Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Evidence

Request from Martinp to clerks
I've posted evidence/analysis of evidence that turns out to exceed the 500 word limit. I've gone back and shortened it to 760 words. Can I get an one-time exemption to the word limit? I do not expect to add any other evidence.

While I am not a party, my brief comment in the same vein at the case request stage garnered multiple thanks and a quote by another commenter who called it out as being particularly helpful. So while outsider involvement in arbcom cases can be irritating peanut gallery talk, I'm at least somewhat supported in my (potentially delusional) belief that what I have to say is meaningful. Feel free to yell at me if you insist I shorten further, though I found myself at the level where I'd be chopping out meaningful content if I did so, not (I think) extraneous detail. Thanks! Martinp (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Scope
Just a reminder, the scope of this case is "behavior of Scotty Wong." The evidence should therefore be about.... the behavior of Scotty Wong. Also a reminder that this is the evidence phase, just posting your thoughts on the matter is not evidence. Submissions that are not evidence or outside of the scope of the case may be removed at any time by the clerks. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Evidence phase reminders
You are both well past the rough 500 words and 50 diffs requirement for all evidence submissions. Please trim your statements accordingly.

Your submission of evidence doesn't really contain any statements of new evidence. If you would like to anaylize existing evidence, please use this section of the workshop to do so instead.

Please see this section of the instructions for evidence: Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. If you quote an editor (including yourself), please also provide diffs with the quote to support it was said. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I linked to the section in question, which unfortunately needs to be read in its entirety, and I hope I made it clear that I was quoting directly, and only, from that section. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It is still better to link to the diff for each quote you've provided. This allows the arbitrators to quickly verify who made the quote and when it was made, plus also makes it easier for the arbitrators to read your evidence as it is posted. Instead of needing to read the long section potentially many times to find the areas quoted in each user's submissions, the arbitrator could look at the areas that were quoted and then come back after the evidence phase has closed to read the section in full with these in mind. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 21:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help and clarification, editor ! Was unaware that only new evidence was allowed on this evidence page. Since my statement was in support of another editor's statement of evidence and not an analysis of it, I'm not sure how to proceed. If my statement is not allowed on the evidence page, should it be removed to this talk page?  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 03:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Paine Ellsworth: It should still be fine for the analysis section. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 06:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * My statement has been moved to the workshop's Analysis of evidence section. Thanks again!  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 11:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


 * , thank you for the note. Apologies for exceeding the same. I request the arbitrators/clerks to kindly allow this submission, given the relevance of the issues and the fact that SW has already referenced the evidence in his analysis. Hoping for a positive response. I won't be adding to what is written here. Warmly, Lourdes  04:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd point out that Lourdes' comments are well beyond double the word count limit for non-parties to the case, and are longer than even my evidence. I'm obviously biased, but I can't see any reason why anyone's evidence should be allowed to exceed the clearly stated limits to this degree simply because their author believes them to be "relevant".  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 05:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * SW, hi. I can understand your pov. Let the clerks and arbs decide. It might not seem appropriate for you to lose your cool here (the double quotes and stuff). Thanks, Lourdes  05:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Lourdes: I will forward this request to the committee and respond with an answer when I have one. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 06:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * , trimmed a bit. Let me know if this works. Thanks, Lourdes  06:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Lourdes: Ah, I see! I'll hold off on sending that email to the committee then. Thank you for shortening your statement. I don't have authority to determine what is or is not acceptable, but it's much better now at least. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 06:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Moved mine as requested. Martinp (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

On mispronouncing names
I've heard this canard before that mispronouncing someone's name is inherently xenophobic/racist/whatever. I'm an American of entirely European heritage, my real name is a pretty standard anglicized version of an Irish name (in an area with plenty of Irish), not the most common but hardly rare... and people constantly mispronounce and misspell it. I've found people almost never get it right the first time, and people who've known me for years consistently mangle it. I've never once thought to scream about it being "racist" or "xenophobic", since it never actually is; it's... not that big a deal. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 17:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The thing is that it can be, for example when done intentionally, without regard to the person's preferences (especially known preferences) or just recklessly knowing that it is wrong and not making any effort to get it right. At least in the UK and among British people in the former British Empire there is a long history of people taking one look at foreign-looking names and anglicising them (often with only a vague relationship with the original), either for ease of pronunciation or just to make them seem more British and thus more respectable (e.g. Fernando → Andy is one I remember hearing). In that context it is entirely a product of the casual racism of society, although the individual may not consciously be aware of it as such.
 * I don't know whether any of these scenarios are relevant here (I've not read most of the evidence) but it is wrong to state that it in exactly the same way as saying that it always is. Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I meant that in my case specifically, now that I read it again that wasn't completely clear. No one has ever mispronounced or misspelled my name to "otherize" me in some way, it's just people misreading it (and at least to me it seems like a more intuitive spelling than a name like Geoffrey or George, I don't get it). It definitely can be in some circumstances, though I'm straining a bit to see it here, but I didn't think the assertion that it inherently is (along with the obvious loaded language assertion following it) should stand totally unchallenged. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 00:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that racism depends on circumstances. I have an awkward surname (Pereira) which people struggle to pronounce, and which elicits a lot of queries. I've never encountered this as racism, but then as I am white British I am not not one of the groups who typically encounter racism. I did experience racism when my family moved from Wales to England when I was still at school. Initially the other kids accepted me; though after they had told their parents I was Welsh I endured a number of ostracising sneering comments: "Your lot shag sheep", "You are Welsh so you're a thief", "Do they have toilets where you come from?", etc. Eventually it settled down, but it was a puzzling and unpleasant experience, and I understand that after people encounter that in a genuinely hostile manner a few times in their life, then even "harmless" or "humorous" comments in the same vein can be unsettling, and it can be difficult for the receiver to differentiate the "friendly banter" from the genuinely racist. So, even harmless comments can be perceived as racist, so a considerate person would take care not to raise certain topics with someone they don't know. Commenting on someone's name may not be racism perhaps, but could be inconsiderate. SilkTork (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Extension request
I've written a summary of the older ANI threads and the role they play in my thinking of this case now, and the draft is a little under 1500 words. Could I have that amount as an extension? Thank you, Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 07:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Moneytrees, go for it. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd welcome more evidence. Particularly diffs. SilkTork (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)