This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning SMcCandlish

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sideswipe9th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

SMcCandlish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:CT/MOS, WP:ARBATC

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 13:15, 22 February 2024 But thanks for making it clear that your goal is to try to abuse process to censor someone who disagreed with you on some trivial style matter. said as a reply to Hey man im josh.
2. 13:15, 22 February 2024 Jessintime simply try to reflexively censor every word of that and Jessintime has done nothing but attempt to suppress, only abused WP:AN process to make false accusations and try to get an admin corps to help them "win" a content dispute they refuse to substantively engage in resolving. said in a reply to another editor, about Jessintime.
3. 13:15, 22 February 2024 you sure display a complete disregard for process when it suits your partisan preferences said as a reply to Hey man im josh
4. 21:54, 22 February 2024 Hipocrisy doesn't suit you. said as a reply to Hey man im josh.
5. 03:10, 23 February 2024 But various people love to drag out any argument if style, titles, MoS, AT, or RM are involved in any way, for some damned reason. general comment about editors who get into disputes at MOS and AT.
6. 03:34, 23 February 2024 That said, "questioning the MoS" is tellingly battlegroundy wording. said as a reply to Hey man im josh.
7. 03:34, 23 February 2024 Imagine people engaging in these sorts of defy-until-I-die antics, complete with blatant canvassing at firehose levels, sourcing denial and falsification, a putsch to try to prevent the community being able to examine the underlying question via RfC genera comment about editors who get into disputes at MOS.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Prohibition from making bad faith assumptions about any editor or identifiable group of editors, and strong advise to avoid commenting on contributor and avoid making personal attacks or engaging in incivility, with regards to pages or discussions related to WP:MOS.
   • Also logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2013#Article titles and capitalisation

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Under active sanction in the topic area, see above

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There's some pretty textbook violations of WP:AGF here, both at individual editors (Hey man im josh and Jessintime), as well as identifiable groups of editors (those who edit the MOS and get into disputes). Not sure what sanctions are appropriate here, but at minimum I'd suggest SMcCandlish strike these comments and apologise to the named editors. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this isn't the only recent examples of SMcCandlish assuming bad faith in discussions relating to parts of the MOS.

1. At 00:33, 13 January 2024 he said We have two extremely entrenched camps demanding the deadnames either be entirely suppressed, or that they always be included if sourceable. Neither camp is going to shut up and go away, and will do everything in their power to wikilawyer their way to victory. in the current RfC on MOS:GENDERID
2. At 10:39, 24 July 2023 he said a large number of TG/NB persons would nevertheless delight in insisting on their own alternative versions anyway in a discussion about neopronouns in MOS:GENDERID. Multiple editors asked him to strike the comments as derisive about fellow editors, he refused to do so.
3. At 23:38, 24 July 2023 he said I'm not responsible for how other people bend over backwards to misinterpret things and then to cast people they disagree with on something as ideological "enemies". I will not be browbeaten into self-censoring on a matter like this. which one editor described as a full-throttle descent into assumptions of bad faith. Which he then responded with a personal attack I'm just concerned about more than one editor doing it in more than one direction, while you're only apparently concerned with a single editor doing it in a direction that doesn't agree with your position.

I'm concerned that SMcCandlish's ongoing contributions to MOS related discussions simply brings more heat than light. The repeated accusations and implications of bad faith about other editors do not help when discussing guidelines that crossover between two CTOP areas (GENSEX and CT/MOS). Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re Johnuniq: SMcCandlish's conduct in that discussion is emblematic of a much broader long term issue of incivility and accusations of bad faith from him, sometimes directed at individual editors and sometimes directed at identifiable groups. He has been under active sanction for this issue, in this specific CTOP area, for the last decade. Sooner or later, something has to give. Either he needs to address his conduct when engaging in these discussions, or he needs to not participate in them. I would prefer the former, as his institutional knowledge and insight into the guidelines can be helpful. For me, this is just the straw that broke the camel's back. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm loathe to get into a back and forth with the person I'm filing a request about, however. SMcCandlish you said Observing that PoV pushers on both sides of an issue exist and will push their PoV is an observation lots of us make, all the time. ... there is no fault in saying so. Ordinarily you are correct, people make remarks on POV pushers and wikilayers all the time, however for since March 2013 you have been under a sanction preventing you from making this sort of bad faith accusation on pages or discussions related to WP:MOS. Other people might be able to say it, you are certainly allowed to think it, but you cannot by the plain reading of the sanction actually say it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BilledMammal Regardless of whether it should or should not be split off into its own guideline, or be merged into another one, for the moment it is part of the MOS. Unless and until it is moved elsewhere, discussions about the wording of it are in scope of ARBATC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few more diffs that demonstrate the same issue from other discussions, unrelated to the one at AN:

• 08:05, 8 January 2024 you clearly should not be editing material on WP about historical subjects because you fundamentally misunderstand how to do encyclopedic writing in that topic area. and Randomly firehosing a stream of mutually exclusive "reasons" in a Gish gallop manner to try wear out the opposition is not going to work. directed towards Andrew Lancaster
• 09:38, 8 January 2024 You do not appear to have a firm grasp on the subject and seem to be just opininating for the sake of opinionating, based on incorrect assumptions directed towards Andrew Lancaster
• 07:38, 2 December 2023 specifically because activists will use it to editwar against inclusion of them anywhere on the basis that it "is not required" said a discussion about the deadnames of deceased trans and non-binary people, about an identifiable group of editors.
• 02:06, 3 August 2023 a separate page on this would be highly likely to develop WP:LOCALCONSENSUS problems, including the probable formation of a WP:OWN-attempting WP:FACTION. about editors who have an interest in shaping and enforcing MOS:GENDERID.

The first two are direct comments about an individual editor, the last two are about identifiable groups of editors. All are assuming bad faith about their respective targets, and the first two are bordering on incivility and personal attacks. I also want to re-emphasise, the current discussion at AN is just the straw that broke the camel's back, and emblematic of a broader problem stretching for years across the whole MOS. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To the admins who are suggesting postponing this until the conclusion of the AN thread, respectfully that thread is about a different issue. While I have provided diffs from it, they are there to illustrate a deeper, longstanding behavioural problem, that SMcCandlish has been under active sanction for for the last decade. The diffs I have provided are there to demonstrate instances where SMcCandlish has violated the terms of the sanction he is under. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If SMcCandlish continues following with what he's said on my talk page, about re-evaluating and changing his approach so that this type of misunderstanding stops happening, I would be content with a reminder. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notification diff.

Discussion concerning SMcCandlish

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by SMcCandlish

Background: I'd made observations at an essay I wrote. Jessintime reverted it all with grandstanding, subjective rationale of "inappropriate", with evidenceless bad-faith-assumptive accusation of GAMING. I un-reverted (with curt comment). Instead of normal discussion, Jessintime went to AN with same accusation: "attempt to game the system in light of the threads like the close review above". WP:GAMING is specifically defined as bad-faith activity. Jessintime's partisan in said review.

I was unnecessarily testy to Jessintime, my tone poor and flippant. I should've been the one to open talk-page discussion, though BRD's a rather conventionalized essay, not required. At AN, I offered to userspace the essay. Also suggested people're welcome to MfD it to that end (just not misuse AN as "pseudo-MfD"). Repeatedly welcomed editors to raise issues in talk toward wording changes. Any such solution is fine. Tempest in a teapot. It's not AN/AE material, just routine, temporary content-dispute. Apologized to Jessintime for flippancy and venty response at AN (common there, but nevertheless more heat than light) [7]. Did major tone edit to the entire essay; should address Jessintime's concern.

[SMcCandlish] needs to address his conduct when engaging in these discussions: Fair enough. I can veer from brusque to wordy, argue forcefully. But there's assumption I'm "angry". Not sure what to do about that, what approach/discourse adjustments to make. Made many over the years, so I am open to such advice. There must be a better way to go about it than I have been, since I've clearly upset some people.

Colin's first law of holes advice is right; no one'll be impressed by me acting butthurt about a finger being pointed or a concern raised. Not angry about anything, just weary. Having a momentary "everyone just STFU about style stuff and go do something else!" reaction, instead of taking a breath, reapproaching from a chill position, wasn't the cool head Colin advises.

Sideswipe9th's initial diffs:

1. It's process-abusive to try to turn AN into psudo-MfD, especially when involved in a content dispute (RfC, subject of close review) with author of esssay HMIJ would suppress (more content dispute). Especially unproductive, since discussion at essay and productive content revision are happening – proper process, working like normal.
2. All correct; Jessintime did no discussion, AGF, WP:PRESERVE, or clear rationale; just WP:IDONTLIKEIT, evidenceless accusation.
3. HMIJ (among others) "questioned the legitimacy of" the RfC. (Theory: community barred from addressing article-titles questions except via RM, a view the close rejected). Yet HMIJ wanted to bypass MfD process to get desired result. There's a marked difference here (aside from opposition-silencing): The VPPOL RfC opened (per WP:CONSENUS#By_soliciting_outside_opinions) after RM/MR consensus failure then new dispute flareup. Contrast: no attempt by Jessintime to discuss, just rushed to AN, them HMIJ dogpiled to misuse AN to suppress entire essay, not just material Jessintime criticized. (Seemed vindictive, excessive.) AN is late- not first-stage DR. WP:Process is important not only when it suits personal interest.
4. "Hypocrisy" isn't the sweetest word, but not verboten. Replaced it anyway, as unnessarily testy.
5. Correct observation; community has a bad habit of tolerating, even encouraging, protracted style battlegrounding; drain on editorial productivity and goodwill. Not aspersion-casting, just noting it happens, for unclear reasons (though there are hypotheses). None of this was about HMIJ. It's about a wiki-social issue.
6. Post-RfC actions nothwithstanding, I was observing strong partisanship during RfC – dubious "questioning the MoS" and "legitimacy" of community even being able to have the RfC, then providing pro-capitals sourcing (start here), which didn't stand up to examination. Criticizing "questioning the MoS" as battlegroundy tone seemed reasonable given this history. And the whole comment is wry (HIMJ: "my reply was a bit tongue in cheek"; okay for HMIJ but not me?). Still, I don't like being misinterpreted and don't want to misinterpret; moderated that material.
7. Unnecessary adjectives, but demonstrated factual at RfC page: Canvassing diffed. Incorrect claims about sources disproven by multiple editors. Top 1/3 of page is the canvassed parties trying to derail RfC.

Later diffs from Sideswipe9th (in lengthy content dispute with me elsewhere):

1. Observing PoV pushing exists and likely to continue on both sides of an issue is an observation everyone makes. We craft policy to thwart this behavior (it's why WP:WIKILAWYER exists). No fault in saying so.
2. Correct observation; trans/enby community, broadly, committed to defying imposed categorization/labeling of others' identities. If some particular neopronouns became something of a doctrinaire set, then many would avoid them because they became assumptive labels. Someone didn't like the word "delight", and accused of being derisive, when it was lighthearted approval of resistance. Also was't "about fellow editors". If say "Lots of Scots (and diaspora) don't like being called 'Scotch'", that's not "about editors"; some may turn out to fall into that category, but that'll be entirely incidental.
3. Saying how something appears to me isn't a claim about reality of someone's viewpoint, motivations. Yes, I object to blind assumption that if there could possibly be a negative interpretation, that the intended or objective meaning must be that negative. By its nature, it leans bad-faith-assumptive. (Don't think it's consciously intended. Probably also some subculture clash.)

On more HMIJ comments: Yes, I bludgeoned as did several on both sides. Not an ideal discussion. I'll endeavor to do better. But mixing "bludgeon" into "bad faith" sentence makes for a claim that posting too often is bad-faith (i.e., HMIJ ABFs while accusing me of ABFing). Elephant in HMIJ's (and Sideswipe9th's) room: consistently mislabeling criticism of actions/statements as ABF. It's not. It's disagreement with action/statement. Not judgment as a person, expression of defaulting to distrust, etc. AN[I] consists of little but such inter-editor kvetching. "[C]ompletely irrelevant discussions": nope, deeply intertwined in a causal chain. The irrelevant ones were things like Sideswipe9th diffing me using a word she doesn't like months ago in unrelated subject. No room to address HMIJ's closing invective; its punitive heat didn't assuage the "silence opponent in content disagreement" feel.

Peace is better. Update: Being sensitive to negative interpretations, false accusations, I tone-revised the statements HMIJ objected to [8]; can go further or strike something if needed. I may defend my rationale for writing something, and it not being ABF, but have no interest in retaining material felt hurtful. HMIJ, please do read the above, try to understand my perspective as I have yours. E.g., why I found some of your statements alarming or antagonistic (not just toward me but to consensus formation/process, which matters more).

Sideswipe9th's hypothesis, that "Observing that PoV pushers on both sides of an issue exist and will push their PoV" = ABF, isn't sustainable. ABF about an editor (or group thereof) isn't equivalent to observing bare fact that PoV pushers exist and will (by definition) push PoVs. Observation and assumption aren't synonyms. Discussed in detail in usertalk.

The Wordsmith: "AGF/ABF" don't get to mean whatever someone chooses. Definition at WP:AGF: Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful. I've not assumed, implied, or stated anyone's "trying to hurt Wikipedia", or even were inadvertently harmful. Offense at criticism doesn't equate to being ABFed. Criticizing action, statement, or rationale isn't ABF. Could be misinterpretation, wrong logically, uncivil, or otherwise unhelpful in some instance, but that doesn't transmutate into ABF. Reality: I don't believe anyone has actual bad faith in style disputes. Always appear to have good-faith but often prescriptive notions that their preference is correct and necessary based on what they've internalised about English (from "authorities" who conflict), or on sociopolitical language-reform or memetics grounds. While often problematic for WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#ADVOCACY reasons, it doesn't mean bad-faith. Our behavioral jargon – "good/bad faith", "neutral/PoV", "civil[ity]", "personal attack", "advocacy/soapbox", etc. – has very distinct definitions and cannot be randomly mix-and-matched to win/punish. WP:AOBF's important here: Without clear evidence that the action of another editor is actually in bad faith or harassment, repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack. Repeatedly asserting something one objects to is ABF assumes, insists on, a motivation antithetical to the community, yet is evidence-free and a pretense at mindreading.

Update, after extensive HMIJ and Sideswipe9th usertalk discussion (as Drmies advised), Sideswipe9th posted (quoting me at start):

The gist of my point at your own talk page is that your insistence that such observations by me are "assuming bad faith" is off-base; they come nowhere near the definition of that. Sure, but as I've said just a few moments ago on my own talk page, this sort of misinterpretation of your observations as being one of bad faith seem to keep happening to you, from all manner of unconnected editors. Perhaps there is a reason for that?

Reason[s] are under discussion, reflection. The AE opener appears to have accepted that while I wasn't as civil as I needed to be (some of that in rather old diffs), it wasn't bad-faith assumption.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC) (revised a bunch of times to address incoming comments and developments, but keep under 1500 words without an extension)[reply]

Statement by Colin

I think the opening diffs of this complaint are unfair in that they don't supply context for the hostile remarks. The context is that SMcCandlish got his ass dragged to ANI by Jessintime and explicitly accused of "an attempt to game the system in light of the threads like the close review above". The disputed addition to the so-called "Manual of Style extended FAQ" is indeed highly problematic, inflammatory and verging on rant (e.g. "If you are going around looking for potential exceptions to push against any MoS rule, please find something more productive to do."), but dealing with that by going straight to ANI would I think understandably have got any editor angry and hostile in their response.

The context is necessary as comments about other editors are made all the time at AN/I. While some comments may indeed be uncivil and nasty and so on, making a comment about another editor and one's perceptions about their behaviour is expected there (as seen by Jessintime's accusation of SMcCandlish gaming the system). Hostile negative comments about another editor are absolutely typical in the case where the community is about to sanction that editor at ANI. So context is needed.

Reading many of the hostile remarks, I'm struck by the phrase "When you are in a hole, stop digging". That, if SMcCandlish is still angry, then perhaps best to leave things with "I concede my tone in response was poor", etc, and leave others to examine the behaviour of all users in that ANI discussion.

Augmenting a so called MOS FAQ with rants about other editors behaviour, which one has only just witnessed and vocally publicly disapproved of, was not wise IMO. SMcCandlish has written useful essays and has first class knowledge of how MoS works. But a cool head is needed to write a good essay. The general feeling of that ANI dispute was that the MOS FAQ has too much personal moan and note enough of a succinct frequently-asked-questions-with-pithy-answers help page. Can this be better avoided in future? One thought would be that any page that appears to be a general advice (like a MoS FAQ essay would be viewed as) should be up-front collaboratively written. That SMcCandlish find a partner to write it, who would maybe help spot when it is getting too personal-viewpointy and too angry? -- Colin°^Talk 11:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jessintime

I would like to clarify my statement at AN in regards to "gaming." My belief upon seeing the edit summary used "New section based on various talk-page discussions (user talk, RfCs, RM disputes, etc.)" [9] and the actual content added (which almost everyone at AN has since taken issue with) was that SMcCandlish was effectively attempting to amend a purported part of the MOS amid an article title dispute currently being reviewed at AN. This seemed to run afoul of Wikipedia:FORCEDINTERPRET or "Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose your own novel view of 'standards to apply' rather than those of the community" by amending the MOS to suggest it is inviolable or/and discouraging other editors from questioning it. As for why I went straight to AN, I felt that any discussion at either the FAQ's talk page or the MOS talk page would have been met with the same bludgeoning that occurs regularly at WT:MOS (or has been seen in the ongoing title dispute). I also considered MFD but felt it would be WP:POINTY to nominate it myself given my prior revert. Jessintime (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hey man im josh

Just taking a moment to note that I'm writing something up to respond with. I know it's unlikely this gets closed before then, but I have an unreasonable fear it will be, so I'm just putting this placeholder here. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble fitting my reply in under 500 words. Is there any chance an admin could approve me for more than 500? I'll keep working on cutting this down in the mean time. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, 5 of the 7 diffs are directed at me… guess I’m involved whether I like it or not. Responding to SMcCandlish’s reply about the diffs:

• Diff 1 – You’ve skirted around the actual diff and made a statement about the general AN, not about the fact that you made a pointed bad faith accusatory comment directed at me. What I don’t understand, and what makes this that much more inappropriate, is that we’re not in any content dispute! Your unsubstantiated statement about me remains unstricken.
• Diff 3 – Your reply is a bad faith accusation on top of a previous bad faith accusation. I did not try to derail a conversation. I questioned the legitimacy of the venue for the discussion, the exact same thing you’re doing in your reply, and I accepted the outcome of the RfC.
• Diff 4 – I was, generally, not participating in the RfC thread referenced, so this reply felt inappropriate given that, ironically, you were trying to argue against that venue for the discussion, similar to what I did at the RfC. I admit that my reply was a bit tongue in cheek.
• Diff 5 – Again, you fail to recognize what you’re writing as bad faith, including accusing me of trying to go after you. I find it strange that you accuse others of having a battleground mentality when you’ve benefited grateful from the community’s tolerance towards your frequent bludgeoning of discussions. I had never felt the need to take a Wikibreak until I dealt with that MOS discussion in which you responded to every single person who did not agree with you. That discussion drained me more than anything else on Wiki ever has. Not because of the outcome, but because it felt ridiculous that there were 3 people who wrote 50+ comments each who drowned out any possibility of constructive discussion.
• Diff 6 – Also correct, especially as to that editor's protracted pro-capitalization activities in the topic in question. – Continued bad faith and unsubstantiated accusations. You’re dragging up completely irrelevant discussions and deflecting from the matter at hand in this response. I want to dispel your misguided notion that you continue to repeat. I moved nearly 400 pages to downcase “Draft” to draft”, I proposed all of the appropriate categories for renaming, and I’m working on an AWB configuration to deal with the 40,000+ pages that need to have draft downcased now. I have NOT made any type of argument or attempt to or overturn the close and I’ve been pushing hard for people to move on. I also told you roughly the same thing yesterday. Despite this, you continue to cast aspersions in my direction. Wordsmith (here) and Cbl62 (here) have both praised my post-close behaviour in enacting the changes.
• Diff 7 – An irrelevant to discussion to bring up, but people had valid concerns. I myself have said I had a false belief that the RfC was not going to be binding and that I personally feel a weight of responsibility for it how it turned out because I parroted this belief.

What I’m seeing in this AE is further doubling down by SMC. There are very clear pattern of long-term issues in how they approach discussions and handle their temper, and I fear that without a formal warning or punishment this type of behavior will only continue until addressed. I understand these methods may have “won” discussions but they're not healthy. It's literally a meme that people would rather deal with Israel–Palestine discussions as opposed to MOS, and I think SMC’s conduct in said discussions is a key reason why people are not involved in that area. They’re a large part of it and their behaviour needs to be addressed in some way, otherwise we’re sending a message that this type of behaviour is allowed. They clearly care about Wikipedia, but the damage they’re doing may have gotten to the point that it’s outweighing the positives. We need them to take some time to To be clear, I do not want SMC blocked indefinitely. It's clear they care about the quality of Wikipedia but the way they go about things has been causing harm for a while. The funny thing is it's not even them being wrong, they’re usually right, it's the approach, badgering, and instant bad faith assumptions I've witnessed constantly over the last couple months. They need to be told the way they conduct themselves is not appropriate, spend some time self reflecting on how their behaviour and words come across, and then hopefully come back as a productive editor.

Also, it'd be appreciated if they could strike several of their comments directed at me and acknowledge how their behaviour has come across. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: I did say that a month ago. In response, SMC repeated that it was appropriate. I disagreed until the close, when Wordsmith determined it was. I wrongly parroted the belief it wasn't and I believe that negatively affected participation, which I regret. My POV isn't the same as it was back then because I've spent a lot of time chatting with a few other admins who helped me to see things differently. That's why my comment said we should focus on the validity and content of the discussion, with a tongue in cheek twist. I figure it's better to let a closer determine whether it's appropriate instead of replying with that to everybody, derailing the conversation. Never the less, a tongue in cheek response against someone who views you as an adversary is not a good way to be productive. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a word extension so that I may continue to respond tomorrow when I get time to do so. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BilledMammal

I just wanted to comment to first point out that whether MOS:DEADNAME is really part of the MOS or is instead mislabeled is a matter of a debate; Sideswipe, for example, has argued that it should be seen as, and given the weight of, BLP policy. I would be very hesitant to group alleged misbehavior related to that policy with alleged misbehavior related to the MOS.

I have little opinion on the broader topic, but I do want to comment on Hipocrisy doesn't suit you. Editors switching their position based solely on their POV is an issue, and it is appropriate to call it out in an appropriate forum when it is obvious. In this case, SMcCandlish made that response to the comment RFCs are also not the standard place for move discussions, but sometimes the validity and content of a discussion outweighs the venue it's at, exactly one month after Hey man im josh said A rm discussion needs to take place and nothing in this discussion is binding in any sense - arguing that an RfC is not suitable to move an a page to the extent that it is not and cannot be binding.

It was appropriate, and not an assumption of bad faith, for SMcCandlish to call out the double standards, although they could have been less blunt about it. 22:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Statement by North8000

I have just two narrow comments because I haven't taken a deep dive to learn the overall situation. On is on accusations of violating wp:AGF. WP:AGF is (rightly so) just a guideline and not a policy because is more of a general principle, and thus is broad and vague enough to be interpret-able to say that some common, logical and correct behaviors are wrong. Second, the complaint really doesn't make any case, it just relies on extracted out-of-context quotes to establish the complaint, which they don't. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

SMcCandlish, Hey Man, Sidewsipe--you all are among some of the most helpful and positive editors here. Please try to find a way to work this out. Acroterion and I would host you in our NYC parlor with coffee and pastries, but we have commitments elsewhere--please think of how much you all have meant to this project, and how much it has meant to you, and talk it over. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Apaugasma

I did not know about the AE restriction prohibiting SMcCandlish from making bad faith assumptions in MOS-related discussions, but exactly this happened to me back in September.

After previously having raised a concern in a MOS discussion that my approach to sources might be cherry-picking, SMcCandlish posted notifications to VPP and NPOVN which flatly stated involves [...] WP:CHERRYPICKING. I asked on their talk page to remove the reference to cherry-picking from the notifications (full discussion). Despite the fact that on the MOS talk page I had already come up with a new approach to sources that explicitly addressed the cherry-picking concerns, SMcCandlish declined to remove the reference to cherry-picking from the notifications, commenting If someone individually chooses to identify with the term CHERRYPICKING and be offended by mention of that rule, that probably says much more about what they've been writing than about what I wrote.[10] The discussion only went downhill from there, with remarks like you are not the only person making "do it because sources I like do it" arguments,[11] and I don't think you understand what "cherry-picking" even means.[12]

Meanwhile on the MOS talk page, SMcCandlish misinterpreted a Workshop proposal I made and concluded from this that This "workshop" subsection is simply an excuse to ignore all the concerns raised in the main section of this discussion.[13] When I pointed out that they had misread the proposal with an explicit invitation to discuss at my talk,[14] they doubled down insisting they did not misread, and repeated once more that I was just Digging up examples that specifically support your viewpoint.[15] The type of misinterpretation here (assuming I want the MOS to recommend writing about Muhammad as "holy", while of course the text under discussion is about restricting such expressions) speaks a lot to the underlying ABF issues.

Next, when I criticized a different, ngrams-based type of evidence SMcCandlish had presented for their position, they replied I suspect you did not actually look at the ngrams at all, and have just blindly assumed they are searches for "Muhammad" [16] After some further attempts at explaining why the evidence doesn't work, they replied that my explanations are mere meaningless hand-waving and that everyone here understands that. I strongly suspect that you do as well, since the alternative is that simply have no understanding at all of what aggregate data is and how basic statistics works.[17] I explicitly asked SMcCandlish to take a break, which seems to have worked, but I'm sure that if they had not assumed some kind of intentional obfuscation (or ignorance) on my part they would have much sooner understood what I was trying to say.

Since this incident I have removed all MOS pages from my watch list, because I simply do not want be confronted with such behavior. In general I have decided to spend a lot less time on WP, and this incident has been a catalyst in that decision. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bookku

Following edit tool stats indicated prominent influence of User:SMcCandlish

1) WP:VPP tops in number of edits 958 (14.9%); tops in added text 752,054 (19.6%) Ref tool

2) WP:MOS Tops in Edit; Tops in number of Edit 1,005 (24.3%) In added text 3rd position 97,646 (13.5%) Ref tool

3) WT:MOS Tops in number of edits 5,276 (36.9%); Tops in added text 4,790,959 (53.4%) Ref tool

I have had some small experience of conversing with the User (but not recent one). Since then I prefer to learn from the experienced users. If experienced influential users show good faith towards other well meaning users and show a little more accommodation can be more helpful in achieving the Wikipedia's goals. Bookku (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Elinruby

Interesting that this thread is still open even as SMcCandlish has been assuming bad faith at my user page. (User talk:Elinruby#On and on and on.

TL;DR I pinged him in an ANI thread looking for confirmation of an Arbcom request he filed. The ANI involved a mistaken new user who found out they were mistaken and retracted to the whole thing. SMcCandlish posted some discussion to my talk page about the need for civility. I responded at some length to his mistaken assumptions about the thread and pointing out that he had made the same Arbcom request also based on an assumption of bad faith (about someone else) but that I had supported it anyway because the e-e CT needs more sourcing restrictions in my opinion.

He doubled down a couple of hours ago, still apparently without reading the thread, and said I wasn't going to dig into it, and my only purpose here was to recommend a more verbally chilled-out and focus-on-content approach. At the risk of repeating myself, the entire complaint that this comment is about was retracted once the new editor learned that contentious topic alerts and 3RR notifications do not constitute personal attacks.

I have no opinion about the MoS dispute except that I fervently wish editors would pick something and move on.

that is all Elinruby (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SMcCandlish

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• Isn't Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Manual of Style extended FAQ enough? I understand that MOS is a bit of a WP:BIKESHED issue but things would have to be quite extreme before opening a request here while an admin noticeboard discussion was ongoing. Johnuniq (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Sideswipe9th — this is a false equivalency. El_C 16:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Considering that SMcCandlish has acknowledged his poor reaction and that the ANI discussion is ongoing, I'm not sure action is needed here. However, SMcCandlish is at roughly 2100 words in his statement. @SMcCandlish: Please trim your statement to under 1500 words. Considering how much of the text is discussing Hey man im josh, an extension for him to 1000 is granted. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Noting here that Sideswipe9th has requested and been granted a 500 word extension to respond to recent updates.[18] In the future, please try to keep all requests on this page for the sake of transparency. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hey man im josh: 500 word extension granted, but I'll say that we're careening towards absurdity with these word counts for what doesn't seem like a very complex issue. Let's all try to keep it brief from this point. I also agree with Seraphimblade that we probably don't need this parallel discussion unless the ANI thread goes pear shaped. However, I'm concerned by the implications of the 2013 editing restriction that seems to still be active. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't love the same thing being discussed at the same time in multiple venues. I would favor closing this since there was already an ongoing AN discussion, and then if someone thinks there's something still unresolved after the AN thread is closed to discuss here, we can do that afterwards. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Seraphimblade's suggestion seems reasonable to me. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be fine putting this request on hold until the ANI thread resolves. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm assuming you mean the AN thread? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, that's the thread. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 05:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• We've now had a few days, and the AN thread has died down. SMCCandlish has acknowledged his conduct issue. Do we still need this open? It seems like the editing restriction is still active, so there could be a violation here. It was long ago and I can accept on good faith that it was forgotten, so I don't think anything stricter than a reminder is warranted here. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that serves as well as anything. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Sameboat

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Sameboat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

WP:1RR:

1. 02:33, 1 March 2024 - Remove repeated "Free Palestine!", reverting 23:48, 28 February 2024
2. 03:26, 1 March 2024 - Revert from "Israel-Hamas war" to "war in Gaza" - originally "Israel-Palestine conflict", and which to use is highly contentious.
3. 10:46, 1 March 2024, 11:09 - Restore image, section

WP:ONUS:
The 1RR violations are relatively minor - the real issue is the WP:ONUS violation. The image was disputed from the start (16:09, 26 February 2024), being first removed at 02:08, 27 February 2024. It was reinstated at 06:37, removed at 10:07 and restored at 11:05. I removed it pending a formal consensus on its inclusion at 23:00, 28 February 2024; it was reinstated at 23:15

At 09:31, 1 March 2024 I opened an RfC, removing the image at 09:32, saying Restore status quo pending RfC result; Sameboat then restored it as above.

Throughout this there was continuous discussion on talk about its inclusion; 1, 2, 3.

Personal attacks:
They commented at 06:48, 1 March 2024 on User talk:Zanahary, in relation to the same article, concluding I suppose you were too determined to protect certain regime while contributing to Wikipedia.

When approached they rejected my concerns and told me to come here.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 11:12, 1 March 2024 (see the system log linked to above)
• Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic, on 23:41, 29 January 2024 - Replied to an editor's ARBPIA notification, warning them that if they continue their behavior on Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel they will be topic banned.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

At 12:33, 1 March 2024 Sameboat commented at the RfC regarding this AE; it reads like WP:CANVASSING#Campaigning. 12:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Reverting includes negating/undoing another's actions, including changing the meaning of content - "Person A was X" to "Person A was not X" is a revert - and changing the framing of the war changes the meaning. Regarding Free Palestine!, I agree it is minor, and said so previously: Minor, and I wouldn't mention it absent the broader context, but still a revert.

As a side note, Nableezy has now also restored the image, claiming the image was the status quo. 13:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Since Nableezy has accused me of gaming WP:QUO, I want to raise Nableezy's relationship with WP:ONUS and WP:STATUSQUO.

When they support inclusion, WP:STATUSQUO is on their side and WP:ONUS doesn't apply, regardless of how absurd the claim is, such as at Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell, and Israel-Hamas war - what they claim is the status quo was added six days prior, having been out for, I believe, almost a month.

When they oppose inclusion, however, WP:STATUSQUO doesn't exist and WP:ONUS applies, even when its been stable for months (1, 2), years, or a decade. This flexibility has gone on for years (concurrent RfC).

This flexibility can also be seen in how they react to editors asking them to follow WP:ONUS; when asked they accuse the requestor of abusing ONUS. (This relates to content that had been excluded from the lede by consensus)

I haven't looked in detail into these disputes - maybe Nableezy was right in the end, maybe not - but editors must interpret WP:STATUSQUO and WP:ONUS consistently, rather than in the way that most favors their position. I believe I am consistent, but from my interactions with Nableezy and a cursory contribution search I believe they aren't. 15:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland: Done, thank you. 13:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: They declined to self-revert and told me to come here - 1RR applies regardless of formal awareness, and violations must be self-reverted. I've also now added evidence of prior awareness. 03:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Sameboat's #2; they see it as a substantial change in meaning away from what the editor added, which is why it's a revert. 04:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: Would it be appropriate to restore the status quo while the RfC proceeds? BilledMammal (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable, thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

12:11, 1 March 2024

Discussion concerning Sameboat

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Sameboat

1. The original text was repeatedly shouted "Free Palestine! Free Palestine!" In the original video, the airman shouted "free Palestine" 4 times after igniting himself. If we were to keep the previous edit by BilledMammal user:Willform, it could be erroneously understood as 8 times.
2. Changing "Israel–Hamas war" to "war in Gaza" is not a revert in the first place. It is clear that the airman protested against the genocide, not the war between military forces, despite the mischaracterization by some media outlets. "War in Gaza" not only made it less about the belligerents, but was also coherent with the Time magazine source cited for that sentence which uses "war in Gaza" in the title.
3. My original addition of the "media coverage" section had survived more than 40 revisions with minor edits by few other editors, so there is some level of acceptance of its content by many involved editors.[23]
4. I restored the self-immolation image not as a simple rollback, but moving it to the "event" section in an attempt to comply with MOS:SHOCK. This step was taken to avoid the fair use image getting orphaned and speedy deleted as the image was entirely relevant to the article subject. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 16:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 03:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, I firmly believe the only technical revert I have ever performed on the self-immolation of Bushnell article is the "media coverage" section which was indeed started by me and is contested by none other than BilledMammal only. As Nableezy has already mentioned below, BilledMammal has violated 1RR regarding the inclusion of the "sensational image" earlier. About the exchange with Zanahary, I admit it was a violation of AGF, but I chose to keep quiet after Zanahary self-reverted the removal of non-controversial content added by me originally.[24] -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

This looks like attempting to win a content dispute through administrative processes. In my view BilledMammal's actions have been increasingly disruptive and been an attempt at gaming, including his ignoring the clear consensus on the talk page for inclusion of the image before twice (once, twice) removing it and then attempting to enforce the removal as the supposed status quo. If there are 1RR violations they should have been raised to the user and they should be asked to self-revert, but this filing, and the gaming of WP:QUO is, in my view, tendentious editing.

As far as the 1RR, it is quite the stretch to claim the removal of the second Free Palestine in the quote to follow the source cited is a revert. For the change to using a piped link for Israel-Hamas war, there is no diff showing that this restored a prior version of the page. Restoring the image to a different section is also not a revert, though Sameboat you can rectify this by removing it from there as I have restored it to the infobox given the clear consensus that was on the talk page prior to BilledMammal's gaming attempt to keep it out. This is normal editing on brand new article with lots of changes, and trying to frame that removal of Free Palestine as a revert shows the tendentiousness of this request. In my view, the disruption is coming from one place here, and it is from the filer. nableezy - 13:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and in this case, changing the framing of the war from being between "Israel and Hamas" to being "in Gaza" changes the meaning. - changes are edits, not reverts. And yes, I restored the image, because your process gaming attempt to try to force out what there was a consensus for on the talk page is both tendentious and disruptive, and I think it should be met with a boomerang sanction. You previously were warned about misusing AE, that groundless or vexatious complaints may result in blocks or other sanctions. In my view that is deserved here. nableezy - 13:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BilledMammal, my restoration is based on the consensus in the discussions that preceded the RFC. My edit summary was disputing your claim that you were restoring the status quo, but my restoration is based on restoring what had consensus, and what you edit-warred out. But if we are raising things, lets look at BilledMammal's views on supposedly shocking images. Argues for inclusion of a gruesome image, one that is not even representative of the subject, and restores it if it advances the POV he has been advancing pretty blatantly for the past several months. And in a discussion in which even an admin opposed to the image accepts consensus for inclusion, argues against and then edit wars out an image that he doesnt support including.

As far as "six days prior" the vetoes by the US have been in the article for each of these random edits taken from the bottom of the page history sorted by 500 edits: 500 edits ago (26 January 2024) includes, 1000 edits ago (Jan 4) includes, 1500 edits ago (Dec 18) includes, 2000 edits ago (Dec 4) includes, 2500 edits ago (Nov 22) includes. If youd like to argue that is not stable content feel free, but it would probably be better to make a different groundless or vexatious complaint instead of tacking it on to this one. nableezy - 15:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

BilledMammal, perhaps you could replace your 06:48, 1 March 2024 diff with this diff including Zanahary's reply since it provides a more complete picture of the interaction. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this message I left on their Talk. Zanahary (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KoA

Not involved in the topic, so I really don't know who may be on what "side" if any. 1RR issues in battleground topics always catch my eye though. The diffs do indeed show a 1RR violation, and not just one revert over, but two. That said, it looks like the CT notification was not until after all of the diffs presented, including the personal attacks, so there shouldn't be any action against SameBoat here unless there were issues after. There do appear to be valid issues with SameBoat's behavior though that likely could result in sanctions if they continue after awareness now.

I am concerned about Nableezy's comments here though as they seem to be raising the temperature in the topic going after BilledMammal accusing them of gaming, etc. There are valid issues with Sameboat regardless of notification timing, so the way they're going after BilledMammal here comes across as WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Nableezy, I don't recall any past interactions with you, so please to take it to heart that this is how you're coming across here. That's especially when Nableezy links to this conversation claiming clear consensus when in my reading, I don't see any obvious consensus. Instead, I see BilledMammal opening and RfC and saying they restored the status quo in the meantime. That's very by the book for dealing with a controversial dispute. If there are legitimate issues with BilledMammal in the topic, then open an AE, but given the context I'm seeing so far, I'm not seeing BilledMammal escalating a battleground attitude at least. KoA (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

Note that all three of the diffs brought by BilledMammal are dated to before BilledMammal delivered the discretionary sanctions notice. The timestamps are above. All that happened between the discretionary sanctions notice and this report was that Sameboat questioned whether two of the diffs were reverts. The purpose of the notice is to ensure that editors are fully aware of the sanctions, not to enable the reporting of things that happened before the delivery of the notice. Zero^talk 03:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the first edit a revert is a real stretch. Originally it was 'repeatedly shouted "X!"', then without explanation someone changed it to 'repeatedly shouted "X!X!"', which doesn't make grammatical sense (repeatedly repeatedly?). Putting it back was a trivial copy-edit with no plausible ulterior motive and we should apply some common-sense. Zero^talk 03:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second edit is not a revert in the wildest imagination. Originally the text was "act of protest against the Israeli-Palestine conflict", which was changed by TheDoobly to "act of protest against the Israel–Hamas war". Sameboat piped the wikilink (still pointing the same article) to "act of protest against the war in Gaza", with an explanation. As far as BilledMammal has told us, and as far as I can determine, the new version never appeared before. Moreover, the new version points to the same article and has the same connotation as the second version so it cannot be said to revert to the first version even in some conceptual sense. Zero^talk 04:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LegalSmeagolian

This seems to me like an attempt to WP:GAME any dissent BilledMammal's frankly disruptive editing in regards to the inclusion of the infobox image. It is clear the 1RR sanctions aren't applicable as the user was only warned after the fact. Furthermore, it seemed clear from original responses to previous discussions that users preferred inclusion, citing WP:NOTCENSORED. Despite this BilledMammal decided to ignore consensus and open up an RFC on what looked to be a settled issue, using that as justification to again revert the infobox image. After Sameboat rightly reverted the edit against consensus BilledMammal decided to take bad faith reading of the 1RR and drag Sameboat here. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Sameboat

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• It looks like the editor received the CT notice after these edits took place, so I'm not particularly inclined to apply sanctions directly for those. It looks like the edit warring has died down and the question of image usage is being handled by an RfC, which is the right way to handle a content dispute (edit warring being the wrong way). So, I think I would not take action here, except to remind everyone involved that if there is a return to edit warring, it is probable that a lot of people will be unhappy with the results. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  BilledMammal, to your question, AE is not here to resolve content questions, and I don't intend to offer any opinion on what state the article should or should not be in. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As there appears to be no other interest in taking further action here, unless an uninvolved admin objects or suggests otherwise within the next day or so, I will close as proposed above, with no sanction but an informal reminder/warning to the people involved. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That sounds good to me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Sennalen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Sennalen (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

This concerns an indefinite site block as an AE action by Galobtter at [25]. Another matter at AE was called a "related action" [26].

Administrator imposing the sanction

Galobtter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Galobtter indicated awareness here

Statement by Sennalen

The block violated WP:Blocking policy.

• Blocking for any amount of time was not a neccessary measure to prevent disruption.
• An indefinite site block was punitive and grossly disproportionate.

Some well-meaning but misplaced concerns were raised about the WP:CLEANSTART policy. It is not required to notify anyone when making a clean start. The policy page's advice about not editing in controversial topics pertained to avoiding past misdeeds, which was not a circumstance that pertained to me. Bradv confirmed that I was not under any prior sanctions and that I have a legitimate reason not to disclose my former account name.

Disruption was alleged in multiple CTOPs, but all of the actions attributed to me either did not take place or do not constitute disruptions according to Wikipedia policy. There is no cause to believe I will cause disruption at a later time.

• My involvement with the Falun Gong topic began with observing what looked to me like religious bias on a noticeboard, and it ended with posting my evidence at AE. The AE closure agreed there was a problem and warned Bloodofox about it. I had served a 31-hour block for a comment interpreted as a personal attack on Bloodofox, but the matter was cold by the time of the indef. There's no grounds to think I might be disruptive about Falun Gong.

In the course of that filing, Tamzin alleged I had "pushed racist pseudoscience" in March 2023 at [27]. That's me being an outside respondent to an RfC in a CTOP I had no involvement in before or since. I reject any connection between race and IQ. There was nothing either racist or pseudoscientific in my responses. I argued for following best sources and Wikipedia policies. There has been no explanation of what I'm supposed to be answering for, or how I might supposedly be disruptive regarding it in the future.

• I brought an AE request about editors who had refused to discuss their content deletions about Covid-19. It was a plea for help on my part. I tried to be clear that there were off-ramps that could be followed back to discussion and compromise, if others were willing. It was an appropriate and constructive use of the venue.

The matter stemmed from an article I created.[28] The new article was built around high-quality peer-reviewed journals and WP:MEDRS adherence that was superior to any related article.^[a] It was in concordance with the community/scientific consensus[29] that COVID-19 is "likely of zoonotic origin". Creating articles with good sourcing and neutral point of view is the purpose of the encyclopedia. The only way this can appear disruptive is by uncritically accepting unfounded aspersions about my motivations.

My motives for creating the article were questioned. The exact moment I decided to write it[30] was in a discussion about claims that were out of scope for the lab leak page and too technical for the general Origin page. There was no WP:DETAIL page for those kinds of theories, so I made one.

Whether it should be merged into another page is a content question on which reasonable minds can differ, but it was not created to advance a point of view. Sticking to sources saying the pandemic origin is unknown^[b] in no way reflects an agenda to promote any particular theory. In any case, there was no Wikipedia consensus that that the lab leak theory is pseudoscience either,[31] so administrative actions should not act as if there were such a consensus.

In deference to admins' time, in the future I will avoid making a new AE request while still a party to an active one.

• Some of my edits about Herbert Marcuse and Western Marxism were also criticized. I could have done some things better with those edits,[32] which I am happy to discuss further in appropriate venues. What matters for now is that it concerned cold good-faith edits unrelated to any CTOP. The very reason the block was so disproportionate appears to be that it was otherwise not procedurally possible to punish me for those edits as an AE action.[33] That seems like an abuse of process above and beyond the fact it was a non-preventative block.

To recap, with reference to the criteria at WP:BLOCKP:

1. There was no imminent or continuing damage to Wikipedia.
2. There was no present disruptive behavior to deter.
3. My editing was productive, congenial, and within community norms.

I did believe in April 2023 that a lab leak was the best explanation. Expressing that belief violated no rule at the time, and it still doesn't. I later changed my mind while examining the evidence. I also said in those diffs that we would have to wait and see what reliable publishers did with the evidence before Wikipedia could be updated. A few months later, I wrote an article reflecting what reliable sources did with it. That happens to include a paragraph in the article's opinion corner about the "Proximal Origin" controversy, which is WP:GNG on its own. The only reason to think I did anything in bad faith is to assume that I did. Sennalen (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: The point of the appeal is I'm not seeing anything that demonstrates that anyone understands how my edits were disruptive. I'm willing to work on it, but at least one admin has to meet me halfway and point to something that was actually a disruption, and not just a motivation they imagined I had. Sennalen (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Galobtter

I give a couple examples of the evidence for the block re the cultural marxism and covid issues here. I also want to point out that Sennalen believes that Covid stems from a bioengineered lab leak ([34], [35]), which probably explains why like I said she used a news source to undercut a scientific source that said otherwise.

For the race and intelligence topic area, Generalrelative gives a good summary of the issues at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 180#Essay on fringe guidelines. For clarity the Eyferth study RfC mentioned there is at here and is about this content which is very much about race and intelligence, despite what Sennalen says at that discussion. Galobtter (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bon courage

I was one of the named editors in Sennalen's AE filing which boomeranged into their block. One only needs to look at the various unblock request(s) to get an idea of what would likely follow in the case of an unblock: arguments at length rooted in a premise of "I am right and everybody else is wrong". This would be a big time sink for the community and a negative for the Project. Bon courage (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KoA (Sennalen)

The link wasn't directly included, so here is the AE where Sennalen was sanctioned. I commented as someone uninvolved back then, and the overall discussion among editors was not whether or not to sanction them, but rather how wide the scope needed to be due to disruption in multiple topics. I'm still not seeing any recognition of the problems with their behavior in WP:FRINGE topics and elsewhere in this filing, but rather WP:IDHT. The block came across pretty clear as that behavior butting up against WP:NOTHERE when many topic-bans would be needed to try to allow them to edit at this point. KoA (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by XMcan

This editor admitted involvement in the original AE and expressed a similar opinion there. I am uncertain if this qualifies as uninvolved. This appeal process would gain credibility with a "fresh" perspective. My question is: How does someone transition abruptly from a senior editor, essentially a hero (with no prior blocks) to a perceived villain warranting a permanent site ban? XMcan (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Sennalen

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Sennalen

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• I don't see that anything has really been learned here. If there were to be an unblock, I think it would need to come with a complete topic ban from editing any fringe topics, but this editor does not seem capable of recognizing what is a fringe topic, so I do not see that working well either. I therefore would decline the appeal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not seeing anything that demonstrates that they understand how their edits were disruptive, which doesn't bode well for the disruption not continuing if unblocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Randomdude87

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sideswipe9th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Randomdude87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:GENSEX

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 00:47, 2 March 2024 Victim blaming of people killed for being transgender. Describing a trans woman having sex with a cisgender man as "homosexual relations". Describing a sexual encounter with a trans woman, where she does not reveal her sex, to be rape "gained through lying and extreme deception".
2. 15:16, 28 February 2024 Added a specific quote "I am a man too, you you want to fight?" to an article about a murdered trans woman, for which the cited source states No one can confirm the exact words exchanged at the beginning of the scuffle.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Issued GENSEX Alert/First on 27 February 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Since creating their account on 26 February 2024, this user has been almost exclusively requesting removals of content from List of people killed for being transgender. Their only other contributions to date are an edit to Murder of Amanda Milan, diffed above, and an open request on the article talk page about quote misattribution. After the victim blaming content, and discovering their cherry picked quote on Murder of Amanda Milan I'm no longer sure that their contributions here are in good faith. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but is there an actual complaint in here? Since creating my account, I have improved the "List of people being killed for being transgender" list by removing multiple entries that do not fit. When researching more for that list, I came upon the Amanda Milan article. Researching that killing, I noticed the Wiki summary was written poorly, conflating sources and incorrectly describing the sequence of events. I then realized tons of the quotes were completely misattributed to an egregious level. And I provided citations that link to the actual pages in the book they came from. This took me quite a while, actually, and I thought it'd be helpful to highlight them for the original author to fix. I'm honestly not seeing what your issue is. It's that I am improving pages with factual information? My contributions aren't in good faith? Because I pointed out completely misattributed quotes? Randomdude87 (talk) 05:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• 01:32, 2 March 2024

Discussion concerning Randomdude87

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Randomdude87

Statement by Funcrunch

Agree that the talk page comment in the first diff was completely out of line. I replied as such, but both comment and reply were reverted shortly thereafter by another editor (which was probably the right call). Funcrunch (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to a trans woman having sex with a cis man, that is not "homosexual relations", not "lying and extreme deception", and is certainly not rape.

I am referring to a trans-woman, who is still male, obfuscating her natal sex to a heterosexual male. It is deceitful to hide your natal sex to a partner who is explicitly interested in natal female women. Preventing someone from discovering your penis and testicles, lying that you're on your period to get them to engage in anal sex, and claiming you are indeed a female are ALL examples of lying and extreme deception. And yes, sex that only takes place without your consent is rape. Homosexual relations is absolutely the correct terminology, regardless of her being trans-identified; it's homosexual (keyword: sexual). It's pretty clear the perpetrator wouldn't have consented in these accounts if he knew these women were natal males. It's not transphobic to have a straight sexual orientation. Randomdude87 (talk) 05:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LokiTheLiar

Well, as someone who hasn't interacted with this user despite frequently editing in the WP:GENSEX topic area, I feel like the defense above may literally be the worst possible defense. I support a topic ban from WP:GENSEX at minimum, and frankly probably an indef. Loki (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of arbitration is this where you don't even have to explain your stance? I am banned for providing correct information on articles and using terms correctly? Randomdude87 (talk) 06:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sweet6970

Regarding calling trans women male: Sex and gender are different. The most common use of words on Wikipedia and in the real world in this context is: ‘man’ and ‘woman’ refer to gender, while ‘male’ and ‘female’ refer to sex. Therefore, according to this convention, a trans woman is a woman, and is also male.

Randomdude87 is an inexperienced editor who is plainly in good faith: as they have said, they provided a source regarding Fred Martinez which was in favour of inclusion. What was needed was a simple warning not to get involved in WP:NOTFORUM discussions, rather than a complaint at AE. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

As a note, trans women are female and this is basically universally accepted in academia; the unusual categorization Sweet6970 articulated above is the WP:FRINGE perspective held by a small group of (mostly British) activists. See eg. [36] discussing it; the very fact that the act of transitioning is called male-to-female (or conversely female-to-male) should make this clear as well. Editors are free to hold whatever views they want but they need to be able to treat other editors here with respect and at least attempt to edit neutrally, which means not beating the drum on that sort of politics on talk; and when an editor like RandomDude is actively and aggressively using their fringe politics as a rationale for content decisions, it's hard to see how they can be a constructive editor. The problem isn't simply them saying the wrong words a few times but an approach to editing and article content that is fundimentially tendentious. --Aquillion (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Randomdude87

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• I did a pretty self-explanatory GENSEX indef. Galobtter (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have been challenged on the "self-explanatory" part. I will say the other edits he's made are not so bad e.g Fred Martinez does appear a bit of a borderline case. But making comments calling trans women male and making weird OR arguments against inclusion of certain people is pretty clearly WP:NOTHERE.

  But I do realize making this a GENSEX indef is a bit overkill for someone with 30 edits, so I'll convert this to a standard WP:NOTHERE block. I'll leave this AE request for review. Galobtter (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm a bit up in the air on this, since they made some productive edits. The bad edits were bad enough that I don't object to your block, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Salmoonlight

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Salmoonlight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Multiple WP:1RR/edit warring violations. They have been requested to self revert the violations at Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident, but have neither replied to the request nor done so, despite having continued editing including on the articles talk page.

At Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident, they violated 1RR with edits to different content:

1. 14:46, 2 March 2024 (Reverted this, among others)
2. 00:14, 3 March 2024 (Reverted this)

At Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell, they violated 1RR and 3RR while edit warring with Alpoin117 over the same content.

1. 05:01, 28 February 2024
2. 04:53, 28 February 2024
3. 04:19, 28 February 2024
4. 03:34, 28 February 2024

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 16:22, 24 December 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

As I said on your talk page, what you needed to revert is 00:14, 3 March 2024, the removal of the NPOV tag. You haven't reverted that. BilledMammal (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LegalSmeagolian: Alpoin’s contributions don’t appear to be obvious vandalism; they appear to be them edit warring with Salmoonlight, with Alpion thinking the content is not relevant, and Salmoonlight disagreeing.

As a general note, 1RR is a bright line rule; violations should be promptly self-reverted, and if they are not it is necessary to bring them here. Accusing editors who do so if gaming the system is disruptive to enforcing the rules in this contentious topic, and possibly WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour - LegalSmeagolian has done this twice now, and I ask that reviewing admins consider warning them against continuing to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems every time I make a report - MakeandToss, Irtapil, here - editors came and accuse me of bad faith and gaming. If it is appropriate to report 1RR violations that are not self-reverted, then I ask that admins consider warning Nableezy and LegalSmeagolian against continuing to make such accusations, to deter frivolous accusations in the future. Alternatively, if it is inappropriate to make such reports, I ask that the admins consider warning me for frivolous reports. BilledMammal (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sameboat: Can you link the ban that Alpoin was violating when they made those edits? As far as I am aware, there was no such ban. BilledMammal (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then that exception does not apply; the edits weren't in violation of a ban, because the ban was put in place after the edits. Further, the fact that they were edit warring doesn't justify other editors edit warring back; the correct response is to take the issue here or to WP:AN3. BilledMammal (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: As I said in the first paragraph of this request I did ask them to self revert. As for the 5 days stale edit-war, I don’t think five days (four when the request was made) is particularly stale, and regardless of staleness I think it’s appropriate and useful to demonstrate if there is a pattern of behaviour. BilledMammal (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

03:42, 3 March 2024

Discussion concerning Salmoonlight

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Salmoonlight

The Alpoin117 reverts are irrelevant as Alpoin was being purposefully disruptive and vandalizing articles. Salmoonlight (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also it was not necessary to take this to AE. ANI would have worked completely fine. Salmoonlight (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted myself now. Salmoonlight (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BilledMammal, I strongly feel that all of these attempts to eliminate editors using AE will backfire on you. It is a clear abuse of the system. Salmoonlight (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?? How were those edits not vandalism?? Salmoonlight (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alpoin117 insulted me too. They're banned. Their sockpuppet is banned. It's against policy to restore edits by vandals/sockpuppets. Salmoonlight (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. I have reverted all of my edits on Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident. You are still trying to get me sanctioned based on a vandal who was being purposefully inflammatory. Salmoonlight (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how what Alpoin117 was doing wasn't obviously vandalism. They themselves violated 1RR multiple times over. Salmoonlight (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LegalSmeagolian

I would like to highlight that this is an additional case of BilledMammal trying to use AE to WP:GAME a victory in I-P content disputes - this is evidenced clearly by BilledMammal including the reverts of Alpoin117's "contributions", which were obvious instances of vandalism and not subject to the 1RR. Inclusion of these diffs is groundless and vexatious. BilledMammal has been warned to not use AE in this way yet has done so twice in the last week. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal, it is very selective of you to provide Alpoin117's one "reasoned" reversion, which they immediately followed up with an edit where he reverted more content and inserted a POV showing that they were WP:NOTHERE. Alpoin117 then continued to violate 1RR, used a sockpuppet, and was editing disruptively. His edits were correctly reverted, with multiple editors having to patrol the page to prevent vandalism from that one user. Where else should I raise these concerns if not here? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Alpoin117 was under a 1 year editing restriction, those being to not to participate in deletion discussions or engage in editing for a period of one year - at least that is how I am reading @Ad Orientem's unblock conditions. I could absolutely be wrong on my interpretation of those conditions.

My concerns regarding the nature of the filing of this request stem from BM's previous filings here in the same topic area against Sameboat and Selfstudier, which resulted in no action being taken. This, coupled with BilledMammals request in the Sameboat discussion asking "Would it be appropriate to restore the status quo (AKA BilledMammal's status quo) while the RfC proceeds?" (which Seraphim correctly answered that this was not the forum to resolve a content dispute) is what makes me nervous, although I commend BilledMammal for his response to Seraphim. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sameboat (about Salmoonlight)

WP:3RRNO lists "3. Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users" in one of the exemptions of 3RR/1RR. Alpoin117 (talk · contribs) clearly satisfies the exemption of counting towards 1RR. Newsweek may not be the best source to support the statement which cites it, the statement itself is rather harmless and didn't justify the removal by Alpoin117.

Apart from sockpuppetry, Alpoin117 was clearly not here to make constructive contribution by adding this defamatory statement about Bushnell without citing any reliable source.[37] -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: Alpoin117 was blocked on 28 Feb 2024 for "Personal attacks on another editor in violation of previous unblock conditions, POV pushing, edit warring" (read the user's contributions page) when the only article they edited was self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell. There was a discussion on ANI on 28 Feb exactly about disruptive edits by Alpoin117 regarding the self-immolation article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: 3RRNO is not only about sockpuppetry but "banned users in violation of a ban" who violated their "previous unblock conditions" for edits on the self-immolation article. I am not going to argue about Alpoin117 with you anymore. It's getting unfruitful. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

Charges of gaming against BM depend on a finding that Alpoin117's edits were either vandalistic or in violation of a ban. Neither is true. I am much less worried that BM might be gaming than that the other participants might continue to edit in ARBPIA with a mistaken sense of what counts as vandalism or ban evasion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

The edit war with Alpoin would have been better handled by coming here to report that user, as their edits were both 1RR violations and unquestionably tendentious, as in this one making a personal judgment, ditto for this one, and that they were edit-warring against multiple users and had blown past the 1RR. Alpoin117 reverted five users six times there, but the portrayal of that edit war here is Salmoonlight vs Alpoin117, and that just isnt true. Should Salmoonlight have reverted as many times as they had? No, of course not, but the complete picture doesnt really support the idea that Salmoonlight should be sanctioned for it. And going back to a 5 days stale edit-war does indeed strike me as one of those things people who are trying to remove the competition do. The other violation has already been self-reverted, something I thought it was standard practice to ask for before coming here, that is if somebody is not just trying to remove the competition. nableezy - 01:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Salmoonlight

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• There are two clear 1RR violations presented here. Alpoin117 was not blocked at the time, and their topic ban was from deletion related discussion. I'm also not terribly impressed with the accusations of trying to remove people from the topic area for reporting clear cut 1RR violations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  LegalSmeagolian, I'm not sure how deletion related discussions and editing broadly construed would apply to the edits at issue. I believe the violation of unblock conditions refers to Any more disruption, rather than a violation of a topic ban on Wikipedia deletion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]