• About arbitrationTalk
• Arbitration policy (CU/OS)
• Guide to arbitration
• Noticeboard + Talk
• Search archived proceedings
• Ban appealsReport

• All open requests
• Case requests
• Clarification and Amendment requests
• Arbitrator motion requests
• Enforcement requests

• Contentious topics (Log)
• General sanctions
• Editor sanctions

• Discuss+
• Contact
• Members
• Procedures
• ElectionsTalk
• History
• Clerks+ Talk
• Clerk procedures
• Conflict of interest reports

• Talk
• StatisticsTalk
• Reports (pre-2016)

• v
• t
• e

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 17:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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 12:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

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 15:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

You could name the case Gender-related controversies. Jehochman 02:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Please do not suspend the case. There are active accusations against WanderingWanda from multiple editors here, including activist editing and POV pushing. These accusations should be resolved one way or the other. If Flyer chooses not to participate, that's up to them. There are two other named parties whose behavior should be examined. If hounding ostensibly causes an editor to retire, the accused hound should not be let off the hook without a thorough investigation. Jehochman 14:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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: 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 Misplaced Pages 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 17:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC) rev. Crossroads 05:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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 23:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) rev. Crossroads 05:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Kolya Butternut's comment, not just Flyer, but four admins warned KB about their interactions with her: Cullen328, JBW, Johnuniq, & Liz. 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 " 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 17:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC) rev. Crossroads 05:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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 20:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

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 (, , & ), passive-aggressively moved her comments around, and have been uncivil. 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 21:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC) rev. Crossroads 22:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

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 05:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@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 05:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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". Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages itself must be neutral). Crossroads 17:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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 23:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC) rev. Crossroads 05:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

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 05:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The case absolutely should be suspended. With Flyer retired, the case would consist pretty much entirely of kicking her while she is down. ArbCom cases take huge amounts of time for both arbs and participants. Let's not put all of us through a lengthy trial where the primary accused cannot defend herself. Any other disputes between others here that came up in this context are certainly not at the level of needing ArbCom. Crossroads 16:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I still say that this case should be suspended (or better yet, declined), and I echo these two recent comments as to why. However, if the case goes ahead, Casliber should recuse himself. He recused himself from the Medicine case due to significant interactions with multiple parties in the request. One of these was SandyGeorgia, as she replied to him in that link making her own request. SandyGeorgia has also pinged Casliber while in a dispute. Since SandyGeorgia accuses Flyer and intends to be very active in the case, to ensure an impartial and fair hearing, Casliber should recuse.

Additionally, here WanderingWanda states, As for the idea of getting rid of gendered categories altogether, well, why stop there? I was chatting with an arb recently who thinks that the entire category system is a waste of time and should be eliminated! Who is this arb who WanderingWanda is friends with so as to chat (evidently) off-wiki? They should also recuse themselves. If we have to go ahead with a case, then it has to be judged by arbitrators of whom everyone can be confident they do not have bias in favor of certain parties. Crossroads 22:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, SandyGeorgia clearly intends on being a major accuser in this case. An arb who appears to be biased in favor of her, and who SandyGeorgia clearly views as an ally, should recuse. As for what WW said, I do agree with asking for more information about this particular interaction. Crossroads 22:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages'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, Misplaced Pages, and the community at large by not focusing on that minor personal failure (unless the failure is genuinely harming Misplaced Pages), 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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 21:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@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 15:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 22:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Worm That Turned, re: your latest comments, this risks becoming another GGTF case (which incidentally you and GorillaWarfare drafted in 2014, though you didn't both support the outcome). The only two people who ended up being banned were the ones who had been hounded. Or the Lightbreather case in 2015, where Lightbreather, who experienced some of the most persistent harassment I've seen on WP, was the only one who was banned.

The community has been discussing for at least 14 years how ArbCom requests and cases can be used to hound editors. People who are targets of hounding are never perfect victims. They're likely to have done something wrong, which is what makes them vulnerable, and the more they're hounded, the more they may respond by doing that very thing, so the bad diffs pile up.

Flyer's problem is that when under stress she tends to get on her high horse. It may look like arrogance, but I'm guessing she does it because she lacks self-confidence.

Even at this late stage, is it not possible to find a less damaging solution than an ArbCom case? What would be ideal is to form a small group of uninvolved mentors, including at least one admin who's willing to block if needed, who will make sure Flyer stops making the problem posts. Otherwise her work is good. She tries to use the most appropriate sources, keeps the language professional, and makes sure the images are less "male gaze" than they might otherwise be. It would be good to find a way not to lose her. Anything else, including if there's a need for interaction bans, can be handled at AE with the GG discretionary sanctions. SarahSV 00:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

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)

@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)

Giggity and several others, including some of the arbitrators, have suggested a two-way IBAN between Wanda and Flyer will fix this. It won't: setting aside my sincere belief that Wanda is a good editor that doesn't deserve sanctions, even if you believe they "have it out for" Flyer, an IBAN from Flyer to Wanda won't fix her side because Flyer's problem is not only with Wanda but with every editor who challenges her. I count no less than five editors on this page who report personal extremely negative experiences with Flyer (Wanda, myself, Kolya, Sangdeboeuf, and SandyGeorgia), with several more (MJL, Newimpartial, among others) reporting having witnessed some uncivil behavior from Flyer.

In addition, I would like to dispute the contention of Doug Weller, repeated by Worm that "there is little to distinguish the behavior" of Wanda and Flyer, specifically with regards to pinging people to this case. Both of them did indeed ping several people, but Wanda pinged a wide assortment of different people involved with various incidents in various ways, some of whom were against Wanda in the originating incidents and some of whom have already come to say they don't support this case. On the other hand, Flyer pinged a long list of people who supported her in a previous ANI only, and specifically did not ping me, the person who started that ANI, even though she did mention my name. She then separately pinged a list of admins who supported her in a previous incident with Kolya, but also did not ping Kolya himself, again despite mentioning his name. This looks to me a lot more like an intentional attempt to WP:CANVASS.

This all may be moot b/c of Flyer22's retirement from Misplaced Pages, I don't know. But I'd like to have said it in case Arbcom decides to take the case now anyway, or even if they decide to suspend it and Flyer22 returns. (In fact, briefly for the record, I'd like to encourage Arbcom to take the case now because, as demonstrated below, suspending it allows her fanbase to feel aggrieved towards Wanda and Arbcom and take it out on Wanda and Arbcom rather than actually resolving the issue.) Loki (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages (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 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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

• 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)

• Wow. Another triumph for this committee, another good editor and asset to the community driven away. I'm speechless. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
  • This sucks and is a big blow to the project. Well done all. AIRcorn (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Beeblebrox you are right, it is a cheap shot. Sorry, I realise that no matter what you decide here will upset some editors. There is a cost in accepting an arbcom case though. For example we have Wanda pinging Kolya, who says Flyer clearly demonstrates an intractable pattern of psychological abuse towards editors. They then ping Sandy who repeats the personal attack and then pings Protonk who implies Flyer is rude, transphobic and uninterested in feedback. Neither Koyla or Sandy were involved in the dispute they pinged about and their disputes have nothing to do with the central issue the case is about. It is classic mudslinging. If this is what happens at the request page, who in their right mind would want to endure that in the evidence stage. Let alone the scorched earth approach these cases often end up being. AIRcorn (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages is used by activists to promote their favored positions. Flyer is well known as Misplaced Pages'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)

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)

• 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm directing this at the Arbs, so I hope the following comment will be permitted as part of the 500 word extension.

I don't want to single any individual out for criticism, but I believe that we, as a community, have let Flyer22 down badly in how we have been, and are, dealing with this. We've been letting her down for years in fact. She is a remarkable and dedicated editor, who has written and improved some of our most important articles, who has worked diligently to maintain neutrality and balance in some extremely controversial areas, and who has also been one or our most prolific and experienced patrollers for years. As a result of this, in addition to the ton of abuse abuse she has received from trolls and POV pushers, she has butted heads with some regular contributors. Rightly or wrongly, she seems to have interpreted this case request as an attempt to get rid of her by those editors, and has decided to bow out on her own terms rather than be subject to that.

Flyer22 is not a saint. I've advised her in the past to try to adopt a less confrontational tone, and I am sure that some people have been genuinely upset by some things she has said in the past. However, the idea that she can be fairly described as a homophobe or transphobe is, frankly, absurd, no-matter how hard you squint at the diffs presented, and the shit that she has put up with for years would try anybody's patience. We could have done better as a community in supporting her through that, while perhaps giving her the occasional friendly nudge towards a less abrasive style.

Whatever we say about Arbcom not being a court, we need to recognise how stressful it can be for someone to have to go through a case, especially someone who has invested so much in this project. If she feels that this is the final straw, then we have failed her. We need to be supporting people like Flyer22 with the abuse they receive, and encouraging and helping them to deal with issues they come across collaboratively; instead of doing that, this feels like someone has compiled a list of grievances and brought it here to get her kicked out. It's little wonder that she doesn't want to be part of it.

I don't know what the solution is at this point. You all seem to feel that a case is needed; I don't think that suspending it, so that it's hanging over everyone's head if Flyer22 decides to return, is the right call. Whatever you decide to do, please do it with the tact and respect that those involved are due, in a manner that might lead towards a more supportive environment for everyone. Good luck. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages improving it. Doug Weller talk 14:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@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)

@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)

Statement by Kolya Butternut

Flyer’s WP:POLEMIC about me which Wanda linked to, 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. When I told her that there was a good faith explanation that had nothing to do with her, 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." When I provided an explanation on my talk page, 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 at WT:MOSBIO. In response to another of Flyer's comments there, Newimpartial asked her to not make personal attacks. 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."

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; 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Second addendum: since LokiTheLiar is classifying editors' experiences with Flyer22 Frozen, I would point out that I have had extremely frustrating and negative experiences with both her and Halo Jerk1, so I belong in a different category than the one indicated. In my first post I emphasized the patterns of problematic interaction that seemed to happen repeatedly to other editors - because this isn't about me - but I wouldn't want that to be construed as "this happened to other people but not to me", or "I wasn't bothered". Many of my negative experiences had to do with WP:AGF failures on the part of Flyer or Halo Jerk - as I have also seen them do in interactions with other editors - and some have had to do with POV-pushing/battleground behaviour.

I would also note a third category of problematic interaction I've had with Flyer, namely a rather extreme form of IDONTHEARTHAT behaviour in which she literally doesn't seem able (or perhaps willing) to construe my posts in the way they are obviously intended. This has resulted in WALLOFTEXT interactions in the past, and even in 2020 has resulted in counterproductive exchanges (e.g. at Talk:Joey Soloway). I'm not sure how germane this is if the case is suspended, but that thread has certainly been the largest problematic element in my own interactions with Flyer 22 Frozen. Newimpartial (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages editor accuses another Misplaced Pages 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 "Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages that would tie her to anything she does on Misplaced Pages.

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)

@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)

@GorillaWarfare:, @Beeblebrox:, @KrakatoaKatie: ... and any other ArbCom member who now wants to suspend this case:

You have a problematic editor, WanderingWanda, who has been warned by an Admin against hounding Flyer22 and for casting aspersions against her; who has a history of complaining about Flyer22; who came here to sully her name and reputation with fraudulent accusations about alleged off-wiki behavior tied to her Misplaced Pages editing activity. You don't need Flyer22 to participate in your investigation of the truth. You DO need to deal with WanderingWanda, who has gone out of their way to drag Flyer22 through the mud -- and will predictably, in the future, do the same to another editor they clash with. You cannot ignore problematic editors and let this type of situation slide until it bites again. And you need to absolve Flyer22 from the accusation WanderingWanda made here against her. You chose to be on ArbCom -- now do what being on ArbCom is for. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 14:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: "any case will necessarily examine the conduct of both Flyer22 Frozen and WanderingWanda" -- so be it. Examine both Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Flyer22 may have been cranky sometimes and exasperated (I've had my disagreements with her over article content), but she's not vindictive and vengeful ... and she's way too intelligent to do anything outside of Misplaced Pages that would affect her status as a Misplaced Pages editor. You may buy into WanderingWanda's b.s. -- but not me. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 16:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Based on what Crossroads has pointed out here -- i.e. behind-the-scenes communication between WanderingWanda and an unnamed member of ArbCom -- I believe that only members of ArbCom who have not been involved in gender and sexuality-related articles also edited by WanderingWanda are the only ones who should participate in this case (which also includes any article not specifically about gender and sexuality that contains the gender transitioning of an individual). Any ArbCom member who has engaged in off-wiki communication with WanderingWanda needs to stay out of it . We need clean ArbCom hands here.

Flyer22 has been an enforcer of Misplaced Pages policy. Editors who floor the brakes on haphazard edits and editing that promotes an issue or cause often become the target of resentment and animosity. Gender and sexuality-related articles attract editors who want to rewrite history, ignore sources that don't play their favored tune, right perceived wrongs, and turn Misplaced Pages into a manipulated "voice" of support for their agenda. Editors who disagree with motive-driven editors are perceived as enemies, and anything stated by them in summaries and talk pages as being far-reaching attacks.

Editors with an axe to grind against Flyer22 have found their way here and the probability of behind-the-scenes canvassing should not be ignored by ArbCom.

This case is between WanderingWanda and Flyer22 (with WW also throwing Flyer's brother User:Halo Jerk1 into it). This is not a case for including everyone who has a complaint against Flyer22 or has locked horns with her . Because of the probable canvassing and the earnest desire by some editors to dredge up any and every personal grievance against Flyer22 -- out of context and unrelated to WanderingWanda vs. Flyer22 -- this case should not be allowed to be turned into a target shoot by anti-Flyer22 editors chomping at the bit for an ArbCom opportunity to slam her. (P.S. Anyone who says or suggests that Flyer22 is anti-LGBT knows nothing about Flyer22 and can't even disguise that he/she/they is taking pot shots at her.) Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 04:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Feyd Huxtable

Strongly 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)

@Beeblebrox. If the focus would have been on "interactions between Flyer and Wanda", then choosing an Arb case to end the feud is a bit like breaking a butterfly on a wheel . While often worth it, an Arb case can be intensely stressful and should be a last resort. A suspended case means that to return Flyer will have to endure what could feel like a month+ long witchunt, with attackers free to trawl through her close to half a million edits, cherry picking & taking out of context to try and make her look bad. This isn't a cheap shot – I voted for you as an Arb & other than needlessly taking down the inclusionist crat Andrevan, I think you've done a brilliant job. Yet it's perplexing that this request looks set to be accepted against the wishes of > 70% of editors, when it obviously increases the risk of us never getting back a progressive editor with a strong command of the mainstream science, & a 14 year track record improving icky but vital topics, often of strong benefit to women and children. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by MJL

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

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:

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(!). 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)

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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

Regarding Flyer22's statement of retirement, I must say that when you have a positive track record for a long period of time on this project, it should be obvious that admins will be biased in your favour. Either way, I sincerely pray for the health and wellbeing of her family.
@Pyxis Solitary: Protonk was pinged by SandyGeorgia. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 18:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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)

@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)

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 putting words in my mouth. In response to my trying to decipher their bizarre statement that "we usually do not do things just because have done it" regarding WP:TITLE.
• 7:23–7:27, 24 November I asked ... 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)

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

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

@SMcCandlish: 1) There was no large block of material; therefore there was nothing to decline repost. 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 has a habit of ". 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) (edited 01:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC))

@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)

Comments like "X has made positive contributions, so decline this case" are a non-sequitur; the specific evidence provided should be judged on its own merits. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@Protonk: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

One easily found typical interaction with User:Guy Macon : SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Follow-Up Comment (Flyer22 case)

I see that ArbCom is in the process of accepting the case. It would be a mistake for ArbCom to suspend the case at this point. This is not only a case of two editors who do not like each other, although it is such a case. It is a case where at least one of those two editors has gone to lengths to pursue the other that are disruptive to the community. In particular, if Wanda is falsely accusing Flyer of harassment, then Wanda is harassing Flyer, and should not be allowed simply to drive away another editor. This episode is very unfortunate, and ArbCom should determine, as best it can, what really happened, and take appropriate action. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Statement by Giggity

Personally I feel that having a discussion about a potential WP:IBAN between WanderingWanda and Flyer22 Frozen would be more useful, as I think it would end the problem with all of these disputes. Giggity (talk • contribs) 14:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Roxy

The loss of one of our best could have been avoided by Arbcom. This is really ridiculous. Well done Arbcom. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Anatashala

Decline. I think Flyer22 Frozen is an asset to Misplaced Pages. From my experience and observations, she’s consistently put a significant amount of work into improving articles, ensuring content and their sources follow the guidelines and policies of Misplaced Pages, and that articles meet WP:NPOV as well as other standards in order to maintain and improve the reliability of articles.

I first encountered Flyer in August 2013 and our relationship as editors started off pretty rocky. I was new and didn’t understand her revisions of my edits or how they didn’t follow the guidelines of WP:Plot. She tried to explain but I was not getting it. I’d revert her revisions, resulting in my receiving a warning for edit warring. The end result was both of us feeling frustrated.

However, that one incident changed how I contributed to other online wikis for the better and how I dealt with online (and offline) disputes. While things became somewhat heated between us for the duration of that one-time encounter, she made attempts to point out to me where my edits had problems, explained why, and linked me to the corresponding pages explaining Misplaced Pages’s policies and guidelines. From that encounter, I learned quite a bit and worked to grow as an editor, studying Flyer’s assessments of my edits and the pages she linked to. I was able to improve my contributions to other wikis and how I dealt with disputes and disagreements.

Two years later, I returned in hopes I could fix some of my mistakes. Flyer and I reconnected and our second encounter was pleasant and productive, improving our relationship as editors into a positive one. She advised me in some helpful areas and I felt comfortable seeking her insight and advice on articles we were both interested in. Most recently, we worked together with another editor on improving an article where Flyer and LuK3 put in significant time to bring it to GA status.

In regard to the allegations made against Flyer, I’ve reviewed the links listed by WanderingWanda.

With respect to all involved, I think there has been a misrepresentation of Flyer’s statements when I read them in full and in the context of the discussions and commentary. As a result, I think the allegations against her are largely unsubstantiated. Instead, I think much of this dispute goes to the adversarial relationship between Flyer and WanderingWanda as individuals rather than any issues with trans or LGBT statuses of editors. Much of it seems to be owing to clashes over Flyer’s concerns about WanderingWanda’s edits in regard to WP:Advocacy and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS with Flyer wanting to ensure WP:NPOV (as demonstrated here for instance). But in my view, I don't find support for Flyer engaging in anti-LGBT or transphobic behavior. Anatashala (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to address Arbs, hoping this can be considered part of my 500-word extension as I'd like to give examples of where I think Flyer's statements have been misrepresented and taken out of context.

In my read of her statements, I didn’t see Flyer making any blanket statements about LGBT or specifically transgender people (such as accusing them of bias based on LGBT status). I also didn’t see her saying not to notify LGBT editors because she wants to limit the number of LGBT editors participating on Misplaced Pages. I believe these aren't accurate reflections of her statements.

Instead, where she’s accused of trying to bar more LGBT editors from participating because they’re LGBT, I read Flyer’s concerns as being over a lack of diversity of opinions and not an editor’s LGBT status. In her post, Flyer advises that a variety of editors from different areas on Misplaced Pages participate in a discussion about matters pertaining to Misplaced Pages's policies: “Yes, it makes sense to have LGBT editors involved in this move discussion, but they are not the only ones an editor should be seeking to get involved. Discussions like this are not supposed to be about whether or not an editor is LGBT. They are supposed to be based on our rules at WP:Article titles.”

I’ve seen Flyer speak about the variance of views and opinion among transgender individuals, such as here. She also asks WanderingWanda about what they do “when see transgender people disagreeing with views.” As such, I don't understand Flyer to be making any blanket statements or generalizations about LGBT editors as a whole (eg. accusing all LGBT people of lacking impartiality). Instead, and in the context of her statements, it looks to be about Flyer’s concerns over how WanderingWanda specifically edits based on their contributions and actions as an editor, particularly since Flyer is addressing only WanderingWanda's edits in these discussions and not the edits of all LGBT members as a group.

Finally, in this same post, Flyer goes on to say that it’s a challenge to keep one’s personal views (whatever they are) out of one’s editing and that she’s included things in articles that she does not personally agree with, not limiting this challenge to only LGBT members. As such, I think this demonstrates Flyer is concerned about maintaining WP:NPOV and not intended as a personal attack or an accusation of bias against all LGBT editors. Anatashala (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Tenebrae

I've been in discussions at the trans-related Talk:Elliot Page, and one editor there made an aggressive gesture on my own talk page me and one thing led to another and yadda-yadda, I found this. I also suggest decline, and the fact that a couple of editors above with whom I have had substantial but mostly respectful disagreements also say to decline indicates, to me, a broad and not one-sided consensus. Through the years, I've found Flyer22 to be a responsible editor and one who values neutrality and an objective, encyclopedic tone. If advocacy editors have baited Flyer and taken words out of context, I'm afraid I would not be surprised — I find it happening on the aforesaid talk page. I think Jehochman summed it up succinctly, and I hope they will not mind my repeating these accurate words: "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." I've found, more than once, than an editor who suggests anything other than absolutism on gender topics can find themselves being attacked and their motives questioned.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Wikieditor19920

WanderingWanda is right to complain about comments by Flyer22 directed towards editors rather than content. This comment by Flyer22 about notifying "too many LGBT editors" is absurd, and Wanda is correct in saying Can you imagine saying "you shouldn't notify such-and-such a project, it will just bring in more black editors" or "you shouldn't do that, it will just bring in more woman editors"? To offer another example, I've seen the term zionist editors frequently thrown around in the IP area, and conservative editors used as an insult as well. This should never have made it to ArbCom because admins should be more closely policing these kinds of remarks, but way too often it gets a pass and those who bring it up are trouted. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Protonk

accept

I have had two interactions with this editor. Both of those interactions have been maximally unpleasant. Each of them was over their use of rollback and their complete disinterest in responding to any feedback whatsoever. The first, in 2014 (my first diff here, their archive here) escalated quickly from my pointing out what I saw to be serious problems with their use of tooling and rudeness to new users (and others) who complained about it to their lecturing me about what rollback was and what the rollback rules were. The second, this year (first diff here, history page here) was a similar issue, though I approached it only as an editor offering advice.

Frankly, both interactions lead me to believe that Flyer22 is one of those editors who works a lot in page patrols and gains a lot of friends who they can depend on to be shitty to editors who criticize them. Both the first interaction and the second included naked threats to canvass editors and from the people on their page and this page neither of those threats were empty. Unfortunately wikipedia dispute resolution falls down when faced with the problem of reigning in behavior from an editor who has powerful and talkative friends ready to announce "they've never been mean to ME".

I have not been personally involved with any other discussion where this editor was present (that I can think of, it would have been some time if I had), but reading some of the above is pretty shocking. If we can't be bothered to kick out editors who are rude, transphobic and uninterested in feedback then what the hell are we doing here? Protonk (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

edit because who cares: There are some people in this thread who should feel deep shame. Protonk (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Eggishorn

Given this, any ArbCom case at this point is worthless drama-mongering and spleen-venting. ArbCom is entrusted by the community with stopping or preventing ongoing disruption the community has otherwise not curtailed. It is not a pseudolegal ersatz court for meeting out punishment for perceived sins, which is the only purpose that this proceeding can have at this point. If this committee believes that it absolutely must do "something" (as the voting below indicates), it should resolve this via a motion to suspend investigation during the named party's absence. Anything else is an abrogation of responsibility. In other words: Please close this mess and let everyone get on with their lives. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Zaereth

I haven't been involved in this, except for a few interactions with some of these editors on BLPN. I've had very few interactions with Flyer22 over the years, but I have had the opportunity to observe, through my watchlist and at BLPN, and I will say that losing her is a huge blow to this project. There is nobody else here that does the job she does, patrolling parts of Misplaced Pages where few dare to tread. In my observations, she works very tirelessly to keep a high degree of medical, ethical, and quality standards in some of the most difficult topics to keep encyclopedic on an open-source encyclopedia. Now, she's definitely got some high emotions and a very blunt way of speaking, which I believe is partly due to her personality type and partly due to all the crap she has had to deal with over the years. But Misplaced Pages is full of different personality types, and naturally not all of them will rub each other the right way. Still, I think it's worth looking at not just the diffs provided, but at the editors involved --in their entirety. Flyer22 has shown time and again that she has the competence and expertise in her field, and the best interests of not only the project, but of the readers, always in mind. She's literally Misplaced Pages's version of Dr. Ruth, and this is a huge loss to the project.

That said, to all those blaming the arbitrators for this, at least give them a chance to do something first. They haven't done anything yet, so I don't understand some of the animosity I see here. We trust our arbs to be impartial and that those with a COI will recuse themselves, for that's the only honorable thing to do.

On the matter of suspending it, I say it's probably best to get it over with, but at least wait until the holidays are over to begin proceedings. Give those involved a chance to calm down and be with their families and things that are really important, and resume this next year. This is not a good time for anyone to have to deal with something like this. I'm not watching this page, so there is no point in responding to me. Just my two cents. Zaereth (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Gandydancer

I have no doubt that our women's articles will suffer without Flyer's constant, expert, and tireless upkeep. I hope that Sarah's suggestions are considered. Few editors have done as much for women as Flyer has done. Gandydancer (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Clayoquot

If this case is accepted, I suggest its scope be limited to the questions of whether Flyer has demonstrated anti-LGBTQ bigotry and/or whether others have unfairly treated her like an anti-LGBTQ bigot. Please don't allow evidence pages to turn into a free-for-all for any and all grievances against the parties - that's what blows up the stressfulness of an Arbcom case and inspires reasonable people to avoid editing in difficult topic areas. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Swarm

Yet another obligatory comment in which I have to remind the community that being an asset to the project does not excuse behavioral misconduct. In this case, there's a valid issue with a mountain of evidence behind it. There's an inability of the community to do anything about it. There's off-wiki evidence. Arbcom doesn't really have a choice but to accept because there's literally no other recourse here. If you're one of the users who thinks WW is to blame for all this, then there's no reason to oppose a case. I would think you would want a case to resolve the issue just as much. ~Swarm~ 04:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

1. For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.