Wikipediocracy launches ArbCom case against ScottyWong

[Boink Boink]

The title may confuse you, but such are the very, very deep links these days between Wikipediocracy and the powerful insiders of Wikipedia, the almost surely to be accepted Arbitration Case against ScottyWong will in effect be a process that was instigated and no doubt mostly prosecuted by Wikipediocracy. They will get the result they have so desperately wanted for years, the desysopping of ScottyWong, who they hate with a passion.

The genesis of this case is the direct result of the actions of two mysterious helpers, 192.76.8.65 and 58.182.35.249.

Seizing on a mistake by Scotty, where he has been very rude to some foreign dickwad which is allegedly the reason they have seemingly left with for good, 65 filed the complaint against ScottyWong at the Administrative Incidents Noticeboard, and 249 made the sub-proposal therein that suggests taking the case to ArbCom.

Since mysterious helpers can no longer file Case Requests, it was filed by User:GhostOfDanGurney, who was fortuitously just browsing AN/I, happened to notice the complaint, agree with it, and so BOLDly filed a Case Request as an uninvolved non-Administrator. As you do.

I can't prove GhostOfDanGurney is the Wikipedia account of a long time Wikipediocraxy member and long time enemy of ScottyWong under some previous or even active undeclared sock, I just know it is true.

I don't have proof that 65 and 249 are members of Wikipediocracy either, I just know it is true. Indeed, 249 basically makes it clear and obvious.

The initial complaint.....

Scottywong's bullying of ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ
So I noticed earlier today that MalnadachBot hasn't edited in over a month, this seemed rather unusual to me because that bot is one the main lint error fixers on the site. Looking a bit further it appears the bot's operator hasn't edited in nearly the same time period, and one of the last things they did was engage in a talk page thread with Scottywong. It appears that Scottywong has bullied ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ off the site with some grossly inappropriate comments.

I include some of Scottywong's comments towards ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ here for context.

Extended content

* How on earth is this an appropriate manner for an administrator to be interacting with another user? Even more concerningly every single policy reference Scottywong gives does not support what they claim it does.

* How is it appropriate for an administrator to be engaging in childish, purile name calling and refering to other editors with names like Mr. Squiggles or user with non-English characters on the English Wikipedia.

* How on earth is "you have a username in a script other than Latin" evidence of a CIR issue? Policy explicitly allows for non-Latin usernames (WP:NONLATIN) and this editor is using their real name. Frankly this just comes across as racist - "your name is foreign so you're incompetent" is a grossly inappropriate thing to insinuate.

* How on earth are three edits made over the course of an hour evidence of a meatbot violation? The edits were not being made at a rapid pace, were not made with an automated tool and the editor has repeatedly gained consensus for making them, including in an RFC that Scottywong started.

* Why was Scottywong playing stupid, passive aggressive games with the nobots template instead of just asking the editor not to edit their archives.

* Why is Scottywong claiming that the fact that ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ didn't pick up on the fact that they were using the nobots template as passive aggressive nonsense as evidence of a CIR issue?

* How is "you have a border on your userpage" evidence of a CIR issue? What part of policy would support blocking someone because they added a decorative border to their userpage?

* How is "I don't like the font on your userpage" evidence of a CIR issue?

* What on earth are they referring to when they say your bot's historical performance record is evidence of a CIR issue? The performance record that lead to MalnadachBot being given the go ahead to fix any lint error on the site?

Scottywong's messages seem completely out of line. The name calling and tone are extremely inappropriate, especially coming from an administrator, a position that requires that editors behave in a respectful, civil manner (WP:ADMINCOND). It is deeply concerning that Scottywong doesn't seem to have read or understood any of the policies they quote, and misuses them in grossly inappropriate ways (how is it acceptable to threaten to CIR block a user for having a non-Latin name?). And how on earth is that first message a reasonable reaction to an editor making two edits in your userspace? 192.76.8.65 (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The sub-proposal.....

Proposal: Send to Arbcom

In the main thread above, more than two dozen editors have criticised Scottywong for his comments and there is unanimous agreement that his comments are incompatible with how admins are expected to behave. This indicates that Scottywong has lost the trust of community to continue to hold adminship. Since desysopping someone is not within the remit of AN/I, the thread should be closed and an Arbcom request should be filed. 58.182.35.249 (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

* Support as proposer. Since his last comment in this thread on June 1 and claiming to not monitor this, Scottywong has continued to discuss this on Wikipediocracy (members only thread) and making comments which are contrary to his apologies above. He has claimed in Wikipediocracy that there is no evidence that Malnadach was "sufficiently offended" by his comments, that it is "pure bullsh*t" that anyone would infer his comments as racist or xenophobic. This shows that his apologies above are not sincere; he is just pretending to show remorse onwiki to escape sanctions. If we had a community based desysop procedure, this would have been more than enough to invoke it. However in absence of that, we should file a formal request for arbitration. 58.182.35.249 (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, the first two substantive contributions to the Case Request from people who know that it is not sufficient to speak to the triggering incident if you want acceptance, but to also show there is a long term pattern of behaviour, have come from Wikipedia Administrators who also happen to be long time members of Wikipediocracy, namely Moneytress and Boing! Both have submitted incredibly long posts which draw on incidents most Wikipedia editors have surely long forgotten. Moneytress supplies the details, Bojng! supplies the tut tuts. Quite the team.

To those of you who might be thinking, where's the issue here? Isn't it wonderful that Wikipedia governance is finally working? That even mere IP editors can raise issues with Administrators whose misbehaviour has been apparent for over a decade, and their concerns will be listened to and acted upon?

To you people, I say go fuck yourselves, you naive fools.

I am in the business of Wikipedia crticism precisely because this is not the norm. Not even close.

Justice for outsiders is impossible to achieve on Wikipedia. And they most assuredly NEVER gives a shit about outsiders complaints that Administrators are throwing their weight around and getting away with it.

What is going on here is so far removed from the norm, it is laughable someone even thought they could do it without feeling the Wrath of Boink Boink.

If you doubt me, let's ask ourselves a few pertinent but simple questions, whose rather obvious answers will show you what is really happening here.

* How often do you see a report being filed at AN/I by an IP editor, especially one that goes so far as to accuse an Administrator in good standing of racism, being left to stand and indeed run its course?

I say never. I say the normal course of events on Wikipedia is for such a report to be reverted and the IP editor blocked indefinitely as an obvious sock intent on disruption or harassment or both. I say that it is precisely because this report would have taken this person a very long time to write, that you can be 100% sure they received reassurances from someone very powerful at Wikipediocracy that if anyone tried to remove it, they would stop them.

* How often do you see an IP editor being allowed to make a sub-proposal in an AN/I report that it should be sent to ArbCom? And for that to actually be left to stand until someone who just happened to be passing does it on their behalf?

I say never. I say that if it wasn't already SUSPICIOUS AS FUCK that 65's very knowledgeable post about things IP editors typically have no knowledge of was allowed to happen without any Wikipedia Administrator intervening to enforce PROJSOCK, then the fact it didn't occur after 249's proposal, is concrete proof that someone in a position to do so, has ensured that for this one single purpose, holding ScottyWong to account, an exception to PDOJSOCK has been authorised.

A conspiracy.

Given that the loudest voices in the report are Boing!, whom is also the first to as it were legitimize 249's proposal by supporting it, and the fact this was not actually a report about a recent incident at all but something which any editor or indeed Administrator in good standing could have raised at any time in the preceding month, I would say it was already clear by this point that the posts of 65 and 249 are the result of secret collision between Wikipediocracy and elements of Wikipedia to take down a mutual enemy.

* How often do you see an Arbitration Request accepted when it can be said with high confidence that it came about solely as the result of off-site coordination and thus any sense of It being a genuine good faith report by an uninvolved editor, is laughable?

I say never. I say a request like that is always tossed out, on the basis that if Wikipedia was ever stupid enough to let it be known that such things are possible, it would be open season on all manner of corrupt Administrators, corruption essentially being endemic in their ranks.

* When has Wikipediocracy or the insiders of Wikipedia ever shown the slightest willingness to let justice be accessible to outsiders? Never mind their routine habit of preventing IPs making reports to AN/I, when has it ever been possible for obvious socks to manage to get as far as filing an Arbitration Case Request against a Wikipedia Administrator?

I say never, these days. Indeed, I would remind people that it is precisely because Wikipediocracy is packed to the rafters with Wikipedia insiders who are deeply committed to the idea that there is and should not be justice on Wikipedia for anyone, least of all outsiders, that when it was proposed a few years ago that because they would only ever be obvious socks, IP editors should be banned from filing Arbitration Case Requests, Wikipediocracy didn't even raise an eyebrow. Actively supported it as a good idea even. How could they not? The people it benefits are their members.

Preventing outsiders from filing Case Requests, be they banned, retired or unwilling to expose their main accounts to retribution, is the single biggest reason why corruption and abuse of power in the Administrative ranks has flourished in the last decade of Wikipedia. They police their own. Accountability is a myth.

In the same way Amercian police forces don't really care if one of their own is a racist scumbag who commits murder as if it were a routine part of their job, Wikipedia Administrators have always turned a blind eye to the same sort of casual and sometimes horrific abuses of what are considered by outsiders to be pillars of the organisation.

Wikipedia says it stands against racism and harassment, so outsiders understandably assume that rooting out racists and harassers is what they do.

I'm an outsider. I know ScottyWong's history. I know the rules he has broken and how to prove it is not just some one off incident but part of a pattern. I have known this for years. The only reason I have never filed an Arbitration Case against him or any other Administrator, is because Wikipedia in its wisdom prevents it.

It is the golden rule of Wikipedia governance. No skin in the game? No justice.

In other words, go fuck yourself.

At a very minimum, to be able to even file a Case Request against an Administrator, let alone have it accepted, you need to be an established Wikipedia editor (so that if necessary you can be targeted for retribution), and you need to prove beyond doubt that there is a pattern of misconduct that requires the (rightfully red and serious) sanctioning of said Administrator. The accepted Case is thereafter a matter of details, or the discovery of even more bodies nobody had a clue about.

Rather obviously, this is not what 65 and 249 brought to the table. But they're going to get what they are after.

The only reason this one has succeeded therefore, is rather clearly because there is something else going on here, something more than just a happy accident where finally, for this one single Administrator, someone is standing up for the rules and the by now frankly mythical idea that Admins are held to a higher standard, and allowing external forces be the driving force behind it.

What most people won't know, is that Wikipediocracy has a deep dislike of ScottyWong not because he breaks the rules, but because he targets the wrong people for the wrong reasons. Scottywong has actually got a very long and proud history of being that very rare thing, a Wikipedia Administrator who isn't afraid to call out his peers.

You would have to be an absolute fucking moron to assume that Wikipediiocracy has EVER been interested in the corruption of Wikipedia and the low standards of Administrator conduct for the mere principle. Look at their membership, for Christ's sake. Some of the very worst offenders! There is always an angle of they are ever seen trying to highlight such things. Always a vested interest. Never the mere principle. Never.

To his credit, Scottywong is a member there too, but only as a definite outsider to the clique. He is disliked there because he gets right up their noses for the exact same reasons he does on Wikipedia. Calling out their hypocrisy and their bullshit, with nothing but stone cold facts.

Since he was usually always correct in his low opinion of his so called colleagues, since his facts always checked out, they could never really stop him on Wikipedia. This is why they instead turned to a toxic waste dump like Wikipedocracy, first as their venue to spot their venom, and now as their means of exacting their revenge.

This stinks to high heaven.

An ironically perfect example of the corrupt ways of Wikipedia.

Needless to say, anyone who still thinks Wikipediocracy is a BADSITE, such the their mere apparent involvement in an internal matter of governance or potentially even policy would see much shrieking from the great and the good of Wikipedia, is looking like a proper fool right now.

They work hand in glove now.

[Kumioko]

Thiscsounds goid in theory however there was, and probanly still is, a rule that IP's cannot open arbcom cases. That is strictly for insiders. No infidels allowed.

[ericbarbour]

previous mention of the little prick.....

viewtopic.php?p=19145#p19145

Seriously, don't call him an "outsider". Does not apply here. This is not the RFA of an "outsider".

Guess I should drop the book-wiki material, it's been a while since I last used it.
So someone finally dragged him to Arbcom. TEN YEARS too late. Meh.

Scottywong

Administrator since 2012, Scottywong has made a fool of himself repeatedly, as a perfect example of the blindly loyal, arm-flapping, and incompetent Wiki-fanboy. His real name remains unknown and unconfirmed. (Wikipediocracy users "tarantino" and "Vigilant" are convinced that "Scottywong" is actually Biamp employee Scott Wieser, email scott.wieser@biamp.com, [1][2]. It appears likely. [3]) He was caught editing Wikipedia for pay, openly running an Elance page for that purpose.

history

First appeared in March 2007 under the name "Snottywong". First work: the creation of the article about CobraNet, an obscure standard digital transmission format used in the pro-audio world. He edited that article hundreds of times, and repeatedly nominated it for Featured Article status. Soon he was arguing with others over articles dealing with professional audio. This was obviously not his first Wikipedia account. He also had many arguments with others over religion and atheism, being a pro-science atheist himself. He also discovered Twinkle, and became a typical deletionist patroller, thus proving himself to be "indispensable".

Among his first "achievements": an attempt in October 2009, to delete a raft of articles about Bose audio products. He aggressively argued for deletion, editwarred, and utterly failed. Even canvassing on Wikipedia Review[4] didn't assist him. He obtained some help in this jeremiad from another pro-audio editor, Michael Knowles, the glorifier of Dan Dugan. As it turned out later, Scottywong was an employee of Biamp Systems, a competitor of Bose in the professional audio field.

In January 2011, he wrote an editing bot called "Snotbot". He had to obtain approval for it twelve times. Irony: it was written to use the Wikipedia Template:Rescue, which was a favorite of the Article Rescue Squadron, and later deleted. (Snotbot was not without its own drama storms:[5][6])

He ran for adminship in February 2011 under the Snottywong name, and failed miserably, by a vote of 43 to 42. He was repeatedly accused of being a hostile deletionist, of fighting with Article Rescue Squadron members, and of making a pest of himself in "Miscellaneous for deletion" discussions. "Oppose Regretfully. Concerns with judgement and maturity. It does not bother me if you're deletionist, but I really wish you wouldn't openly attack the Article Rescue Squadron. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)" This was typical of Scottywong's obsessive war on the ARS.

He changed his name to Scottywong, modified his strategy, and tried for adminship again in March 2012, winning by 89-4. Note that the "oppose" voters were aggressively attacked, and some were forced to change their votes. As soon as he could, he changed his username, and obliterated the records under "Snottywong".

Many are the complaints about him. AFDs and MFDs were a favorite, of course. [7][8][9][10][11] His hatred of Wikipedia critics and gadflies is notorious. [12] And he tried to backstab Dennis Brown when the latter ran for adminship in April 2012. Mr. Wong (if that is his real name) was learning to Wikilawyer effectively.

In May 2012, Scottywong tried to create an article about his employer, Biamp Systems. He even uploaded the company's logo to Wikipedia for use. When called out on it[13][14], he quietly deleted the article. Plus, it was revealed that he was running an Elance page, offering to edit Wikipedia for pay (now deleted). David G. Goodman started reviewing Scotty's edits on the CobraNet article for COI. Apparently nothing else was done. Scottywong had previously attacked others for offers of editing Wikipedia for money, making him look extremely hypocritical.

When Binksternet ran for adminship in March 2013, Scottywong was standing there to support him. So were Ellen Smith and a few other insiders, attacking anyone who placed an "oppose" vote. That same month, Scottywong put the Wikipediocracy site on the "spam blacklist", after others had removed it. He fought a savage, losing battle to keep it there[15].

You are likely to be right about this. Although I doubt anything will be done.

I can't prove GhostOfDanGurney is the Wikipedia account of a long time Wikipediocraxy member and long time enemy of ScottyWong under some previous or even active undeclared sock, I just know it is true.
I don't have proof that 65 and 249 are members of Wikipediocracy either, I just know it is true. Indeed, 249 basically makes it clear and obvious.

Someone should tell the little bastard that "ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ" is a Kannada language term, and if you drop it into Google Translate, it will Romanize it for you: "Malnadach Konkno". Or don't--let him twist in the wind.

[Boink Boink]

Well, the case has claimed it's first victim, and hilariously it isn't Scotty, it's someone who would fit right in at Wikipediocracy.

It is Roxy the dog, who has for years been a classic case of a Vested Contributor, a habitually offensive bastard whose behaviour was continually excused by the sort of Administrator that is a member of Wikipediocracy because he supposedly does good work defending Wikipedia. He fights against pseudoscience, Wikipedians never having really understood that being polite and reasonable to the people you want to go away works much better than blindly reverting them and telling them to fuck off.

He apparently needs all the help he can get from actual science, since he currently has leukaemia and a host of other medical problems, with a long stay in hospital a recently as last month. Coincidentally, so did I, but I have better things to be doing from a hospital bed than pissing around on Wikipedia.

It hasn't saved him from his bad habits finally getting him into hot water. Ironically it came about when he decided to get involved when Maddy from Celeste, a trans editor, took issue with a Case Acceptance vote by SilkTork in which Silk was actually trying to demonstrate Scottywong is a transohobe. SilkTork broke the rule that says you're not allowed to refer to Chelsea Manning as Bradley anywhere on Wikipedia, with minimal exceptions.

Hilariously, SilkTork only did that because he noticed a piece of dirt about Scotty raised by Wikipediocracy member and Arbitrator colleague Moneytrees, and wanted to expand on it with suitably bad sounding quotes. This pissed off Maddy, who high-tailed it right over to SilkTork's talk page to advise him, in case he didn't know, that he had just done what trans people consider "one of the most offensive things you can say" to them.

Roxy chimed in with what some might think was an innocuous comment where he too referred to Manning by their former pronouns and claimed Maddy was over-reacting. Most people who know Roxy's history, can see this was at best his subconscious desire to push back against the the wokerati of Wikipedia doing its thing yet again. At worst, just trolling, and quite literal transphobia.

Whatever it was, he was rather unsurprisingly reported by Maddy to AN/I who wasn't shy about the nature of the problem and their desired remedy.....

Transphobia must not be tolerated, whether the topic is transgender athletes or Siamese hairless cats. Roxy has been given so many chances to improve both in this area and others. It's time to say enough is enough.

Amusingly, Roxy was not in as much trouble as he might have feared. Most people seemed to take a generous interpretation of the comment, and probably not because they want to keep Roxy around. But of course, since a dog can't change his spots and Roxy has always been a rabid mongrel, he put his own sorry ass right in the mixer.

Even then, whether through guile or luck, he still nearly benefited from AGF. The final comment that triggered his block, where he unwisely discussed Maddy's mandatory AN/I notification, might seem relatively harmless to those not well practised in antI-discrimination....

I think thats a tremendous overreaction. Manning is well known by both names. - Roxy the dog 10:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure but unless she has indicated it's fine which AFAIK she has not, her dead name should not be mentioned on Wikipedia except when needed per MOS:GENDERID which is very very rare for a user comment. It does not matter how well known the name is. Nor how often people do so elsewhere, whether because they're unaware of the deadname issue, or who are and are transphobic. On Wikipedia it's not how we do things. Considering your activity in this area, you really should know this already and I can understand why Maddy is so concerned that you don't seem to. Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

But that horse has bolted, The point here is that her pretransition name isn't a deadname. What Maddy is doing is standard transexual hounding of people they dont like. - Roxy the dog 15:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Per MOS:GENDERID it is on Wikipedia unless she has indicated otherwise. If you aren't willing to accept that then you can fuck off from at a minimum anything to do with BLPs and transgender issues, but frankly all of Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

lovely. - Roxy the dog 15:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Roxy, what exactly do you mean by "standard transexual hounding"? If you are implying what I think you're implying, that is blatant discrimination. – bradv 15:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

.....but in truth, Roxy had absolutely fucked himself.

Brad blocked them for two weeks without waiting for an answer.

The comment has completely turned the AN/I report against them, with a site ban a real possibility.

The great and the good of Wikipedia are falling over themselves to demonstrate they take a hard line on transphobia.

It is the usual Wikipedia performance theatre, seen when they're trying really hard to convince people they're something they're not.

No allowance will be made for the fact a Wikipedia Administrator, Nil Einne, was acting pretty deplorably once the time had come for Wikipedia Administrators to respond to evident discrimination with professionalism. This just makes you look ridiculous....

Referring to something as "transexual hounding" is no more acceptable than referring to something as feminist hounding. Roxy the dog can fuck off from Wikipedia, preferably for the rest of their life, but at least for 2 years. Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, perhaps it is too much to expect professionalism from people who apparently get so invested in controversial issues, they make basic errors of fact that might (and indeed have) previously made things worse for the targets of harassment whose ordeal began and flourished on Wikipedia....

Editors who intentionally deadname or mis-pronoun people are being offensive to many of their fellow editors. And so even when it isn't at the expense of a living person, it is as the expense of the community wellbeing. They are free to do what they want in their personal lives, but when on Wikipedia they should not be intentionally offensive. If they want to be intentionally offensive, there's a whole wide internet out there for them to do so. Twitter in particular seems to be open to such nonsense nowadays. 15:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Supreme court can, has and will prosecute Wikipedia editors who think they can safely be transohobes elsewhere on the internet as long as they behave on Wikipedia (the hilarity of this case bringing more focus on what Wikipedia editors are saying in the privacy of Wikipedocracy will never get old).

Even the scummy Wikipediocracy regulars are trying to burnish their entirely mythical woke credentials....

Indef Regardless of the fact that Wikipedia, like much social media, treats the transphobic (oh sorry, "gender critical") far more leniently than racists or homophobes - as you can see from some of the comments above - there is still, hopefully, a line that can't be crossed. And unfortunately (because RTD is a good editor in many areas) it has been here. Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

All that does is remind people that scumbags like Black Kite and the other Wikipediocracy-Wikipedia frequent fliers, actually have a "line" for things like transohobia and racism etc under which editors can presumably fly, and have otherwise been all too willing to ignore Roxy's many other deplorable acts of overt hostility, because he is a "good editor".

This is all good gravy for the case, but not in a way that helps Wikipediocracy. Those claiming Scotty has to be punished because an ordinary editor would have been indef blocked, now have a real example. Unfortunately, the differences between Roxy and Scotty are obvious. Roxy never accepts he has done anything wrong. He has done this exact thing repeatedly, and the time between offences is very short. And still he had to unambiguously cross the line into discrimination before anyone gave a fuck in terms of real consequences. Wikipediocracy should be very nervous indeed if this is where the higher standard comes into play. Black Kite has no higher standard. Beeblebrox has no higher standard. If nobody else comes after them, it will be the soon to be ordinary editor Scottywong looking for former colleagues who have yet to be subjected to the same standard he was.

The real Wikipediocracy is never too far away from Wikipedia, and it is never too hard to condemn it.....

I think Roxy should be given one last chance. Any further comments like this should warrant a site ban. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

What is it about Wikipedia that gives editors the impression that editors who are guilty of making even one discriminatory comment about trans editors, deserve a second chance?

Other than the toxic effects of allowing editors to freely transition between Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy like they're some kind of partner organisations.

That stink sticks.

[boredbird]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1158492521

This incident by itself is concerning, though could perhaps be explained by personal friction between users, but when I followed Moneytrees' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... Moneytrees link to the ACE 2020 questions] and read this comment by Scottywong about [[Bradley Manning]]:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =569868166

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.

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.

[ericbarbour]

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.

lol, that's exactly the kind of thing I'd expect Scott to say. And he got away with it.

[Boink Boink]

Case now all but accepted, but Wikipediocracy won't be happy to hear the mood music from some Arbitrators and commenters...

* Acceptance is reluctant, and the possibility of Scotty being cleared of having done anything that could even remotely justify a desysop for being recent, persistent, unacknowledged and egregious, is being put out there (it always theoretically exists, but they never feel the need to say it, since guilt is usually obvious and a Case is merely about the paperwork)

* Acceptance is as a full case, not the mooted Resolve By Motion (clear proof there is no smoking gun and Scotty hadn't been racist to Mr Squiggles)

* Acceptance is based on the possibility of more being uncovered (i.e.,the shit you have now definitely isn't going to cut it)

* Acceptance is precisely because the community asked for it, not because the Committee as a whole sees much value to it (i.e., if you don't get satisfaction, re-examine your assumptions about what ArbCom is for and whether or not you did actually think very hard about the merits of this Case at all)

* Acceptance is in large part to uphold the principle that Admins be held to a higher standard. I.e., even if you do come up with the goods, which seems unlikely, don't be surprised if a desysop is the best you are offered.

People rightly feel icky that this extra evidence is apparently going to be coming from the fetid sewer that is Wikipediocracy. One Arbitrator has already made it clear this Case could very well be all about calling out the "standard Wikipediocracy stupidity" that often masquerades as supposed "off wiki-evidence", mocking this idea anyone has anything to fear from that ship of fools, but should be frightened because they apparently have deep influence on the powers that be in Wikipedia. Who knows where that might go in terms of Remedies? Since this Arbitrator is widely known for his illegal use of CheckUser, Wikipediocracy could have easily prevented his rise to power, but alas, when your own members are just as willing to break the law in Defence of The Wiki while holding high office there, that puts you in a very tight spot, right? Ha ha.

People are going to be absolutely fucking pissed when they realise that Wikipediocracy's involvement here means this will be a classic case of Wikipedia having to be less than transparent in how they go about deciding whether an Administrator has or has not lost the trust of the community. They will rightly wonder, where were those Wikipediocracy members when the time was right to post their accusations against Scotty in a public and transparent way? As fun as it is to lock yourselves away in dark fetid basement jerking each other off and collectively whining about how your wikiparents won't let you edit Wikipedia the way you want (as pathetic cowardly bullies), you are theoretically Wikipedia editors bound by WP:Dispute Resolution, are you not?

People rightly suspect that what this Case is really about is witch hunt. It is revenge for Eric Corbett, a Wikipediocracy member for years, before and after his well deserved Wikipedia ban, a person who as anyone knows, on the spectrum of care for your fellow man and respect for those with different characteristics, is far closer to the Roxy the Dog end, than the Model Wikipedian end. Probably past it, since standards have clearly moved on and discrimination is being seen as far more serious than it was in Corbett's hey day.

Nobody is in any doubt that Corbett's time on Wikipedia was prolonged and even facilitated by the sort of scumbag Administrator that feels at home in Wikipediocracy and finds the theoretical higher standard of their office to actually be quite the pain in the ass when all they really want to say is stuff like why the fuck is the Foundation allowing barely literate brown people edit our beautiful project?

People who, just like Corbett, had a genuine and deeply held belief that Wikipedia is not some grand global movement with far more projects than just encyclopedias. To them, Wikipedia is and always will be about creating an English language encyclopedia for the English speaking world. People who were never really all that bothered by the studies that proved that Wikipedia is only of interest to white straight males of a certain angry persuasion. They weren't bothered because that is who they are. Toxics. Privileged assholes.

The exact same people tasked with ensuring that respect and tolerance were meant to be the watchwords of Wikipedia, and whose use or rather failure to use their Admin powers against Vested Contributors ensured this was always a disgusting lie.

People whose every word, should it be used as evidence, if it purports to be about the importance of inclusion and diversity and the Foundation's principles, will be transparently fake, easily debunked merely by pointing to the past words and actions (and indeed inactions) of these people when they aren't engaged in some grand exercise in revenge.

This Case can just as easily be turned around onto them. Where is the evidence that Black Kite does actually spend a significant amount of their time proactively blocking established white male editors whose discriminatory behaviour is hardly concealed and easily seen by those charged with seeing it?

It strikes me that Black Kite for example, only notices discrimination when it is convenient for him. A man who has clung onto his power as a Wikipedia with grim determination and perverse pleasure. A man who has previously been admonished by ArbCom for abusing his power to assist Eric Corbett, and whose true crimes against community values far outstrip that which has ever been uncovered and digested by the Wikipedia community of either the past or the present. Having the protection of people you socialise with on Wikipediocracy can do that for an Admin, given Wikipedia is not just secretly but quite openly corrupt.

These people hate Scottywong precisely because he targeted little weasels like Corbett. I had every sympathy for him. When the local bully is being protected by your so called colleagues, and he flaunts his invincibility, why wouldn't you use your powers to torment him? Why wouldn't you take the opportunity to use his personality flaws against him and bait him into a trap?

Scottywong had personally seen every single level of Wikipedia governance refuse to correct or contain this cowardly bul!y. A man with integrity doesn't just stand by and let that shit go.

A man must act. A man must do what must be done.

Oh how the Wikipediocracy crowd whines and cries foul when someone has the bright idea of seeing them go low to achieve their objectives, and happily goes lower.

He happily took them where they don't like to go. He took them out into the deep water.

He challenged them. Can you swim with the sharks? Have you got the dead eyed steel of a shark?

Do your really know how to play the game?

Vigilant and company did what they do, filled the sea with urine and swam like hell for shore, to head back into the safety of their cave to further whine and moan and apparently, plot their revenge. And here it is, it seems. A pretty damp squib all told.

I bet they already have that sinking feeling. I bet they can already feel they are being pulled out into the deep water again.

Go for it Scotty.

Turn the sea red.

[adamovicm]

People rightly suspect that what this Case is really about is witch hunt. It is revenge for Eric Corbett, a Wikipediocracy member for years, before and after his well deserved Wikipedia ban, a person who as anyone knows, on the spectrum of care for your fellow man and respect for those with different characteristics, is far closer to the Roxy the Dog end, than the Model Wikipedian end.

Can you tell us more about this case of Eric Corbett, for us newies reading this? From what I've read he was a good editor who had a habit to argue with people and called someone 'cunt'. And they banned him.

[Boink Boink]

Roxy the dog digging a hole deep enough to bury a shabby mongrel.....

Clearly the community has decided that I am unsuitable to be making any contributions in the Gensex area of the project. I cannot but accept this. I note that I haven't done so since my much more narrowly constructed Topic Ban.

As others have already pointed out, the narrow topic ban was meant to serve as a clear signal your conduct is unacceptable and you only just avoided a site ban then. You can't take any credit for realising that at the very least you then needed to steer a wide berth from the wider topic area, that is just the common sense approach of any Wikipedia editor who wants to show they know they fucked up and are trying to show they are not likely to be a continuing source of disruption.

You certainly don't get any credit for reversing your earlier view that Maddy was full of it now that you're clearly trying to negotiate for the lesser sanction of a topic ban to ensure you can stay on Wikipedia, now that your initial reaction to Maddy's complaint has persuaded many that your first comment was not a mistake and you are a transphobe.

Rather than attempting to negotiate and showing begrudging acceptance, your time would be better spent addressing the pretty compelling concerns that state your history shows you do not deserve the benefit of any further limited sanctions, and it is wholly inappropriate to react to transphobia with anything but an indefinite block since trans editors need to feel welcome in the areas your apologists suggest you are capable of editing in.

An indefinite block is clearly a problem for you, since it is clear as day that you are not prepared to explain your comment to Maddy, and therefore will never show you understand what you did wrong and thus give anyone a reason to think it won't happen again.

My comment to Maddy on Silktork's talk page bears examining as ST just didn't deadname her. Her pre and post transition names are well known and in her article here, in the first sentence. Perhaps an examination of the reason I was at the Silktork page may bring some enlightenment

It does indeed bear examining, because SilkTork totally did deadname Bradley, and this is why Maddy was mad at him and went to his page to remind him of what he had done.

This is why he has already admitted to doing it, albeit accidentally, and has already apologised after a fashion. So what lies behind your refusal to accept this is what happened and this is how Wikipedia wants to show trans people are welcome on Wikipedia? Is it because you are a transphobe, perhaps?

See User talk:CompromisingSuggestion That admittedly minor example and the vast majority of my 30k odd contributions over many years surely speak in mitigation.

You are in a word, fucking mental then.

That page shows you getting involved in a blocked user having a classic power dispute with a power abusing Wikipedia Administrator (Cullen328). While you might think you were helping, anyone with an actual CLUE knows that blocked users who are angry will never respond kindly to suggestions their way of proceeding before you turned up was "nonsense" and lacked clue and was deaf to good advice.

It is actually possible to say those things without coming across as a DICK. You don't get that, because you are a DICK. You are the person you showed yourself to be by telling the user that you had the popcorn ready if they failed to take heed of your advice, as if you somehow found their predicament amusing and a good source of entertainment. As you bizarrely admitted to that user as you tried to "help" them, as a currently topic banned editor, you're in no position to advise others.

It's frankly a disgrace that not one but multiple Administrators involved in that farce didn't tell you to fuck off out of it, and even seemed to endorse your intervention as if it were wise counsel. In substantive terms, stripping away all the bullshit and self aggrandizing, you didn't actually tell them anything they didn't already know. Withdrawing a legal threat is the only way to escape a block for a legal threat.

The problem of course was that no such legal threat had been made, this was merely a means that Cullen could apply leverage to get what he was really after (admission of socking), and rather than admit it and ask Cullen why he as being such a dick, as is their way the Administrators responding to his appeals just bullshitted the user, in solidarity with their bully boy mate.

Far worse than that for you of course, was that it was also not a surprise to see that even in that page, where it has absolutely no relevance at all, you seemed to feel the need to burnish your transphobic credentials.

I've only got one topic ban at the moment, in an area where the science says I'm axiomatically correct.

Sadly, while doing background to try to help you, I have become embroiled in a rather contrived issue myself.)

Wow.

Clear evidence of how you view the attempts by Wikipedia to stop your behaviour, and thus how people should interpret "I cannot but accept this". You clearly don't accept the prior topic ban, hence why you were at best blind to the fact you were about to make a discriminatory comment in response to Maddy, who you MOST DEFINITELY ("contrived") think is indeed faking their concerns to get you kicked out of Wikipedia.

It says a lot that you though that pointing to this would either help you avoid the forthcoming indefinite block, or was the best example you could think of out of 30k edits that you think shows you in a positive light.

I have been and would like to continue be a positive contributer to the project

You have been blocked multiple times for a broad range of offences, from harassment, edit warring, disruptive editing, violations of the BLP policy and depending on what "continuing an interpersonal dispute" means, more harassment at best, stalking at worst.

You seem to revel in your status as an outsider, a well protected asshole. Getting way with it for 10 years. Viewing blocks and sanctions as being "sent to the naughty step".

Your defenders (as seen by your block log) are the likes of Drmies and Bishonen, who have long and depressing records of extending multiple undeserved second chances to Vested Contributors, only to disappear when the time inevitably comes to fuck them off for good. Most people who like you recognise you are incapable of changing, as much as they wish you would.

Your own block log shows you were warned as recently as December to stop making uncivil and uncollegiste comments, and yet here you are, yet again blocked for personal attacks (your fourth for that specific offence alone).

You are the textbook example of someone who is only on Wikipedia because the site has a continuing problem with Administrators refusing to accept that editing Wikipedia is privelage not a right and good behaviour is the minimum standard, rather than something to be used to offset and indeed excuse bad behaviour by editors whose natural inclination is to be intemperate arrogant selfish assholes, and therefore have incredible difficulty fitting into an environment where collegiality and respect are crucial.

You are a piece of shit.

I bet even your leukaemia is ashamed to be associated with you.

It is absolutely no surprise to see you admire Cullen, a straight up bully boy bullshit merchant just like you, who has turned up to to AN/I to make the laughable argument that you are worthy of one last we really mean it this time chance.

Support topic ban to GENSEX, oppose indef This editor has clearly crossed the line in this topic area, and needs a very long time out. But this editor is an iconoclast who has interesting and provocative things to say, and has made useful and incisive observations about other matters while this conversation has been going on. Many's the time that I wished that this editor would dial it back, but many other times, I found a useful kernel of truth buried in their unique style of expression. I totally understand the sentiments of editors who are saying "enough is enough already" but I recommend WP:One last chance. Cullen328 (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a safe space for trans editors. Here is one of Wikipedia's most respected Administrators turning a total blind eye to transphobia, suggesting it is indeed an offence worthy only of reactions that only seem to further this idea Roxy the Dog is the real victim here. You do indeed give "time outs" to users who view blocks as being sent to the "naughty step". Poor misunderstood toddler that is Roxy. How dare they try to convict him of adult crimes and impose Big Boy sentences!

What even is Cullen's idea of a "very long time out" anyway? He doesn't say. As short as possible, clearly.

Scottywong is before Arbcom for being intolerant.

It is legitimate to ask, why isn't Cullen? Who is having the greater effect in ensuring discrimination is tolerated on Wikipedia through the misuse of their Admin power? Who is guilty of the bigger crime, under the higher standard?

Who on Wikipedia is brave enough to say that there is no excuse for transhobia, and the sight of an Administrator suggesting it could very well have just been an error by an editor who is otherwise known for his kernels of truth, their incisive, provocative and interesting thoughts, and their unique style of self expression, isn't the most disturbing and dangerous thing they have seen being said on there by an Administrator in a long time? Calling someone Mr Squiggles in the heat of the moment and then apologising, pales into comparison.

Roxy has admitted no error. Cullen is aware of this.

Roxy is a repeat offender. Cullen is aware of this.

Roxy is already under one topic ban related to this area. Cullen is aware of this.

Standard practice on Wikipedia for experienced users who have no excuse, is to block until they admit fault, shows awareness and promises no repeat, and not a second longer. Cullen is aware of this.

If it looks like an apologist and smells like an apologist, it is an apologist.

If it looks like it belongs on Wikipediocracy and is spreading dog shit that comes from Wikipediocracy all over Wikipedia's nice clean carpets, your eyes and nose are probably not deceiving you.

Cullen is of course an old straight white American guy. Who is to say he doesn't secretly share Roxy's opinion of Maddy? And indeed the whole issue of deadnaming and transphobia?

Wikipediocracy made a very big mistake choosing this hill as their means of revenge.

Some of their most powerful friends and potential allies could about to be pulled front and centre into a very big spotlight, and nobody is going to miss the role Wikipediocracy has played in trying to prevent Wikipedia from living up to the ideals of the Foundation.

I will repeat, because people seem to forget, the Arbitration Committee can, has and will sanction editors for comments made off site, especially if they are bright line violations of hate speech or a blatant attempt to intimidate editors on Wikipedia into not filing complaints or commenting on disciplinary matters involving Administrators and the Terms/Code that supposedly protects trans editors on Wikipedia. How ironic that this became a thing because of a nasty little prick called Eric Corbett.

It's all in there. Their threads on Fae alone, holy cow, think of how many of Wikipedia's great and good are going to be getting emails from the Foundation asking for their real names and addresses, if this Case goes the distance and becomes about something more than being about one Administrator.

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 committee members have thoughts. WormTT(talk) 07:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I can think of a few people who will be very interested in knowing why this Case is potentially narrowed to the point it excludes "patterns of bigotry and historical admin temperament" and instead treats Scottywong as if he is an outlier.

The Case Request itself has already shown, in the words of one commenter.....

As this page shows, even some Arbs didn't have a full grasp of WP:LATINPLEASE

It also showed one Arbitrator, Scottywong's chief prosecutor by the looks of it, didn't have the foresight to check if he even understood the Bradley/Chelsea issue before he set about casting judgment on Scottywong's ten year old and since disavowed comments, in the process rather hilariously committing the same crime as (and being the direct cause of) Roxy the dog's forthcoming sanctioning or expulsion for transohobia that some of the very worst Administrators on Wikipedia are now actively trying to ensure is the least effective response to it by a Vested Contributor that they think they can possibly get away with.

SilkTork was allowed to get away with deadnaming Bradley by simply claiming ignorance and apologising, sort of. He is an Arbitrator, the literal boss of Administrators.

The bar for the higher standard exists and it is known.

Try to bend or break it if you dare, Wikipedicracy, in your petty desire to seek revenge on Scottywong on behalf of Eric Corbett.

The chum is in the water.

[Boink Boink]

People rightly suspect that what this Case is really about is witch hunt. It is revenge for Eric Corbett, a Wikipediocracy member for years, before and after his well deserved Wikipedia ban, a person who as anyone knows, on the spectrum of care for your fellow man and respect for those with different characteristics, is far closer to the Roxy the Dog end, than the Model Wikipedian end.

Can you tell us more about this case of Eric Corbett, for us newies reading this? From what I've read he was a good editor who had a habit to argue with people and called someone 'cunt'. And they banned him.

He was a habitually rude editor who was never shy about his belief that WP:CIVIL was a crock of shit and he had no intention of following it.

He openly reserved his absolute right to be offensive to individuals or groups if he felt it was justified under his own moral code, and on the many occasions he was and people attempted to sanction him, he stuck to his golden rule - never admit fault and never appeal a block.

He was also a prolific editor who by the incredibly low standards of Wikipedia, was a good editor in terms of his researching and writing abilities. And as long as they gave him no cause to be angry or upset with him, he happily assisted anyone else who asked for advice or help.

As such, because of the Vested Contributor problem, pretty soon there was a very long line of Administrators who quite happily ignored everything that Wikipedia would tell outsiders was the defining characteristics of the community, namely tolerance, respect, collaboration, and indeed their own policy obligations, and basically did everything they could to excuse, protect and defend Eric.

He had carte blanche. There wasn't a violation that couldn't be explained, a block that couldn't be undone. Eric got used to the idea that as long as he didn't dig too big of a hole, even if he was indefinitely blocked, it would be made to go away without him having to say or do anything, as per his moral code. Even when he was unambiguously in the wrong, he was always the victim.

It became an open secret eventually. Eric's defenders were frustrating other Administrators efforts to reform him, precisely because they knew he was unwilling to play by the rules. Perhaps if anyone had ever been given a chance to try and reform him in the accepted way, things might have been different.

It seems bizarre now, but there was a time when, if Eric had been just a little bit smarter, he could have become an Administrator and protected his own interests. Instead, he chose the path of pathetic, perpetual victimhood. He was a whiny little bitch, in stark contrast to his tough guy bad boy image. A lot of it was about fear. A common response to anyone savaged by Eric, was to be asked, well, why did you poke the bear? His defenders wanted to normalize violence as a means of communication on Wikipedia. No surprise then that Eric was a big part of the whole why are women so reluctant to edit Wikipedia controversy. Like all wife beaters, he had a string of women editors prepared to defend him, simply because in their eyes, he had never mistreated them.

The mark of a true Wikipedia critic, is to never let Wikipedia forget that when it was pointed out the "bear" had a nasty habit of attacking entirely innocent editors out of the blue who had quite clearly not done anything at all to provoke the bear, THEY STILL DID NOTHING. By then, nobody was expecting Wikipedia would ever actually shoot the bear, he was too well protected. But an effective cage wasn't a big ask, surely? Nope. They did nothing.

And there were quite a few cases of bear attacks where the person who had allegedly caused themselves to be attacked by provoking the bear, had actually done something so minor, it absolutely didn't explain much less excuse the savage response. It was soon becoming clear the bear had severe mental problems. I always wondered if they were pre-existing or the inevitable result of trying to have a wild animal live in a people house under people rules.

He became the symbol of a civil war that broadly speaking was about whether or not Wikipedia should care more about a person's edits to articles or their behaviour toward their colleagues. The war wasn't won by either side, rather the community settled on keeping it as an open sore, while avoiding the huge drama that escalating things to the point Arbitrators or the Foundation has to get involved. He became a symbol of an unsolvable problem for the "community". It was literally referred to as the "Eric Corbett problem" by an Arbitrator.

In the end, Eric solved it for them. Most people didn't seem to see it, and Eric sure as shit didn't, but over time, Eric was losing the only thing he needed to survive in Wikipedia. Friends. One by one, editors who unwisely tried to seek common cause or even kinship with Eric, realised the bear analogy was all too apt. Bears are solitary creatures. Thinking you were his friend ironically sometimes made them more vulnerable to unexpected attack.

The people who weren't friends with Eric but merely used him as a tool in the war, eventually realised their folly. Using Eric in a war is like using nuclear weapons. You can't later pretend you were ever trying to do anything else than set the whole world on fire if the other side never backed down in the face of your threats. You might win the odd battle, but nobody ever trusts you. They certainly don't like you. And if the opportunity arises to kill you and your family in their own beds, they will do so. And how could they object? If was nothing Eric wouldn't do.

They perhaps realised Eric never really had his own moral code or set of principles guiding him at all. He was just an asshole. He was just a more committed to being a uniquely selfish asshole than most Wikipedia assholes tend to be. This was never more obvious than when he repayed all those people who had in their eyes stuck their necks out for him, with a violation of the only rule on Wikipedia that the warring combatants can agree is very, very, important. Eric had socked to get around a medium length block that had managed to stick because he was starting to realise what his lack of friends meant for him.

He still had friends, but they knew they were so few in number by now and Eric had become such a giant drama magnet, they had to be tactical in how they helped him. His final end came when he simply ran out of friends. He exited with all the grace you would imagine of such a man.

Some think this proves there is no such thing as an Unlockable editor. Others can see that Eric could and should have been blocked years before he was, and only reigned supreme for as long as he did, and then eeked out another few years of bitter, poisonous, much reduced but still effective war mongering, precisely because he was protected by huge numbers of editors and Administrators.

Is Wikipedia now beyond these Mafia days? Yes. There has never been a successor to his mantle of Bastard In Chief, only a series of pretenders to the vacated throne. They are either easily blocked or not nearly as effective. But because the war was never won, the problems that led to Eric's rise remain. The Vested Contributor problem.

Eric had joined Wikipediocracy long before his end, and stayed a while after it. He never really fit in there, on account of his personality defects, but there can be no doubt that Wikipediocracy were firmly on his side of the war. And still are.