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

Case opened on 18:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Case closed on 17:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

This case is closed. No edits should be made to this page except by clerks or arbitrators. Any violations of the remedies passed in the case should be raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Specific requests for amendment or clarification about the decision should be raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. General questions can be raised at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee. Actions taken to enforce remedies authorised in the case (if applicable) are to be logged at the centralised arbitration enforcement log.

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

• Discussion at ANI

Preliminary statements given in the case request stage may be found at /Preliminary statements.

• Just a reminder that statements should remain focused on whether or not Arbitrators should accept or deny this case request. Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete unproductive remarks, without warning. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
For this case there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	7
2–3	6
4–5	5

• 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]

    I'll echo GeneralNotability, and say that taking on this case doesn't mean I'm looking for sanctions or have an outcome in mind. For me the purpose of this case is to find out a little more about Scottywong - is there a pattern of long term inappropriate conduct, what mitigation is there for any inappropriate conduct, how does any inappropriate conduct balance against positive conduct and contributions?

    While the incident that provoked this case request was related to Malnadach's bot, and more specifically to Scottywong's frustration with Malnadach cleaning up lint errors, I'm not seeing that as part of the case except as part of the mitigation. We all know that editing Wikipedia causes frustration, and that, despite the advice to walk away from the screen when you do get frustrated, sometimes the frustration gets too much and/or you've had a bad day, and you just snap. I think it's happened to most of us - and it's certainly happened to me (my personal approach is to type out my frustrated and angry response, and then gradually edit it down, taking out the insults and bad language, before posting the sanitised version). What matters in any community is not so much that someone accidently stepped on your foot, but how you reacted to it. However, if the person who stepped on your foot had done it before, and you'd asked them not to do it again, and they deliberately set out to step on your foot a second time, then there is mitigation for the frustration (though the amount of weighting given to the mitigation will depend on an examination of the circumstances). So, yes, I feel we should look into Malnadach's part in that incident, but the questions around cleaning up lint issues is not part of ArbCom's scope - that is down to the community in a separate venue.

    Same with questions around non-Latin user names. The Committee are a very small section of the community who have been asked to look into conduct issues. We were specifically chosen to look into conduct issues. We are not representative of the community as a whole for every issue, and any discussions we have regarding such matters as using non-Latin user names are going to be very limited compared to an open discussion which will pull in a wider and more representative section of the community. There are many folks who could bring informed views to a discussion on non-Latin user names who never look at ArbCom cases and would be totally unaware of this particular case. SilkTork (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Scottywong. We have been discussing scope and what incidents to include. Nothing has been settled yet, though I'd favour an approach in which we weigh all examples of behaviour appropriately in regards to intensity, duration, frequency, and timespan, rather than disregard some examples because they are not recent. For me that means not disregarding either your negative contributions nor your positive. I'd like for us to be looking for examples of poor or inappropriate behaviour that were pointed out to you, and how your behaviour then improved. I would see that as a positive outcome with no sanctions being given. On the other hand, if there are examples of inappropriate behaviour related to this recent incident, which, despite being cautioned about, you continued, then there would be concerns. I consider that both for your sake (to clear you thoroughly) and for the community's sake (to show that your behaviour was examined thoroughly) that we do take into account previous history. I also feel it important that there would be appropriate mitigation allowed for things like provocation, attitudes at the time, time since the incident, and non-repeating of the behaviour. Essentially, if you have repeated the Manning behaviour since, that would be a negative for you, but if you have not, that would be a plus.

  I suppose a key element would be if the Manning outburst is considered to be similar to the Malnadach outburst, and there may be some discussion around that. If the two incidents are seen by consensus to be unrelated, then there is likely to be a conclusion that you learned from the Manning outburst and have not repeated it, so you could be trusted moving forward not to have a similar outburst. Positive outcome with no sanctions.

  Something that incidentally came up on the Arb email (it was regarding how Malnadach was caught socking), is this post from last year in which you say to an IP account: "Why should anyone bother to put any energy into your requests when you can't be bothered to make a minimal commitment to this place? You're treated as a second-class citizen because you are one. You have no permanent presence here. You're a jumble of numbers. Today you're 172.195.96.244, tomorrow you could be 172.195.95.173, and the next day you could be 2001:8004:812:ba66:55e2:c:0:2854. It's not easy to interact with a shape-shifter that has no permanent presence here. You can't form a relationship or build trust with someone that doesn't have a stable persona."

  For me there is a sense of "otherness" about that post, same as there is a sense of "otherness" about the Malnadach post and the Manning post. Essentially, the posts give the appearance that if someone is not part of the "club" they are not welcome, indeed, can be insulted. Having said that, I do feel we all can fall into that trap, especially if nobody points out that our behaviour is not acceptable. We appear to have developed a culture of regarding IP accounts as mostly vandalistic and a nuisance, and edits by IP accounts tend to be rolled back with less thought than those by established accounts. So, that this post against the IP account has turned up is not in itself necessarily damming. It is, though, part of the picture, same as the Manning post, and I feel that we should consider them all, and get your views on them. SilkTork (talk) 17:11, 7 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]

  Decline I think what Scotty did in his comments towards Maldanch was wrong. It was not so wrong that it, on its own, merits a desysop. It deserves condemnation, and that's happened already. Also deserving a lesser condemnation, for me, is Scotty's initial comment in the ANI thread that I won't be monitoring this thread, so please send a message to my talk page if there is anything else that urgently requires a response from me. Serious concerns need to be taken seriously. Ultimately that comment by Scotty seems to be bluster - without anyone posting on their talk page they participated two other times and they've participated here but Scotty's initial response to serious concerns need to strike a different tone in the future. If the Manning comments were made today that would, for me, rise to the level on "it's enough to merit a case" and probably even a desysop by motion from me. But I also recognize that was 10 years ago and while the comments were no less hateful and hurtful at that time towards Manning and trans people more generally, the truth of that wasn't as widely understood then. And when confronted with them years later, Scotty renounced them. I've been waiting to see if there's something between then and now which would have been enough for me to think a case worthwhile. But so far nothing has been forthcoming. I just don't think there's enough to suggest that several weeks of a case will result in a desysop or something other than a reminder/warning/admonishment. And while I'd be open to doing one of those things by motion here I'm also open to the idea that the ANI thread and this discussion serves that same purpose. But if Scotty were to find himself back before us for a similarly offesnsive remark a year from now I would likely have a very different view. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Floquenbeam I hope you will submit evidence about the other two times. Even if one of those is Manning, if there had been something else between then and now it would have been enough for me to vote accept. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Scottywong as a matter of policy and procedure the answer is that double jeopardy is not formalized anywhere. There has, however, been discussion about that aspect among arbs so it's not like Arbs won't think about it and that the principle won't impact their votes. Speaking for myself, ARBCOM is not a court. My job, instead, is to decide now, in 2023, whether you should continue to be an administrator (or not) and/or otherwise sanctioned. As noted I'm not going to give much weight, on its own, to a statement that old. But I'm also not going to ignore it if there's a pattern stretching from then to now of you making missteps that cause offense and harm to members of our community; offense and harm that is given more power by status as an administrator. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:14, 7 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]

  Recuse. Izno (talk) 18:30, 5 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]

  Mkdw, no, I do not personally believe that. I think that we should be working to encourage cross-language collaboration. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 15:29, 6 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]
    • I'm a weak accept, I think there is enough of a pattern and I agree with my colleagues regarding the lower bar for ADMINCOND cases and the significance of the community referring a case to us. I emphasize that the opening of a case does not mean a decision has been made. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      Regarding the block of Malnadach: yes, I can share some details, I was conferring with some other CUs on IRC about whether we did want to make the connection public. We have a good deal of behavioral and technical evidence connecting them to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gustin Kelly (who, by the way, has been at this much longer than that SPI indicates, using both named accounts and IP addresses) and I have blocked them as an individual CheckUser action based on that evidence. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      I stand by opening a case. While someone being harassed by LTA is certainly a mitigating circumstance that we would consider (and have considered in other cases), that isn't what's going on here and frankly it has no bearing on Scotty's actions. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      Paine Ellsworth, I certainly hope that that is poorly signaled sarcasm. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      Paine Ellsworth, yes, I am aware of the "good reason," considering that I am the blocking admin. It's still irrelevant. I expect civility toward everyone, even if some of them turn out to be unpleasant people, and there is nothing heroic about being uncivil to a bad person. The attitude you have expressed here is completely unacceptable. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I see this as a storm in a teacup. Scottywong has been uncivil to an individual, however, as with all civility complaints, context matters. As Jc37 rightly points out in certain context, "Mr Squiggles" is a lighthearted jibe - in the context of the message he sent, it was downright rude, and intentionally so. However, Scottywong has (eventually) apologised. Do we need a case? If we do, there's a lot to unpack... or is there?
  WP:LATINPLEASE is a longstanding opinion on en.wp - it is easier to communicate with someone who's name can be typed on your keyboard. Equally, we must acknowledge that we are part of a wider community - it's a mark of extreme arrogance to think that our alphabet is the only one that could be used. Hence the "please", we'd prefer if they were in a Latin alphabet, but if they're not, that's fine - especially if you're being helpful with, say, a Latin transliteration of your name on your userpage. I don't think we should be calling users racist for preferring Latin alphabet, but I also caution anyone requiring it.
  Lint errors are a real thing. They are deprecated code, and have the potential of causing actual harm to reading. I thank those editors who are willing to fix them. Is it uncontroversial? Maybe not, and there may be some questions to answer there.
  Does Scottywong have a history of behaviour unbecoming of an administrator. Well, I see some old behaviour that could be investigated, but it's mostly a decade or more old - where it isn't, it's part of a longstanding dispute with a now indef blocked editor.
  It boils down to a storm in a teacup. I don't believe there's enough to warrant a case personally. I'm leaning towards declining the case at present, though the community's voice is clear and I do generally require less to open a case on admin as Arbcom is the only place to deal with administrators. Still thinking about it. Worm^TT(talk) 14:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Having slept on it and re-read the information, I will weakly accept. I still believe this is a storm in a teacup - however, the following apply. 1) I have a lower standard for accepting cases regarding admins, because the community does not have the tools to desysop. 2) The community has made a clear (near unanimous) referral to arbcom at ANI. 3) Robert McClenon is right, this is about the "possibility" of further evidence - and since I believe that we should no action is a valid outcome of an arbcom case, we should open one if there is a reasonable likelihood of additional evidence.

  I am unsure of scope - I do believe there are questions about linting errors, about bot actions, about non-latin usernames, about patterns of bigotry and historical admin temperament. Given that I'm weakly accepting, I'm not sure I see the need for such a wide net, and I would hope the other committee members have thoughts. Worm^TT(talk) 07:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If the lint/bot issue is the only thing we would be looking at in a case, then I am a decline. If there are other recent (i.e. post-2020) issues that merit a look, then I could be convinced otherwise. So far, however, I have yet to see anything significant enough to do so. A full case is not needed to sort out a STICK issue. Primefac (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept I believe there are real admin conduct issues here that bear looking in to. As always, the bar is and should be lower for acdepting this sort of case. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Paine Ellsworth:: Statements during case requests are supposed to be limited to 500 words. We are generally reasonable about letting users go a bit past this threshold, but you are now close to 900 words. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just noting that if this case is accepted (which seems fairly likely), I plan to be active on it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1) Administrators should lead by example and should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, serious disruption of Wikipedia, especially when repeated, through behavior such as incivility and personal attacks, is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

2) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators provide a public face to both the broader administrative corps and to Wikipedia as a whole.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

3) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in all interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

4) From time to time, users, including admins, may need to express concerns in clear, firm terms about another user's decisions or actions. However, all users are expected to not personally attack other Wikipedians. This applies equally to all: it is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of complaints against them, as it is to attack any other. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit, damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

5) Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors, is considered a personal attack.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

6) Policy states: "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

1) Scottywong has been on Wikipedia for over 16 years, and an active admin for 11 years. They have been active in administrative areas and they have helped create multiple tools used by the community, as detailed on their userpage.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

2) Scottywong has a history of using blunt and combative language on Wikipedia. This was noted as far back as their first RFA (2011), and again, though more lightly, during their second, successful, RfA (2012). In August 2013, Scottywong made insensitive remarks about Chelsea Manning. During the Manning naming dispute case, the remarks were considered problematic, though no finding regarding them was passed. Scottywong formally renounced those remarks during the 2020 ArbCom elections. Scottywong was also involved in a long term dispute with Eric Corbett, resulting in two AN reports: Conduct unbecoming of an administrator (2014), and Further attempts to bait Eric_Corbett (2019); both of which ended inconclusively. And in 2022 Scottywong called an IP editor a "second class citizen". Scottywong describes themself as "the type of person that speaks their mind". During this case Scottywong has stated that they have become aware of the need "to resist the urge to boldly speak my mind when I'm in a frustrated or annoyed state" and to step back at times.

Passed 7 to 1 at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

3) ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ registered their account in Nov 2014 making two edits, then started editing regularly in 2020. They created a bot, User:MalnadachBot, in May 2021, which has made 11,637,095 approved edits.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

4) ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's non-Latin username complies with Username policy, though users were advised at the time that "other scripts are illegible to most contributors to the English Wikipedia". The text of the section was updated during the ANI discussion to "such usernames may appear illegible to other contributors".

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

5) Scottywong made two proposals on the Village Pump in Feb 2023, targeted at ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's bot: [1], and in Jan 2022, objected on the Bots Noticeboard to the bot performing clean up tasks - [2]. Then continued to make complaints: [3] (June 2022), [4] (Feb 2023).

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

6a) In April 2023, ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ made two manual lint error edits to Scottywong's archive signature.[5][6] This was in spite of Scottywong's objections to lint errors being fixed which had lead him to put a "nobot" template on his archives.[7] In response, Scottywong complained about the "annoying useless edits", and made reference to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's user name in a derogatory fashion, contrary to the No personal attacks policy.

Passed 8 to 1 at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

6b) In April 2023, ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ made two manual lint error edits to Scottywong's archive signature.[8][9] This was in spite of Scottywong's objections to lint errors being fixed, leading him to put a "nobot" template on his archives.[10] In response, Scottywong complained about the "annoying useless edits", and made reference to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's user name in a manner that has been perceived as racist, contrary to the No personal attacks policy.

Passed 7 to 0 at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

7) After an investigation involving several CheckUsers, which started some time before Scottywong's comments on ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's talkpage, and was based on subtle and varied evidence, ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ was globally locked as the sock master of a number of abusive accounts. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's bot, MalnadachBot, has also been blocked.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

8) Scottywong made unnecessary attacks on ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's character during the case: [11]. Comments about ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's sock accounts, albeit those accounts were abusive, had no bearing on the case nor on Scottywong's personal attack on ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ which prompted this case. Blaming ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ for Scottywong's own poor behaviour is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia.

Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

1) For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, Scottywong's administrative user rights are removed. Scottywong may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.

Passed 9 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

4) Scottywong (talk · contribs) and ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Passed 7 to 2 at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.