Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Workshop

Purpose of the workshop

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Expected standards of behavior
 * You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
 * Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior
 * Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
 * Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
 * Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
 * Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

 * Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.


 * Scottywong, reflecting back on your career on Wikipedia, including your first RfA, the Manning incident, your comments to the IP, and now this case, how much do you feel that some of the comments in that first RfA, such as "I'm unconvinced that Snottywong has the patience and/or tact to deal with typical issues that will arise for an active admin", ring true? How can you convince those who are uncertain about your temperament that you do have the patience and tact to deal with the issues that arise for an admin? Examples of how you have learned from incidents where you have been intemperate, and how you plan to do things differently in future would be very useful. SilkTork (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand that it's human nature to focus on the negatives of a situation and disregard the positives. After all, this case exists specifically to focus on the negative aspects of my recent behavior. But I think it's important to balance the negatives with the positives to get the full picture. To answer your question, I don't think that the above quoted comment from my first RfA rings true. Consider that I've been here for over 16 years. I've been an admin for 11 years. I've made over 27,000 edits. I've closed thousands of XfDs, and I've deleted over 15,000 pages. I've protected nearly 1000 articles and blocked around 500 users. All of these actions come with the potential for conflict, and many of them did indeed result in conflicts. For the overwhelming vast majority of these tens of thousands of actions, I did have the patience and/or tact to deal with the typical issues and conflicts that arose as a result. For a very small handful of these conflicts, I messed up and said the wrong thing, apologized, learned, and moved on. In this forum, we'll rarely talk about the thousands of times that I patiently and tactfully resolved a conflict with no problems, but we'll focus intently on the few times that I didn't.


 * If anyone digs through my contributions without filtering only for things that are usually associated with negative interactions, it won't be difficult to find copious examples of uncontroversial interactions. I think my contributions to the mass Portal deletions at MfD a few years back are a good example. I closed quite a few controversial portal MfDs during that time. Some of them ended up at DRV. Involved editors routinely ended up at ANI discussions. Emotions ran high on both sides of the argument, and there were a lot of conflicts to resolve. As you probably recall, an admin was desysopped for their behavior throughout these events. Not only was I able to rise above the fray and remain a dispassionate, neutral administrator while making judgments at MfD that invariably angered one side or the other, I also reached out to clarify technical arguments between two quarreling admins that were being discussed at ANI, and I even started a workshop in my userspace to develop new guidelines for portals (which generated a lot of good discussion but ultimately fizzled out). This represents my normal everyday contributions to WP, not the small handful of cherry-picked mistakes I've made over the course of 16 years.


 * I know that I tend to be the type of person that speaks their mind, even when I know that my opinion might be unpopular. I believe it's a healthy habit, even if I'm occasionally seen as the annoying guy that isn't pulling in the same direction as everyone else. I've learned that there can be both risks and rewards associated with having that kind of personality, and I believe I've come to develop a good sense for when to speak up and when to shut my mouth. But, I still occasionally misjudge these situations, and I've noticed that I'm far more likely to misjudge them and speak out of turn when I'm feeling annoyed, frustrated, or angry. So, if there's anything I've learned from this, it would be to resist the urge to boldly speak my mind when I'm in a frustrated or annoyed state, because I'm more likely to go overboard and say something inappropriate while in that state.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 16:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing that. I am aware of what you have contributed to the project as evidenced by comments I've left on your talkpage, . What I was asking for here is for you to provide an understanding of why people have expressed concerns in the past, and continue to express concerns about your temperament. I don't think dismissing these concerns that you were just speaking your mind would be exactly the sort of reassurances that people would be looking for. And rarely is it helpful to dismiss concerns by asking people to overlook those concerns and concentrate instead on the good things you have done.
 * However, be that as it may, you have noted that you may say inappropriate things (or boldly speak your mind) when frustrated or annoyed, which is a useful observation. I think that is something we all share. And because of the nature of Wikipedia, none of us can completely escape those feelings of frustration or anger. My method is to type out my angry response, but, before posting it, gradually edit it down so I'm not saying all the really gritty things that would offend. I can still make mistakes though - not in anger, but by just saying something unintended. It can be hard at those times when there genuinely was no intention of offending someone to say sorry. But, actually, saying sorry is really easy, and helps oil the waters. It just takes a moment to get the mind in the right place.
 * Do you have a plan in place at the moment for how to "resist the urge to boldly speak [your] mind"? SilkTork (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I like your method of typing everything out and then removing the unnecessary bits, and I've used that before. Another method that works for me is to simply close the browser, go to bed, and come back to it the next day before writing a response. These methods make it a lot easier to avoid saying the wrong things, but the hardest part is recognizing that you're in a state where you're more likely to offend someone, and having the maturity to step back and not hit the edit button. I don't have any magical methods for that one, I think that's something you gradually learn through experience.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 18:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

=Proposed final decision=

Administrator conduct
1) Administrators are expected to observe a high standard of conduct and retain the trust of the community at all times. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators, and consistent or egregious poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator tools.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Administrator accountability
2) Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Administrators who seriously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or who have lost the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their administrator rights removed by the arbitration committee. Administrators should be reasonably aware of community standards and expectations when using administrative tools.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I believe it's important, once again, to reinforce that this case involved no use of administrator tools, there were no "administrator actions" taken by me, and there was no evidence submitted to demonstrate that I have ever misused administrator tools in the past. Therefore, I believe that both the first and last sentence of this proposed principle are irrelevant to this particular case, even if they are true and accurate in general. I recognize that principles are generally copied from prior cases and therefore the entire text might not be completely applicable to every case.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 16:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * These are the two important pieces I see here. Instead of a few "red line crossed" actions, this case is more focused on SW's conduct and judgement. The evidence shows a pattern of SW doing/saying something others took issue with, and then backing away or responding dismissively when asked to participate in a discussion. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I don't have the strongest opinion of at this point. I think either may work, because I don't think SW is usually that problematic of an admin. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Scottywong warned and placed on probation
2) Scottywong is placed on administrative probation for a period of X. During this probation period, Scottywong is required to refrain from any further incidents of incivility, failure to remain accountable in his use of the administrator tools, or other breaches of the administrator conduct policy. If Scottywong does not meet this requirement at any time, any editor may file an arbitration amendment request for the committee to review his administrator status.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this case doesn't involve misuse of administrator tools, so the part about "failure to remain accountable in his use of administrator tools" seems out of place to me. I'm not concerned about being restricted from misusing administrator tools (since I've never done that, and since every admin already carries that restriction), I'm more concerned about allowing implications of admin tool misuse to creep into the language of principles and remedies here. (After all, if Arbcom adopts a remedy that restricts me from misusing admin tools, that implies that I misused admin tools.) I understand that this remedy was copied from a prior case, so to be clear, I'm not accusing Moneytrees of intentionally including language about tool misuse in bad faith.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 17:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * From The Kudpung case. I think there may be some merit to this or something like what was described at Motion: Timwi warned . Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Conduct on arbitration cases
1) 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. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Assuming good faith
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Additionally, editors should presume that other editors, including those who disagree with them, are acting in good faith toward the betterment of the project, at least until strong evidence emerges to the contrary. Even when an editor becomes convinced that another editor is not acting in good faith, and has a reasonable basis for that belief, the editor should attempt to remedy the problem without resorting to inappropriate conduct of his or her own.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Lourdes provided false evidence to Arbcom
1) Administrator provided evidence that Scottywong "threatened [Malnadach with a block because of his foreign username"], despite the provided diffs failing to demonstrate that this accusation is true. In Scottywong's analysis of this evidence, he asked Lourdes to retract this false allegation, but Lourdes declined.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Legoktm provided false evidence to Arbcom, including personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith
2) Administrator provided evidence that comments made at WP:BOTN by Scottywong (while this Arbcom case was active) included veiled personal attacks, despite the provided diffs failing to demonstrate that this accusation is true. Additionally, Legoktm personally attacked Scottywong and made an assumption of bad faith by characterizing his BOTN comments as "classic sealioning", which is defined as "a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity, and feigning ignorance of the subject matter."


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Lourdes admonished
1) Lourdes is admonished for introducing false allegations as evidence in an Arbcom case. In future, Lourdes is urged to not embellish or exaggerate claims submitted as evidence in Arbcom cases.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I found it particularly troubling to have some of my admin colleagues submitting patently false evidence in this case. I understand that Arbcom cases can raise tensions and tempt editors to make the strongest case possible by embellishing evidence. Therefore, while I don't believe that any harsh sanctions are warranted, I believe Arbcom should at least acknowledge that submitting false allegations as evidence is unacceptable, especially when that evidence is submitted by administrators.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 18:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Legoktm admonished
2) Legoktm is admonished for introducing false allegations as evidence in an Arbcom case, and for including personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith within that evidence. In future, Legoktm is urged to not embellish or exaggerate claims submitted as evidence in Arbcom cases, to remain civil in their interactions with other editors, and to refrain from making assumptions of bad faith regarding other editors' actions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I found it particularly troubling to have some of my admin colleagues submitting patently false evidence in this case. I understand that Arbcom cases can raise tensions and tempt editors to make the strongest case possible by embellishing evidence. Therefore, while I don't believe that any harsh sanctions are warranted, I believe Arbcom should at least acknowledge that submitting false allegations as evidence is unacceptable, especially when that evidence is submitted by administrators.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 18:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Analysis by Scottywong of evidence presented by Jonesey95

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Jonesey95's evidence suggests that I falsely accused Malnadach of incompetency, and claimed in bad faith that all lint error fixes could be accomplished in a single edit. After more than a year of near-constant criticism, Malnadach eventually figured out how to combine all of their lint error fixes into a single edit per page. Therefore, when I insisted that there is no technical reason why the fixes can't be completed in a single edit, it turns out that I was correct. Just because I chose to ignore Jonesey95's "challenge" for me to write my own code is not evidence that my comments were made in bad faith. Furthermore, Malnadach was unable to consolidate fixes into a single edit without significant help from other bot owners and developers. Until they received that help, they considered it such an impossible task that they believed it would be easier to create a bot that writes featured articles. Therefore, when I voiced my concern that Maladnach may not possess the technical competence to operate this bot task in a way that does not cause avoidable damage and annoyance to other editors, it turns out that I was also correct, therefore this was not a false accusation. Running any bot takes a significant level of competence in relevant skills like coding and troubleshooting. Malnadach's approach to fixing lint errors clearly suggested to me that they lacked the skills required to perform this bot task in an acceptable way. This was a simple statement of opinion, not a personal attack.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 15:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Analysis by Scottywong of evidence presented by Lourdes

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I'm fine if editors want to try to present evidence that I'm racist. I 1000% don't believe that's true, and I don't believe that there is any real evidence to back that up, but I understand how my inappropriate comments to Malnadach could be misinterpreted that way, and editors have the right to speak their minds about their personal interpretation of what happened. However, I take great exception to the accusation that I "threatened the editor with a block because of his foreign username." That is an extraordinarily dishonest distortion of reality that is beyond the pale. I believe it calls into question the veracity of the rest of Lourdes' evidence, because it demonstrates the lengths that this editor will go to achieve their goal. I hope that, as a fellow administrator here, would take another look at that statement and retract it for being baseless and lacking any evidence to support it. I think it's very important to establish that at no time in any of my dealings with Malnadach did I ever misuse admin tools (in fact, I never used admin tools at all), I never threatened to block Malnadach or take any admin action against them (which would be ridiculous, since they never did anything worthy of being blocked), and I never implied that I would use my authority as an admin against Malnadach in any way whatsoever. If there is evidence to the contrary, please submit it. Linking to WP:CIR, while admittedly misguided in this case, is quite clearly not an explicit or implicit threat to block, and was already explained in this comment. Lourdes claims that "CIR is quoted widely by editors (and administrators) who are threatening an upcoming block." That might be Lourdes' administrative style, but I have never blocked any editor for violating WP:CIR (which is just an essay and therefore not a valid justification on its own for blocking anyone), nor can I ever remember seeing any other admin do that.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 17:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In a sense, it's admirable that you're passionately and forcefully trying to rid WP of someone that you believe to be racist (me). Well, it would be admirable if I actually was a racist. But either way, if WP has an editor that is racist, then to get rid of them it should be sufficient to simply show the racist things that they've done or said, without embellishment or exaggeration. In your evidence, you go beyond embellishment to outright prevarication. Nothing in the bolded quotes from CIR that you posted below draws any link between CIR and threatening to block someone. Even if it could be shown that Malnadach did lack competency in operating their bot properly, the obvious solution would have been to restrict them from running a bot, not blocking them. It should be crystal clear to any unbiased person that I have never threatened to block Malnadach, explicitly or implicitly. I'd ask once again that you retract that portion of your evidence. If you're unwilling, then I'd ask the arbitrators to consider whether Lourdes might deserve an admonishment for intentionally submitting evidence to an Arbcom case that is plainly untrue.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 01:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * ScottyWong, thank you for the explanation of CIR. WP:CIR quotes thus in the opening paragraphs: "Many editors have focused so much on this principle that they have come to believe that good faith is all that is required to be a useful contributor. Sadly, this is not the case at all. Competence is required as well. A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess. For that reason, it can become necessary for the community to intervene when an editor has shown, through a pattern of behavior, the likelihood that they are not capable of contributing in a constructive manner. Everyone has a limited sphere of competence. For example, someone may be competent in nuclear physics but incompetent in ballet dancing or vice versa. Some otherwise competent people may lack the skills necessary to edit Wikipedia. Rather than labeling them as "incompetent" in the pejorative sense, we should ease them out of the Wikipedia community as graciously as possible, with their dignity intact." You linked WP:CIR in your response to the editor and clearly mentioned one of the reasons being the editor's username, and you expected him to read the CIR page and the above opening paragraphs, where it is clearly mentioned that CIR is about removing editors from Wikipedia. Your claim above that linking to "CIR is clearly not an explicit or implicit threat to block," and that you can not remember any admin doing that, sounds odd. I'll leave it at this. You need to introspect deeply SW. Lourdes  05:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * , hi. Not trying to get rid of you Scotty. I wouldn't want to argue with you on this. Just attempting to make you realise that your actions may seem racist to outsiders (in the same way as COI works I guess; you might believe in your heart that you don't have a COI, but if the other parties believe that is the case, then you really need to let go). Let this be with the arbs; I am not going to argue here with you Scotty. Thanks, Lourdes  05:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Analysis by Martinp of Scottywong's comment re nonLatin usernames

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * [Moved by author from evidence by request of the clerks]


 * Claims have been made that SW made a personal attack against M in uncivilly casting aspersions on his username; that this is instance of racial/ethnic bias (even bigotry); and requires a forceful response to support a welcoming atmosphere to editors from different cultures.


 * I feel the relevant part of the unfortunate remark is plausibly, and perhaps likely, absent of any personal or identity-based animus, and so needs no response beyond what is appropriate to the whole remark itself (and possibly the behavioural pattern).


 * The fragment in question was


 * "Hello, user with non-English characters on the English Wikipedia. I don't even know what to call you. In my head, I just think of you as 'Mr. Squiggles' because your username just looks like a bunch of squiggly lines to me." Note it says "user with non-English characters [in username]" not "user with non-English name" or "non-English user". The final sentence says "...because your username just looks like..." not "...because your name is....". No personal attack is being made on the individual, merely commentary on their wp 'handle'.


 * It is clear SW wrote his comment in a frustrated state of mind regarding Malnadach's behaviour. It is reasonable to suppose he sought to address Malnadach somehow and found himself unable to do so, and therefore added an additional frustrated point, inadroitly expressed, around the fundamental thought: "I don't even know what to call you." There is no evidence to suggest SW presumed the squiggles represented (purported to? given the uncovered LTA issues) the user's real name or ethnicity.


 * In real life, my name has non-English diacriticals. English speakers mangle it unless I guide them to a simplified version. Native speakers often mispronounce it if the diactritical has been removed. So I am familiar with these issues, and harbour sympathy for people in a similar predicament. And yet I feel empathy rather than outrage for how SW responded (except for the overall uncivil tone.)


 * I analyze this using Bayesian inference. (That article is very mathematical; the underlying idea is that in situations of uncertainty, we look at possible hypotheses, and assess their likelihood (Bayesian prior). Additional evidence uncovered shifts our perceived likelihood (Bayesian posterior). It has been shown that human reasoning uses Bayesian inference as a heuristic.) Suppose I encounter a user whose contributions I feel are disruptive, and whose name is impossible for me to pronounce. My Bayesian prior is probably equally spread across hypotheses A=misguided user, B=troll, C=I'm wrong.


 * The user then does something which appears to troll me personally. My Bayesian posterior will invariably up the likelihood of B (troll), maybe slightly A (incompetent), and decreases C (I'm wrong).


 * Now, using an fully non-Latin wikipedia username can be an expression of personal cultural identity (X). However, it can also be a deliberately trollish/disruptive move (Y), to thwart communication or merely gain attention, potentially by an individual with no cultural affinity with the symbols used. Our Bayesian prior is sufficiently weighted towards X that we act fully in accordance with it (AGF). But if we have just shifted our likelihood of belief that this user is a troll upwards (B), we will also find Y (disruptive username) quite likely. This is consistent with SW's wording, in the context of a generally suboptimal interaction.


 * Now my and SW's Bayesian posterior would shift back towards X if we took the time to go over to the user's User: page, navigated the hard to read English script font there, and discovered the user (purports to) come from a specific ethnic group, and so "squiggles" might be that script/language. But I find it hard to severely fault SW for presumably failing to go out of his way to seek out this information. Any overweight in believed likelihood of hypotheses B and Y (trolling) seem to have been borne out by the subsequent account block as a LTA.


 * Stepping back, xenophobia, racism, bigotry, etc. are significant problems, and it is great that as a community we are sensitive to them. It is also helpful that we challenge each others' actions for evidence of unconscious bias. But especially how such accusations are a 'scarlet letter', it is also important to admit less damning explanations for behaviour, and in particular to avoid conclusory judgment.


 * In this instance, the accusations of xenophobia, racism, bigotry, etc against SW turn out not sufficiently supported by evidence, and in particular SW's words carefully analyzed fail to show conclusive evidence of that type of bias motivating them. Would it have been better to leave that thought unsaid? Definitely. Does the poor remark need specific response because of "Mr. Squiggles"? I believe, no. Martinp (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Shortened Martinp (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Moved Martinp (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Support by Paine Ellsworth for WaltCip's statement re: ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ blocked as sock

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * [Moved by author from evidence page by request of the clerk.]


 * It's important to me to be supportive of SW here since I was so overly verbose in the preliminary stage. An important comment was made on this the evidence page by editor . Under the circumstances it seems plausible that the blocked editor stopped editing not because of anything SW said, and instead stopped editing in hopes of not getting caught. Again I ask simply for all to see the whole picture and take SW's entire tenure of helpful editing and project improvement into consideration when deciding this case. Best of everything to all who read this!  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there  17:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC) 11:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Analysis by Scottywong of evidence presented by Legoktm

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * alleges that my contribution to a BOTN thread includes "veiled personal attacks". Not only do my comments not include any reference to a particular person, but there are also no attacks whatsoever included in my comments. Suggesting that there might be a more "rational" solution to a problem is not an attack.
 * Legoktm points out that another editor commented that this topic has been discussed ad nauseum, and there is consensus for linter errors to be fixed. While this is true, I am far from the lone voice in this thread expressing their personal opinion that the perceived benefit of fixing these issues is minimal. Besides, I'm not even arguing that linter errors should never be fixed. Instead, I'm attempting to demonstrate that addressing these linter errors by individually editing every page on WP is an unsustainable and inefficient solution that has significant negative effects, and encouraging interested parties to think outside the box to find a better solution to the problem. Merely expressing a contrary opinion is not uncivil or a personal attack. WP administrators like Legoktm must be capable of understanding what does and does not constitute a personal attack, since they are empowered to block editors for personal attacks. In my opinion, this portion of Legoktm's evidence is either a highly embellished interpretation of my comments that attempts to artificially manufacture a problem where there is none, or it is evidence of Legoktm's fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of personal attacks as defined by WP policy. Either way, I find this accusation of personal attacks to be problematic.
 * Legoktm interprets my second comment in the thread as "classic sealioning", which is defined as "a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity, and feigning ignorance of the subject matter." In my opinion, characterizing my civil comment as "trolling" or "harassment" is a gross assumption of bad faith that amounts to a personal attack. On the contrary, my second comment was an attempt at de-escalation, to demonstrate that I'm simply stating an opinion in support of another editor's comment, and I don't actually want to start another long debate on the subject. In fact, the editor that responded to my initial message with the ad nausem comment actually thanked me for my second comment. Despite Legoktm's allegation that my intent is to harass people with relentless requests for tangential evidence while maintaining a pretense of civility, my only engagement in this thread has been these two comments.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 16:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Analysis by Nosebagbear of interlocking evidence by SmallJarsWithGreenLabels's and Scottywong's on Maldanach choice of username

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Scottwong's evidence proposes that we can [now] presume that Maladnach's choice to use a username composed entirely of non-Latin character [...] could have been a conscious decision designed to subtly irritate other editors SmallJars' response is an effective rebuttal to the idea that the Maldanach chose to use the username to be annoying. That said, for a user to create sockpuppets for the purpose of complaining about their own username is more than sufficient to make it clear that they were indeed aware of the issue and understood its difficulties and likely sufficient that they chose to retain usage out of bad-faith, rather than out of preference. Whether SW meant retain, or not, I am unsure - and the outcome affects how much weight should be given to SmallJars' final point of Scottywong continues to create a subtle atmosphere of suspicion towards ESL users with non-Latin usernames, which is the issue that brought him here in the first place.  Nosebagbear (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: