Browsing ANI, I have come across a discussion involving the admin Scottywong in which the community is showing a strong consensus to submit a case request here. I am acting as an uninvolved editor who agrees that the xenophobic comments made by Scottywong highlighted by 192.76.8.65 [3] are extremely unbecoming of an admin. As of writing, 10 editors have supported "Send[ing it] to Arbcom" [4] while a suggestion has come that any further "support" !votes should instead be a case request.[5] I am BOLDly making that request. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scottywong

The outpouring of condemnation at ANI has caused me to do some soul-searching, because at first I honestly didn't understand why there was such a big uproar about this event. Don't get me wrong, I realize that I said some things to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ out of frustration that I shouldn't have, but I was still initially confused by the scale of the outcry at ANI. It can be confusing when the intention behind your message and the perception of that message are very far apart. But, as T.S. Eliot once said, "Most of the evil in this world is done by people with good intentions", and I don't want to be an evil person. So, I'd like to use the remainder of my 500 words to be as crystal clear as I can about what happened here:

A brief history for context: ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ operates a bot that fixes lint errors. I had several discussions with them where I made my personal opinion clear that the annoyances caused by the bot outweighed the benefits of fixing these errors. I added a {{nobots}} template to my user talk page archives in the hopes that it would prevent future bot edits to those pages. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ noticed this and decided to edit those pages manually from their main account instead of their bot account. It frustrated me greatly that they would do this despite my clear indication that it was unwanted. This is what prompted my messages on their talk page, which were written and delivered while I was in that frustrated state.
I intended my comments to be forceful, to convey my frustration, but I went overboard. I did not intend my comments to be belittling or insulting. I can see now that they were perceived that way by virtually everyone, and therefore I apologize for my inappropriate comments.
The comments about non-English characters in usernames were not even relevant to the situation, and should not have been included in my message. My intention was to make a statement along the lines of WP:LATINPLEASE. I did not intend to make statements that were xenophobic, but I can see now that they were perceived that way by virtually everyone, and for that I feel terrible and I apologize for those comments. I consider myself the opposite of xenophobic/racist, so having made comments that were perceived as such is quite distressing.

I'd like to apologize personally to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ for this entire interaction, and I hope that their recent wikibreak wasn't a result of our discussion. As I mentioned at ANI, I'd like to retract all of my messages on their talk page, and reaffirm my intention to respect their request to stay off their talk page.

I'm not a perfect person. Sometimes I make mistakes, and sometimes I say the wrong thing. This is one of those times. I like to think that I can admit my mistakes and learn from them. Owing to the aforementioned gulf between intention and perception, this time it regrettably took me a little longer than it should've to do so. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 07:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ

Statement by Prodraxis

Scottywong's remarks were very unbecoming of an admin, incivil, insulting and xenophobic, IMHO. If a newbie said this they'd be indeffed by now, and if a non admin said this they would be immediately blocked for violations of the harassment policy. -- Prodraxis ^talk _contribs 23:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by jc37

I don't see a point at this stage to post to the AN/I thread.

But just a couple thoughts spring to mind.

First, if I was clowning with one of my friends and one of us called the other "Mister Squiggles", I think we'd all laugh and that would be the end of it.

But words which may be fun and innocuous in a friendly, collegiate atmosphere - in my opinion - can be very much not, when used as "name-calling" in an adversarial situation.

I don't think anyone thinks that this was appropriate. And Scotty Wong has apologized. Was that apology perhaps "forced" by the circumstances? Possibly, but it's done.

I'm also not thrilled with the dismissive, intentional disengagement from AN/I. Normally, I might try to AGF, and accept that as a disengagement response to a WP:Boomerang, but this wasn't that. Clearly there has been multiple non-positive interactions between the two editors. And hoping that AN/I will go away, probably wasn't the best course for an admin who is being asked to explain their behaviour.

But beyond that I am remembering the ancient past.

And I am concerned.

Because I don't think people should start digging in his past edits when his username was "Snottywong" ages ago, and try to build some case against him. Unless it's been a continuous ongoing thing, I think that's unfair. We should address any current or ongoing situations, not dredge up old ones from the past.

Do I think that this well deserves an Arbcom admonishment? absolutely. Please do.

Have I lost trust in him as an admin over it? I'm on the fence, and when I'm on the fence, I tend to lean away from punishment. Better to not over-punish, if we are not certain. But this really, really was not good.

And I think we'd all like to hear some sense that he really does understand the problems with his actions, both as an editor, and as an admin. There are several places where I think he's missed the mark, and showing he really does understand the issues would, I think, go a long way.

But if not, well, then maybe Arbcom should accept this case. - jc37 00:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RoySmith

Ugh. I don't know if this rises to the level of desysop, but yeah, belittling somebody because you can't pronounce their name written in their native character set really is beyond the pale. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alalch E.

In the ANI, Scottywong initially characterized his disturbing and profoundly saddening comment about the editor's name as being a "bit blunt". Subsequently he admitted that while "[he] can see how a superficial glance at [his] comments might cause someone to believe they come from a place of racism or xenophobia, that is a gross misinterpretation of [his] intent". But, even if a gross misinterpretation, a comment that would cause someone to believe that is substantially worse than "bit blunt". At the same time he described the comment as "borderline rude"... At that point it really seemed as if Scottywong did not understand that "bit blunt" and "borderline rude" can not be anything but a gross mischaracterization of a comment that looks as if it comes from a place of racism or xenophobia. Such a comment, i.e. the comment that he made, is worse than blunt, and worse than rude. It's just on another level of bad. In his last apology-type reply, Scottywong described his comment as "insensitive" (and just "rude", as opposed to "borderline rude") which is qualitatively better. Still, it is also worse than insensitive; it was incredibly insensitive, very blunt, and supremely rude.

Obviously, Scottywong is especially talented at thinking up offensive and upsetting remarks. This was at least in the vicinity of a serious disruption of Wikipedia through incivility (does not have to be sustained), and an example of egregious poor judgment (does not have to be consistent i.e. repeated), and I respect calls to desysop Scottywong, but I personally feel like he can do better.

He could commit not to make any insensitive, blunt, or rude comments in the future. But if he doesn't grasp the true dimensions of offensiveness of said comment, and believes that insensitive, blunt, or rude comments are among the occassional mistakes afforded to him under WP:ADMINCOND, he could still be expected to make a number of comments that are, on his scale, "slightly insensitive" / "almost a bit blunt" / "borderline rude-ish", but are worse than an average person's offensive comment. So he would need to commit to only make comments that are not insensitive even in the slightest, not blunt even in the slightest, and cannot possibly be seen as rude, and that when he is in a "frustrated state" he should not edit at all. In addition, he should promise to take some time off to think about how not to make comments that could cause someone to believe they come from a place of racism or xenophobia.

Statement by LilianaUwU

I'll echo multiple people: a non-admin would've been indeffed for a statement like that. It's insane how people can get away with this just because they've got a better rank than others... I guess it's something Wikipedia has in common with real life. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Folly Mox

Kindly, I view User:Izno and User:Primefac as WP:INVOLVED with respect to the dispute between Scottywong and ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ, and hope they will be recusing here. Folly Mox (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Scottywong)

The question that is immediately before ArbCom is not whether to take action against Scottywong. It is whether to accept a case that will decide whether to take action against Scottywong. Often both the preliminary statements by editors and the preliminary reasoning given by arbitrators seem to ask whether final action, such as desysopping, is necessary. That isn't the question at this point. That will be the question after the parties and other editors have submitted evidence and the arbitrators have reviewed the evidence. At this time the arbitrators should decide whether it is in order to open evidentiary proceedings, and decide based on the evidence whether to take action against Scottywong.

At this point, we know that Scottywong used extremely poor judgment in at least one case, to an extent that questions are raised about his continued suitability to be an administrator. If this was a one-time departure from a record of otherwise exemplary conduct, a warning may be in order. If such behavior has continued off and on for years, ArbCom may reasonably decide that it has lost confidence in an administrator. The only way that the arbitrators will know which is the case is by receiving evidence. There is enough information to conclude that ArbCom should conduct a full evidentiary phase to be followed by a decision. ArbCom should accept this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CMD

This is tricky to move forward. The original comment is grossly out of line, as supported by the vast majority of participants at the AN/I thread. Many comments focus on the belittling of the name, and this is indeed egregious, but it is also worth noting how full of invective the entire post is. It's utterly unbecoming of an editor, let alone an admin. With that in mind, it is also worth continual understanding that people have emotions and make mistakes, and whether or not it should be, removing adminship is quite a significant step on en.wiki (perhaps even more so for issues related to WP:CIVIL, that perpetually debated pillar). If Scottywong had simply accepted the issue that occurred, I doubt we would be here. However, their response was to give a complete non-apology that excused their behaviour and completely dismissed any concerns. "In my opinion, there was no reason to bring this conversation to the drama board. I won't be monitoring this thread..." That is not only dismissive of the specific complaint, but seems not at all in line with the expectations of WP:ADMINACCT. That alongside their later doubling down means the issue is more than the one post, it is the apparent refusal to accept what was wrong about that post. Their later apology was forthright, but did not demonstrate an understanding of the issues at hand. So here we are.

I don't know what the best past forward is with that all in mind, but I would posit the following thoughts to ARBCOM: If a non-admin had made the original comment (and it had been noticed at the time), there is quite a high chance they would have been immediately blocked for personal attacks. In such a case, the blocked user would be expected to show that they "understand what [they] are blocked for", which in this case I do not believe has been done. Lastly, the level of accountability for an admin should surely be equal to if not higher than that of regular users. CMD (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moneytrees

I've recused from this request as I asked Scottywong critical questions during ACE 2020 and ended up re-blocking Dutchy85 for copyright violations after he had unblocked them, adding 10,000 more edits to their CCI -- I made my unhappiness with this clear at the time and it partially prompted this ANI post of mine. While the current ANI was developing, I left a comment at SW's talk page, where I explained my perspective on the "personal attack" angle and pointed out previous incidents SW has been involved in. I ended with But in my opinion, the best course of action is to retract your remarks and apologize to Malnadach, and also try to move more carefully in the future. I think SW's later comment at the ANI thread did well on the apologizing and retracting end and I thought it was a decent step forward. Scottywong has been a valuable contributor in the technical areas of Wikipedia and the early days of New Page Patrol.

That said, I'm not really happy with how this has played out outside of Wikipedia. I'm still on the fence with how this factors into repeated concerns with Scottywong; aside from the Dutchy85 unblock and re-block, SW has faced controversy and proposed sanctions at a few different venues for different reasons. There's several ANI threads related to SW's long term feud with Eric Corbett; 2019 ANI thread, 2014 ANI thread, 2012 ANI thread, another 2012 ANI thread, and ANI thread near the end of 2012 where Drmies and SW were blocked for personal attacks (these block were later undone). There's additionally this 2012 ANI thread involving COI issues (Note Worm That Turned's comment there). Still, I want to hear from Scottywong before this case move forward too much, unless doesn't feel like responding. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 05:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

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

Scottywong: Clerk notes

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

Scottywong: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

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]

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 Browsing ANI, I have come across a discussion involving the admin Scottywong in which the community is showing a strong consensus to submit a case request here. I am acting as an uninvolved editor who agrees that the xenophobic comments made by Scottywong highlighted by {{u|192.76.8.65}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%E0%B2%AE%E0%B2%B2%E0%B3%8D%E0%B2%A8%E0%B2%BE%E0%B2%A1%E0%B2%BE%E0%B2%9A%E0%B3%8D_%E0%B2%95%E0%B3%8A%E0%B2%82%E0%B2%95%E0%B3%8D%E0%B2%A3%E0%B3%8A&diff=prev&oldid=1151085269] are extremely unbecoming of an admin. As of writing, 10 editors have supported "Send[ing it] to Arbcom" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1158413745#Proposal:_Send_to_Arbcom] while a suggestion has come that any further "support" !votes should instead be a case request.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1158360670] I am [[WP:BOLD|BOLD]]ly making that request. &#8213;<span style="background:#368ec9;border:solid 2px;border-radius:5px">&nbsp;'''''[[User_talk:GhostOfDanGurney|<span style="color:white">"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)</span>]]'''''&nbsp;</span> 23:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 === Statement by Scottywong ===
+The outpouring of condemnation at ANI has caused me to do some soul-searching, because at first I honestly didn't understand why there was such a big uproar about this event. Don't get me wrong, I realize that I said some things to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ out of frustration that I shouldn't have, but I was still initially confused by the scale of the outcry at ANI. It can be confusing when the intention behind your message and the perception of that message are very far apart. But, as T.S. Eliot once said, "Most of the evil in this world is done by people with good intentions", and I don't want to be an evil person. So, I'd like to use the remainder of my 500 words to be as crystal clear as I can about what happened here:
+#A brief history for context: ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ operates a bot that fixes lint errors. I had several discussions with them where I made my personal opinion clear that the annoyances caused by the bot outweighed the benefits of fixing these errors. I added a {{tl|nobots}} template to my user talk page archives in the hopes that it would prevent future bot edits to those pages. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ noticed this and decided to edit those pages manually from their main account instead of their bot account. It frustrated me greatly that they would do this despite my clear indication that it was unwanted. This is what prompted my messages on their talk page, which were written and delivered while I was in that frustrated state.
+#I intended my comments to be forceful, to convey my frustration, but I went overboard. I did not intend my comments to be belittling or insulting. I can see now that they were perceived that way by virtually everyone, and therefore I apologize for my inappropriate comments.
+#The comments about non-English characters in usernames were not even relevant to the situation, and should not have been included in my message. My intention was to make a statement along the lines of [[WP:LATINPLEASE]]. I did not intend to make statements that were xenophobic, but I can see now that they were perceived that way by virtually everyone, and for that I feel terrible and I apologize for those comments. I consider myself the opposite of xenophobic/racist, so having made comments that were perceived as such is quite distressing.
+I'd like to apologize personally to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ for this entire interaction, and I hope that their recent wikibreak wasn't a result of our discussion. As I mentioned at ANI, I'd like to retract all of my messages on their talk page, and reaffirm my intention to respect their request to stay off their talk page.
+I'm not a perfect person. Sometimes I make mistakes, and sometimes I say the wrong thing. This is one of those times. I like to think that I can admit my mistakes and learn from them. Owing to the aforementioned gulf between intention and perception, this time it regrettably took me a little longer than it should've to do so. [[User talk:Scottywong|<span style="font:bold 15px 'Bradley Hand','Bradley Hand ITC';color:#044;text-shadow:0 0 4px #033,0 0 10px #077;"> —&#8288;Scotty<span style="color:#fff;">Wong</span>&#8288;— </span>]] 07:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 === Statement by ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ ===