Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.

Statement regarding Flyer22 Frozen

Original announcement

I think the way the committee has handled this has been reasonable given the circumstances and agree it's not appropriate for anyone on Wikipedia or on behalf of the community to be investigating someone's alleged real life identity further. Nil Einne (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• WP:Deceased_Wikipedians/Guidelines states in part: The first step is to make absolutely sure that the user in question has indeed died. Due to the off-wiki documentation that ArbCom received which disputes Flyer22's alleged death, will you be removing the deceased template from her page? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  No. The committee reached no such conclusion. – bradv^🍁 00:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad the bot mistakenly posted a notice to her talk page, or I never would have known this was going on. I agree with Nil. The arbs have an extremely tough job (one that I would not take if they paid me) and although I still don't really know the full story (nor want to), I think the handling of this is very tactful. In my own opinion, I would find it extremely reprehensible to find out someone faked their own death --reprehensible in the highest order of the word-- considering all the pain and grief it caused so many people. The only thing I could think of that would surpass it would be for someone to make such claims publicly without 100% proof-positive, considering all the pain and grief it causes people. This whole thing makes my skin crawl. It certainly is completely inappropriate for anyone to go searching for any Wikipedian's true identity; that's sacrosanct. Zaereth (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Good handling. Regarding the mechanics, since Flyer22 Frozen has made no claim that they are alive, they are either deceased or making an immense deception by omission...either way that should make the current status of that account a done deal.North8000 (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

"We must ask editors to bear in mind that while the Arbitration Committee can be privy to some evidence that cannot be shared on-wiki, such as checkuser findings, the scope of our responsibilities and authority is still limited. We are a committee of volunteers who are elected to help solve disputes arising on a website. Our authority and responsibilities do not include conducting forensic investigations off of the site. For example, in connection with the current allegations, someone sent us documentation purporting to reveal the identity of Flyer22, and suggested that we investigate, perhaps even reaching out to that person and members of their family to determine whether and when the identified person had passed away. It would not be appropriate for the Arbitration Committee or anyone else to do these things, and we have not and will not do so."

Agree that this is a sensible handling of the issue. However, we do have a group of paid employees who could do this - T&S. This feels like a significant enough issue to have them explore, as if the contentions made are found to be true, the Commitee and/or community would likely take strong action. T&S are paid employees, have reasonable expertise in this field, and could absolutely take action to try and confirm or deny the allegations. Considering the potential implications of an adverse finding, I believe the Committee should ask them to do so. Daniel (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are we talking threats of immanent harm? By the deceased person or towards them? To what potential implications do you refer? Stalking and outing? Wikipedians have the right to simply disappear if they so choose, and I suppose there's no law against faking your own wiki-death, if that were even the case. But why would anyone want to do such a thing. Logically, it makes no sense for there is no rational reason for a long-term Wikipedian to do so, so you'd have a hard time convincing me of it. But either way, that's neither here nor there, as they could just as easily disappear. It would be reprehensible to fake one's own death, and I would likely lose all respect for that person, but it's not any violation of policy. It's ten-fold more reprehensible to make such an accusation publicly, in my opinion, because that adds the appearance of shaming to the grief and pain. What really troubles me is the part about actively searching out a Wikipedian's true identity, because that's really giving me the creeps. This all seems like a badly-written soap opera, whereas in real life people don't normally have this level of drama. Zaereth (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I really don't see how knowing the truth behind this matter is crucial to the project of building an encyclopedia. It seems the issue with sock puppetry can be handled without knowing for sure who is the sock puppet. It feels like we can safely carry on working on the project without solving this mystery. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, although I think you mean "who is the sock master". There are exactly three possibilities - (1) Flyer is deceased, meaning sockpuppetry is nothing to do with them, in which case the socks should be dealt with like any other (i.e. blocks for all confirmed connected accounts); (2) Flyer is not deceased and the sockpuppetry is nothing to do with them, in which case the socks should be dealt with like any other (i.e. blocks for all confirmed connected accounts); (3) Flyer is not deceased and is responsible for the sockpuppetry, in which case the socks should be dealt with by blocking all confirmed connected accounts. It is unlikely (given Flyer's last edits were over 6 months ago) that any new socks could be confirmed to be related to that account so the practical difference between options 1, 2 and 3 is exactly zero. Additionally, Flyer's account is globally locked (as is standard practice for deceased Wikipedians) so even if it were possible to confirm a connection, locally blocking the account would make no practical difference. (Musings about a Wikipedia of the afterlife, while potentially interesting, are not relevant here).
TL;DR it makes no practical difference to the project whether Flyer is alive and socking, alive and not socking, or not alive. Thryduulf (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Flyer22 has in the past said that she was brought to tears when she felt her reputation was threatened (for alleged socking).[1] Flyer22 was brought to arbitration in December 2020 for an alleged intractable pattern of psychological abuse towards editors.[2] In response, she announced her retirement, and received an outpouring of sympathy.[3] Twelve hours after the proposed decision was posted,[4] Flyer22 was reported as deceased.[5][6] The arbitration case against her was dismissed,[7] and the proposed sanctions against her were dropped. In response she received an outpouring of sympathy,[8] and maintained a positive reputation.

Faking a death is psychological manipulation. If we are to stop future psychological violence in our community we must acknowledge it when it happens. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Warning to Kolya Butternut: I will indefinitely block you if there is any continuation of this battle on-wiki (examples from above: diff + diff). If you have any additional evidence, email it to Arbcom. Otherwise, any further speculation or other pot-stirring will result in an indefinite block. I am probably involved due to my past support for Flyer so I am posting here rather than on your talk for review by uninvolved editors. I would prefer that someone completely uninvolved issued the block but someone has to stop this bizarre spectacle. Even Wikipediocracy has banned those seeking to bludgeon the horse and it is past time for that to be applied here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't consider myself completely uninvolved here either, having been critical of Flyer in the past and contributing to the case, but Kolya Butternut I very strongly advise you to make no more comments about Flyer at all. If you have something you think the arbitration committee needs to know, email it to them. Treat it as a topic ban from the subject of Flyer22, broadly interpreted. Thryduulf (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• Beeblebrox and Bradv, are editors going to be permitted to continue to make accusations and cast WP:ASPERSIONS about Flyer22, and about specific accounts that said editors think are socks but have not faced any sanctions? I have seen this happening outside of this thread too, in article and talk spaces. I can provide links if requested. I ask that ArbCom state specifically that editors must cease doing so and that all further concerns about sockpuppetry (edit: regarding any possible socks of the named blocked accounts) belong at SPI, not on article talk pages or other inappropriate venues. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  As has been explained, there is no way to prove anything here, as any route taken would step into outing an editor's identity. Editors should stop playing that game, especially if it takes conspiracy and whispering campaign routes. Flyer's reputation flies high in the history of Wikipedia, and will continue to do so. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Crossroads, as reiterated in the statement, there is a real person behind every account, and even investigations into wrongdoing need to take that simple fact into account. Those who persist in inappropriate speculation in order to defame another editor (or the memory of an editor) are in violation of our anti-harassment policies and should be dealt with accordingly. – bradv^🍁 04:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)