Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by L235 (talk | contribs) at 23:47, 9 December 2020 (→‎New alternate motion (3-month DS trial): enact). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.

Shortcut

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Horn of Africa disruption Motions 25 November 2020 4/0/0
Flyer22 Frozen   5 December 2020 6/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction none none 25 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Horn of Africa disruption

Initiated by TomStar81 (Talk) at 23:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by TomStar81

I come before this board at wit's end. Repeatedly we have sought community assistance (to include community authorized general sanctions) to deal with the ever increasing amount of disruption on and around the Horn of Africa region and have been left wanting. The region's instability has fueled massive sock farms, multiple ANI complaints, and for better or worse has resulted in many familiar with the region to take a hair trigger approach when dealing with contributors whose MO matches known disruptive editors - many of them already blocked - and this carpet bombing has taken many of us (myself include) to the brittle edge of ipso facto assuming bad faith. I am asking the committee to take up this issue to gain a community perspective of the problem and judge for themselves what actions should be taken to help the situation. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Newyorkbrad: I've been thinking about that myself since its a large request likely to involve a number of people interested in or involved with the region and thus subject to the case. The most useful areas would be WP:AN and WP:AN/I, so as to draw attention to the matter with those who end up cleaning up messes made by those working in the region. There are a total of seven wikiprojects that lay claim in some way, shape, or form to the Horn of Africa region, and there are likely to be more when considering regional race and ethnic groups, sexually based wikiprojects (those that focus on LBGTQ editing and Women in general and so forth in that manner), religious groups (Islam and Christianity in particular), and those interested in historical time frames for both regions and nations in regions. Notifying each project would be difficult and likely counterproductive, so I would consider excluding notifications to these projects except in cases where a project has an active coordinator group, in which case I may make the coordinators aware of the case. Notifying the checkuser corps would be of use, since these editors can look "under the hood" as it were they may be able to offer insight into this matter and connect dots for the committee to gain a fuller understanding of the problem. A handful of editors ought to be contacted specifically, to include @TomStar81, Robert McClenon, Cordless Larry, Buckshot06, Drmies, Nick-D, Kzl55, and AcidSnow:, as these editors have dealt with the offending editors repeatedly, while @Ben MacDui, Wadaad, and EvergreenFir: have dealt with socks in this editing region in the past and may be able to offer supportive evidence in favor of a case. In addition to Drmies, @Sro23, Sir Sputnik, Oshwah, TheSandDoctor, JJMC89, Callanecc, GeneralNotability, and Zzuuzz: have rendered opinions in favor of or against blocking the two most prolific accounts that are often listed at SPI, and should be consulted here. Additionally, as much as this board doesn't want to hear it, all necessary and reasonable efforts must be made to get in touch with Bbb23 (talk · contribs), as the checkuser who was arguably the most familiar with both case pages his input here is priceless and precious beyond all measure. I understand if he doesn't want to log back in to participate, but if his email address is still enabled reaching out to him on this matter would be eye opening. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Maxim: In regards to your bullet points, I provide the following answers
  • On both occasions when general sanctions were attempted, the community failed to respond in a positive way to the issues presented. Similarly, discussions on the possibility of an LTA page was deemed a bad idea and shot down. Given the numerous failures of the community to address the underlying issues, and the fact that the region could be argued to come under arbcom sanctions (broadly interpreted) from the existing cases Race and Intelligence (tribal-specific promotional edits and genetic based edits of who came from where) and Palestine-Israel articles (Arab league includes nations in the Horn of Africa region), I though it may be prudent to finally let ARBCOM weigh in on the matter and decide what should be done here.
  • This is largely sockpuppetry, a well coordinated offline effort to effect the articles we have online. A non-exhaustive list of people who could be said to be party to the dispute could be found at User:TomStar81/Horn_of_Africa_disruption#Questionable_editors, but most of these accounts are behaved enough or have been exposed and blocked that this is request would not directly undermine them. I note that the answer I give is shaped by the fact that I am usually requested to look at the two largest known sockpuppet farms, and that I do most of my contributing to on or related to articles that are related to the United States and Naval Warfare, so I am not the best person to speak for specific editors within the topic that should be reviewed. Others who have been pinged may be more active in this region and may be better equipped to answer this question, should they elect to leave a statement.
  • The scope here is difficult to determine, but is generally limited to articles on tribes, regions, nations, and genetic groups from the region. One of the reasons for the consistent failure of community requested general sanctions is over the term "broadly construed", as I have no idea what the accounts may do if abruptly restricted I include the phrase to allow enough leeway for us to pivot as needed to address what future issues we may have from the accounts, but the community appears to interpret this is blanket restrictions for everything instantly and eternally, and that in turn tends to dissuade them from supporting. As this is decentralized, I would be loath to place limits on this until we can see what happens next. As for long term semi-protection or extended confirmation protection, the accounts in question are patient and willing to wait to clear the thresholds for editing. Long term protection of this nature then would be of some use in forcing otherwise annonomous or ISP-based contributing accounts to register, which in turn would make it easier for the SPI people to block accounts instead of ISP ranges, however it would likely not be enough for us to settle the area down in any meaningful way. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Horn of Africa)

Some subject areas, which are areas of the Earth, are the subject of battleground editing because they have a history of having been actual battlegrounds. ArbCom has typically dealt with these areas by imposing ArbCom discretionary sanctions. The most difficult area may be the lands disputed between Israel and Palestine, where the history consists of low-level conflict interspersed with open wars, for which ArbCom has authorized the most detailed regime of discretionary sanctions. Other areas of battleground editing due to a history of battles include India and Pakistan, the Balkans, where World War One started, and Eastern Europe, where World War Two started.

The Horn of Africa region has been an area of battleground editing because it has had a history of battles for millennia. It is the meeting place between three distinct civilizations with very different histories: North Africa, which is part of the Greater Middle East that is the core of historic Islamic civilization; Ethiopia, which is a distinctive civilization with its own history; and East Africa, which has the longest prehistory of anywhere on the Earth because it is the original homeland of Homo sapiens.

I have repeatedly observed battleground editing and sockpuppetry in disputes involving Horn of Africa articles. I urge ArbCom to impose discretionary sanctions by preliminary injunction and then open a full evidentiary case to determine whether any further remedies are needed.

I note that User:Cordless Larry has tried in the past to be a reasonable editor in an area with unreasonable editors, and I suggest that he make a statement.

ArbCom should accept a case. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cordless Larry

Posting here by request (in Robert McClenon's statement above). I've long agreed that we need greater attention to this area of editing (cultural and political issues relating to Somalia, and therefore likely the broader region). There are several sock farms apparently operating in relation to the topic, most prominently the one documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Middayexpress/Archive. We know that Middayexpress has used external forums to "recruit" POV editors and there's possibly meatpuppetry going on too. I've also been told that the SomaliPN group on Facebook is being used for co-ordination of editing, but I don't use Facebook myself so haven't been able to investigate that further. This has all dragged on for years (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive887#WP:NPA breech following NPOV, THIRDPARTY breeches and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive888#Middayexpress's external canvassing, although the problem behaviour had existed long before then). There's now a situation where new editors frequently show up in this topic area and if they appear to share a similar POV to Middayexpress or another sock master and some clue about how Wikipedia works, they find themselves suspected of sockpuppetry. In many cases, this may be unfair. However, there's also the danger of socks slipping through the net, and what often unfolds is editing warring and the accumulation of significant damage across multiple articles that then needs to be worked out and undone if they later get blocked. Buckshot06, Nick-D and Drmies might also want to chip in on some of this, given previous discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bradv: sockpuppetry has been an issue, but it's not only or even mainly that; there's also evidence of external canvassing and possible meatpuppetry - see Kzl55's comments about Twitter, for instance. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buckshot06

I support and strongly endorse TomStar81's request, also endorsed by Robert McClenon and Cordless Larry. I often have to deal with biased and distorted information repeatedly introduced into Somali articles to denigrate or bolster the reputation of one or another clan. An example is the back-and-forth at Gedo. I have grown tired of repeatedly having to scan and recheck my introductions of good basic material like population figures which are then altered for political reasons. In some ways I've given up. This would allow consistent action in this regard. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(clerk note: moved the below from the arbitrators section. This was in reply to David Fuchs. In sectioned discussion editors should reply in their own section. Thanks. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]

    • We just have to keep reverting and blocking people. At Gedo, Sholi22 turned out to be a sockpuppet. But if AcidSnow is still around, I would greatly appreciate a detailed investigation of his conduct. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kzl55

I whole heartedly endorse TomStar81's request. It is justifiable after enduring the onslaught of wave after wave of socks and other disruptive editors to finally request something is done about it. The Horn of Africa projects have been the subject of persistent long-term disruption for quite some time. Ordinary procedures to combat said disruption are proving ineffective in the face of a determined sock farm. A cursory reading of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Middayexpress/Archive, being just one example, shows a consistent (and continues) flow of disruption ongoing since 2018. There is a clear organised nature to this disruption, with many cases of sleeper accounts and many other methods employed to evade scrutiny. The cause of this disruption lies in the fact that the region has been engulfed in a state of constant war over the past 30 years. And so, like other hot-spot areas on Wikipedia, this becomes a platform for ultra-nationalist agenda, as seen in much of Middayexpress' rhetoric. This is especially potent in a region like the Horn of Africa with many different ethnicities, clans, administrations, religions, foreign actors all fuelling this constant state of strife. What is alarming is that recently new waves of socks are proving more sophisticated, and with clear confidence in ability to evade technical scrutiny. External canvassing as CordlessLarry touched upon is also a serious concern. I can completely understand and sympathise with Buckshot06's comment regarding "giving up" in the face of such overwhelming level of constant disruption, it would indeed drive most people to just do so. I urge the committee to consider this, seeing as the disruption is along similar lines to what is happening in Israel-Palestine and other problem areas. It is so difficult to go through normal sock-puppetry procedures when the sockmaster does not really care about losing the socking account. Middayexpress and other sockmasters would not be as hard to deal with if additional sanctions were in place, given the level of disruption they have caused. Imposing ArbCom discretionary sanctions would be the first step in curbing these activities. --Kzl55 (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • In addition to sock farms discussed by editors above, and off-wiki recruitments on forums and Facebook, there are also clear signs of social media being recruiting grounds for Middayexpress and co. Below is evidence of ongoing recruitment of socks on Twitter, the tweets are saved both as images as well as Archive.org links in case they are deleted:

External canvassing and recruitment

- Example of open recruitment: tweet saved as an image. Please note the same nationalist tone observed in most socks as well as a call out to "all writers/editors, historians, activists" to send this account a direct message and join this "quest" [to coordinate disruption etc].
Link to tweet. Archive.org copy in case they delete it (they have a habit of deleting tweets as we will see below).
- Tweet saved as an image: "I'm an editor at Wikipedia and trying to compete with the nonsense of the anti-Somalis and secessionist propaganda, it's a struggle but I'm not giving up. What we need are an organised unionists group to be effective at this." Again, identical language of "anti-Somali" as observed in Middayexpress socks.
Link to tweet, please read the comments supporting their activity. Archive.org link in case tweet is deleted.
- They have deleted some of their tweets, but luckily they were saved on Archive.org link. Again, note the "not under our watch" as well as "However, we've got another 828 articles" and "the unionists and I...". Archive.org link.
- This one is really important. They are giving socks instructions on how to effectively evade detection: "Be smart about it. 1st edit a few dozen unrelated Somali articles about your interests like football, films, etc then move to something more related to Somalia and then start cleaning up. This way they can't ban you on sight. Also later on join the WikiProject Somalia. Tactics", Image link. Link to tweet. Of the three accounts in this conversation, one has deleted their tweet, whilst the other is suspended, but a copy has been saved via Archive.org which is where I got the screenshot from: link.
It is worth noting that majority of new suspected socks followed the above advice, from making edits unrelated to the Somali project to joining the WikiProject Somalia. As an example, GoldenDragonHorn's first ever Wikipedia edit was to add their name to WikiProject Somalia [1], they also made a point to make a couple of edits out-with the project as advised e.g. [2], [3]. Soon after GoldenDragonHorn edited WikiProject Somalia, editor Ragnimo followed as well: [4]. Looking at the editing history of WikiProject Somalia, quite a few disruptive editors as well as confirmed socks appear in the last few months: e.g. MahamedHaashi (later checkuser blocked), Gashaamo (later ArbCom blocked), EELagoon (later checkuser blocked). We also have editors who have added their names in the same manner but not yet engaged in obvious disruptive editing, like MrMidnimo (Midnimo meaning "Somali unity").
- Other examples of Twitter accounts requesting to join the private direct messaging discussion to "stop this misinformation in Wikipedia" image of tweet. Link to tweet (since the first tweet has been deleted I got the screenshot via Archive.org link). Some other replies are not visible due to the account being currently restricted/suspended, but can be viewed using a direct link. Archive link. Note: walal means brother/sister.
Obviously this is just the small snippets of off-wiki collusion that escapes their private groups, and much of the disruptive planning as well as recruitment is hidden from us, but I wanted to share this to give the community an idea of how far-reaching this disruption is. Best regards --Kzl55 (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GeneralNotability

I was recently introduced to this contentious area through SPI. I do not have an opinion on whether a case should be opened at this time, but I would like to provide some relevant information from SPI for informational purposes. I am aware of two major sockpuppeteers in this topic area:

  • Middayexpress - I'd call their POV "Somali nationalist"
  • MustafaO - similar POV to Middayexpress, was originally suspected to be Middayexpress before being split out of that case.

There are also a handful of lesser sock groups:

I've spent the past hour reviewing the first two SPIs since they're more relevant to this case request. The checkuser findings in the first two cases tend to be pretty clear ( Confirmed/ Likely vs Red X Unrelated), though some unrelated editors were subsequently blocked anyway on behavior and a handful of editors were linked to multiple accounts but not to those sockmasters. Between that and comments in the archives about off-wiki forums being used for coordination, I think that there is pretty clearly intentional disruption and coordination going on here, but these SPIs have also become dumping grounds for "people with Somali nationalist viewpoints". There have also been strange cases of people showing up at these SPIs to comment despite not being related to the SPI and having no apparent reason to show up there.

Regarding adding other parties, it is hard to identify specific editors on the "other" side of this case since so many of the prolific editors in this topic area have been blocked for socking. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the proposed DS - I suggest explicitly mentioning both the countries and the people. Per TomStar81's comment above: The scope here is difficult to determine, but is generally limited to articles on tribes, regions, nations, and genetic groups from the region - that might be too specific, but I think the DS covering "countries in the HoA" is obvious whereas "clans and genetic groups of the HoA" is less obvious. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoldenDragonHorn

Fresh pairs of eyes joining the Horn of Africa country projects would be very beneficial to the region as a whole, both for added objectivity and maintaining accountability for all parties involved. The issue I currently have is that there are no safeguards to protect new editors with an interest in the region. They are literally ‘carpet-bombed’, as TomStar81 pointed out above, just to capture two banned individuals who have been active for decades, when some of us were still watching Saturday cartoons. I have been here for two months, and my integrity as a respectable contributor has already been trashed several times. This has happened to a dozen other Somali contributors, the vast majority of which have left the project in frustration.

The WikiProject Somalia as a result is now dormant, despite countless articles being in a terrible state. Scanning through the above SPI threads and the contributions of the most frequent filer of these cases, Kzl55. I have come to the terrible conclusion that there is also a strong case of advocacy at play that fuels the 'carpet-bombing'. Mr Kzl55, is a staunch advocate for an independent Somaliland[5], while the majority of the individuals tagged as sock-puppets that were proven innocent, either had a editorial disagreement with Kzl55, or have a history of asserting Somalia’s de-jure rights on an encyclopedia.

Another issue is seeing every editor from the region through a MiddayExpress/MustafaI lense to the point where we are now walking on egg-shells, because these individuals have touched 10 out of every 10 articles on the region, and if your POV is anything close to theirs, then you're on the chopping block. An entire group of present and future editors now run the risk of being tagged a sock-puppet solely based on the past contributions of banned individuals, which can make Wikipedia one of the most toxic environments I've been in. This pre-judged lense means editors such as myself also can’t collaborate with valuable Somali contributors on this platform without being accused of off-site coordination because the above banned individuals were known to canvas off-site. Though I have a more elaborate email to the ArbCom pending that point out a few more problematic issues of systematic bias I have encountered, the questions I currently have are:

  • What assurances are there that any editor with an interest to create neutral-POV articles worthy of an encyclopedia aren’t branded ‘disruptive’ because their edits might not sync with the advocacy of more established editors?
  • What assurances are there that new powers aren’t abused, if the reputations of innocent editors are already being caught in the cross-fire, with no apologies in the aftermath?
  • What safeguards are there to protect new editors with an interests in this region from being carpet-bombed to point they lose their confidence in editing?
  • What consequential measures will be taken against individuals that repeatedly file SPI cases against innocent editors, knowing how destructive this has already been to the WPSomalia?

Thanks in advance --GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Kzl55, my first edits are all Somali related, so that wall of text of yours is just another example of you chasing some kind of global conspiracy that isn't there. You can find similar discussions about Wikipedia on any country if you go looking for it on social media, especially if there is a conflict involved. It doesn't you mean you now have the right to start hitting every new editor with a hammer. Unfortunately, you are so involved in protecting your secessionist advocacy that you can no longer see the forest from the trees.
  • @TomStar81, you are meant to assume Good faith. I hope you will apologize when a CU checks my history, background, ip-contribs for the 3rd time and shows I have no socks. And for your information I would respect any decision made by ArbCom. This is getting exhausting.
  • @TomStar81 Those banned members and my POV aren't even the same, never backed their edits, never voted in their favor. How could my edit history ever be misconstrued as Meat-puppetry? This is quite a reach. I have also not engaged in any disruptive editing, and left clear responses on talk-pages to spark discussions before making editorial changes. If you don't want my presence on Wikipedia, you can just say that. I might oblige and leave on my accord if the mistrust is this high and with no safeguards in place to protect new editors. --GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by power~enwiki

Apart from possibly China-Taiwan disputes, this is the most heated real-life geopolitical dispute where articles are not under Discretionary Sanctions. The area is certainly one with POV editing; I note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visa policy of Somaliland as a recent AFD with several highly-suspicious accounts pushing a POV, and Tigrayans as an article with a lot of IP edits and SPAs, regularly edit-warring over whether there are any Tigrayans in Eritrea. I'm not sure whether DS will help or the area just needs more non-POV editors. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guerillero

To keep the tomfoolery and lawyering at AE to a minimum, I recommend you enumerate the countries covered by the DS instead of trying to have us figure out what articles the Horn of Africa includes. For example, Somali nationalists include parts of Kenya in their definition of Greater Somalia, but I personally wouldn't include Kenya in my definition of the Horn of Africa.

I would go with "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages relating to Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and Kenya, broadly construed" and drop the "including but not limited to articles about countries in this region and their sub-articles" clause. The final clause is already covered by the standard reading of "broadly construed" if the countries are listed. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request by Beyond My Ken

ATTENTION CLERKS - Please remove the repetition of the original motion below. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DreamyJazz. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could one of the clerks also clarify how many of the arbs are active for this, and therefore what a majority is? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thanks to the clerks for quick action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheSandDoctor

I am here as comment was requested above (apologies for being late to the party). I believe that DS could be a method that would work on a trial basis and largely concur with the comments above. DS may help address the issues mentioned and if not, the motion leaves open the option for a full case down the road. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Horn of Africa disruption: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Horn of Africa disruption: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <4/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Awaiting statements. @TomStar81: How or where do you suggest notifying interested editors of this request? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to hear statements from both sides. I would like to hear the answer to NYB's question, too. WormTT(talk) 09:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have any significant objections here, though I'm curious as to whether Arbcom has ever imposed DS without a case previously? Also, is there a particular reason that this could not be handled by community imposed WP:GS? I feel I'm missing something here, and am not quite ready to vote on the motions below as yet. WormTT(talk) 10:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting that I have read the discussion in 2018 - perhaps I've missed subsequent discussion. WormTT(talk) 10:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have many initial thoughts here. In no particular order:
  • The request for general sections at ANI is from 2018 and was sparsely attended. If the issues from 2018 still persist today, why has another proposal for general sanctions not been attempted again?
  • Usually cases like these, which involve disputes along ethnic or similar lines (which I'll call "advocacy" cases), tend to come with a reasonably exhaustive list of involved parties. TomStar81, you have pinged a plethora of editors, but these would seem only involved in cleaning up the mess. My question is as follows: are there any established editors who are disputants in this topic area whose conduct you consider worthy of review, or is poor conduct more exemplified by sockpuppetry?
  • How well defined is the scope of affected pages? Are we looking at a few key pages (e.g. Somali) or is the disruption more decentralized? If it's more centralized, has long-term to indefinite semi- or ec-protection been attempted? Maxim(talk) 19:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the idea of imposing DS by motion and possibly having it time-limited so that we can review whether it helped. Maxim(talk) 02:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth seeing what other statements we get here, but if the concern is lack of flexibility and the overall issue is off-wiki coordination of accounts, I think it makes more sense to just apply DS (perhaps time-limited to be reevaluated) rather than going through a full case. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also leaning towards handling this by a motion rather than a full case. My impression is that a large part of the problem is users who would not participate in a case or respect any decision such a case would make so our primary responsibility is to shield good-faith editors from those people with whatever tools we have at our disposal. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like the others, I'm not seeing the benefit of a full case here when we could handle it by motion. The bad actors who are socking won't participate here, as Beeblebrox notes, leaving us with only the conduct of (probable) good-faith editors to review. Let's not put them through a full case if we don't have to. Katietalk 15:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with my colleagues who think discretionary sanctions could go a long way here, and that it could be handled by motion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree with the idea of resolving this by motion. I also like the idea of a time limit but I think the limit should be on when we have to re-evaluate it, not on the DS themselves, so they don't end prematurely while we are busy discussing whether to make them permanent. I have proposed a motion below. Regards SoWhy 09:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm as by the book as the next editor (probably more so, as a number of people have pointed out in the past) but I still think a full case is not necessary at this point. I understand the reasons bradv provides but then again, we have already a lot of cases to draw experience from which can also serve as guidance to future editors. As ArbCom, we cannot fix the underlying problem of the area needing more NPOV editors. What we can do is provide tools to help those editors already working in this area. But that brings us back to DS. From everything I have read here, I cannot envision a scenario in which DS will not be a part of any remedy at the end of such a case. But if we can be practically certain of this already, then we can also skip the case and authorize them by motion.
    The proposed motion already includes a review obligation for this Committee to assess whether further action is necessary. Any editor is able to file a new request or an ARCA if they think DS is not sufficient before six months have passed. Nothing really is lost by resolving this by motion but in the best case scenario, there is a timely fix to help with the problems that clearly exist.
    That said, if the majority opposes a motion and the decision is solely between accept or decline, I would vote to accept. Because we do agree that something needs to happen. Regards SoWhy 16:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have some reservations about this. The community has twice discussed imposing GS on this topic area, and decided not to. I'm uncomfortable overruling that decision without going through the exercise of a full case: taking statements, gathering evidence, and exploring different solutions together. The benefits of imposing DS by motion are unclear to me at the moment – if the main issue is sockpuppetry, how are regular administrative tools insufficient? If the point is to be able to quickly topic ban people without going to ANI, how big of a problem is this currently? How many people have been topic-banned by the community from this area? If we want to impose DS in order to allow for 1RR page restrictions, where is the evidence that this is necessary to end disruption? These are some of the questions I have, and I'm leaning toward accepting a full case to explore them. – bradv🍁 15:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe the purpose of suggesting a review after six months is to allow us to evaluate then whether the discretionary sanctions have made a useful contribution to reducing the problems in the area, or whether something else is needed. There is enough evidence of problems that I think it is worth trying the experiment, despite the growing concerns that in general we may be becoming too dependent on DS as a panacea overall. Perhaps, though, it would make sense to calendar the review for three or four months from now instead of six? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • So let me turn this around for a moment then: of all the cases ArbCom has ever heard, what makes this one so special as to enact the remedy before considering the evidence? Is this not a classic horse–cart inversion?
        The first comment on this page suggests that new editors in this topic area are getting blocked or mistreated based solely on their point of view or modus operandi, without compelling evidence that they are actually abusing multiple accounts. GoldenDragonHorn confirms this has happened to them, and the relevant SPIs do kind of back this up: (1 2). If this is systematically happening it could be affecting the neutrality of our articles, and is worthy of a proper investigation.
        Secondly, Kzl55 has provided evidence of off-wiki coordination, which needs to be examined more closely as well. If we simply resolve this by motion we'll simply be disregarding this problem without providing any sort of solution (I can't think of how DS alone would be useful here).
        Finally, there's the scope of the actual sanctions. Does Horn of Africa cover the entire area of the disruption? Should this cover all aspects of the region, or just nationalism within it? There's more discussion about this below, but we may not have arrived at the right definition yet, and it's hard to know because we haven't yet looked at all the evidence.
        I know this may seem like a bit of a waste of time to some, but I would rather not defer or deny this request. We should perform a full investigation in the hopes that we can provide a lasting solution – and we should do it now rather than in three or six months given the evidence already before us. Yes, authorizing DS is the most likely outcome, and it is possible that it will be the only remedy, but that doesn't mean we should shortcut the process. Evidence-gathering, workshopping proposals, establishing principles and findings of fact that can serve as guidance for future editors — these are all worthwhile activities, and the only way to be sure we've done justice to this request. – bradv🍁 00:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Bradv: You make a persuasive argument. Reconsidering this overnight. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • What I want to note in particular is that the motion imposes DS with a clause to review in 6 months whether it helps/ed—there would be a (clearer) path to have a full case if it's still necessary. My impression of both attempts to impose some sort of sanctions is that they sank in part because we don't have many users or administrators interested in the topic area. It's to do with a part of a world that I'll guess most of our editors are jut not familiar with and it doesn't involve vested contributors. The editors and administrators that are active in the topic area are asking again for something to help. I think that at least being able to impose 1RR and topic-bans may likely help.
            As SoWhy above, if the motions fail, then I would also accept a request. I also don't foresee a case being particularly productive. I'm not entirely sure what the scope of such a case would be either; is it to examine the conduct of all parties (and we don't have a good list there), is it to examine how to handle off-wiki coordination in advocacy disputes, is it to do more formal due diligence prior to imposing DS (which seems a very likely outcome whether by motion or case), a combination thereof, or something else? Maxim(talk) 18:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept to hear as a full case. – bradv🍁 16:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept - needs looking into in a systematised way. Concerned DS will miss some subtler ways to influence article content Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept As with other nationalism disputes, the commmittee has historicallly done well with a full case. I furthermore think we should see if there is something other than DS that might be applicable. DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. It does seem like DS is the only plausible outcome here, so I can see the logic in dealing with it by motion. But I would prefer a full case for two reasons. One, I think as a general rule, if the committee is going to impose something as sweeping as DS, we owe it to the editors in that subject area to examine the facts fully first. The trial idea does help with that, but ultimately it just shifts the responsibility to others, when we are the ones that have the community-mandated responsibility and processes for doing it. Two, I share DGG's scepticism about the entire DS system, and would prefer to find a less bureaucratic resolution if at all possible. – Joe (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motion: Horn of Africa disruption

The case request is accepted under the title Horn of Africa and resolved by motion as follows.

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages relating to Horn of Africa, broadly construed, including but not limited to articles about countries in this region and their sub-articles. After a period of six months the Committee will evaluate whether further action, including a full case, is required.
For these motions there are 13 active arbitrators. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 7
2–3 6
4–5 5

Support
  1. As proposer per above. Regards SoWhy 09:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, though I think "and their sub-articles" could use clarification/wordsmithing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting this is now my second choice to option 3 below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not withdrawing my vote yet, but I'm reconsidering this approach per Bradv above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Maxim(talk) 18:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Some of us talk about the problems with DS; and especially with the difficulty of "all pages related to", we should see if there is something else we could do, and we will need a full case for that. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Needs a case Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm willing to accept a trial, but I prefer the 3 month trial proposed below WormTT(talk) 08:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. KrakatoaKatie per mailing list. SoWhy 13:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per my vote to accept the case. – Joe (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
I'm not against the motion but I do feel that the alternate version would cause less headache at AE. Maxim(talk) 00:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I'm happy with the spirit of the motion, but I have a few procedure-related thoughts. Do we want something where we will initiate review (we open a request for clarification or amendment sua sponte?) or would we rather have a sunset clause which would need the community to file a request to make the DS permanent? There's a herding-cats hazard for the first option. Alternatively we could vote to open a case with a temporary injunction as above, while suspending the case for six months. Maxim(talk) 15:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest going the sua sponte route and starting an ARCA to gather feedback. A sunset clause might lead to the DS disappearing because no one thought of filing a request. As it appears now, authorizing DS should be sufficient to get a handle on thew problems, so opening and suspending a case when we expect that a case is not required, seems unnecessary. @GorillaWarfare: Wordsmith away Regards SoWhy 16:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I'm following you two. Isn't the way we normally do things to place the DS indefinitely and re-avaluate if and when a member if the community asks us to? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally, yes, but then again, normally we place them after a case where with all the stuff associated with it. Hence the proposed wording to essentially place them indef but have us do an evaluation later. If all works as predicted, the evaluation will just be "DS worked out, problems solved, nothing more to do". Regards SoWhy 21:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate motion

The case request is accepted under the title Horn of Africa and resolved by motion as follows.

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for for all pages relating to Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and Kenya, broadly construed. After a period of six months the Committee will evaluate whether further action, including a full case, is required.
Support
  1. I prefer the version suggested by Guerillero—it is more specific and succinct. Maxim(talk) 00:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't think my original proposal is too vague but either is fine with me. Regards SoWhy 07:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Equal choice to the original, no preference. (I understand the reasons for including Kenya, but we might want to narrow that reference to include only the relevant aspects.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
# I slightly prefer this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. If we're going to do this, and I remain quite unconvinced, we should not be establishing a definitive list of countries. Kenya is not part of the Horn of Africa, but Somaliland is, whether or not you consider it a country. There's also the ongoing Tigray conflict which could theoretically still lead to civil war and independence being declared. For our purposes, "Horn of Africa, broadly construed" is both accurate and sufficiently clear. – bradv🍁 15:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I also prefer the "broadly construed" language that the committee often uses to trying to be overly specific. We're trying to give admins the tools they need to stop disruption in this area, so I'd rather the scope not be so rigidly defined. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Bradv's concerns. This is so specific that I can't see it not needing repeated clarification requests to get just right. I would rather leave it up to admin discretion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Some of us talk about the problems with DS; and especially with the difficulty of "all pages related to", we should see if there is something else we could do, and wewill need a full case for that. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. per DGG Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. per Bradv and my opinion that the community can do it better. WormTT(talk) 08:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. KrakatoaKatie per mailing list. SoWhy 13:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per my vote to accept the case. – Joe (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Comments

New alternate motion (3-month DS trial)

This case request is provisionally resolved by motion as follows:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes) for a trial period of three months and until further decision of this Committee. After March 1, 2021 (or sooner if there is good reason), any editor may ask that this request be reopened for the purpose of evaluating whether the discretionary sanctions have been effective and should be made permanent or if a full case should be accepted to consider different or additional remedies.
Enacted - KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Proposing this for consideration. Bradv and others have made important points against our reflexively imposing discretionary sanctions and assuming we've addressed the issues. At the same time, the admins most active in this area seem to agree they are necessary, and I think it would be helpful to see from experience whether they prove useful in solving the problem. Given that this is an active topic-area, we can allow the option of reopening this after three months (or even sooner if there is good reason) rather than six. Note the compromise wording on whether to simply say "Horn of Africa" or list the involved countries. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think this is a good compromise. I'm willing to hear a full case if we have to, but if we can make a quick, targeted strike to fix the problem, let's do that and evaluate the results. Katietalk 01:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Third Equal choice after with original proposal and alternative #1. I think less than three months is not sufficient time to really determine whether DS work but it's still a better solution than a full case at this point. Regards SoWhy 08:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Amend my vote in light of NYB's explanation below. Regards SoWhy 18:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice alongside accepting the case Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'm also happy with this approach. I share SoWhy's concern that three months might not be enough but nevertheless I'm optimistic. Maxim(talk) 14:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Three months is the suggested minimum time for someone to request our review. We can always decide to wait longer if we think we need more data. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Seems worth a try. first choice. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I'm still of the opinion that this should be handled by the community - under general sanctions - however, I can accept a 3 month trial of something the majority of arbs are thinking will work. WormTT(talk) 08:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I'm not going to vote for a remedy including DS, but I recognize there is some logic towards getting empirical data. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my vote to accept the case. – Joe (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. Mkdw talk 06:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Flyer22 Frozen

Initiated by WanderingWanda (talk) at 12:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

There is private evidence for the Committee to consider. In addition:

Statement by WanderingWanda

I am coming forward with evidence that Flyer22 Frozen, or a close family member, went to a "gender critical" site, engaged in transphobic attacks against editors, and attempted to WP:CANVASS and recruit transphobic ideologues. (See email for details.)

I was shocked when I discovered this, but perhaps I shouldn't have been. Flyer can sometimes be a good editor, but she also has a history of inappropriate WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, especially in discussions about gender-related controversies. The same is true of Halo Jerk1, a closely connected account apparently operated by Flyer's brother. See:

  • Flyer weaponizing personal details about my life/identity in order to score points during a content dispute, writing: WanderingWanda...you [once] stated, "I identify as queer and have been in a long term relationship with a trans man." To me, it has seemed that you let your personal life (in addition to your political views) affect how go about editing here. This wasn't just a WP:PERSONALATTACK but a very personal attack, and one I found hurtful. She has never apologized, instead dismissing the subsequent ANI discussion as a witch-hunt.[6][7]
  • The Flyer household engaging in WP:PERSONALATTACKs against trans or LGBT editors as a group, including:
    • Halo Jerk1 singling out transgender editors (and other editors who agree with transgender editors) for criticism.[8]
    • Flyer singling out LGBT editors in a way multiple editors found inappropriate.[9]
    • Flyer going on about advocacy from trans editors (and others) after TaylanUB was blocked for transphobic POV-pushing.[10]
    • Flyer implying, to Funcrunch, that being LGB or T is a handicap an editor must overcome.[11]
  • The Flyer household fighting trans battles with an IPSock (see email).
  • Etc.

WanderingWanda (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare, I apologize that this report is "staler" than it should be. I delayed finishing it for a long time, in part because the thought of blowing the whistle on Flyer was causing me a lot of stress. If you look above at the army here to disparage me, you can understand why!
Anyway, just 6 months ago, Flyer snidely accused LGBT editors[29] of hypocrisy.† No dogwhistle, no euphemism. Just openly disparaging editors who happen to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. Flyer has repeatedly been asked to stop making these kinds of WP:PERSONALized comments about editors' identities.[30][31] When Flyer attacked me on the basis of my personal life and identity a year and a half ago, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs said she needed to cut it out, eloquently explaining why such comments are obviously inappropriate and in blatant violation of the core tenets of Wikipedia.[32] Would it be all right for Flyer to say something like "these Jew editors annoy me with their hypocritical editing", in a dispute on an Isreal-Palestine page? No.
Then there's Flyer's habit of ganging up with others in an unusual way, sometimes seeming to run afoul of WP:CANVASS or WP:TAGTEAM. It's odd to me the way that Flyer and Crossroads stick to each other like glue, with an interaction timeline a mile and a half long.[33]. Or take the time Flyer disagreed with Kolya Butternut in a discussion, and then pinged in editors specifically because they had an unrelated dispute with Kolya in the past so they could gang up on Kolya.[34]
And then there's Flyer's WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior on the MOS:BIO page. She obviously wasn't the only one edit warring there, but she was the only one I saw personalizing the dispute. First baiting Newimpartial with a snide edit summary.[35] Then disparaging the work of Rab V, Aquillion, and Newimpartial, saying they were engaging in activist arguments, and implying that they were such bad editors that there was no point in even talking to them.[36]
Ironically, considering how often Flyer accuses others of "activism", I think this section of the Activist page describes Flyer's behavior well: Wikipedia:Activist§Hostility. Flyer will try and wear you down with endless slights. It works. A fantastic editor emailed me to say that they avoid any articles that Flyer edits. How many other good editors has she scared off? How many left the site for good?
†For added context: Flyer is probably making an oblique reference to a time I brought up Planned Parenthood's trans-inclusive language policy a year earlier[37] I suppose it's flattering that she thinks of me so often.
WanderingWanda (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Flyer22 Frozen

I was emailed about this soon after the above was posted. So I'll reply now: WanderingWanda and I have a tempestuous history, which includes WanderingWanda making false accusations that I am transphobic. The community has consistently come to the opposite conclusion, which is seen in the very ANI threads that WanderingWanda linked to above. I haven't a clue what WanderingWanda means regarding the accusation that I "went to a 'gender critical' site, engaged in transphobic attacks against editors, and attempted to WP:CANVASS and recruit transphobic ideologues." I do not have a Reddit account, and I certainly never visited and posted in a gender-critical thread. I mention Reddit because I only became aware of a gender-critical Reddit via WanderingWanda mentioning it multiple times, including here. WanderingWanda has repeatedly implied that I am a part of that crowd. And the IP editing? Any IP editing by Halo, if he did indeed engage in such, was not my editing.

Regarding the first ANI thread that WanderingWanda linked to, the majority of the editors, and that includes Johnuniq, Beyond My Ken, Crossroads, Betty Logan, Girth Summit, Pyxis Solitary, Springee, Montanabw, FlightTime Phone, John B123 and Figureskatingfan, did not come to the conclusion of the filer (LokiTheLiar). In fact, a number of editors, including Johnuniq, pointed out that there has been activist editing in the sexuality and transgender topics. That activist editing includes WanderingWanda's POV-pushing. WanderingWanda continuously engaged in the type of editing that the community finally had to rule against in 2019: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 161#Gender-neutral language in human sex-specific articles. So, above, WanderingWanda complains about me complaining about activism in the transgender topic areas when various Wikipedia editors have complained about the same thing. The "erasing women" thing is a misrepresentation, as made clear here and in the WP:Village (pump) discussion I just linked to in this paragraph. WanderingWanda wanted to remove any mention of girls or women from the Vagina article (an article I brought to WP:Good article status with the help of SilkTork) and every other female anatomy article. In the WP:Village (pump) discussion, I argued, "There is nothing precise about 'people with prostates'. Really, what valid counterargument is there that rewording the Vagina article to remove any mention, or most mentions, of girls and women is not erasing girls and women to a degree?" That is the extent of my "erasing women" commentary.

There are multiple instances of WanderingWanda trying to bait me, including here, in their "23:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)" post and here in their "07:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)" post, where they imply that I don't have a heart. WanderingWanda also baited my brother here. And as for my brother complaining about activism? The thread he started passed in his favor. WanderingWanda's tendency to hound or bait me eventually led to the second ANI thread they pointed. That ANI thread concluded that WanderingWanda is primarily the problem. See, for example, the end of that thread. The warning for WanderingWanda was the following: "WanderingWanda, you are hereby warned that further egregious behaviour (including hounding or casting aspersions on Flyer22 Reborn) may result in strict sanctions." Yet WanderingWanda acts as though I'm often about baseless accusations of hounding. As seen here, multiple admins, including Cullen328, Johnuniq, and JBW (formerly JamesBWatson) saw reasonable evidence of Kolya Butternut engaging in hounding. They warned Kolya Butternut to stay away from me. And, again, in this thread, admins (Cullen328 included) have warned Kolya Butternut to stay away from me. The vast majority of hounding accusations I have made have either been supported by the community or by individual admins who have looked into the matter. It is the case that I often have to deal with hounding, including daily by this sockmaster, who went to Wikipediocracy to complain about how I won't let him sock.

In the third ANI thread that WanderingWanda linked to, the closing admin quite clearly states, "The misgendering was clearly an accident that was corrected before this report was filed. No need for ANI." Details are in that thread. And yet WanderingWanda presents this as more evidence that I am transphobic and am a problem in the transgender topic area, an area that I have edited for years without any issues until the sudden rise of POV-pushing editing at these articles.

I can't help but see this case as an attempt to silence an opposing viewpoint in two highly contentious areas -- sexuality and transgender topics. I mean, I'm so problematic in the transgender topic area that an editor (Newimpartial) I barely get along with thanked me for adding trans-positive additions here and also later supported retaining trans-positive material I added? No one has ever accused me of WP:SOAPBOXing until now. And WanderingWanda even pinged Sangdeboeuf -- an editor I have never gotten along with -- over me reverting an unnecessary discretionary sanctions tag that Sangdeboeuf added to my talk page. Sangdeboeuf added that while we were in heated in discussion, and as if adding that to my talk page -- an alert regarding sanctions I am already very well aware of -- was going to help. Any rational editor here can deduce that it was an inflammatory move on Sangdeboeuf's part. I can link to multiple instances of Sangdeboeuf being uncivil to me. I can also link to this section from Sangdeboeuf's talk page, from years ago, where I offered Sangdeboeuf an olive branch and Sangdeboeuf ignored it. But this is not about my history with Sangdeboeuf. It should not be about disgruntled editors piling up here to argue about how I stopped their POV-pushing or was rude to them while they were also rude to me. The sexuality and transgender areas are two controversial areas that I work in. And as made clear by most editors in that first-linked ANI thread, I do good work in these areas. They are often filled with heated discussions, and heated discussions make the basis for WanderingWanda's above report. Not transphobia. Not WP:OWNING. Not any other disruption. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Statement by Halo Jerk1

Statement by Jehochman

I think you have no choice but to accept this case because it involves a core of private evidence that cannot be scrutinized on wiki. The admin corps has no method to resolve this via noticeboards. It appears that the dispute is longstanding and none of the disputants seem willing to disengage. A full consideration of the behavior in such longstanding feuds is not appropriate for a noticeboard due to the volume of evidence. Passing editors simply will not take the time to grasp the full facts of such a dispute. A review of the diffs cited in the statements does not leave an impression of which editor is in the wrong. A much more thorough review is needed. Jehochman Talk 17:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If Flyer22 Frozen’s statement is true (WanderingWanda and I have a tempestuous history, which includes WanderingWanda making false accusations that I am transphobic. The community has consistently come to the opposite conclusion), then why is this dispute still ongoing years later? If you all think no case is needed, please make a motion that finally ends the dispute. Jehochman Talk 12:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pyxis Solitary makes a statement that shows why we need a case. I think arbitration is necessary to determine the faults of the various editors and set in place restrictions to keep the peace and discourage further attacks on reputations or marginalized groups. I can't tell who's right or wrong, but I am sure arbitration will be able to decide the matter, and more conclusively than any few administrators. This issue is like the third rail. Every reasonable editor wants to avoid persecuting a marginalized group, but at the same time, it is conceivable that advocacy editing might be damaging the encyclopedia across a broad swath of gender and sexuality articles. Jehochman Talk 15:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You could name the case Gender-related controversies. Jehochman Talk 02:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Crossroads

Should be declined. Reading the links above shows that WanderingWanda is misrepresenting them to paint the picture they want to. For just one example, her supposedly saying that trans people "erase women" is not in any of those three diffs. Two of them were in a dispute about a phraseology which was unanimously rejected by the community: [38] This section is named after her, but includes stuff about Halo Jerk1. That is obviously not relevant to her. She is not responsible for what he does.

Administrators have already rejected most of the claims above, at the ANI threads listed above, and for good reasons. In this one, qedk specifically warned WanderingWanda for their behavior. The comments therein by administrators JBW, Girth Summit, Doug Weller, SlimVirgin, and Johnuniq are very pertinent.

This editor has long had a vendetta against Flyer. Flyer interacts well with most LGBTQ editors (and likely many more who are not open on Wikipedia about their identity). But occasionally, an editor tries to right great wrongs in this topic area, and Flyer, among others, pushes back on that. WanderingWanda is one of those who has tried to right great wrongs, as shown above, and this appears to be the basis of the vendetta.

The trumped up nature of the public evidence strongly makes me suspect that the "private evidence" is more of the same. It's not necessary to accept the case to see the private evidence. Crossroads -talk- 17:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC) rev. Crossroads -talk- 05:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There has already been very little recent interaction between WanderingWanda and Flyer; namely, since the ANI 10 months ago. Crossroads -talk- 20:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC) rev. Crossroads -talk- 05:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding LokiTheLiar's comment: Very interesting that they concede that Flyer is civil. The POV-pushing is not coming from her, though. Pushing back on POV-pushing is not POV-pushing; we don't do that kind of WP:FALSEBALANCE. She has always insisted on following the high-quality sources with WP:Due weight. Crossroads -talk- 23:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) rev. Crossroads -talk- 05:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Kolya Butternut's comment, not just Flyer, but four admins warned KB about their interactions with her: Cullen328, JBW, Johnuniq, [39] & Liz. [40] As further evidence that they have the problem, see here how in an entirely unrelated situation they found themselves sanctioned with a one-way WP:IBAN; two of the major reasons given in the ensuing discussion were "harassment of [name]" and "disruption via bickering". As before, other diffs presented here by Kolya Butternut must be viewed in context, and diffs of other people merely claiming whatever - people who were disputing with Flyer - is not evidence of anything. Crossroads -talk- 17:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC) rev. Crossroads -talk- 05:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contra MJL, this is a stale matter, and a single minor interaction 10 months later which was started by WanderingWanda replying to Flyer does not change that. There is also never anything wrong with pointing to policy as a reason for reverting an edit, and this includes the WP:NOTADVOCACY policy and pages explaining it. Crossroads -talk- 20:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sangdeboeuf by their own admission has past gripes with Flyer, and is grasping at straws. At Talk:Transsexual they were the one engaging in WP:BLUDGEON as SMcCandlish noted. They misrepresented Flyer's arguments ([41], [42], & [43]), passive-aggressively moved her comments around, [44][45] and have been uncivil. [46] More generally, as always with these few disgruntled editors, context is important and shows that often they are guilty of what they accuse others of. Crossroads -talk- 21:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC) rev. Crossroads -talk- 22:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MJL: Things will be just fine without a case, as they were after the past ANI. A case simply wastes everyone's time indulging a vendetta. Your statement suggests a need to accept simply because it's been filed; that's not how it works. Crossroads -talk- 05:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: The discussion linked by MJL shows that the community does not agree with adding pinging to the canvassing guideline, for good reasons. And, regardless, pinging editors who have participated in previous discussions on the matter is not canvassing, and that is especially true when WanderingWanda has selectively pinged many editors essentially on the basis that they've disagreed with Flyer. To single her out in any way regarding pinging is unfair. Crossroads -talk- 05:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WanderingWanda has selectively pinged yet more editors who've disagreed with Flyer. Flyer said some LGBT editors made such-and-such argument; again the context is important. These two are in the original report. This is cherry-picked. This is fine per APPNOTE. There is nothing wrong with saying "activist arguments". Wikipedia is not for activism for any cause and this is policy, no matter how many editors agree with that cause (as SMcCandlish has said, even our coverage of Wikipedia itself must be neutral). Crossroads -talk- 17:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that SandyGeorgia was WP:CANVASSED here by Kolya Butternut, and is now herself canvassing others. Protonk is wrong; this is addressed in-depth here. This stuff is just throwing mud and seeing what sticks. SandyGeorgia herself engaged in intimidation and insults, and misrepresented her own claims as official findings. As recently as July, she complimented and spoke postively about Flyer's medical editing. Crossroads -talk- 23:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC) rev. Crossroads -talk- 05:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This case would be a huge time sink and simply indulges a tiny handful of people with grudges. The arbs should listen to the many experienced administrators who overwhelmingly favor declining this. Crossroads -talk- 05:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SilkTork

Pinged here by Flyer. Flyer and I have a history dating back to my first stint on ArbCom. We are not friends, but since that first encounter have worked together on several occasions and have developed a mutual respect. I am not at all familiar with the history between Flyer and WanderingWanda, but having gone through the evidence this looks like a personality conflict in which neither party is looking great. Flyer's communication style has always tended to be blunt, especially when she is dealing with those she feels are working with a personal agenda rather than with the pure aims of Wikipedia. Sometimes much can be achieved by oiling the water rather than bluntly declaring one's doubts and suspicions. WanderingWanda appears to complain a little too much, rather than roll with the punches. Now, we're all here for the same thing - to improve Wikipedia's summary of the world's knowledge. We're not here to make friends, though it does help to both be polite and not to seek to take offence. We and others may fail in that from time to time. So be it. But each time someone fails to be polite and considerate or fails to turn a blind eye to something they find irksome we should just assist them, ourselves, Wikipedia, and the community at large by not focusing on that minor personal failure (unless the failure is genuinely harming Wikipedia), and just get on with what we are here for: to improve the encyclopaedia. I've not seen in the evidence any indication that either party should be here at ArbCom. The evidence presented by WanderingWanda shows little effort so far in resolving this conflict. Accusing others of bad conduct is not in itself a genuine attempt at conflict resolution. Indeed, that tends to make things worse rather than better. If the two of them cannot face talking this through together to reach a resolution, by agreeing to disagree and either voluntarily keeping apart, or putting their personal animosity aside to work together to build this project, then one or other of them should go to AN/I and ask for a two way interaction ban. This is not at the level of ArbCom. SilkTork (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Montanabw

I see I was pinged on this. Sigh, here we go again. WanderingWanda (WW) needs to drop the stick and get past this vendetta against Flyer. WW has repeatedly failed to understand the role of consensus building and NPOV on Wikipedia, and is trying to kill the messenger rather than look at their own behavior. There is a legitimate discussion to be had regarding questions about how to define sex and gender on WP, but WW has a well-known history of cherry-picking articles to target and of—as here—misrepresenting discussions.

Further, Flyer’s longstanding and excellent work to spot and call out potentially harmful behavior on WP, particularly in the area of child protection, has garnered Flyer some significant enemies, many of whom have tried various attacks in the past. It must be noted that Flyer may not engage with fools or trolls in a gentle tone, but let’s not escalate that to the false equivalence of incivility or a WP:NPA violation.

I take no position as to HaloJerk, save to note that if memory serves, Flyer does have an individual (possibly a relative but I’m not sure) who has previously been at the same IP and whose edits have caused difficulties for Flyer in the past and thus that individual’s actions must be considered independently of Flyer’s.

In short decline, decline, decline. This is a request brought by an editor who does not have clean hands in this situation and whom I suspect is less interested in advocacy for non-binary/gender fluid people and more interested in “getting back” at Flyer for calling out problematic editing. There may be a place for an Arbcom discussion of these issues, and for an assessment of WP:RS, but this is not the case for either discussion. Montanabw(talk) 21:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: I concur with other editors that any off-wiki “evidence” needs to be viewed in light that off-wiki posts can easily be a Joe job. Anything provided should be made available to Flyer for feedback—if whatever it was was publicly posted, the filing party has no privacy concerns that mandate it be withheld from Flyer. The rest of us don’t need to see it, of course.Montanabw(talk) 15:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Figureskatingfan

Pinged by Flyer. Case should be closed; as others have said, Wanda has a vendetta against Flyer, and this is just the most recent demonstration of it. This is simply a waste of everyone's time. I've worked with Flyer a lot over the years, and have always had positive interactions with her, despite her "blunt" personality, whatever that means. One of the ways I know that someone is open to different kinds of people is how they interact with me, whose lifestyle is so beyond represented by the articles she tends to work on. She has always been kind, open, and considerate with me, and we've been able to disagree with civility. So how about we just stop wasting everyone's time, drop this, and get back to the real work, writing and creating content? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SarahSV

I agree with those who ask the committee to decline the request. Flyer deals with a lot of difficult sexual topics on Wikipedia by insisting on reliable mainstream sources and language. As a result she's targeted by activists. WanderingWanda has apparently been following her around, and this is just the latest installment. As it states above, WW was warned at AN/I in January this year "you are hereby warned that further egregious behaviour (including hounding or casting aspersions on Flyer22 Reborn) may result in strict sanctions". The community can deal with this by using the GG discretionary sanctions at AE. Meanwhile the committee or WW should forward Flyer the private evidence so that she knows exactly what she's been accused of. SarahSV (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LokiTheLiar

I think the meat of this accusation is in the private part, and so I have only two comments:

1. As the person who submitted the ANI complaint from before, I stand behind what I said there. Flyer's interactions with me, particularly in the topic area of trans issues, have mostly been very frustrating, consisting of a lot of throwing out wild aspersions at anyone who tries to fix obvious problems with the article, claiming an obvious POV is not actually a POV and that instead I'm trying to push a POV, etc etc. I view Flyer as a civil POV pusher who happens to have a lot of institutional support from other influential editors, many of which have been pinged by her above and are therefore leaving comments in support. My ideal resolution when I reported her at ANI was to give her a warning. That happened. She's still doing it, as evidenced by the two subsequent ANI reports and this request for arbitration.

2. Some of the behavior mentioned above is strangely similar to something that happened to me. A few weeks ago, Crossroads made very similar spurious accusations of hounding against me to the ones linked above. Obviously, Crossroads is not Flyer or her brother, so ArbCom can of course decide this information isn't relevant. But given that the private parts of the accusation appear to involve some sort of coordination on an outside forum, this feels odd enough to me that I want to make sure ArbCom knows about it. Loki (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: I can't speak for Wanda, but my response to your question to them about the public stuff is that if someone pushes the line over and over for a long period of time, and has been warned for that behavior before multiple times, the warnings and the older behavior that caused the warnings are clearly relevant to evaluating the more recent stuff. One of the big problems with reporting Flyer22 in the past is that there's no single smoking gun, just a consistent pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that never quite seems to cross a line. Those four recent diffs are a continuation of behavior that's been going on without stopping for quite a while. Loki (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

This case should be declined. The initial evidence is mostly old news, and RFARB isn't a double-jeapardy venue. The TG/NB/GQ sphere of issues (and to a lesser extent some aspects of the whole LGBTQ+ umbrella) are always hot-button topics that spur a lot of debate, including false cancel culture-style accusations of "transphobia" or "homophobia" against editors who don't agree with every demand from advocacy angles (especially "English-language reform" stuff). Observation of advocacy/activism lobbying on Wikipedia (WP:SOAPBOX/FORUM/SOCIAL/BATTLEGROUND) isn't a personal attack, it's noticing behavior patterns. WP has lots of it, about many issues; this one isn't special. There are several ongoing RfCs about such matters right now, on the heels of others, with more forthcoming. The community hasn't entirely decided how to handle some of these questions yet, but continues to narrow it down, which in time will reduce dispute in this area. Right now, it's mostly dispute over what the rules should be, and disputes over what to do at particular articles in absence of clear[er] rules.

If this case were accepted, then many parties should be added, starting with most mentioned in the original report, and many commenting on it. E.g, see the extreme WP:BLUDGEON going on by the RM proponent here, nit-picking to death the comments of all participants. However, since an ARCA motion a while back extended WP:ARBGG discretionary sanctions to all of human sexuality and gender, broadly construed, and {{Ds/alert|gg}} has been updated to this effect, there are already sanctions in place that can be applied, by tagging the appropriate articles, leaving Ds/alerts, and raising editor-behavior issues at WP:AE. So, a case like this is not "ripe"; community remedies have by no means been exhausted, but not even much tried (probably because those most interested in bringing such requests would find their own behavior put under the 'scope).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC); rev'd. 00:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To address Sangdeboeuf's "evidence" diffs, in the order of their presentation: 1) See WP:SATISFY; it's no OWN problem to decline to repost large blocks of material. 2) Don't put words in other editors' mouths; if you don't understand their meaning; ask for clarification. 3) Criticizing someone for repeated failure to back up their position isn't any fault of the critic, and being snotty in response certainly doesn't paint the criticized in any better light. 4) A disagreement over policy interpretation isn't a behavior problem, especially if one side is throwing shortcuts and out-of-context quotes around instead of laying about a clear rationale about the policy's applicability to the situation. 5) The other editor shouldn't put words in someone else's mouth either. But disputing one's apparent argument isn't a problem, unless it turns into a long-running straw man. Suggesting that Sangdeboeuf has a habit of BLUDGEON and circular, confusing argument that prolongs instead of clarifies and resolves dispute is hardly new, nor any kind of error on Flyer22's part. It's often difficult to determine Sangdeboeuf's actual point, due to use of shotgun argumentation. 6) Repeat: Don't put words in other editors' mouths. Asking someone to stop isn't a civility fault. 7) Indicating that someone clearly has unclean hands and seems to project their own behavior onto others isn't ASPERSIONS. Even "laughable" seems on-point, given that the nature of Sangdeboeuf's litany of off-base complaints appears to prove the very point that Flyer22 was making. PS: WP:V applies to article content, not talk pages. I decline to do a bunch of circular he-said-she-said stuff with you (especially here). I've given my opinion (briefly and as it pertains to whether this case should be accepted) of your "evidence", and the fact that you won't agree my with view of it is already implicit. That is sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC); rev'd 23:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re MJL's statement: Flyer wasn't alone in SOCK'specting WW at first; I filed an SPI report myself. And, yes, things often do get better between editors after one or more noticeboard filings of any kind; the DRAMA involved tends to inspire a behavior shift (including often enough on the part the filer, too, because scrutiny runs both ways). Re Kolya Butternut: When an editor's behavior forms a long-term pattern, then it is in fact rather predictable. The terms verge on synonymity in this context. It is not a civility problem to remark upon a pattern, so it isn't one to suggest predictability when observing the same behavior. (And I did not say you're "imagining" anything; I'm suggesting you're misinterpreting policy to deem critical observation of unconstructive behavior patterns to be a civility fault.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC); rev'd.: 23:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken (Flyer22Frozen)

I, too, urge the committee to decline this, unless the evidence we cannot see is so utterly damning that there is no choice but to accept it. I have a very difficult time believing that this would be the case in light of what I know about Flyer and her excellent work at protecting and improving Wikipedia. It is extremely hard for me to imagine that Flyer is transphobic, and I've never seen any evidence of that in any of our past dealings. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • ATTENTION CLERKS - The statement "Flyer clearly demonstrates an intractable pattern of psychological abuse towards editors." made by Kolya Butternut and repeated by SandyGeorgia is a blatant violation of WP:NPA and should be redacted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aircorn

I don't think just providing private evidence is enough of a reason to have a case, it will come down to the relevance and strength of this evidence. Obviously not something any of us non arbs here can comment on. I am not sure how VOX is a gender critical website (is that the wrong link)? The onwiki stuff is not actionable. Most of those diffs were either found in Flyers favour or her showing mild annoyance with editors. Flyer works in some difficult areas and in my opinion shows considerable restraint giving the scope of activism and POV pushing in these areas. AIRcorn (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The diffs presented by MJL are all old bar one. And that is hardly scathing. No one is denying that there is history here, but that only really becomes relevant if this is a continuing problem. The reason this has been brought to Arbitration is not because of the old history, but because of some private evidence, which so far only WTT seems to find compelling (and even they say it is not enough for a case). Also just because there were uneven sanctions previously does not mean that one side was treated unfairly. While often neither party is acting ideally in a dispute it is not often the case that both are equally bad.
  • The canvassing accusations put forward by WTT are bizarre. It makes no sense that the person making the claim can ping people, but the accused can not. Apart from Halo (who is a party) and Taylan (who is indeffed) the pings from WW were for people supportive of them. Ideally no one pings, but if one does then you can hardly fault the other for counterpinging.
  • Most editors who are commenting here are not involved in the underlying issues. You have myself, Crossroads and Pyxis who invariably fall alongside Flyers view and Newmpartial, Loki and Koyla who more often align with WW. The others are generally respected editors I have not seen involved in the disputed area, so I think that Thryduulfs cheering section is not as pronounced as implied.
  • Also it is not just Flyers and WWs time that will be wasted if this is accepted, but a lot of other editors as well. AIRcorn (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

No case is needed. WanderingWanda has emailed private evidence to Arbcom and they can evaluate it without public aspersions. The other claims have been thoroughly aired and argued, apparently without an outcome that satisfies WanderingWanda. Indeed WW's first link shows an August 2019 ANI report where none of the mud stuck.

We can AGF forever but Wikipedia is used by activists to promote their favored positions. Flyer is well known as Wikipedia's defense against attempts to unduly POV push in the sexuality area. It would be good if Flyer could do that with fewer words but experience over many years has shown she is invariably correct on the fundamentals. Flyer has been responsible for many socks being blocked and many POV pushers being rebuffed. I have no idea what Flyer does off-wiki but a suggestion that she spends time making "transphobic attacks against editors" is totally incompatible with her on-wiki conduct. It's much more likely that the army of haters (hello Wikipediocracy!) have concocted a joe job. Johnuniq (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

Like a number of other editors, I'm not seeing a case here. Perhaps the private evidence is strong but it could also be poor circumstantial tripe. Since the private evidence seems to be the core of the case I'm not sure how it can be reasonably evaluated by the community. Springee (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there are concerns about on-wiki behavior then why not take this to the community at ANI? If it is a fact that there has been a two-way on going feud here (and I'm not saying this has been proven) then why can't the community address the problem? What make arbcom the correct venue for this issue? Springee (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen328

I was pinged. I am particularly impressed by the analyses offered by Crossroads, Silk Tork, Montanabw, Figureskatingfan, SarahSV, Beyond My Ken and Johnuniq, and join them in asking that this request be declined. The title of this request is "Flyer22 Frozen", but much of the content is about her brother, with frequent mentions of the "Flyer household". This should all be disregarded unless compelling evidence that the sister and brother are coordinating their editing has been furnished, and it hasn't. The section "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" is very weak. Those diffs show no evidence of Wandering Wanda trying to de-escalate. Wandering Wanda complains about Flyer "going on about advocacy" as if that is a bad thing. But our policy WP:NOT states that advocacy is not permitted in Wikipedia content, so consistent opposition to advocacy is a good thing rather than a bad thing. I can't say anything about the email evidence, but unless it is far more compelling than the weak public evidence presented here, I doubt that it would change my opinion. Flyer22 Frozen is, in my opinion, one of our very best editors working in the human sexuality topic area, and is a vigorous opponent of POV pushing, advocacy, sockpuppetry and other forms of disruptive editing. As a result, she has a lot of enemies and a lot of harassers. That should all be taken into account. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Literaturegeek

To me this seems like mostly a storm in a teacup. Should the storm substantially expand itself beyond the teacup then the community can consider options such as interaction bans or topic bans or even blocks. It certainly seems there is no compelling evidence that this cannot be handled by the community.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Girth Summit

I was pinged here, and have read through it. As has been noted by others, the on-wiki evidence is historic, it has already been discussed and addressed where necessary. I don't think that it's a good look for WW to be bringing it up again. I cannot see the off-wiki evidence, and so I am obviously very limited in my ability to comment on that, but I will say this: Flyer22 has long been a target for harassment from at least one trolling LTA. The idea of her acting in the way that has been suggested doesn't smell right to me - the idea of someone commenting in her name as part of an on-going harassment campaign seems more plausible, and those with access to the off-wiki evidence should bear that in mind when evaluating it. Unless that evidence is very solid, specific and damning, this request should be declined. GirthSummit (blether) 11:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Jehochman's point about why the the dispute is still ongoing: IncidentArchive1028#Tonight's_episode_of_the_ongoing_battle_in_gender-related_articles,_what_is_this,_S04E19_I_think|the last ANI thread was closed with generic 'drop the stick' comments directed towards both, and a more formal 'stop harassing and hounding Flyer22' warning to WW. There have not been any further flare-ups since that point, as far as I'm aware, which led me to believe that the warnings/advice had been effective. Perhaps I was wrong. GirthSummit (blether) 14:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Worm That Turned: respectfully, I think your comment about Flyer canvassing people by pinging them is rather unfair, and your qualification that there is 'little to distinguish between them' does not go far enough. WW posted an accusation of malfeasance by Flyer, and pinged numerous people with whom Flyer has previously been in dispute; nobody observed that those were inappropriate notifications, so I don't think it's extraordinary that Flyer would want to notify some of the people who were involved in resolving those disputes. You say that you find the off-wiki evidence compelling - please assure us that you have ruled out any possibility of a targeted joe job. I have more than once spent time finding and rev deleting obscene personal abuse (including some vile threats) directed towards Flyer: we know that there is at least one person out there who knows our editing environment, who knows which articles she is interested in, and who is willing to invest time and energy in harassing her. If we're talking about some posts to an online forum that were made in her name, and which point towards a discussion that she was involved in, I would observe that such comments could easily have been made by someone else in the hope that they would be found and used against her. If you can't be certain that they were posted by Flyer, I think you should AGF and accept Flyer's word that they weren't. (We should also AGF of WW, who was presumably genuine in their belief that they really were Flyer.) GirthSummit (blether) 16:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doug Weller

This looks like part of an ongoing pattern by WW given what Girth Summit and others have said. I find it impossible to believe that Flyer would harass anyone offwiki. On the other hand, a joe job seems much more likely. most of WW's accusations are historical, and what in the world does Flyer's family have to do with it? I'd hate to be brought here because someone didn't like my brother's posts (note that's just an example, he doesn't edit here). The community is perfectly able to handle this sort of thing and has in the past, even if WW hasn't dropped the stick. Nothing here needs the Committee's intervention unless there is overwhelming private evidence for a case, and that doesn't seem to exist. Flyer is always going to be a target due to the work she does, work which we should all appreciate. She doesn't need to have her life made more difficult by having to continually defend herself from the same person. The Committee should decline this as soon as possible so that Flyer can use her time on Wikipedia improving it. Doug Weller talk 14:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: you expressed concern about Flyer22Frozen pinging editors - but I see that WW pinged more than Flyer did. I fail to see any major difference and obviously if Flyer had refrained they would have been at a disadvantage. Doug Weller talk 12:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Worm That Turned: pinging aside, I see a lot of difference in their behaviour. I obviously don't have access to the private information, but onwiki it seems to me that WW is the main problem, even if Flyer could at times be cooler than she is. I don't think she should have to go through the misery of an ArbCom case no matter what the outcome, If this is the vendetta others have suggested it is, that would be a win for the - um, vendee? Doug Weller talk 13:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kolya Butternut

Flyer’s WP:POLEMIC about me which Wanda linked to,[47] and the above statements which ignore it, tell me that if ever there was a case that belonged at Arbitration this is it.

On December 1, Flyer began a dispute by making false accusations on an article talk page that I was following her. [48] When I told her that there was a good faith explanation that had nothing to do with her,[49][50] her response was to preemptively accuse me of lying: "I actually care not for your reply, other than to show just how dishonest you can be."[51] When I provided an explanation on my talk page,[52] her response was to post the WP:POLEMIC on her talk page doubling down on her accusations of hounding and dishonesty.

But what is most shocking, what makes an Arbcom investigation necessary, are her attempts to intimidate and silence any witnesses who would make statements unfavorable to her, and administrators turning a blind eye to it. Flyer wrote: "And that especially goes for Markworthen after this case. And the same goes for other disgruntled editors I've interacted with, including the group of them who watch my talk page. If Kolya Butternut follows me again, Kolya Butternut will be blocked for it. And their few defenders will not be able to stop or overturn that block." I can only imagine there is a long list of editors Flyer has intimidated and isolated into silence. On my talk page, Markworthen, WhatamIdoing, and EEng believed my explanation. Talpedia and Markworthen recognized that Cullen328 was being abusive towards me when he aggressively tried to silence me.

I see so far that most of the editors who Wanda has pinged here have not made statements. I can't blame anyone for not feeling safe to do so.

Flyer clearly demonstrates an intractable pattern of psychological abuse towards editors. Just as she mockingly and falsely accused me of "predictable" bad behavior, just last month she accused Newimpartial of "predictable" bad behavior in an edit summary[53] at WT:MOSBIO. In response to another of Flyer's comments there, Newimpartial asked her to not make personal attacks.[54] Another editor on the same talk page, Armadillopteryx, said to Flyer: "Please quit attacking me for this. You've been very persistent in personalizing this matter, and I have tried to be patient with that. I would like to request that you stop now."[55]

What is going on here? This is just evidence from one talk page which I happened to have read after discussions about Elliot Page's trans status were brought to WT:MOSBIO[56]; I have to assume that administrators are aware of this problem but turn a blind eye to it. How many editors are afraid to speak up because they accurately observe administrators enabling the abuse by gaslighting the victims and telling them that they must have been asking for it? Flyer can be a great editor and a great sock hunter, and she can be an abusive editor. The good does not erase the bad, and we must name the abuse for what it is if we are to help Flyer adjust her maladaptive behavior and create a healthy environment for everyone. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Arbcom for permission to discuss my IBAN, which is relevant to the subject of this case. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish, I am not imagining this behavior. See comments like Colin's: "Flyer22 Frozen, that's three editors you've made personal attacks on..." in a September discussion with CycoMa, Berchanhimez, WhatamIdoing, SandyGeorgia, Memdmarti, Ozzie10aaaa, Girth Summit. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JBW

I have been aware of the conflict between Flyer22 Frozen and WanderingWanda for a long time. As others have said, neither of them comes out of it without criticism. Flyer22 Frozen is not an expert at tact, and, as SilkTork has said, "Flyer's communication style has always tended to be blunt". There are other criticisms of her that can reasonably be made, but the fact that it is possible to find fault with some aspects of how she has handled disagreements over the years should not be allowed to obscure the fact that the conflict between the two editors is 99% due to the fact that, as several editors have already said here, WanderingWanda has a longstanding vendetta against Flyer22 Frozen. Time and time again over the years WanderingWanda has harassed Flyer22, has perpetually found any kind of excuse she can find to attack her, has baited her, has misrepresented what she has said in order to justify attacks on her. This request is just another example of the same thing. Flyer22's responses to the harassment she has been subjected to have not always been ideal, but in view of the amount of provocation she has been subjected to over the years it is not reasonable to represent her responses as gross abuse, as WanderingWanda has tried to do. I am not in a position to assess the off-wiki evidence, but on the basis of past experience of WanderingWanda, but if I were an arbitrator I would want very clear and convincing evidence that the off-wiki posts really did come from Flyer22 before giving them any weight whatever. As for the on-wiki evidence, it does not even faintly begin to suggest that there is a valid case here. JBW (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


When I wrote the above comment I was thinking purely in terms of WanderingWanda's attempt to use this request for arbitration as a way of getting at Flyer22. I'm not sure why I thought of it that way. There are also, of course, other ways that a case might work, because if a case is accepted the Arbitration Committee will consider both parties, and may manage to come up with something constructive other than simply a one-way sanction against Flyer22, which is what WanderingWanda is after. That being so, there may be a case for accepting a case. JBW (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newimpartial

While have no advice for the Arbs about hearing this, and don't want to involve myself more than necessary, I did want to clarify a couple of points since I was mentioned (not pinged).

1) in my experience. Flyer22 Frozen has a consistent habit of explicitly assuming bad faith in discussions, particularly if she has interacted with the editor before or believes the editor of socking. This is the case even where there is no evidence either of socking or of bad faith by the editor concerned; it seems to be a default behaviour once she is reminded of a bad WP experience.

2) Crossroads and Flyer22 Frozen share a point of view on certain issues, and neither of these editors seem recognize to recognize consistently, as they discuss these issues, when they are promoting a particular point of view on them. Crossroads' judgement about what is POV pushing and what is pushing back should therefore not be considered authoritative, but rather specific instances should be considered on their merits.

I would be able to produce diffs on either of these points if it would help, but I suspect that such evidence would not likely affect the decision whether to proceed with the Arb case. I have posted here only to clarify a couple of aspects as I see them. Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: the interpretation of "activism", as in "activist arguments", held by Crossroads and Flyer22 Frozen is precisely as reliable as their perspective on NPOV, and their labeling of other editors as "activist" because said editors happen to perceive the sources, WP policy, or due balance differenrly than they do is certainly one of the behaviours making it more difficult to edit in certain areas than it needs to be. Newimpartial (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pyxis Solitary

I was pinged to this. This complaint by WanderingWanda should be filed under the proverb "He who smelt it dealt it".

The last person who should be accusing another editor of misbehavior is WanderingWanda. The last person who should be accusing another editor of doing anything off-wiki that sets any hair on fire is WanderingWanda ... because ... is it not obvious that when a Wikipedia editor accuses another Wikipedia editor of posting comments in another website, a forum, or a chat board that THEY, themselves, are frequenting those websites, forums, and chat boards -- and who knows what the hell they posted in them? Are we supposed to believe that Flyer22 Frozen went to a trans-critical site and identified herself as "Wikipedia Editor Flyer22 Frozen" in whatever WanderingWanda is accusing her of posting in it?

And now WanderingWanda is including "The Flyer household" in the accusation?

Does WanderingWanda think everyone who reads the above anti-Flyer22 diatribe will be an idiot?

Transgender activists like WanderingWanda come to Wikipedia to add their flavor and spin to any articles associated in any manner with transgenderism, sexuality, and gender; which results in too many transgender editors banding together to support and defend each other in their mutual interest and editing history. In my experience, I have found that many trans-identified and trans-advocate editors have adopted an "us vs. them" stance which is exacerbated by conspiracy theories about them being against us. In my opinion -- based on observations of WW's dealings with other editors and WW's arguments in talk pages -- WanderingWanda is a member of this camp.

The history of acrimony from WanderingWanda towards Flyer22 is documented. WanderingWanda's history of deprecating and disparaging comments about and towards Flyer22 is documented. WanderingWanda's history of accusing Flyer22 of egregious behavior is documented. (Here's an example of a 'WW here we go again roulette wheel' from November 2019.)

I don't know Flyer22 Frozen outside of Wikipedia. I know her only from articles we've edited and from witnessing the ANI b.s. she has been dragged into by editors who have made her their target because she pushes back against unscrupulous editing by activist editors. Never would I believe that Flyer22 would be so stupid as to engage in activity outside of Wikipedia that would tie her to anything she does on Wikipedia.

Dismiss this baseless, ARB personal attack against Flyer22 Frozen. No editor should be allowed even a sliver of a chance to manipulate the system for the purpose of satisfying a long-standing grudge against another editor.

Also, because there is a tendency to chastise both parties when only one is at fault and only one has created a problem: ban WanderingWanda from ever again saying one iota of anything about Flyer22 Frozen. Bring the hammer down on WanderingWanda once and for all. Because if you don't, WanderingWanda's accusation monster will rear its ugly head against Flyer22 Frozen again in the future, somehow, some way. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 23:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: If you accept the case, then an IBAN should be leveled against WanderingWanda. Their unceasing search for an opportunity to pounce on Flyer22 needs to stop. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Feyd Huxtable

Recommend decline. Looking at this as a feud between two otherwise good editors, as GS has said it seems to have been mostly resolved back in January, only flaring up now as Wanda understandably didn't consider that the off wiki postings may have been a Joe job.

Looking at this as a case against Flyer, some of the diffs are concerning. There have been lapses of AGF & moments of insensitivity, which hopefully Flyer will continue to try to avoid. Though in fairness possibly many of us, or at least certainly myself, would make far worse mistakes if they frequently edited in these inherently emotive topics . Flyer seems to have done many thousands of good edits in this important area . Gender & related culture war issues are said to have took over from the old atheism v religion wars as the most contentious area of debate across the whole internet. If the diffs are the only times Flyer has made heated comments, then not only does she not deserve sanctions, she's to be commended for the years of perseverance, defending NPOV on challenging articles. It's also good to see Flyer's generosity in takeing the time to write detailed posts. There's remarkable diversity of mainstream thought for these topics. In working towards good NPOV coverage there's many different perspectives to consider, and it's good to see Flyer doing this here and in several of Wandas other diffs. All this said, no reason not to resolve by motion for a no fault 2 way iban, if either of the parties indicate that theyd like that. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MJL

This case has an incredibly need to be accepted. This isn't a stale dispute by any means.[57]

I have known WanderingWanda for about a year or so now, and I can't even begin to mention how the community has failed to provide any sort of relief for them. For example:

Examples?
  • On Talk:Women, Flyer22 openly accused Wander of being a sockpuppet with no evidence.[58]
  • Flyer22 once reverted Wander's good faith contribution to Human sexual activity by casting aspersions against them.[59]
  • When Wander explained their reasonings for adding the image, they were accused of activism.[60]
  • Regarding another talk page, Flyer22 engaged in personal attacks against Wander last year.[61]
  • Conversations between the two frequently end up devolving into "no u" arguments.[62][63]

Don't get me wrong; it's a two party dispute. However, one of the last times this was brought a warning for both was dismissed in favour of a warning for just Wander(!).[64] They were accused of hounding (without evidence) and casting aspirations (without evidence). All the while, Wander was the only one to comment to AN/I promising to try and improve their behavior! No such commitment was made from Flyer22.

The community is clearly incapable of neutrally examining the case of Wander v. Flyer22. We need a group like arbcom to step in here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads: I'll ask you this: do you think things between Flyer22 and Wander are going to get any better now that one has filed against the other? I certainly don't think so.
@WTT: Regarding the pings and canvassing, I do recall this conversation about Flyer22 was already had. See here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Crossroads: These two have a well known, highly problematic, feud with one another. Still, neither has been sanctioned. There is no reason to believe it will not still remain a problem. A case can only be helpful to them both.
@WTT: My takeaway from that discussion is that both Wander and Flyer22 were put under the impression that pinging is fair game. Hence, why we see it becoming an issue now. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Crossroads, Wander's pings included ones for QEDK and JzG. I would say considering both issued warning against WW, then they can hardly be considered their supporters by any means. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@QEDK: What I mean to say is that thread had barely a single diff to support the accusations against Wander and Flyer22. Don't get me wrong, you closed the thread as consensus showed itself to be, but there were serious errors in process in how that AN/I thread was conducted. I say this because, in my experience, Flyer22 seems to be the one with a vendetta against Wander (not the other way around except recently). However, it would be reckless of me to make that feeling alone the basis of an AN/I thread. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out, this did not result in a single ping. @Sangdeboeuf and LokiTheLiar: Can you two confirm that? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangdeboeuf: Weird.. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Betty Logan

Looking through the diffs there seems to be a sustained campaign of harrassment against Flyer. This "evidence" is littered with notices left by WanderingWanda on Flyer's talk page, and of reports at ANI they have filed against Flyer. The worst criticism I can find that has been sustained against Flyer is that she sometimes doesn't assume good faith or commits a civility violation. However, even those have to be taken in context because Flyer primarily works in a highly contentious area where she has tried to impose neutrality and tempers have become frayed. I don't know the story behind the misgendering incident but the admin concluded it was clearly an accident. I looked at this website presented in the evidence above but couldn't figure out what Flyer was supposed to have done on it. This report looks a lot like forum shopping to me.

Looking at Flyer's block log her last block 6 years ago was deemed an "unnecessary block". There was a sequence of blocks in 2012 related to her brother also editing Wikipedia. There has been no blocks for behavioral conduct despite all the occasions she has been taken to ANI. If this case does indeed go to ArbCom then it is going to have to widen its terms of reference to incorporate the competence of the admins who reviewed those cases. It looks very much like an editor has not got the result they wanted so they are attempting to re-litigate. That is not what ArbCom is for. Betty Logan (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

What I am seeing here is a dispute that is primarily between two editors, both of whom have cheering sections (for want of a better term) among the corps of editors who post at venues like ANI. This leads to distrust in the impartiality of voices in support of Wanda by those who support Flyer and vice versa. Treatment at ANI where two parties are engaging in very similar behaviour and only one gets called out on it (see MJL's second paragraph for example) appears on the surface to be unfair (whether it is or not), exacerbating these issues.

I encourage the Committee to accept this case, making it clear, including in the case name, that the conduct of both parties is equally in scope and that both parties' conduct will be examined independently of the conduct of the other. Thryduulf (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Betty Logan: Someone who is repeatedly taken to ANI and not sanctioned because they have not done anything wrong, someone who is repeatedly taken to ANI and not sanctioned because they have a bunch of people acting as enablers/excusers for bad behaviour (regardless of the reason) and someone who is repeatedly taken to ANI and not sanctioned because the other parties were more egregiously badly behaved look identical if you only look at the outcome. I don't know which is happening here (and a combination of two or even all three is also possible) but taken as a whole I see enough here to merit a detailed investigation by people who have no skin in the game to find out which it is. If either party has done nothing worthy of sanction then they wont get sanctioned. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sangdeboeuf

Bear in mind that Flyer22 and I have a history of disagreement on sensitive topics, and I have sometimes let my impatience with them get the better of me. But I don't think that justifies their ongoing pattern of incivility, assuming bad faith, and needlessly personalizing discussions. Some recent examples from Talk:Transsexual:

  • 6:04, 24 November I'm known to provide a collapsed box of sources to support my arguments. But you aren't going to goad me into doing that ... there are a lot of things you aren't aware exist in this field ... I usually don't have to request sources on this topic. I know what I'm talking about. Verges into WP:OWN territory.
  • 6:35, 24 November You ... as usual [are] putting words in my mouth. In response to my trying to decipher their bizarre statement that "we usually do not do things just because [other encyclopedias] have done it" regarding WP:TITLE.
  • 7:23–7:27, 24 November I asked [you] ... for examples ... I know I won't be getting any. Then why ask?
  • 7:35, 24 November Like I don't know everything that WP:TITLE states. Yeaaah, that's helpful. WP:IDHT in response to WanderingWanda pointing out a section of policy contradicting Flyer22's argument.
  • 7:37, 24 November If you felt that the term meant anything else, you would not have argued what you argued ... In response to my disputing their characterization of my argument in the discussion.
  • 8:37, 24 November So we're to play dumb then? Okay ... putting words in others' mouths is your game. More of the same.
  • 23:13, 24 November Your "Now we are definitely approaching incivility, not to mention WP:ABF and WP:GRUDGE territory" commentary is laughable. You are one to talk. Definite WP:ASPERSION.

To sum up, Flyer22 seems to interpret any challenge to their views as a personal slight, and so responds with personal slights of their own. I bring this up here because they acknowledge that they were already well aware of discretionary sanctions in this topic area. Therefore, they should know better than to engage in such obvious battleground behavior. To describe Flyer22's communication style as "blunt" as others have done is putting it too mildly, in my opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: I got the ping here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads: I said I have had disagreements with Flyer22, not "gripes". That implies personal resentment. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: 1) There was no large block of material; therefore there was nothing to decline. Flyer22 was simply refusing to provide sources. 2) You're just repeating Flyer22's accusation without substantiating it. 3) There was no repeated failure to back up anything. Flyer22 asked a vague question, which I answered as best I could. "Snotty" is how I would describe their response; it was a blatant assumption of bad faith. 4) Claiming to "know everything" about something is more than a difference of interpretation. Wanda's quotation was entirely pertinent. 5) Now you are putting words in Flyer22's mouth: pretending to read someone's mind is not "suggesting that [X] has a habit of [doing Y]". 6) This was not a request to stop anything. It was yet another personal WP:GRUDGE on Flyer22's part. 7) It's one thing to say someone has unclean hands. It's another to repeatedly bait them and then say their protests are "laughable". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: Achieving consensus is done by "using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense". Arguing the same point without providing sources to back it up is disruptive. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Banedon

Arbcom, why would you not accept this? I don't get it.

  • There obviously is a dispute, and a long-running one as well. The longer a dispute has been simmering, the more probable it should be that it requires Arbcom intervention, not less.
  • What can you hope to achieve by declining? Ideally one would hope that WanderingWanda and Flyer22 would reconcile and become friends and it's all roses from here on, but given that they both have scathing views of each other, that is almost certainly not going to happen.
  • Accepting a case now ought not to be equivalent to sanctions being inevitable. It doesn't even have to mean that WanderingWanda/Flyer22 did something wrong! It just means there is a dispute to look at that Arbcom can potentially resolve. Any outcome should still be possible.
  • I find the reason given in the statements to decline - that the evidence is old - to be very unconvincing. It's like saying that if I were to get into a dispute today, I should do everything in my power to NOT drop the stick, because if I do, the evidence no longer matters in a future Arbcom case. That just sounds so very silly to me. Attempting to look past the dispute ought to be treated as a positive, not negative.
  • @David Fuchs: If the last ANI thread was successful at stemming the problematic interactions, why is there an RFAR?

I don't see much upside in declining, but there's a lot of potential upside in accepting. I don't see much downside in accepting either. The worst downside is presumably "time wasting", but WanderingWanda obviously does not feel their time is being wasted (since they filed the RFAR), and Flyer22 hasn't indicated the same.

tl; dr: don't shove the issue under the carpet for the next Arbcom to resolve, solve it yourself.

Banedon (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by qedk

@MJL: To clarify, I was not pinged by WanderingWanda, any time I was mentioned was actually using {{noping}}-esque methods (so I was unaware). But that aside, your ping did come through and I thought I should clarify the ANI thread I closed, that you brought up as having no evidentiary value. Just a note that my summarization does not take into account any events that occurred thereafter, since I never really delved into this topic area or had any significant interaction with either of them. Apart from the fact that it was a complete mess, the immediate realization was that the editors don't go well together at all, and what was worse that it kept going into spinoff disputes with other editors, if I had to describe it - it would be definitive mud-slinging. Now, keeping in mind that proving WP:HOUND is difficult, it was quite obvious to me (and at least three other administrators) that WW did hound Flyer22, sure - you can hand-wave that away with a "there is no technical evidence" - but again, the thread really speaks for itself (for a TLDR: read JBW's statement). The primary concern that I had was WW's personalization of content disputes, which would probably have turned out fine if WW had not been so strongly invested. If anything, I strongly disagree with the summarization of the warning as without evidence - because there was enough, and the warning was merely a slap on the wrist, for whatever it was worth - all of us (at least me) simply assumed WW would disengage (as a lot of people suggested). Would this case benefit from being accepted? Probably - the easiest outcome would be a no-fault two-way IBAN, but sooner or later, this matter will have to come to stead. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SandyGeorgia

I was pinged to this page (above) by a user I am not familiar with. I have not read the rest of the page, and would not like to (because I so frequently encounter editors defending Flyer's outlandish behaviors, which is de-motivating to say the least). I saw one statement from the editor who pinged me that said: "Flyer clearly demonstrates an intractable pattern of psychological abuse towards editors." I endorse this statement fully, a perfect summation, and not because of the ways in which Flyer has gone after me or made participation at WT:MED talk pages unbearable, but because of the long history of posts on their talk where their behavior towards most editors is simply unacceptable. The mis-use of rollback, repeatedly, should also be dealt with. One disturbing factor is that there is a group of admins who rally round and support the inappropriate behaviors, so perhaps Flyer has not understood how really atrocious and off-putting these behaviors are, and how hard they make it to recruit new MED editors. This is a continuation of the only remaining issue from the Medicine arbcase, where it has become apparent that discretionary sanctions are not needed or helpful when the behaviors come from a limited number of editors. Please accept the case: I promise I can summarize the evidence in this case in the allotted limits and diffs, as they are easily found and easily understood. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Protonk: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One easily found typical interaction with User:Guy Macon : [65] [66] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Roy McCoy

Decline. I examined the presented diffs and didn't notice anything worthy of an expenditure of time and effort. My impression is that if the case is accepted, an IBAN should be placed on WW. –Roy McCoy (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guy Macon

Posting because my name was mentioned.

I do not wish to be involved in this dispute in any way or to have any interactions with Flyer22 Frozen. If I have inadvertently interacted with them in any way I apologize. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Flyer22)

Some of the previous statements say that ArbCom should not accept this dispute, or should decline to accept it. These statements asking for a non-acceptance make a good-faith error that I often see in statements advising that a case be declined. That error consists of arguing that the filing party has not proved their case against the defendant. A lower burden of proof should be required for ArbCom to accept a case than for ArbCom to impose sanctions, because acceptance of a case is based on the small amount of evidence in the opening statement.

There is a problem, and the community has not resolved it. In the past, it could have been hoped that the problem would be resolved or would go away. However, the filing of the case is, in itself, an indication that there still is a problem. Either Flyer is harassing Wanda, or Wanda is falsely accusing Flyer of harassment, or something in between, or some combination thereof.

I don't know exactly what the problem is, and I don't want to know exactly what the problem is, and it is not my responsibility to determine what the problem is. It is ArbCom's responsibility to determine what the problem is and how to solve it. If ArbCom determines that Flyer is innocent of the allegations that Wanda has made, then a one-way interaction ban against Wanda complaining about Flyer may be sufficient. A two-way interaction ban may be sufficient. Some other sanction may be necessary.

The idea that ArbCom should decline this case because Wanda has not proved it is a good-faith error that I often see in statements that ArbCom should decline cases. ArbCom should accept this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doc James

While I am not as active here as I once was, for various reasons, I have always found Flyers22 work to be of high quality and in good faith. They spend a fair bit of time working in controversial topic areas and thus invariably have encountered issues over the years. I imagine this case will come down to the emailed evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ozzie10aaaa

Flyer22 has always been a net positive at medical articles and at WP:Med. I have found Flyer to be a very important part of our core medical editors, therefore based on this the case should be declined...IMO, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Legitimus

Flyer22 has been invaluable on articles of a WP:MED and in particular areas concerning the abuse and exploitation of children. We have worked together improving such articles for more than a decade as well as protecting them from agenda-focused editors seeking to undermine them. These articles require constant monitoring and with them being such an unplesant subject, there are very few with both the knowledge and stomach for it that ever help out. I'm not sure those articles would be the way they are today with her tireless work and attention to detail.Legitimus (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John B123

This has been rumbling on for along time. Obviously I have no knowledge of the private aspects of this, but the public ones don't seem to have much substance. I would echo QEDK's sentiment when closing one of the previous linked to ANIs: Just in general, please drop the goddamn stick. --John B123 (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Flyer22 Frozen: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • ​​​ All participants in this case request are granted a 500-word extension (in addition to the original 500 word limit) for the purpose of replying to arbitrators only. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Frozen: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <6/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Awaiting further statements. Off-wiki evidence has been received and is available to the arbitrators for review when deciding whether to accept this case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @WanderingWanda: Speaking only to your on-wiki evidence at the moment: The thread from Kolya Butternut's talk page, the diff from Talk:Transsexual, and two diffs (links in the last bullet point of your statement) from Flyer's own talk page appear to be the only recent evidence. Aside from those, the diffs mostly are edits ranging from 1–4 years old. Generally speaking, I am hesitant to accept cases based on such an old body of evidence, especially when none of the recent diffs show anything egregious. Is this an ongoing problem? GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Accept. Although some of the evidence is quite old, what is very clear to me is that there is some issue here between these two users (as well as perhaps more, and potential topic-area disruption as well) which has been going on for quite some time and through various attempts at dispute resolution. It is not immediately clear to me what I think would resolve it (I see some people suggesting we interaction ban by motion and decline the case, and I'm not sure that's it), so I think a full case is needed here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading through this report, and the private evidence emailed to the committee, and I'm not seeing anything particularly compelling. Everything I've looked at appears to be vague, overblown, or so long ago that it's irrelevant. It's possible I'm missing something though, so I'll wait for further comments. – bradv🍁 00:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Accept – there is enough evidence here that the dispute is not stale. We need to investigate the conduct of all the parties involved. – bradv🍁 15:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, I've read through, and have a few initial comments. Regarding the private evidence, I do find the evidence of links provided compelling, however it is all dated information, which would have been much more relevant a year ago. I also see there's a lot of history here, as well as topics that some find either taboo or controversial - which does make it more difficult for the community to deal with, so I can see benefit of Arbcom intervention. What I will say though, Flyer22 Frozen and I would have though this would be pretty obvious - selectively pinging over a dozen editors is not the best way to respond to an accusation of canvassing.
    I've not made up my mind here, but I am leaning towards accepting this case. I do expect the final outcome will be nothing more than an interaction ban, which makes me pause, as we could possibly handle by motion. The concern is whether there is more going on. WormTT(talk) 09:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Doug Weller - to be clear, I would expect any case to be investigating both WanderingWanda and Flyer22 Frozen - I agree, there is little to distinguish between the behaviour of each. I also agree it is rich for WW to be talking about canvassing given their opening statement. I'm simply not happy for Arbcom to decline this case of a clear long term dispute which may have more to it than simply two people not getting along. WormTT(talk) 13:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Montanabw, as much as I see the links as compelling on the off-wiki evidence, it is not an on-going concern - as I have said, it would have been far more relevant a year ago, so I wouldn't be accepting a case based up on that - if we did base a decision on said evidence, I agree we should be making it clear what that evidence is to Flyer. Also, indeed, I appreciate that there has not been any on-wiki blow up since January - and a year without issue does make me pause, as I'm a big believer in "if it's not broken don't fix it". I'm concerned that so many editors seem to know about this long term set of disagreements, and I really don't want to be kicking that sort of can down the road. WormTT(talk) 15:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Girth Summit, the off-wiki evidence does not appear to be a targetted joe-job. I obviously cannot completely rule out joe-jobbing - but I do not believe that's the case. That said, it's dated information and the committee should not be accepting a case based upon it. Regarding the pinging - I expect a case request to ping people who are relevant to discussions, and give aggrieved individuals due weight. However, the way that Flyer selectively brought in individuals to the discussion - basically her selection of people who commented at an ANI - I can see being a breach of CANVAS. That said - I will make it clear, breaches of CANVAS have levels. Underhand co-ordinated changes to content is drastically more unacceptable that bringing people to a discussion where you may be sanctioned - but it was worth noting to Flyer. WormTT(talk) 16:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    MJL I'm not sure what to make of that discussion on pinging and canvassing, as editors were discussing different things - a single issue, where WW had complained that Flyer22 was canvassing - there was general disagreement. The general issue, as to whether pinging could be considered canvassing, there was general agreement. On the need to change policy, there was general disagreement. I think those are all reasonable outcomes. My point above, was that selectively pinging some of the people who participated in an ANI thread could be considered canvassing - and doing so in response to a complaint about canvassing is not a good look. WormTT(talk) 09:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe we should accept this case. I believe all parties agree that this has been going on too long. There are those who believe that we should not accept it is on the basis there is no ongoing issues or that the last ANI sorted it out, but the discussion from 2-3 weeks ago shows different -just because these issues haven't made it to ANI since January doesn't mean they have stopped. There are those who believe the dispute is completely one sided - well a case will show that clearly. My only thought would be about the case name, which I do not believe should be focussed on a single individual. WormTT(talk) 09:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main concern about a case is that based on statements above it seems like the last ANI thread seemed to, until this filing, be successful at stemming the problematic interactions between the editors in question. Leaving it aside, if we declined, I'm not sure there's evidence that the behaviors would flare up, or that noticeboards or standing DS can't address it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I would see a more compelling need for a case had this all been brought here in the spring of 2019, which is when most of the evidence is from. Arbcom is not a court, it's purpose is to stop current and sustained disruption of the project, not to punish users for things they may have done in the past. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just clarifying that the above comment is not a "hard decline" and I am still considering whether or not we should accept the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pyxis Solitary:, you are asking both that we reject the case, and that we "hammer" the user who filed it. I realize not everyone is well-versed in how the committee operates, but in short, it doesn't work like that. If you want the committee to act, we would need to accept the case, we don't go around conducting our own investigations of random editors so we can sanction them. Cases can and do come to conclusions not desired or anticipated by the filing party. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept This is clearly a mess. I'm not at all sure how it will turn out but I think ArbCom is needed to untangle it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • accept I think given there are ongoing simmering issues and private evidence to consider as background then we are the only ones in a position to take a look at this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. A lot of the statements here advising us not to accept are based on an assessment that the allegations made by the filer aren't substantiated: that may well be true, but I'd feel a lot more comfortable making that call after a systematic review of the evidence. At this stage it's enough to ask whether they are serious (yes) and not entirely without merit (yes), and on that basis we should accept. As for the notion that this is "stale", I've said before that I think this is a dubious concept to apply to ArbCom cases: saying that disputes must have exhausted all other resolution processes, but must also come to us "fresh", is an unreasonable catch-22. A dispute that has been quite for a while is not necessarily a dispute that is resolved. – Joe (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept As Joe just said, the requirements for fresh evidence during ongoing difficulties and unsuccessful attempts at other venues is unrealistic. I am not in the least sure what a fair resolution of this would be (and , obviously, both pareties can expect to havetheir conduct examined), but I think it does need to get resolved, and this is the place to do it. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=993313581"