Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong

Case navigation template is displaying inaccurate dates
Not sure where else to put this, but the casenav template is saying the proposed decision will be posted by 11 May 2023 (which is before the case was opened), along with other nonsensical dates such as evidence closing 21 June 201. It seems unlikely that the Arbitration Committee intends to resolve this case prior to when it was opened Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The case is currently being created, so this should be fixed shortly. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 19:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

inactive
Per the "Casenav" template above on this page, it shows 2 arbitrators as inactive, but that were active in the preliminaries. Will that be updated? - jc37 19:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * At least one arbitrator has moved inactive for the case. As far as I am aware, the current list is accurate. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, then.
 * "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." - User:Barkeep49 16:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "Accept"' - User:Wugapodes 21:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Have they since decided to not participate? - jc37 20:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Since L235 indicated that they will be active, and only 1 of the two arbs ultimately decided they needed to recuse, I asked to be moved back to inactive. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh ok. My apologies. Thank you for clarifying. - jc37 20:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

A question about recusals
Pardon me if this is not the correct place for this (If so, please move the section to an appropriate location, thank you).

What is the current standard for recusals from sitting Arbitrators? Based on WP:RECUSAL (which isn't as clear cut as I'd like), I currently believe CaptainEek should have recused from this case.

Specifically, I consider their struck out opinions to be both expressing a direct opinion on the case itself, and also not rooted in current Wikipedia policy. Even after striking out, I think their remaining comments have expressed a significant enough personal opinion on the MalnadachBot/Malnadach that it would be a case for recusal from anything relating to Malnadach-ScottyWong's behavioral history. (Specifically because so many arguments revolve around editors' opinion on MalnadachBot)

It is not clear to me how broad the case intends to be, but at the least I would expect CaptainEek to recuse from anything involved with Malnadach, and request considering a full recusal.

(Full disclosure - I had not seen the other 2 comments about recusal on the Preliminary Statements page until now. After reading them, I still think an explicit recusal request was in order.)

Soni (talk) 08:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * A conflict of interest has historically meant that if you had previously interacted with said editor extensively, usually in a dispute, you should recuse. This is not an iron rule, and the Arbs try to use common sense. I've never interacted with Malnadach before this case, aside from occasionally seeing their bot make edits to pages. I did not opine or even know of any of the threads about them or their bot until it came to ARC. Expressing an opinion about a user at ARC, based on the facts at the ARC, does not create a conflict of interest. If that were the case, no Arb could ever say anything positive or negative about anyone at ARC. I don't see how commenting on the issue at hand somehow creates a conflict of interest; it is exactly what Arbs are asked to do at ARC. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of the historical context of requiring extensive interaction as a yardstick, so thank you. Soni (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Belated comment: "perceived as racist" and assuming good faith
I've been on wiki-break, so I'm coming to this very late from a notification on my talk page. My opinion here is colored by a recent reading of The Coddling of the American Mind which I think would be useful for admins and arbs to read. The book is mainly talking about college students, but its ideas are applicable everywhere, and it helped me identify and put a name to trends I've seen in our discourse on Wikipedia. The book pushes back on things like call-out culture. While discussing the idea of "micro-aggressions", the book encourages people to interpret others' words in the most charitable and reasonable sense possible instead of looking for ways to be offended—similar to our principle of WP:Assume good faith.

Anyway, I take issue with the finding of fact that Scottywong "made reference to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's user name in a manner that has been perceived as racist". First, I'd like to think that intent matters as much or more than perception. Second, with a thin enough skin, almost anything can be perceived as racist. Finally, I feel we've thrown WP:AGF out the window in our interpretation of Scottywong's comment.

I assume that the part of Scotty's post we're calling racist is the following two sentences: "'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.'" I can definitely see how someone might interpret that comment as, "Your language is inferior because it just looks like a bunch of squiggles." But that's not a very charitable interpretation. If we assume a little good faith it's also possible to read the comment as a criticism of ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's choice of using something incomprehensible to most English speakers as their username on the English Wikipedia. And I'll admit that Scotty has a point. Names, in general, are useful when other people can recognize and use them. Choosing a username that is illegible and untypeable is somewhat discourteous to your fellow users, even though it's allowed by policy. (There's certainly a separate discussion about how appropriate it is to criticize someone over something that's allowed by policy.)

I doubt that anything can or will be done at this point. I mostly want to push back against throwing AGF out the window so we can call someone a xenophobe or racist. I think it would have been more productive to interpret Scottywong's comment with a little more good faith and maybe reprimand him for the culturally insensitive way he worded that criticism. ~Awilley (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your note. I am in broad agreement with you. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I was inactive for the Scottywong case so this is definitely a general comment. But at some level editors, particularly those subject to ADMINCOND, can't escape a reasonable person being offended about something just because their intent was good. In such a situation there is still harm to our community by the offense that has been given. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This point I also agree with, but I would note that that's not what the finding said. The finding didn't say that a reasonable person would view the statement as racist, or that a reasonable person should have reasonably expected others to view the statement as racist. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Good to know; as I was inactive for Scottywong and other than knowing the outcome I do not know about the final decision. I did want to make my general comment. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)