Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Proposed decision

Main case page (Talk) — Preliminary statements (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Comments by Robert McClenon

Since there was discussion about whether non-Latin usernames are permitted, and it was restated that they are permitted, I think that a principle to that effect would be helpful.

I disagree with finding 6b that Scottywong's comments were racist. Some of us on the English Wikipedia are too quick to label unpleasant or offensive conduct as "racist", which is not only sloppy, but reduces the appropriate reaction of condemnation with respect to real racism. I don't disagree with the inclusion of finding 3.2.7 among the options, only with enacting it.

In American political discourse, 'racist' and 'socialist' are almost mirror image insults, both of which are used without any real meaning except to be insulting. A mirror reverses left and right, and 'socialist' is used as a meaningless insult by right-wing persons against left-wing persons, and 'racist' is used as a meaningless insult by left-wing persons against right-wing persons. We should be careful to avoid misusing words in the way that the American left does. (I don't think that we are at risk of making the error of the American right.)

I support remedy 2b, a simple admonition without a complicated consequences clause. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a FoF that "ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's non-Latin username complies with Username policy" which seems clear enough. And we have the principles of Expressing concern and No personal attacks, which cover what Scottywong was doing when speaking to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ in a derogatory fashion regarding their username. SilkTork (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the term 'racist' is overused and misused in American political discourse, and should be avoided when possible, both because many editors of the English Wikipedia are Americans, and because many editors of the English Wikipedia are not Americans. I therefore concur with changing Finding of Fact 6b to 'xenophobic', which is less politically loaded. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Remedy 4 does have a practical effect, if the other editor remains banned. It prevents Scottywong from commenting on or taking administrative action against any sockpuppets of the banned user. For that reason, it should be supported. It isn't just a fallback. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments by jc37

Proposed Principle 3.

The last word is "prohibited".

When I read that sentence, it seems semantically "off". I suppose things that are contrary to policy are more than merely frowned upon, certainly. But "prohibited" makes it sound like the full weight of punishment falls for even a single initial act of incivility, which, I don't think we do here.

Can we replace "prohibited" with "unacceptable"? (The word used in WP:UNCIVIL.)- jc37 22:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

"Prohibited" is standard wording. I took that principle from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles. My reading is that "unacceptable" has the same meaning as "prohibited" in that these are things we do not accept, though I agree with you that prohibited has a more serious emphasis than unacceptable, which is probably why it is preferred in ArbCom principles. SilkTork (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying.

It isn't about "serious emphasis", though. It's just inaccurate in how we - in common practice - address issues of In-Civility. We don't "prohibit" them, we find them "unacceptable".

Please pardon the humour here, but if incivility was "prohibited" on Wikipedia, AN/I would likely be a much quieter place : )

So anyway, perhaps that entry in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles should be updated. - jc37 07:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Unacceptable means we don't allow it. However, it has long been recognised that incivility is difficult to police. SilkTork (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. on both counts. - jc37 08:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Also (separate issue), per Robert McClenon above, the title of that section is more of an accusation than the text states. There is a rather big difference between "...in a manner that has been perceived as racist..." and "...in a racist manner...". - jc37 22:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I guess wikt:xenophobic is better? Though, even looking at the definition, I would be hard-pressed to give a concrete definition to apply it to any particular situation. It's such a broad term. But I'll agree with Robert McClenon above, that it's better than it was, for the various reasons we both noted, and more. - jc37 15:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it, it might be a good idea to link "xenophobic" to its wiktionary definition (as I did above). - jc37 15:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Legoktm

@SilkTork: there are chronology issues in the "Prior disputes between ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ and Scottywong" FoF. The VPP RfC was in Febuary 2023 (not 2022). The June 2022 BOTN discussion preceded that, and the Feb. 2023 BOTN discussion is what led to the RfC. I also provided evidence about BOTN comments in June 2023 that IMO would fall under "continued to make complaints", so I'm curious as to why that wasn't included. Legoktm (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up about the chronology. The June 2023 complaint was made after the incident, so doesn't fit into a finding of "prior" dispute. And we have a finding regarding Scottywong's conduct during the case, which speaks for itself. SilkTork (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments by The person who loves reading

For this sentence "The have been active in administrative areas and they have helped create multiple tools used by the community, as detailed on their userpage." on Proposed Findings of Fact 1, the first word may need to be changed to "They" because "The" seems like a spelling error. The person who loves reading (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cabayi (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much! The person who loves reading (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Izno

I agree with Barkeep in whole regarding principle 7. (Is a recused arb still an arb for the purposes of editing the PD?) Izno (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49, I don't see that it says that anywhere in ARBPOL/PRO. Actually I don't see anywhere that recusal requires that one act as a normal editor, just that they are not counted for votes. Weird. Izno (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Barkeep

@Izno: recused arbs have to follow editor rather than arb rules, so no editing the PD, comments only in discrete sections here, etc etc. Since I'm inactive arb rules still apply for me (because I could choose to active for the entire case or for parts). Barkeep49 (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Just speaking from Arb wisdom handed down over time. My concretely ARBPOL for recusal links to wiktionary which defines it as An act of recusing; removing oneself from a decision/judgment because of a conflict of interest and so acting like an arb does not seem comptabile with removing oneself from decision/judgement. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@MZMcBride: ARBPOL says Requests for recusal after a case has entered the voting stage will not be granted, except in extraordinary circumstances. What do you see as the extraordinary circumstances here? Barkeep49 (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

MZM: Who cares what that policy page says? Well I do. I did as a member of the community and I do even more as an elected arb. ArbPol is not some obscure policy page when it comes to ArbCom. It is literally the policy which authorizes, and importantly to me, limits the powers of ArbCom. It is community ratified and indeed the community recently exercised its power to amend it. So yes it's important to me as an arb, even one who is inactive on this particular case, that it be followed and if you don't have extraordinary circumstances then all I can do is offer sympathy that you missed the chance for this discussion; which I will note was raised during the case request and was seriously handled despite not strictly following the letter of the policy in that the request for recusal happened at the case request and not at the arbs individual user pages. That to me is appropriate commonsense with the application of the policy, not just outright ignoring the plain meaning of its words. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

As an arb who is active on the case I believe I can barge in and edit in your section to say I agree that a recused arb should not be editing the PD at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments by MZMcBride

Hi. I'm not super involved in wiki matters these days, but glancing at this case and skimming some of it, it's absolutely wild to me that Primefac isn't recused here.

ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ has been indefinitely blocked and globally locked for being a long-term abusive user. He's made millions of pointless edits with his bot, but when you look at how and why he was able to make so many stupid edits with a bot account, it was the constant rubber-stamping by Primefac (cf. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MalnadachBot 10, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MalnadachBot 9, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MalnadachBot 7, etc.). Primefac even calls him a "trusted operator" in one of the requests for approval and speedily approves it.

Scottywong is being put on trial for responding to a user—and that user's millions of unnecessary and pointless edits—who we all now agree was acting in very bad faith and was acting abusively. This to me feels like an extremely mitigating factor in this case.

But what I really can't wrap my head around is that Primefac directly enabled this bad actor for years and is now sitting as a judge in this case? What on earth. I think even a kangaroo court like ArbCom could see how this is unacceptable. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you should take some time to evaluate your reply here, Barkeep49. When someone raises a very clear conflict of interest and ethical breach, your response is to quote some obscure policy page? Who cares what that policy page says, the issue is what I laid out: Primefac directly enabled this bad actor's behavior for years. Scottywong is not the only user who was annoyed by these pointless edits. And every time someone like me investigated how these millions of edits were continuing, it pointed back to Primefac's approvals. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

If this were about the bot edits, or Malnadach's behaviour (outwith the socking), then you are absolutely correct and I would be recusing. However, the sockpuppetry as it relates to the case is nothing more than background. As you say, there are quite a few editors who find Lint fixing to be problematic, and yet Scottywong is the only one with an ArbCom case against them. This is not because of who he was arguing with but how he was arguing with them. FoF 5 is the only proposal that comes anywhere near the sphere of where I would consider myself to have a conflict, and it is such a straight-forward statement I see no reason to recuse from the entire case because of it. Primefac (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• On the point of policy, it was raised by Folly Mox that Primefac and Izno recuse during the request stage. I made a comment on the request page that "As regards the request for Izno and Primefac to recuse, I'm not convinced that is needed as I don't see inappropriate contact between those two arbs and Scottywong. The discussions about Malnadach's bot, including approving of the bot, appear to be part of normal Wikipedia activity. If there are examples of friction between the two arbs and Scottywong, then I am sure they would recuse without being asked." And I said something similar during the internal ArbCom discussions on the case. So the matter was raised, discussed, and Izno decided to recuse while Primefac did not, and this was accepted by the Committee. So this has already been dealt with. The case was about the conduct of Scottywong, not the conduct of Malnadach. SilkTork (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Scottywong

I feel that FoF #8 draws unfair conclusions and makes incorrect assumptions about the evidence that I submitted in this case. The FoF accuses me of blaming Malnadach for my own poor behavior, and I believe that careful examination will show that that never happened. While part of my evidence did focus on Malnadach's actions (in an attempt to provide context for the whole situation), I believe that I was very clear that I was not attempting to shift blame. My evidence included statements like "Regardless of what we learned later about Malnadach's status as an LTA sockmaster, my comments were unambiguously inappropriate." and "While it's not ok to respond to this behavior in an unseemly way, it's also not ok to intentionally irritate other editors to provoke a response that can be exploited." (emphasis mine)

I had already apologized for my behavior on four separate occasions prior to the case, and didn't feel that it was appropriate or necessary to devote my evidence submissions in this case to crafting a fifth apology. I realize that what I said to Malnadach was inappropriate, I've admitted that several times, I've apologized for it, and I've committed to doing my best to not repeat it. I'm not sure what else I can say. I apologize if I was expected to devote my evidence to restating all of the things that I already said prior to the start of the case. Given the bombshell that dropped about Malnadach's true identity shortly before the start of the case, I decided to devote part of my evidence to enshrining that information into the case. But that doesn't mean that I believe that my statements are no longer inappropriate, and I think I was quite clear about that in my evidence.

It also doesn't feel particularly fair to be admonished for "attacking the character" of Malnadach in my evidence. Firstly, I don't feel like the factual evidence I submitted is "attacking" anyone, and secondly, an editor who turned out to be perhaps the most prolific LTA sockmaster in the history of Wikipedia is arguably deserving of some condemnation. I see now that there are some arbs that seem to be doubting the veracity of the private CU evidence that led to Malnadach's block, and if that block turns out to be mistaken, I'd be happy to retract any of the conclusions that I drew from it. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

There are two sentences that popped out to me:

• we can presume that Malnadach's choice to use a username ... could have been a conscious decision designed to subtly irritate other editors without violating policy
• the purpose of making these specific edits was to intentionally irritate me

These are, I believe, phrases that fit the bill of what you are claiming you did not do. Primefac (talk) 08:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I still think there's a difference between providing context and shifting blame. But that FoF already has enough support to pass, so it's probably not worth arguing it any further. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 14:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Thank you for saying this. I refrained from saying anything else because it seems every time I write anything in an attempt to defend myself, another arb jumps on the desysop bandwagon and votes to desysop me for "not dropping the stick" or "continuing the bickering". Even though there's virtually no chance that I'll emerge through this case with bit intact, I'm feeling quite discouraged from speaking up in my own defense, and I think it sets a chilling precedent for the future where editors will be more likely to refrain from submitting evidence on their behalf. Many of the arbs who have voted so far are making it clear that I would have fared better if I hadn't submitted evidence at all. FoF #8 is basically being used to desysop me for presenting the wrong evidence at Arbcom, and/or for making any attempt to defend myself against the accusations that were made. (Again, to be crystal clear, when I say "defend myself", I'm not implying that my comments to Maladnach weren't inappropriate, I'm simply trying to put everything into perspective and provide appropriate context while maintaining that my remarks were unambiguously inappropriate.) Therefore, @Cabayi: you won't find any attempt to provide a justification or excuse for my inappropriate comments, because they were inexcusable. I can only offer that my intent was to communicate that Maladnach's username is difficult for English speakers to read/write, and the words came out wrong. I did not intend to communicate that I hate Indians, or that I think Indian culture is stupid, or that the Kannada language is dumb, or that non-native-English speakers should stay off the English Wikipedia, or anything along those lines. I realize how easily my words could be interpreted as xenophobia or even racism, and I regret that. My only defense can be to provide context for the situation (so that you can understand why I was in an annoyed/frustrated state at the time), and describe the intent behind my inappropriate statements. I never intended to provide evidence with the implication that "well, Maladnach is now a blocked sock, therefore I'm off the hook and my inappropriate statements don't matter anymore". That's how my evidence was interpreted by SilkTork, and that seems to be the primary reason that I'm being desysopped (obviously, I'm being desysopped for my uncivil comments, but several arbs have made it clear that those comments alone didn't originally strike them as sufficient grounds for desysopping, while FoF #8 is what's pushing everyone into that camp). I'm sure that even posting this message will trigger a sixth arb to put the final nail in the casket, but since that seems to be a foregone conclusion at this point, what does it matter. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 14:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Regarding the i-ban, I think it's also important to note that I had no contact with Malnadach after the closing of the VP RfC that I started in February, and had no intention of initiating any further contact with Malnadach after that point, until Malnadach decided to edit archives in my talk archives. While I understand why there is support for an i-ban, the presence of this particular i-ban would not have changed my behavior regardless of whether or not Malnadach was blocked, because I had no desire or intention for further interactions with Malnadach. I even agreed to refrain from leaving messages on their user talk page, at their request. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@Anomie: Beeblebrox was referring to a brief comment I made about how my wife is a non-native English speaker whose native language uses non-Latin characters. While I can see how that might give off "I'm not racist, I have black friends" kind of vibe, it was offered alongside a guarantee that a deep dive through my 16-year contribution history at WP will not uncover any pattern of xenophobic or racist statements, because that's simply not who I am. And indeed, no evidence was submitted that suggested a historical pattern of racist or xenophobic behavior on my part. The comments from a decade ago at the Manning case are the only thing that even comes close, but they were not racist or xenophobic, they were based on my ignorance (at the time) on the issues of gender, gender identity, and biological sex; and I have strongly renounced those comments years ago. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Silcox

Considering the fact that most headers here are in the form of "Comments by [username]" - as they should - can someone please rename the section currently headered "Conflict of interest" to read "Comments by MZMcBride", considering the fact that McBride started that section and was the only non-arb to have commented there? Thanks, Silcox (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Primefac (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Newyorkbrad

The listing above reflects 11 active arbitrators (15 total minus 2 inactive and 2 recused), but the proposed decision page says there are 9 active arbitrators. Could someone please check this and if necessary, adjust the count and the required majority (is it 5 or 6?) accordingly? I suspect that the 2 recusals might accidentally have been subtracted twice. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: I fixed this. You were right because I didn't realize recused arbs still count as active for the purposes of the {{casenav/data}}. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

For the record, it turns out that the problem was not with how I inputted data into {{casenav}} but instead with {{ACMajority}} (now fixed). To any onlookers, please ignore what I said here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I am concerned by proposed finding 8 and the fact that is is passing unanimously. "Continued misconduct during the case" findings have historically been reserved for outrageous behavior that went beyond all bounds of decorum for arbitration case pages and interfered with the orderly and collegial resolution of the case. Whether or not I or anyone else agrees with Scottywong's evidence about Malnadoch (I myself found Malnadoch's abuse history to be of at least some relevance in my acceptance-stage statement), I find it to be relatively routine in the context of a case, and certainly not worthy of a finding contributing to a desysopping. I fear that a troubling precedent is being set that will deter future accused parties from fully presenting their responses and defenses. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Obviously I can only speak for myself, but it was comments such as those I quoted in the section above that moved me to support that motion. The statements made by Scottywong could very well have been made without the editorialising and speculation. It is not so much what was said as how it was presented that seems to be that which the Arbs take issue. Primefac (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

As I think about it, the passing of an interaction ban based partly on comments within the case, followed by support for desysopping based on the need for the i-ban, also strikes me as unfair bootstrapping. There is no reason to believe that Scottywong would ever have had occasion, or the desire, to mention Malnadoch again if this case had not been opened and he had not been invited to present evidence in it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Lourdes

SilkTork, hi and hope you have been well (sorry, we've not communicated for a long time now). I understand your view on xenophobia. I also read Blade's statement (on the other talk page) about why asking a person to change names is not a representation of xenophobia. I can also understand the perspective that when non-Westerners with apparently complicated names written in foreign language interact with Westerners, they may be asked to change their names to simple English names written in Latin script so the Western world may understand this. Would an American, say "James", feel the same way if they were to visit, say, Iran and were asked to change their name to "احسن" or "بانڈ" and to use that for all communication? It's a rhetorical question, and just a point to ponder.... Thank you, Lourdes 05:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm still considering the racist issue. For me it is offensive to sneer at and insult someone's username regardless of that person's background. And while I'm aware that being in a position where one is subject to abuse just for being "foreign" makes any such abuse more sensitive, I'm not entirely convinced that Scottywong was attacking ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ for being Indian. I suspect Scottywong was lashing out thoughtlessly at anything Scottywong didn't like about ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ, and if ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ had been culturally, genetically, and sexually the same as Scottywong, there would still have been abuse about the username and the rainbow colours on the userpage. As such I do prefer the amended title to the FoF and have been considering supporting it in that form because I do feel this sense of "otherness" about some of Scottywong's behaviour.

As regards name changes for ease of communication - well, that does happen frequently between cultures. And also within cultures: if parents give someone an awkward name, it will often be changed to ease communication - sometimes voluntarily, sometimes just accepted usage. I think there will be a balance between wanting to preserve one's culture and wanting to be sociable, and often a middle ground will be found where everyone is happy. SilkTork (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment by Floq

For me, it is not xenophobic to request (or even require, if we wanted to) that someone use a Latin script for their signature here; it might be against current policy to insist on it, but not morally wrong. What is xenophobic (for lack of a better term; "culturally obnoxious" maybe? Or the simpler "bigoted"?) is condescendingly mocking someone else's language with names such as "Mr. Squiggles". Let's not soft-peddle the insult by focusing on whether non-Latin scripts should be used; it's the culturally-focused insult that matters. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Anomie

I'm finding a lot in this proposed decision that makes me feel confused or disappointed.

• I'm confused as to why Principle 2 exists. Principle 1 says all it does and more.
• Same for Principle 3 when Principle 4 exists.
• FoF 2 seems like a "dig up everything negative someone ever did" finding. Do we really need to bring up stuff from 10 years ago, that was already looked at by ArbCom back then, to reinterpret it using today's changed mores? I see a few Arbs seem uncomfortable with it too, but despite that they're still supporting (since otherwise there wouldn't be support for the conclusion they seem to feel compelled to reach).
• The situation around FoF 6b is even more worrying to me.
  • The link for "in a manner that has been perceived as racist" doesn't support that assertion.
  • While "in a manner that has been perceived as racist" is true, it's also a very weak statement. Is punishing people based on an angry mob's "perception" really the direction we want ArbCom to go?
  • The comment by User:Beeblebrox seems to be coming from several decades ago, as I don't recall an "I have friends who are X" argument (did SW even say that?) being met with anything other than ridicule since well before Wikipedia existed. I'd say the pendulum today has swing to the opposite extreme, where claimed "perception" is all with no regard for intent, fact, or reason.
• I agree with User:Newyorkbrad about FoF 8. I see SW apologizing repeatedly for his comments while also attempting to provide context regarding provocation by ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ. Unfortunately all the arbs who have commented seem to be rushing to misinterpret that instead as more attacks on ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ. While SW shouldn't have risen to the bait in the first place, that baiting was happening should be taken into account and SW attempting to point that out shouldn't be held against him.
  • User:Primefac's interpretation of SW's statement "the purpose of making these specific edits was to intentionally irritate me" strikes me as particularly egregious along these lines.

The scary part is that I can easily imagine myself in a similar position, as I've faced such things in my own non-wiki life and in my time here there have been plenty of cases where I've been brusque and several where I've been wildly misinterpreted.

I can't say I've lost trust in SW as an admin from everything I've seen here, although I do hope he really has learned to better hold his tongue when confronted with trying editors and to drop a stick once the horse is dead. But if this case goes in the direction it appears to be going, I will have lost trust in ArbCom's ability to look at the facts rather than their own prejudices (or peer pressure and fear of being accused of having prejudices). Anomie⚔ 17:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)