Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard +  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics ( Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks +  Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks. Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page.

1) Administrators should lead by example and should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, serious disruption of Wikipedia, especially when repeated, through behavior such as incivility and personal attacks, is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators.

Support:

1. SilkTork ( talk) 21:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Cabayi ( talk) 06:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Worm^TT( talk) 07:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Primefac ( talk) 08:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
5. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
6. — Wug· a·po·des 20:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
8. GeneralNotability ( talk) 22:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
9. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

2) Administrators are expected to lead by example 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 Wikipedia as a whole.

Support:

1. SilkTork ( talk) 21:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Cabayi ( talk) 06:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Worm^TT( talk) 07:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Primefac ( talk) 08:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
5. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
6. — Wug· a·po·des 20:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
8. GeneralNotability ( talk) 22:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
9. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

3) Wikipedia 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 disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited.

Support:

1. SilkTork ( talk) 21:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Cabayi ( talk) 06:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Worm^TT( talk) 07:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Primefac ( talk) 08:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
5. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
6. — Wug· a·po·des 20:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
8. GeneralNotability ( talk) 22:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
9. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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 not personally attack 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. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit, damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia.

Support:

1. SilkTork ( talk) 21:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Cabayi ( talk) 06:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Worm^TT( talk) 07:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Primefac ( talk) 08:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
5. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
6. — Wug· a·po·des 20:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
8. GeneralNotability ( talk) 22:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
9. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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 personal attack.

Support:

1. SilkTork ( talk) 21:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Cabayi ( talk) 06:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Worm^TT( talk) 07:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Primefac ( talk) 08:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
5. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
6. — Wug· a·po·des 20:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
8. GeneralNotability ( talk) 22:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
9. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

6) Policy states: "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.

Support:

1. SilkTork ( talk) 21:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Cabayi ( talk) 06:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Worm^TT( talk) 07:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Primefac ( talk) 08:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
5. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
6. — Wug· a·po·des 20:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
8. GeneralNotability ( talk) 22:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
9. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

7) The Arbitration Committee is tasked with handling "removal of administrative tools" and "serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve" ( Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy § Scope and responsibilities). The community, however, retains the authority to use measures for addressing misconduct of administrators, including admonishments and reminders as well as topic bans, interaction bans, and other restrictions. Accordingly, discussions about improper conduct by an administrator should not be preemptively or prematurely closed in favour of Arbitration if a less severe sanction than removal of administrator permissions is a plausible outcome of the discussion.

Support:

1. SilkTork ( talk) 21:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Cabayi ( talk) 06:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Worm^TT( talk) 07:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

   Primefac ( talk) 08:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. We are the only people who can desysop and "well try lesser sanctions" is passing the buck. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
2. I agree with the general sentiment---the community should feel that they can impose sanctions on administrators---but it's not clear how or why this principle applies to this case. The parts of the arbitration policy quoted, in my reading, identifies two distinct jurisdictions: (1) removal of administrative tools and (2) serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. I read it as analogous to the cases and controversies clause of the US constitution. In Cohens v. Virginia (1821) Chief Justice John Marshall described this distinction as: "In the first, jurisdiction depends on the character of the cause, whoever may be the parties[...]without making in its terms any exception whatever[...]. In the second class, the jurisdiction depends entirely on the character of the parties. [...]if these be the parties, it is entirely unimportant, what may be the subject of controversy. Be it what it may, these parties have a constitutional right to come into the courts of the Union." With that in mind, I view our jurisdiction as similarly distinguished. We have jurisdiction over "cases" because of the nature of the dispute ("serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve"), and we have jurisdiction over "controversies" because of who is party to the dispute ("removal of administrative tools", i.e., administrators). In my mind, the arbitration policy gives the community every right to come before the committee and request that we review the grant of administrative tools. We can use our judgement in determining whether to grant the request, but the principle as written conflates what I see as two separate considerations when determining whether we have jurisdiction. I also generally agree with Guerillero and Barkeep. — Wug· a·po·des 20:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
3. This feels like yelling at the community for asking us to take this case, I don't get it. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
4. The arguments above are compelling. Primefac ( talk) 08:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Agreed with the above. GeneralNotability ( talk) 22:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
6. I agree with the above comments that this principle is inappropriate in the specific context of this case. However, I am concerned about the more general tendency to close off discussions about an administrator due solely to a pending case request, and would support this principle in an appropriate case. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

While I have been (and remain) inactive on the case as a whole, I was active for the case request. And I'm really surprised to see this principle. First I don't think it's matched by any Finding of Fact so it's not clear what the community did wrong here. As best I can tell, the sense is that the community came too fast to ArbCom and should have passed an iban. First, I will note that normally this principle is used when threads themselves are closed down too quickly. This thread was closed three days after the case request. Hardly hasty in my mind. Second, I think it's deeply unfair to the community. If they had passed an iban that doesn't seem like it changes the vote of a majority of the committee to handle the case in order to explore whether a deysop is appropriate. The acceptance of the case is its own evidence that the filing was not premature. I urge the arbs to substantially rework this princple and craft a matching FoF or else to not pass it at all. Barkeep49 ( talk) 13:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

1) Scottywong has been on Wikipedia 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.

Support:

1. SilkTork ( talk) 21:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Cabayi ( talk) 07:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Scotty's tools are excellent, and have helped behind many editors behind the scenes. Scotty is definitely one of our "technical admins". Worm^TT( talk) 07:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Primefac ( talk) 08:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
5. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
6. — Wug· a·po·des 20:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
8. GeneralNotability ( talk) 23:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
9. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

2) Scottywong has a history of using blunt and combative language on Wikipedia. This was noted as far back as their first RFA (2011), and again, though more lightly, during their second, successful, RfA (2012). In August 2013, Scottywong made insensitive remarks about Chelsea Manning. During the Manning naming dispute case, the remarks were considered problematic, though no finding regarding them was passed. Scottywong formally renounced those remarks during the 2020 ArbCom elections. Scottywong was also involved in a long term dispute with Eric Corbett, resulting in two AN reports: Conduct unbecoming of an administrator (2014), and Further attempts to bait Eric_Corbett (2019); both of which ended inconclusively. And in 2022 Scottywong called an IP editor a "second class citizen". Scottywong describes themself as " the type of person that speaks their mind". During this case Scottywong has stated that they have become aware of the need " to resist the urge to boldly speak my mind when I'm in a frustrated or annoyed state" and to step back at times.

Support:

1. SilkTork ( talk) 21:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Drawing a thread between the Manning and ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ incidents suggest Scotty has a problem playing nice with users outside his cultural comfort zone. But drawing such a thread between two incidents, a decade apart, is also tenuous. Cabayi ( talk) 07:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
3. I do support this, simply because it is all accurate. However, I would say that I weakly support it, due to the age of some of the factors. For example, regarding the Manning naming dispute, Scotty's comments were among the worst there, yet, I was one of the arbitrators that failed to hold him to account as I was too focused on the language of the finding. While I regret that and would act differently today, Scotty has also made it clear that he regrets his comments and would act differently today.
   The parallel I do find interesting though, is regarding the lack of appreciation for the balance of power. Both the Eric Corbett issues and the IP comments highlight to me that Scotty does not appreciate the weight of responsibility that his position affords, nor the damage that his words can do whilst spoken from that position. Worm^TT( talk) 07:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Primefac ( talk) 08:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
5. GeneralNotability ( talk) 23:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
6. Per WTT. — Wug· a·po·des 06:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
7. As factual statements. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. this feels too much like SYNTH to me-- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

3) ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ registered their account in Nov 2014 making two edits, then started editing regularly in 2020. They created a bot, User:MalnadachBot, in May 2021, which has made 11,637,095 approved edits.

Support:

1. SilkTork ( talk) 21:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Cabayi ( talk) 07:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
3. I double checked, because a lot of the SUL accounts were linked in 2019, but 2020 is correct. Worm^TT( talk) 07:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Primefac ( talk) 08:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
5. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
6. — Wug· a·po·des 20:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Beeblebrox ( talk) 15:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
8. GeneralNotability ( talk) 23:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
9. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

4) ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's non-Latin username complies with Username policy, though users were advised at the time that "other scripts are illegible to most contributors to the English Wikipedia". The text of the section was updated during the ANI discussion to "such usernames may appear illegible to other contributors".

Support:

1. SilkTork ( talk) 21:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
2. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ is active on other wiki projects where the username is native. The sig is the default format. There is no reason that ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ owes more consideration to enwiki than any other WMF project. Cabayi ( talk) 07:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Primefac ( talk) 08:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Our username policy is clear - non-Latin characters are allowed, and acceptable. We might encourage Latin characters in our signatures, but again it is not a requirement and no user has the right to enforce the "encouraged" policy upon another. The recent change to the policy appears to make this more true. Worm^TT( talk) 08:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
5. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
6. Per above — Wug· a·po·des 20:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Beeblebrox ( talk) 15:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
8. GeneralNotability ( talk) 23:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
9. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

5) Scottywong made two proposals on the Village Pump in Feb 2023, targeted at ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's bot: [1], and in Jan 2022, objected on the Bots Noticeboard to the bot performing clean up tasks - [2]. Then continued to make complaints: [3] (June 2022), [4] (Feb 2023).

Support:

1. SilkTork ( talk) 21:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Cabayi ( talk) 07:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Primefac ( talk) 08:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Worm^TT( talk) 08:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
5. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
6. — Wug· a·po·des 20:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Beeblebrox ( talk) 15:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
8. GeneralNotability ( talk) 23:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
9. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

6a) In April 2023, ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ made two manual lint error edits to Scottywong's archive signature. [5] [6] 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. [7] In response, Scottywong complained about the "annoying useless edits", and made reference to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's user name in a derogatory fashion, contrary to the No personal attacks policy.

Support:

1. SilkTork ( talk) 21:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Scotty's comments dragged the discussion to the lowest level which is undesirable from any editor, let alone an admin. Cabayi ( talk) 07:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Primefac ( talk) 08:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Second choice Worm^TT( talk) 08:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Beeblebrox ( talk) 15:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
6. GeneralNotability ( talk) 23:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Second choice to 6b — Wug· a·po·des 06:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
8. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. two fofs about the same comment is a bit much -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

6b) In April 2023, ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ made two manual lint error edits to Scottywong's archive signature. [8] [9] This was in spite of Scottywong's objections to lint errors being fixed, leading him to put a "nobot" template on his archives. [10] In response, Scottywong complained about the "annoying useless edits", and made reference to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's user name in a manner that has been perceived as racist, contrary to the No personal attacks policy.

Support:

1. The intent may not have been racist but the effect & perception certainly was. Cabayi ( talk) 07:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

   Thanks WTT. Xenophobic is more apposite. Cabayi ( talk) 08:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

2. This is my first choice. "perceived to be racist" is accurate, multiple users have stated it. I have changed the title to "in a xenophobic manner" @ Cabayi, I hope you don't object. I think it's clear the comment was xenophobic and I believe it is clear that it has been perceived as racist. Worm^TT( talk) 08:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
3. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
4. We seem to be living in a time where people feel that as long as they can tell themselves that they did not intend to come across as being racist or xenophobic, that's ok, espescially if they "have a friend" of another race or ethnicity. I don't agree. Beeblebrox ( talk) 15:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
5. This is a true statement. SilkTork ( talk) 13:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
6. Whether or not it was Scottywong's intent, these were certainly xenophobic comments. GeneralNotability ( talk) 23:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
7. I think the title could be improved, but the text itself is fine to me. An editor was disparaged because of and with reference to their perceived ethnicity which is worth noting explicitly. I considered whether we might wish to be more understated as in 6a, but I think that obfuscates the primary issue at hand here. — Wug· a·po·des 06:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

: There was some discussion around the potentially racist nature of Scottywong's comments, so it feels appropriate to have an option on such a finding. I felt there was a certain "otherness" about the comments, and I see a relationship between these comments, those regarding the IP as a second class citizen, and those regarding Manning, so I can understand the argument that the comments could be seen as racist. They were unpleasant, mean, hurtful, antagonistic, etc., and are not the comments that any user, let alone an admin, should be making to other users of the site (and at the time, ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ was a user in good standing); however, I'm not convinced that the comments were intended to be racist. SilkTork ( talk) 21:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments:

I need to think about this one. I think the wording currently means that 6a and 6b can both be true and pass - what people interpret as racist can definitely be derogatory, even if the intent was never that. If this does pass I think we might need a 6c that indicates whether Scottywong refuted the racism claim. Primefac ( talk) 08:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I am still not a fan of the wording here, and prefer 6a. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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 bot, MalnadachBot, has also been blocked.

Support:

1. SilkTork ( talk) 21:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Cabayi ( talk) 07:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Primefac ( talk) 08:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Noting that from the evidence I've seen, this isn't a "smoking gun" case, but I do agree with the conclusion of the checkusers. Worm^TT( talk) 09:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
5. I find the CU evidence compelling when taken as a whole -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
6. — Wug· a·po·des 20:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
7. I think it is important to note that, while the case request may have accelerated events, it was not the primary reason for this block. Beeblebrox ( talk) 15:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
8. I'm pretty sure it's okay for me to support here as blocking checkuser, but will abstain if people feel that is necessary. This is an accurate high-level summary of events. GeneralNotability ( talk) 23:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
9. Sure. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

• I tweaked the wording slightly, removed "short-term" since it's kind of confusing when we talk about long-term abusers. Ping SilkTork since you voted already. GeneralNotability ( talk) 22:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  That's fine. SilkTork ( talk) 06:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

8) Scottywong made unnecessary attacks on ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's character during the case: [11]. 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 Wikipedia.

Support:

1. SilkTork ( talk) 21:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Cabayi ( talk) 07:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Primefac ( talk) 08:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
4. I have concerns that Scotty has focused on the block and therefore assumed bad faith of every action taken by ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ, whilst moving away from introspection, which is needed. Worm^TT( talk) 09:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
5. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
6. Puppeteer or not, Scotty didn't know about the sockpuppets when he engaged in the prior conduct, so that information is not particularly relevant to whether his conduct was justified. As WTT points out, Scotty seemed focused on finding fault in others rather than considering his contribution to the issue. — Wug· a·po·des 20:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
7. "Two wrongs don't make a right" is something I was taught as a small child. It's not a difficult concept. Beeblebrox ( talk) 15:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
8. GeneralNotability ( talk) 23:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Wikipedia arbitration is a confusing process and the scope of appropriate discussion here is not necessarily always clear for non-experts. It was wrong, but perhaps understandable, for Scottywong to focus on ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ instead of his own behavior. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. I've been reviewing this decision for a little while, and thinking about Scotty. Scotty is, in some respects, an excellent administrator. From a technical perspective, he writes tools and queries, he has run bots - all very helpful. From an activity perspective, he's used the tool kit well and the fact that his decisions haven't been particularly questioned at an arbcom case speaks volumes.
   There's a flip side, however, and that is that Scotty doesn't appear to appreciate that the role is more than just a technical / janitorial one. It is one where an individual is expected to lead by example, where your words carry more weight and can therefore do more damage. Philosophically, we may believe that administrators are simply members of the community, but practically and pragmatically, the role encompasses more than that. The pattern I see, is that Scottywong goes looking for fights and then his level of discourse targets the individual personally, something that is made worse through his position of power.
   This leads me back to something that Floquenbeam said in the preliminary statements. Would Scottywong pass an RfA today, I believe almost certainly not. That's not our threshold for removal though, many administrators may not pass an RfA today, myself included. However, more interestingly, Floquenbeam said "If there were a functioning community desysop/reconfirmation process, I do not think his adminship would survive intact." Well, there is a community desysop process - and it is Arbcom. We don't only desysop for abuse of the tools, we desysop based on loss of trust of the community. We desysop if we believe there is a likelihood of recurrence of issues that would bring the project into disrepute. On these points, I do support a removal of Scottywong's admin rights. Worm^TT( talk) 09:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Admins need the wisdom to stop digging when they are neck-deep in a hole. SW has shown an inability to do so. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
3. There seems to be broad agreement that Scotty is, most of the time, a great Wikipedian. Unfortunatley, some of the time, he acts in a manner that we just don't want to see from an administrator, ever. As always, the hope here is to reatin "Scotty the great Wikipedian" while removing "Scotty the problematic admin." Beeblebrox ( talk) 15:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Scotty's comments frame his evidence as offering context. I see the context for a discussion of ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's ill-considered action in manually finishing his bot's work. Oh! the tempting perils of an unfinished to-do list. What I do not see is any context, mitigation, justification or excuse for a detour into raci xenophobia. "Play the ball and not the man"
   I'm also swayed by Beeblebrox's comment on the issue of an admin carrying an IBAN, and by WTT's point that "we desysop based on loss of trust of the community". So, and this is not where I saw things going at the outset of the process, I end up voting for a desysop. Cabayi ( talk) 07:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
5. I've ended up here. I'm not comfortable with the continued negative commentary on ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ, which suggests unsatisfactory self-reflection shown by Scottywong by continuing the bickering into the case, and even onto the PD talkpage. Let it go. It doesn't matter that ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ was caught as a sock, as that had no relevance to the incident. That an admin is unable to drop the stick even when taken to ArbCom is not a good look. And with the IBan passing - that has tipped me over and caused me to really wake up to the situation here. That a majority of Committee members feel that an admin can't be trusted to voluntarily stop talking negatively to or about another user indicates that the admin can no longer be trusted with the tools. SilkTork ( talk) 13:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
6. Everyone above has covered my thoughts. There were a lot of opportunities for self-reflection and course correction at AN/I, at the case request, and even during this case, which we just haven't seen. GeneralNotability ( talk) 23:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
7. I think WTT gets closest to my own feelings. Honestly, Scotty has shown a fair amount of change and reflection over his long tenure here (e.g. FoF 2, Scotty's evidence), and while it may not be timely, enough, or ideal it is better than a lot of people who reach this stage. Genuinely, I think Scotty can learn (has learned?) from this and could be a good admin in the future. However, I think the body to evaluate that and make the decision is the community at some point in the future. Given the nature of this incident, I am not comfortable projecting into the future whether sufficient change will have occurred. I would rather Scotty demonstrate the depth of that change and then present evidence of that change in an RfA. Having the community evaluate evidence of demonstrated change is better than me deciding based on what I project might happen, and that's what pushed me over into supporting this remedy. — Wug· a·po·des 06:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
8. I have spent several hours mulling specifically this remedy over, and I reluctantly support it broadly per Wugapodes. I've been on ArbCom for quite a few ADMINCOND cases over the years, and Wugapodes is absolutely right that Scottywong has reflected and apologized more genuinely and meaningfully than pretty much any other admin I've voted to desysop (including at ANI and at the case request), which is a big part of why this vote is hard for me.
   There are a few reasons—none of which may be individually sufficient but collectively tipping the scale—why I am voting to desysop: (1) ArbCom plays a real role in shaping the culture of what is and isn't acceptable here. It would send a bad message about what behavior we will tolerate if we leave a sysop in place who not only used derogatory belittling language in relation to a user's non-English username but also only half-apologized for it several times after inquiries including from other administrators. (2) The community holds administrators to high standards in recognition of sysops' social and cultural power, which can be—wittingly or not—wielded in hostility. (3) A big chunk of the community, as far as I can tell, has at ANI lost confidence in Scottywong continuing as an administrator, and they lack a process other than ArbCom to do so.
   But I am also mindful that some of the ideas on which this vote is based are somewhere between aspirational principles and polite fictions. Those ideas include that desysopping is reversible by the community at RfA (technically true but very difficult) and that sysop tools are something we should take away for net-positive reasons while keeping the editor (aspirationally correct but in practice I think we should be prepared to lose editors fully in a lot of cases when desysopping them — not out of drama or spite but because that's a natural human reaction).
   Ultimately, I wish there was an acceptable intermediate sanction for administrators—I would rather vote for, e.g., a remedy suspending his tools for six months. But I understand the community's concern that sysop is a high-trust role, and that if someone needs a suspension, they no longer enjoy the trust of the community for the sysop role. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
9. Scottywong said at one point that he intended to respond "forcefully" to Malnadach to convey his frustration. That's not automatically bad. Everyone words comments differently based on how strongly they feel. But deliberately writing an antagonistic comment (i.e. the initial one, with "squiggles") and trying to be uncivil; to try to get the other editor to stop participating in the project (because that is the obvious tone of the comments); that's not great - epecially when every indicator is showing "user should know better". It's reasonable that community members have lost confidence in Scottywong, and so I'm here. Enterprisey ( talk!) 13:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. This case is largely the result of an ongoing and intractable difference of opinion between two users, in which one of them chose to use inappropriate language as a result of their frustration with the other. I stand by my statements from the initial case request, in that this alone should not rise to the level where we would expect a desysop. However, despite the many apologies about the original statements made (which I choose to believe are reasonably genuine) I do agree with my colleagues that as the case went on Scottywong chose to make the case about ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ as a defence against his own actions towards that user.
   We have all been in frustrating situations and acted in a manner unbecoming of an administrator (myself included) but it is how we handle ourselves after the inciting incident has passed that defines us. I am still not fully convinced that this one incident should have risen to the level where we desysop, but with all of the caveats and addenda that need to be written following such a statement, I cannot fully oppose this motion either. Primefac ( talk) 08:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments:

• I've been undecided about this from the start, and the case has not clarified my thinking. I'd been aware of Scottywong as a solid contributor to the project, so I was somewhat shocked and disappointed to read what they said to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ, though thought that was just an isolated moment of the frustrated madness that can touch all of us at some point when involved in Wikipedia. But then to discover what they had said regarding Manning and the IP editor, neither of which was appropriately dealt with at the time, concerned me. The case didn't turn up substantial evidence of other examples of such behaviour, and I started to get the impression that Scottywong's "bold" behaviour and "plain speaking" language was something that the community was aware of and tolerated because we all get angry now and again and say things we later regret. And I was balancing that against my own feeling that not only did I not want an admin to behave in that way, but also I didn't want any user behaving that way. Scottywong appears to me to be like a parent or partner who is decent most of the time, but then throws a wobbly and berates and insults their child or partner in a disturbing manner. I don't like what I have read, and I don't like the way that Scottywong behaved during the case in which they shifted the blame to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ. So where I am now is wondering if my dislike of the way Scottywong has behaved is personal to me, or if there is something more rooted in their behaviour and our civility and admin policies to justify a desysopping. We have historically had a problem with enforcing civility because it can be difficult to get a uniform understanding of a) what constitutes incivility and b) what constitutes mitigation. What I think we all agree on is that someone who is consistently or egregiously uncivil should not be an admin, and someone who is both consistently and egregiously uncivil should not be on Wikipedia. In this situation I am not yet sure if a few episodes over a period of many years can be regarded as "consistently" or if the outburst against ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ can be sufficiently widely regarded as egregious. The inconsistency in the views put forward by the community and fellow Arbs during the case request adds to my uncertainty. SilkTork ( talk) 11:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  The blame dleflecting was for sure a factor in my decision, along with the sheer level of what looks to me to be deliberately being overly nasty to a user, any user, even one who may have been a sock. As I've mentioned on our mailing list, the timeline makes it clear that Scotty knew perfectly well what to call ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ/Malnadach and was just being unpleasant for the sake of it. Beeblebrox ( talk) 02:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

2a) Scottywong is admonished for engaging in personal attacks, using abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases, and for poor admin conduct by not leading by example and not behaving in the respectful, civil manner expected of all users. Scottywong is cautioned to abide by the policies governing admin conduct as well as the civility policy. If within one year of this decision, Scottywong fails to abide by the admin conduct policy or engages in personal attacks or serious uncivil behaviour, a request may be made to this Committee at WP:ARCA to consider whether further action, up to desysopping, is necessary.

Support:

1. I support this. I'm considering whether I support a desysop, and if a desysop passes, I will no longer support this. Worm^TT( talk) 09:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
2. I'm not actually decided on the desysop sanction; however, between "admonished and cautioned" and simply "admonished", I would land here. My quibble is if one year is sufficient. See how the voting and discussion goes, and if an indefinite caution might be worth looking at. I might actually prefer an indefinite caution to a desysop. SilkTork ( talk) 13:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC) To clarify - I support this if the desyop sanction doesn't pass, but if it does this becomes moot and so I no longer support. SilkTork ( talk) 13:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Assuming Remedy 1 does not pass, I support this motion. Primefac ( talk) 08:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
4. As a minimum. I'm still considering the desysop. Cabayi ( talk) 09:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC) Second choice to the desysop. Cabayi ( talk) 07:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Second choice to R1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. insufficient -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Beeblebrox ( talk) 15:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Not good enough for me. GeneralNotability ( talk) 23:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
4. I like the spirit, but as I said in my support of remedy 1, I'd rather we leave the evaluation up to the community in a future RfA. — Wug· a·po·des 06:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

2b) Scottywong is admonished for engaging in personal attacks, using abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases, and for poor admin conduct by not leading by example and not behaving in the respectful, civil manner expected of all users.

Support:

Oppose:

1. Insufficient to 2a. Worm^TT( talk) 09:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
2. SilkTork ( talk) 13:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Insufficient. Cabayi ( talk) 16:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
4. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Primefac ( talk) 08:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
6. Beeblebrox ( talk) 15:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
7. I'd support 2a before this. GeneralNotability ( talk) 23:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
8. — Wug· a·po·des 06:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

3) Scottywong is reminded to be aware of when they may become frustrated, and to step back from incidents if they feel heated.

Support:

1. SilkTork ( talk) 21:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply

   Insufficient on its own, but as a non-exclusive remedy and a general point, yes. Cabayi ( talk) 16:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC) strike as a redundant remedy now that other remedies have passed. Cabayi ( talk) 09:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

2. Seems like a reasonable reminder, even if the desysop passes. GeneralNotability ( talk) 23:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. This level of finger wagging is insufficient. Worm^TT( talk) 09:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
2. while true, I find it unhelpful to talk to an adult as if he is a 5-year old on the playground -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
3. We all make mistakes, as I always say it what we do after we make a mistake that is the true test of character. Scotty is an adult. It is reasonable to expect a little self-control. Beeblebrox ( talk) 15:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Per Guerillero. I think we've made this point without needing to pass it as a formal remedy. — Wug· a·po·des 06:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Primefac ( talk) 08:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
6. per above Cabayi ( talk) 09:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

• I felt this should be considered separate from any other sanction. So, even if Scottywong is desysopped it would still be appropriate for them to be reminded to step back from incidents if they feel heated. SilkTork ( talk) 10:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  I see where you are coming from, and it's a great recommendation. Scotty has considered it himself on these very pages. However, in relation to this decision, I think it's needed to be considered alongside the other sanctions, and with the possibility that it is the only thing that passes, and so I cannot support. Worm^TT( talk) 10:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

4) Scottywong ( talk · contribs) and ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ ( talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Support:

1. Though ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ is currently banned, there is an appeal open, so it makes sense to have this option, even though it is unlikely it will be needed. SilkTork ( talk) 21:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Scotty needs to stop talking about ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ whether or not they return. Worm^TT( talk) 09:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
3. I concur with the previous. Primefac ( talk) 09:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Cabayi ( talk) 16:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
5. drop the stick and back away from the horse -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
6. Whatever the future holds, it is clear that these two need to stay away from one another, whetrher Scotty is still an admin or not. I would add my usual argument that any admin who needs an interaction ban aimed at them to stop disruptiuon is de facto unfit to continue being an admin. Beeblebrox ( talk) 15:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Per SilkTork and WTT. GeneralNotability ( talk) 23:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I don't see the need? I would also like to see Scotty drop the stick, but enforcing that with an IBAN where the other party literally can't even log in seems excessive. These aren't free, and it will eat up editor resources through clarification, monitoring, enforcement, and general drama that accompanies those. Even those rather hypothetical harms seem to outweigh the pros I might imagine. Maybe it's me but I don't see why this is useful. — Wug· a·po·des 07:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Per Wugapodes. Restrictions aren't free—not for the restricted person, for the enforcing administrators, and for the community. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Comments:

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 20:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 17:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC) by MJL. reply

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Administrator conduct	9	0	0		·
2	Leading by example	9	0	0		·
3	Decorum	9	0	0		·
4	Expressing concern	9	0	0		·
5	No personal attacks	9	0	0		·
6	Conduct during arbitration cases	9	0	0		·
7	Community handling of administrator misconduct	3	6	0		Cannot pass
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Scottywong	9	0	0		·
2	Scottywong's manner	7	1	0		·
3	ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ	9	0	0		·
4	ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's username	9	0	0		·
5	Prior disputes between ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ and Scottywong	9	0	0		·
6a	Scottywong speaks to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ in a derogatory fashion	8	1	0		·	2 support votes are second choice to 6b. Still passes with 6.
6b	Scottywong speaks to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ in a xenophobic manner	7	0	0		·
7	During the case ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ was globally locked	9	0	0		·
8	Scottywong's behaviour during the case	8	0	1		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Scottywong desysopped	9	0	1		·
2a	Scottywong admonished and cautioned	5	4	0		Cannot pass	4 support votes are second choice to desysop, which is passing
2b	Scottywong admonished	0	8	0		Cannot pass
3	Scottywong reminded	2	6	0		Cannot pass
4	Scottywong and ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ interaction ban	7	2	0		·
Proposed Enforcement
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
0	Enforcement of restrictions	0	0	0		·	Passes by default
0	Appeals and modifications	0	0	0		·	Passes by default

Notes

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The arbitration clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, or faster if an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support

1. The most important statements have all reached majority. Primefac ( talk) 08:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Worm^TT( talk) 09:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Cabayi ( talk) 09:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
4. SilkTork ( talk) 10:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
5. We clearly have a result here. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose

Comments