. But I recognize that having non-Latin usernames is fine due to single login finalization. Sorry for the consternation there folks. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Mkdw, I in no way meant to marginalize Maldanach or anyone. We are a broad and varied community and our diversity makes us stronger. I do admit some surprise though at seeing the level of support for non-Latin characters here, when fairly recently the community rather resoundingly refused to +sysop Powera because he had a non-Latin character username. Perhaps I've misread the community's feelings on the subject; you've given me much to consider. Beyond that, Mkdw, I have to say that your first comment to me was...pretty harsh. I made a mistake, and I owned up to it. But your response to my comment was not very helpful. Maybe I'm being too honest, maybe I'm being too sensitive. But when I read that you thought my comment was "appalling", I burst into tears. I know that wasn't your intent, but harsh words come across harshly. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept Firstly, if there's consensus to refer an incident to us, I give that substantial weight regardless of whether it's a mechanism formalized in policy (see the fifth pillar and WP:CON). Secondly, we are tasked with hearing cases which the community cannot resolve. Off-wiki evidence has already been mentioned, and the community can only desysop through a site ban which may not always be the right solution. These aspects put this case squarely within our remit. Thirdly, accepting a case does not require sanctions let alone the harshest sanctions we can impose. The situation is complex and investigating it would presumably take time away from uninvolved editors' other contributions. Accepting the case means we will take over some of that labor from the community and spend our time considering the complexities while everyone else goes back to work. The question for me is whether that will be worth our time, not whether sanctions (let alone a specific sanction like a desysop) are likely. I believe it will be worth our time.
  For these reasons we ought to take the case. — Wug·a·po·des 21:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Need to do a deeper read on some of the commentary/backstory here to decide whether I think this rises to a full case. Some initial remarks:
  • I'm heartened by Scottywong's apology, though I wish it had come earlier at the initial AN/I discussion instead of here at ARC.
  • Several people have made comments to the effect of "if this were a non-admin they'd have been indeffed". That's true in an ideal world, but the reality is more of a balancing act: do your positive contributions (significantly) outweigh the negative things you do? Not necessarily how things should be, but definitely the way things are.
  • This is pretty much the phrase used at SPI in private. - Dennis Brown, huh? Not sure I'm following what you're getting at.
  • Initial read of the "off-wiki evidence" does not have me convinced that it will merit any mention in a case. It's standard Wikipediocracy stupidity. (Oops, was I not supposed to mention the name of the site? Silly me. Hi WPO peanut gallery!)
  • Glad to see that my statement at the previous ARC got people paying attention :) GeneralNotability (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]