1092:. 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.
1287:
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
1069:
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.
1165:
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.
1330:. 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.
1284:
Knowledge, 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.
1110:
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.
1368:
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.
1617:. 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.
539:
991:
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
156:
1137:
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
1202:
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.
1422:
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.
1862:
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.
2295:
1073:
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.
1551:, 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.
1106:
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."
1584:"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.
2361:
While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still
2328:
Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction
1821:
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. Knowledge encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways.
1072:
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
1068:
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 Knowledge causes frustration,
1592:
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.
1577:
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,
1286:
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
1097:
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
2127:. 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 Knowledge.
1643:
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
1367:
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
1201:
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.
1105:
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
990:
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
1132:
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
2108:
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
1141:
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
1136:
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
1109:
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
1064:
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
1049:
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 Knowledge activity. If there are
2369:
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally
2365:
These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special
1164:
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
1861:
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
1583:
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
1754:
in their interactions with others. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, serious disruption of Knowledge, especially when repeated, through behavior such as incivility and personal attacks, is incompatible with the
1421:
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
1789:
3) Knowledge 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
1620:
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
842:
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
1283:
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
1443:
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
1353:, 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.
1159:
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
974:"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."
1017:. 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).
664:
1230:, 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.
2188:
658:
2262:
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
1483:, 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.
1837:
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
1589:
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
2086:
2055:
1586:
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.
2329:
placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.
1516:
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.
1305:
1497:
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
688:
682:
1997:
676:
670:
2182:
652:
1461:
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
1138:
843:
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.
2178:
1962:
647:
755:
1886:
has been on Knowledge 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.
2324:
Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.
2252:
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the
2362:
request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
2219:
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.
733:
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.
2147:
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.
50:
1502:(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.
860:
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. --
1183:
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.
1682:: 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.
715:
83:
45:
1774:
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 Knowledge as a whole.
2226:
2382:
830:
2020:
78:
1328:
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...
640:
1817:
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
779:
976:
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.
377:
72:
61:
2041:
2072:
2282:
557:
414:
246:
1418:
2014:
179:
67:
56:
2103:
702:
408:
1560:
1543:
1526:
1511:
1492:
1919:
961:
1915:
1636:
1409:
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
39:
1661:
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.
1474:
1142:
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).
372:
2029:
1608:
995:, 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.
2158:
1499:
404:
200:
192:
1162:
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.
960:. This incident by itself is concerning, though could perhaps be explained by personal friction between users, but when I followed Moneytrees'
852:
2023:
1691:
1670:
1391:
1377:
1300:
864:
1935:
1437:
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:
1432:
1362:
1151:
1102:
346:
2119:
1993:
1653:
1578:
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?
1211:
1192:
1174:
985:
1927:
1040:
1026:
524:
1317:
1119:
1082:
1059:
1004:
952:
909:
767:
196:
2001:
1340:
1323:
366:
211:
189:
1724:
1239:
1134:
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.
2271:
550:
447:
399:
337:
256:
184:
931:
2051:
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.
2026:
362:
1417:). Secondly, we are tasked with hearing cases which the community cannot resolve. Off-wiki evidence has already been mentioned, and
1098:
and have not repeated it, so you could be trusted moving forward not to have a similar outburst. Positive outcome with no sanctions.
473:
342:
2125:
1931:
1923:
1275:
1258:
1126:
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
837:
518:
512:
352:
332:
215:
834:
2275:
2082:
This was in spite of Scottywong's objections to lint errors being fixed, leading him to put a "nobot" template on his archives.
1440:
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.
357:
270:
251:
2196:
320:
2397:
571:
391:
282:
2085:
In response, Scottywong complained about the "annoying useless edits", and made reference to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's user name
2083:
2078:
2054:
In response, Scottywong complained about the "annoying useless edits", and made reference to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's user name
2052:
2047:
1308:
has been active on over 160 WMF projects. Why should the convenience of enwiki editors prevail in their choice of username?
1127:
2413:
2080:
2049:
1351:
To avoid confusion and aid navigation, users with such usernames are encouraged to use Latin characters in their signature.
564:
315:
1943:
1939:
1858:
1771:
1751:
1382:
Mkdw, no, I do not personally believe that. I think that we should be working to encourage cross-language collaboration.
749:
506:
241:
170:
25:
1983:
2396:
Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at
1911:
1852:
1730:
973:
1902:
2) Scottywong has a history of using blunt and combative language on Knowledge. This was noted as far back as their
2192:
2174:
1965:
registered their account in Nov 2014 making two edits, then started editing regularly in 2020. They created a bot,
1388:
1374:
1359:
1297:
897:
604:
2346:(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
307:
147:
1050:
examples of friction between the two arbs and Scottywong, then I am sure they would recuse without being asked.
774:
For this case there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
756:
2317:
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).
1014:
914:
Scotty's ACE2020 renunciation of his 2013 opinion on Manning & gender is more of a positive indicator imo.
616:
293:
236:
21:
2090:
2059:
1839:
1818:
1791:
1101:
Something that incidentally came up on the Arb email (it was regarding how Malnadach was caught socking), is
1065:
inappropriate conduct, how does any inappropriate conduct balance against positive conduct and contributions?
943:, ∃ off-wiki evidence → it's on our plate. I'm open to persuasion on whether it's handled by motion or case.
634:
622:
228:
2214:
696:
610:
466:
278:
176:
1799:
1556:
1539:
1522:
1507:
1488:
1470:
628:
288:
206:
125:
2321:
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.
2234:
2077:
6b) In April 2023, ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ made two manual lint error edits to Scottywong's archive signature.
2046:
6a) In April 2023, ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ made two manual lint error edits to Scottywong's archive signature.
1698:
Just noting that if this case is accepted (which seems fairly likely), I plan to be active on it. Best,
916:
760:
2286:
2019:
5) Scottywong made two proposals on the Village Pump in Feb 2023, targeted at ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's bot:
1720:
1630:
1602:
327:
1897:
1345:
On reflection, I withdraw my argument around the username, it was based on a misreading by me. I read
1989:
727:
890:
722:
570:
Actions taken to enforce remedies authorised in the case (if applicable) are to be logged at the
459:
1822:
Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit, damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia.
1745:
1552:
1535:
1518:
1503:
1484:
1466:
120:
2142:
1956:
1622:
1594:
1580:
1346:
848:
166:
17:
2168:
2022:, and in Jan 2022, objected on the Bots Noticeboard to the bot performing clean up tasks -
1970:
1832:
1687:
1677:
1666:
1548:
1531:
827:
598:
587:
2310:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
2124:
8) Scottywong made unnecessary attacks on ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's character during the case:
1914:. During the Manning naming dispute case, the remarks were considered problematic, though
992:
545:
This case is closed. No edits should be made to this page except by clerks or arbitrators.
8:
1872:
1812:
1765:
1428:
1336:
1207:
1188:
1170:
1147:
1022:
886:
556:
Specific requests for amendment or clarification about the decision should be raised at
2390:
1934:(2019); both of which ended inconclusively. And in 2022 Scottywong called an IP editor
1795:
1649:
1115:
1078:
1055:
1036:
1000:
981:
136:
708:
1966:
1907:
1903:
1455:
1944:
to resist the urge to boldly speak my mind when I'm in a frustrated or annoyed state
1942:". During this case Scottywong has stated that they have become aware of the need "
1714:
1313:
1180:
948:
927:
905:
844:
114:
2164:
1883:
1683:
1662:
1465:
Glad to see that my statement at the previous ARC got people paying attention :)
1383:
1369:
1354:
1292:
1198:
1089:
969:
965:
873:
861:
824:
593:
2209:
1877:
1425:
1333:
1271:
1254:
1246:
1235:
1227:
1203:
1184:
1166:
1143:
1018:
431:
2407:
1740:
1645:
1414:
1410:
1111:
1074:
1051:
1032:
996:
977:
741:
131:
100:
900:
to the discussion 3 more times in the next 18 hours. Still contemplating...
435:
1994:"other scripts are illegible to most contributors to the English Knowledge"
1221:
2352:
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
582:
2314:
the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
2137:
1309:
944:
923:
901:
896:
would bring this into ArbCom's remit but, despite that initial response,
109:
880:- does this refer to off-wiki evidence or to commentary from bystanders?
714:
Preliminary statements given in the case request stage may be found at
2267:
ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
1752:
should lead by example and should behave in a respectful, civil manner
1735:
759:
Scottywong: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <7/2/2: -->
549:
Any violations of the remedies passed in the case should be raised at
1708:
1700:
1267:
1250:
1231:
155:
2285:. If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through
1324:
our username policy explicitly allows usernames in non-Latin scripts
1009:
While it's true that cases focusing on administrator's solely don't
1784:
1249:, those were the discussions I had already highlighted internally.
736:
433:
95:
918:"The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there."
1013:
end with a desysop they overhwelmingly end with a sanction per
436:
2383:
procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision
2042:
Scottywong speaks to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ in a derogatory fashion
1613:
Having slept on it and re-read the information, I will weakly
437:
2073:
Scottywong speaks to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ in a xenophobic manner
2153:
Passed 9 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
2132:
Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
2002:"such usernames may appear illegible to other contributors"
2385:
adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
2229:
adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
558:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
1534:, I certainly hope that that is poorly signaled sarcasm.
1988:
4) ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's non-Latin username complies with
1920:
renounced those remarks during the 2020 ArbCom elections
2015:
Prior disputes between ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ and Scottywong
1922:. Scottywong was also involved in a long term dispute
1452:
This is pretty much the phrase used at SPI in private.
2104:
During the case ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ was globally locked
1906:(2011), and again, though more lightly, during their
1755:
expectations and responsibilities of administrators.
1458:, huh? Not sure I'm following what you're getting at.
1224:, ArbCom would likely take that evidence in private.
2195:, each other anywhere on Knowledge (subject to the
1996:. The text of the section was updated during the
1419:the community can only desysop through a site ban
2405:
2227:procedure for the standard enforcement provision
2159:Scottywong and ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ interaction ban
1500:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Gustin Kelly
878:"how this has played out outside of Knowledge"
2087:in a manner that has been perceived as racist
1992:, though users were advised at the time that
467:
2349:(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
2109:bot, MalnadachBot, has also been blocked.
2204:Passed 7 to 2 at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
2114:Passed 9 to 0 at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
2098:Passed 7 to 0 at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
2067:Passed 8 to 1 at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
2036:Passed 9 to 0 at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
2009:Passed 9 to 0 at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
1978:Passed 9 to 0 at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
1951:Passed 7 to 1 at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
1892:Passed 9 to 0 at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
1867:Passed 9 to 0 at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
1847:Passed 9 to 0 at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
1827:Passed 9 to 0 at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
1807:Passed 9 to 0 at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
1779:Passed 9 to 0 at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
1760:Passed 9 to 0 at 17:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
964:and read this comment by Scottywong about
761:-Preliminary_decision-20230604032600": -->
757:-Preliminary_decision-20230604032600": -->
551:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
474:
460:
1940:the type of person that speaks their mind
1912:insensitive remarks about Chelsea Manning
1910:(2012). In August 2013, Scottywong made
2287:Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee
572:centralised arbitration enforcement log
14:
2406:
2366:functionary blocks of whatever nature.
2120:Scottywong's behaviour during the case
1928:Conduct unbecoming of an administrator
1448:be, but definitely the way things are.
2398:Knowledge:Arbitration enforcement log
2025:. Then continued to make complaints:
1932:Further attempts to bait Eric_Corbett
1790:disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as
504:Watchlist all case (and talk) pages:
2289:(or, if email access is revoked, to
1938:. Scottywong describes themself as "
1916:no finding regarding them was passed
565:Knowledge talk:Arbitration Committee
533:
247:Clarification and Amendment requests
2272:arbitration enforcement noticeboard
2191:) are indefinitely prohibited from
563:General questions can be raised at
31:
2281:submit a request for amendment at
2193:interacting with, or commenting on
1770:2) Administrators are expected to
790:Support votes needed for majority
32:
2425:
1926:, resulting in two AN reports:
1621:committee members have thoughts.
1031:Yes, I think we're in agreement.
770:Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
2339:For a request to succeed, either
2293:
1853:Conduct during arbitration cases
537:
154:
2306:Modifications by administrators
1969:, in May 2021, which has made
1015:User:Maxim/ArbCom and desysops
962:link to the ACE 2020 questions
13:
1:
2258:Appeals by sanctioned editors
1946:" and to step back at times.
2244:0) Appeals and modifications
1984:ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's username
498:on 17:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
378:Conflict of interest reports
7:
2414:Knowledge arbitration cases
2370:discussed at another venue.
2276:administrators’ noticeboard
2215:Enforcement of restrictions
1731:Temporary injunction (none)
1644:to sort out a STICK issue.
968:(as named then - now named
490:on 18:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
207:Search archived proceedings
10:
2430:
2091:No personal attacks policy
2060:No personal attacks policy
252:Arbitrator motion requests
2294:
2235:Appeals and modifications
1971:11,637,095 approved edits
1593:Still thinking about it.
1936:a "second class citizen"
1800:assumptions of bad faith
1725:17:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
1692:18:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
1671:17:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
1654:14:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
1637:07:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
1609:14:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
1561:00:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
1544:00:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
1527:23:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
1512:21:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
1493:01:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
1475:01:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
1433:21:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
1392:15:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
1378:04:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
1363:23:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
1341:21:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
1318:19:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
1301:17:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
1276:18:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
1259:17:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
1240:16:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
1212:16:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
1193:14:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
1175:18:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
1152:16:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
1120:17:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
1083:09:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
1060:17:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
1041:17:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
1027:17:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
1005:17:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
986:11:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
953:19:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
932:12:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
910:10:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
865:07:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
853:05:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
832:03:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
750:00:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
697:Prior dispute resolution
2381:In accordance with the
2360:
2225:In accordance with the
2056:in a derogatory fashion
1908:second, successful, RfA
716:/Preliminary statements
2270:request review at the
1918:. Scottywong formally
898:Scottywong contributed
709:Preliminary statements
46:Preliminary statements
2143:Scottywong desysopped
1819:not personally attack
1746:Administrator conduct
1130:what's on my mind is
993:the GiantSnowman case
448:Track related changes
308:Arbitration Committee
148:Knowledge Arbitration
18:Knowledge:Arbitration
723:Preliminary decision
257:Enforcement requests
185:Guide to arbitration
106:Drafting arbitrators
2197:ordinary exceptions
2058:, contrary to the
1898:Scottywong's manner
1833:No personal attacks
783:
2089:, contrary to the
1813:Expressing concern
1802:, is prohibited.
1766:Leading by example
1750:1) Administrators
778:
279:Contentious topics
177:Arbitration policy
2376:
2375:
2274:("AE") or at the
2179:ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ
1967:User:MalnadachBot
1963:ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ
1957:ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ
1924:with Eric Corbett
1707:
1553:GeneralNotability
1536:GeneralNotability
1519:GeneralNotability
1504:GeneralNotability
1485:GeneralNotability
1467:GeneralNotability
1306:ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ
1133:case request: -->
921:
892:run-away-and-hide
818:
817:
771:
703:Discussion at ANI
648:ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ
580:
579:
531:
484:
483:
451:
419:
289:General sanctions
237:All open requests
167:About arbitration
140:
129:
121:GeneralNotability
118:
104:
87:
79:Proposed decision
76:
65:
54:
43:
2421:
2300:
2298:
2297:
2296:
2240:
2239:
1873:Findings of Fact
1792:personal attacks
1705:
1681:
1431:
1411:the fifth pillar
1339:
915:
839:
836:
784:
777:
775:
769:
766:
762:
758:
748:
739:
692:
665:deleted contribs
644:
588:Involved parties
583:Case information
541:
540:
534:
530:
529:
502:
476:
469:
462:
450:
445:
438:
417:
373:Clerk procedures
365:
323:
294:Editor sanctions
271:Active sanctions
229:Open proceedings
199:
158:
144:
143:
134:
123:
112:
98:
81:
70:
59:
48:
37:
2429:
2428:
2424:
2423:
2422:
2420:
2419:
2418:
2404:
2403:
2393:
2391:Enforcement log
2377:
2333:Important notes
2292:
2290:
2245:
2237:
2217:
2212:
2161:
2145:
2140:
2122:
2106:
2075:
2044:
2017:
1990:Username policy
1986:
1959:
1900:
1880:
1875:
1855:
1840:personal attack
1835:
1815:
1787:
1772:lead by example
1768:
1748:
1743:
1738:
1733:
1678:Paine Ellsworth
1675:
1549:Paine Ellsworth
1532:Paine Ellsworth
1423:
1331:
1090:User:Scottywong
970:Chelsea Manning
966:Bradley Manning
773:
764:
737:
735:
730:
725:
711:
699:
650:
596:
590:
585:
538:
532:
505:
503:
499:
491:
480:
446:
440:
439:
434:
424:
423:
422:
411:
394:
384:
383:
382:
369:
361:
349:
324:
319:
310:
300:
299:
298:
273:
263:
262:
261:
231:
221:
218:
203:
195:
173:
142:
30:
29:
28:
12:
11:
5:
2427:
2417:
2416:
2392:
2389:
2388:
2387:
2374:
2373:
2372:
2371:
2367:
2363:
2359:
2356:
2355:
2354:
2353:
2350:
2347:
2341:
2340:
2319:
2318:
2315:
2308:
2307:
2303:
2302:
2279:
2268:
2260:
2259:
2247:
2246:
2243:
2238:
2236:
2233:
2232:
2231:
2216:
2213:
2211:
2208:
2207:
2206:
2160:
2157:
2156:
2155:
2144:
2141:
2139:
2136:
2135:
2134:
2121:
2118:
2117:
2116:
2105:
2102:
2101:
2100:
2074:
2071:
2070:
2069:
2043:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2016:
2013:
2012:
2011:
1998:ANI discussion
1985:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1958:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1899:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1879:
1876:
1874:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1854:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1834:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1814:
1811:
1810:
1809:
1786:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1767:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1747:
1744:
1742:
1739:
1737:
1736:Final decision
1734:
1732:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1656:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1618:
1591:
1588:
1585:
1581:WP:LATINPLEASE
1579:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1463:
1459:
1449:
1441:
1435:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1347:WP:LATINPLEASE
1280:
1279:
1278:
1261:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1195:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1107:
1099:
1094:
1093:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1070:
1066:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
955:
937:
936:
935:
934:
882:
881:
867:
855:
840:
816:
815:
812:
808:
807:
804:
800:
799:
796:
792:
791:
788:
772:
763:
754:
753:
752:
729:
726:
724:
721:
710:
707:
706:
705:
698:
695:
694:
693:
645:
589:
586:
584:
581:
578:
577:
576:
575:
568:
561:
554:
542:
501:
494:
486:
482:
481:
479:
478:
471:
464:
456:
453:
452:
442:
441:
432:
430:
429:
426:
425:
421:
420:
412:
407:
402:
396:
395:
390:
389:
386:
385:
381:
380:
375:
370:
360:
355:
350:
345:
340:
335:
330:
325:
318:
312:
311:
306:
305:
302:
301:
297:
296:
291:
286:
275:
274:
269:
268:
265:
264:
260:
259:
254:
249:
244:
239:
233:
232:
227:
226:
223:
222:
220:
219:
214:
209:
204:
194:
187:
182:
174:
169:
163:
160:
159:
151:
150:
35:Main case page
33:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2426:
2415:
2412:
2411:
2409:
2402:
2401:
2399:
2386:
2384:
2379:
2378:
2368:
2364:
2358:
2357:
2351:
2348:
2345:
2344:
2343:
2342:
2338:
2337:
2336:
2334:
2330:
2326:
2322:
2316:
2313:
2312:
2311:
2305:
2304:
2299:wikimedia.org
2288:
2284:
2280:
2277:
2273:
2269:
2266:
2265:
2264:
2257:
2256:
2255:
2254:
2249:
2248:
2242:
2241:
2230:
2228:
2223:
2222:
2221:
2205:
2202:
2201:
2200:
2198:
2194:
2190:
2187:
2184:
2180:
2176:
2173:
2170:
2166:
2154:
2151:
2150:
2149:
2133:
2130:
2129:
2128:
2126:
2115:
2112:
2111:
2110:
2099:
2096:
2095:
2094:
2092:
2088:
2084:
2081:
2079:
2068:
2065:
2064:
2063:
2061:
2057:
2053:
2050:
2048:
2037:
2034:
2033:
2032:
2031:(Feb 2023).
2030:
2028:(June 2022),
2027:
2024:
2021:
2010:
2007:
2006:
2005:
2003:
1999:
1995:
1991:
1979:
1976:
1975:
1974:
1972:
1968:
1964:
1952:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1945:
1941:
1937:
1933:
1929:
1925:
1921:
1917:
1913:
1909:
1905:
1893:
1890:
1889:
1888:
1885:
1868:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1860:
1848:
1845:
1844:
1843:
1841:
1828:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1820:
1808:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1801:
1797:
1793:
1780:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1773:
1761:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1753:
1726:
1722:
1719:
1716:
1713:
1710:
1703:
1702:
1697:
1693:
1689:
1685:
1679:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1657:
1655:
1651:
1647:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1633:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1619:
1616:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1606:
1605:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1582:
1576:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1541:
1537:
1533:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1524:
1520:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1457:
1453:
1450:
1447:
1442:
1439:
1438:
1436:
1434:
1430:
1427:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1405:
1393:
1390:
1387:
1386:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1376:
1373:
1372:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1361:
1358:
1357:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1338:
1335:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1299:
1296:
1295:
1290:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1262:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1223:
1219:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1200:
1196:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1163:
1158:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1140:
1135:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1095:
1091:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1048:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
989:
988:
987:
983:
979:
975:
971:
967:
963:
959:
956:
954:
950:
946:
942:
939:
938:
933:
929:
925:
920:
919:
913:
912:
911:
907:
903:
899:
895:
893:
888:
884:
883:
879:
875:
871:
868:
866:
863:
859:
856:
854:
850:
846:
841:
833:
829:
826:
825:Moneytrees🏝️
823:
820:
819:
813:
810:
809:
805:
802:
801:
797:
794:
793:
789:
786:
785:
781:
776:
751:
747:
745:
740:
732:
731:
720:
719:
717:
704:
701:
700:
690:
687:
684:
681:
678:
675:
672:
669:
666:
663:
660:
657:
654:
649:
646:
642:
639:
636:
633:
630:
627:
624:
621:
618:
615:
612:
609:
606:
603:
600:
595:
592:
591:
573:
569:
566:
562:
559:
555:
552:
548:
547:
546:
543:
536:
535:
528:
527:
522:
521:
516:
515:
510:
509:
500:
497:
492:
489:
477:
472:
470:
465:
463:
458:
457:
455:
454:
449:
444:
443:
428:
427:
416:
413:
410:
406:
403:
401:
398:
397:
393:
388:
387:
379:
376:
374:
371:
368:
364:
359:
356:
354:
351:
348:
344:
341:
339:
336:
334:
331:
329:
326:
322:
317:
314:
313:
309:
304:
303:
295:
292:
290:
287:
284:
280:
277:
276:
272:
267:
266:
258:
255:
253:
250:
248:
245:
243:
242:Case requests
240:
238:
235:
234:
230:
225:
224:
217:
213:
210:
208:
205:
202:
198:
193:
191:
188:
186:
183:
181:
178:
175:
172:
168:
165:
164:
162:
161:
157:
153:
152:
149:
146:
145:
141:
138:
133:
127:
122:
116:
111:
107:
102:
97:
93:
89:
85:
80:
74:
69:
63:
58:
52:
47:
41:
36:
27:
23:
19:
2395:
2394:
2380:
2332:
2331:
2327:
2323:
2320:
2309:
2261:
2251:
2250:
2224:
2218:
2203:
2185:
2171:
2162:
2152:
2146:
2131:
2123:
2113:
2107:
2097:
2076:
2066:
2045:
2035:
2018:
2008:
1987:
1977:
1960:
1950:
1930:(2014), and
1901:
1891:
1881:
1866:
1856:
1846:
1836:
1826:
1816:
1806:
1788:
1778:
1769:
1759:
1749:
1717:
1711:
1699:
1658:
1631:
1624:
1623:
1614:
1603:
1596:
1595:
1480:
1456:Dennis Brown
1451:
1445:
1406:
1384:
1370:
1355:
1350:
1327:
1293:
1288:
1282:
1263:
1226:
1220:
1161:
1156:
1131:
1010:
957:
940:
917:
891:
889:aspect of a
887:WP:ADMINACCT
877:
869:
857:
821:
787:Abstentions
765:
743:
713:
712:
685:
679:
673:
667:
661:
655:
637:
631:
625:
619:
613:
607:
601:
544:
525:
519:
513:
507:
495:
493:
487:
485:
105:
91:
90:
88:
34:
2400:, not here.
2278:("AN"); and
2210:Enforcement
1479:I'm a weak
1181:Floquenbeam
845:Enterprisey
728:Clerk notes
617:protections
496:Case closed
488:Case opened
212:Ban appeals
190:Noticeboard
2253:Committee.
2165:Scottywong
1884:Scottywong
1878:Scottywong
1796:incivility
1741:Principles
1684:Beeblebrox
1663:Beeblebrox
1385:CaptainEek
1371:CaptainEek
1356:CaptainEek
1294:CaptainEek
1199:Scottywong
1139:ANI thread
874:Moneytrees
862:Guerillero
782:reference
683:block user
677:filter log
629:page moves
594:Scottywong
418:(pre-2016)
405:Statistics
338:Procedures
92:Case clerk
2291:arbcom-en
1904:first RFA
1462:gallery!)
1247:Folly Mox
1228:Folly Mox
1204:Barkeep49
1185:Barkeep49
1167:Barkeep49
1144:Barkeep49
1103:this post
1019:Barkeep49
689:block log
623:deletions
343:Elections
2408:Category
2189:contribs
2175:contribs
2138:Remedies
1646:Primefac
1429:a·po·des
1337:a·po·des
1322:Indeed,
1245:Thanks @
1128:criteria
1112:SilkTork
1075:SilkTork
1052:SilkTork
1033:SilkTork
997:SilkTork
978:SilkTork
894:response
870:Question
780:Majority
659:contribs
605:contribs
132:SilkTork
68:Workshop
57:Evidence
24: |
22:Requests
20: |
1785:Decorum
1590:editor.
1289:decline
1222:wbm1058
1157:Decline
415:Reports
353:History
333:Members
328:Contact
316:Discuss
180:(CU/OS)
2283:"ARCA"
2177:) and
1859:Policy
1701:KevinL
1659:Accept
1615:accept
1481:accept
1446:should
1415:WP:CON
1407:Accept
1310:Cabayi
1264:Recuse
1011:always
958:Accept
945:Cabayi
941:Accept
924:Cabayi
902:Cabayi
876:, re:
858:Accept
838:": -->
835:": -->
831:": -->
828:(Talk)
822:Recuse
768:": -->
635:rights
611:blocks
358:Clerks
216:Report
130:&
119:&
110:Cabayi
849:talk!
520:Wshp.
508:Front
392:Audit
16:<
2183:talk
2169:talk
1798:and
1709:L235
1688:talk
1667:talk
1650:talk
1632:talk
1625:Worm
1604:talk
1597:Worm
1557:talk
1540:talk
1523:talk
1508:talk
1489:talk
1471:talk
1426:Wug·
1413:and
1334:Wug·
1314:talk
1272:talk
1268:Izno
1255:talk
1251:Izno
1236:talk
1232:Izno
1208:talk
1189:talk
1171:talk
1148:talk
1116:talk
1079:talk
1056:talk
1037:talk
1023:talk
1001:talk
982:talk
949:talk
928:talk
906:talk
885:The
811:4–5
803:2–3
795:0–1
744:Talk
671:logs
653:talk
599:talk
409:Talk
400:Talk
367:Talk
347:Talk
201:Talk
171:Talk
137:Talk
126:Talk
115:Talk
101:Talk
84:Talk
73:Talk
62:Talk
51:Talk
40:Talk
26:Case
2199:).
2163:4)
2093:.
2062:.
2000:to
1973:.
1961:3)
1882:1)
1857:6)
1842:.
1706:aka
972:):
738:MJL
641:RfA
526:PD.
514:Ev.
283:Log
96:MJL
2410::
2335::
2301:).
2004:.
1794:,
1723:)
1690:)
1669:)
1652:)
1635:)
1607:)
1559:)
1542:)
1525:)
1510:)
1491:)
1473:)
1454:-
1424:—
1349::
1332:—
1326::
1316:)
1291:.
1274:)
1266:.
1257:)
1238:)
1210:)
1191:)
1173:)
1150:)
1118:)
1081:)
1058:)
1039:)
1025:)
1003:)
984:)
951:)
930:)
922:-
908:)
872::
851:)
814:5
806:6
798:7
523:,
517:,
511:,
108::
94::
77:—
66:—
55:—
44:—
2186:·
2181:(
2172:·
2167:(
1721:c
1718:·
1715:t
1712:·
1704:(
1686:(
1680::
1676:@
1665:(
1648:(
1629:(
1601:(
1555:(
1538:(
1521:(
1506:(
1487:(
1469:(
1389:⚓
1375:⚓
1360:⚓
1312:(
1298:⚓
1270:(
1253:(
1234:(
1206:(
1197:@
1187:(
1179:@
1169:(
1146:(
1114:(
1077:(
1054:(
1035:(
1021:(
999:(
980:(
947:(
926:(
904:(
847:(
746:‐
742:‐
734:–
718:.
691:)
686:·
680:·
674:·
668:·
662:·
656:·
651:(
643:)
638:·
632:·
626:·
620:·
614:·
608:·
602:·
597:(
574:.
567:.
560:.
553:.
475:e
468:t
461:v
363:+
321:+
285:)
281:(
197:+
139:)
135:(
128:)
124:(
117:)
113:(
103:)
99:(
86:)
82:(
75:)
71:(
64:)
60:(
53:)
49:(
42:)
38:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
