The Workshop phase for this case is closed.

Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go to the talk page and create an edit request.

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Kolya Butternut

Proposed principles

Battleground conduct

1) Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battleground ~~battlefield~~. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Borderline personal attacks and edit-warring are incompatible with this spirit. Use of the site to pursue feuds and quarrels is extremely disruptive, flies directly in the face of our key policies and goals, and is prohibited. Editors who are unable to resolve their personal or ideological differences are expected to keep mutual contact to a minimum. If battling editors fail to disengage, they may be compelled to do so through the imposition of restrictions.

1.1) Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battleground. Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Borderline personal attacks are incompatible with this spirit. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind. Editors who are unable to resolve their personal or ideological differences are expected to keep mutual contact to a minimum. If battling editors fail to disengage, they may be compelled to do so through the imposition of restrictions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This may be from WP:ARBGG, but it crams too much into one statement, and mostly just recycles policy maxims without addressing this particular case. Some minor quibbles: for this context, WP is not a reference work, it is a project to build a reference work (reference works are works, they don't have people doing stuff in them, but are the output). And it's not helpful to replace standardized wording like "battleground", which means something specific in WP jargon, with other terms like "battlefield". Emotive rambling like "flies directly in the face of" and "each and every" is not helpful. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "Battlefield" to "Battleground". Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added another version, 1.1, based on version 1 and WP:BATTLEGROUND. It crams even more into one statement, but I think it actually does address much of this case. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm getting at with too-much-in-one-statement is that this would work better broken out into more focused pieces (and WP:ARBPRINCIPLES probably already has a lot of them). It would be easier to support these three and not that one, or whatever, as separate pieces, rather than be inclined to oppose the entire block because parts of it aren't really pertinent to the case at hand. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decorum

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Again, this being copy-pasted from WP:ARBGG doesn't make it great. Like the previous one, it also crams too many disparate topics into one statement, and isn't focused on the issues in this case. I think the problem here is that GG was big case with a lot of parties and behaviors to address; while this case could have and in my view should have been one, it is not. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment

3) Harassment is a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting one or more targeted persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating them. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for targeted persons, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Principles 1-3 are copied from WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Principles. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct, focused, and quite pertinent. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personalising disputes

4) In content disputes, editors must always comment on the content and not the contributor. Personalising content disputes disrupts the consensus-building process on which Wikipedia depends, and should be avoided.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Arbitration/Index/Principles Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This and the subsection below are mutually redundant. It's also not strictly correct; it's normal to raise minor editorial behavior matters (e.g. "You don't need to respond to every !vote in the RfC; please see WP:BLUDGEON."), as a means of avoiding escalation to DR. The version below is better and gets more directly to what we mean by "focus on content not contributor". It's not a prohibition from ever addressing editor behavior, but advice on what to focus on. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're not redundant; "personalize" includes focusing on the self and other people. "In content disputes" was "added to the beginning to clarify the scope." [2] Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Focusing on content

5) Editors are expected to focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct. We comment on content, not the contributor. Wikipedia is written through collaboration, and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is therefore vital. Bringing up conduct during discussions about content creates a distraction to the discussion and may inflame the situation. When an editor is being uncivil, it is never beneficial to respond in kind.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Adapted from WP:Dispute resolution#Focus on content. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This version is much better than the one above it. This principle is right, and relevant. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baiting

6) Editing in a manner so as to provoke other editors goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors. Editing in such a manner may be perceived as trolling and harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Arbitration/Index/Principles Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Equality and respect

7) Wikipedia editors and readers come from a diverse range of backgrounds, including with respect to their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex or gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression. Comments that demean fellow editors, an article subject, or any other person, on the basis of any of these characteristics are offensive and damage the editing environment for everyone. Such comments, particularly when extreme or repeated after a warning, are grounds for blocking or other sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Arbitration case Chelsea Manning naming dispute. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct, but not pertinent, since neither party is guilty of it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment of new editors

8) Wikipedia articles are improved through the hard work of both regular editors and newcomers; every new editor is a potential long-term contributor. All editors should therefore assume good faith when dealing with new editors and, if it is necessary to comment on problematic actions, do so in a clear and polite manner. Treating newcomers with hostility can alienate a potential contributor and is therefore detrimental to the project as a whole.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Arbitration/Index/Principles. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct, but there's no solid evidence either party has a problem in this area, so it seems off-topic. See also WP:PACT: assuming good faith, especially about supposedly new editors "is not a suicide pact". It's completely permissible to ask apparently-new editors if they have another account, and new arrivals who behave poorly receive quickly escalating user-warning templates, and are also more easily and more frequently indefinitely blocked than long-term editors, because the proportion of newcomers who are WP:NOTHERE to actually work on encyclopedic content is quite high. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

9) Engaging in canvassing, sock puppetry, and meat puppetry to gather participants to a community discussion that has the effect of biasing that discussion is unacceptable. While it is fine—even encouraged—to invite people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments, it is not acceptable to invite only people favorable to a particular point of view, or to invite people in a way that will prejudice their opinions on the matter. Neutral, informative messages to Wikipedia noticeboards, wikiprojects, or editors are permitted; but actions that could reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to "stuff the ballot box" or otherwise compromise the consensus-building process are considered disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Edited from WP:CONSENSUS#Pitfalls and errors. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2021 ((UTC)

As with another canvassing-related matter below, the "so-and-so pinged some people and that's canvassing" viewpoint is one that has not found consensus in discussions at WT:CANVASS. And the "other side" in this dispute has not only also pinged but asked for leeway to do so even more. This matter is basically moot for this case. If we want to change rules about pinging, this is not the place to do it; ArbCom does not make policy. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish, it may be helpful to start a new evidence analysis section. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've considered it, but it would be extremely repetitive of detailed analysis already done by Crossroads, Aquillion, etc. It is much more time and space saving to comment on the extant ones that repeat most of them in my own wording. We have a rather finite number of diffs to analyze. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it seems to me that if it is now acceptable to invite only people favorable to a particular point of view to various discussions, then some policies and guidelines will need to be changed. As this tactic has been repeatedly used by the Flyer and Halo accounts, and other participants in discussions on gender-related issues (having various perspectives) have also been accused of the same thing, I think this would be a relevant opportunity to reinforce this principle rather than, as SMcCandlish seems to propose, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Newimpartial (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kolya Butternut I think it might be more useful to complement this with a piece of the bigger picture that is, as of now, missing on the page. While most people recognize canvassing when they see it, there are loopholes in the guideline that are easily wikilawyered. So what is missing here is a principal that focuses on best practice, rather than the negative worst practice of canvassing. The missing piece is how we optimally build consensus and resolve disputes. Rather than rushing to ping in others, we build consensus via dialogue, engaging, trying to understand what other points of view are, not spreading disputes by bringing in others quickly, particularly in cases where no consensus was reached by those others, and so on. That is part of the problem-- that is, that consensus building and dispute resolution are thwarted when pings are used to excess and early in dialogue. I suggest you might a) look through old cases to find wording about how the consensus and dispute resolution processes are supposed to work on Wikipedia, and then b) provide specific diffs in findings or remedies showing where dispute resolution and consensus building has been circumvented by excessive pinging. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Dialogue, engaging, trying to understand what other points of view are" will only go so far. We can't go to the extreme of overemphasizing endless discussion with those already involved in impasses. Even good faith editors may simply be unable to come to agreement, and creating a wall of text of circular arguments is bad; on top of the fact that bad faith editors do exist and can be very stubborn (say, a nationalistic POV pusher who insists that some negative material about his country is undue). Such problem behavior is why we have the WP:IDHT guideline. Dealing with impasses of any kind - good or bad faith - is why we have WP:APPNOTE, a crucial part of the canvassing guideline. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vested contributors

10) Editors will sometimes make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgement, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Arbitration/Index/Principles. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Age of evidence

11) The arbitration policy does not place strict limits on the age of evidence that may be submitted in an arbitration case, although the Arbitration Committee will sometimes preemptively limit the scope of a case to a specific period of time. The Committee may choose to disregard or give less weight to evidence that is not recent.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Arbitration/Index/Principles. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Private evidence

12) The arbitration policy allows people to submit evidence privately in an arbitration case when there are compelling reasons for it not to be submitted publicly. When the Arbitration Committee admits privately-submitted evidence, existing policy requires a private hearing, where parties are "notified of the private hearing and be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about them before a decision is made."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Arbitration/Index/Principles. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consideration of evidence

13) When deciding what evidence to consider, the severity of the behavior is an important factor. If evidence is old or, in this exceptional case, not allowed to be examined in its entirety or discussed with the accused party, it should be considered only if it demonstrates severe abusive behavior. Conversely, if the behavior in question is not severe abusive behavior, evidence from long ago should be disregarded or given lesser weight unless it is as background to a pattern of misbehavior that has continued recently, and evidence that cannot be examined in full or shared with the accused party should be disregarded.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Arbitration/Index/Principles. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Flyer22 Frozen uses uncivil edit summaries

1) Flyer22 Frozen has persistently made edit summaries which contain personal attacks, threats, aggressive comments, and snide remarks.[3][4][5]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Frozen bites the newcomers

2) Flyer22 Frozen has repeatedly been uncivil towards new editors.[6][7]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Frozen engages in baiting

3) Flyer22 Frozen admittingly baits editors,[8][9][10]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added diff from my comment at the ANI case initiated by Loki. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Frozen makes polemics

4) Flyer22 Frozen makes polemics.[11]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Frozen engages in battleground conduct

5) Flyer22 makes personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions. Disputes are personalized with:

political insults[12]
sexism[13]
intimidation[14]
taunting[15]
belittlement[16][17]
antagonistic grandiose language[18][19]
aggressive defensiveness[20]
grudges[21]
poisoning the well [22]
aspersions[23]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I feel like this is the most important fact, but I'm not sure which diff(s) best exemplify it.Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to describe and recognize the behavioral patterns so we can prevent them going forward. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added "grudges".Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added "poisoning the well". Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC) Changed from "poisoning discussions" for clarity of concept. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added "aspersions"; we could lump most behaviors here. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved diff from main sentence to "grandiose" bullet. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Flyer22 Frozen restricted: No personal comments

1) Flyer22 Frozen is placed under a site-wide indefinite WP:No personal comments sanction.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The remedy may be a good one in theory - however in practise they become a stick to bash people with or too hard to enforce. What's more, that one was specifically created to focus on article talk pages as that's not the place to discuss such motivations [24]. Further, it would be a massive hamper for Flyer22 to be able to report harassment, which she does suffer. I can't see this being the right way to go. Worm^TT(talk) 16:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Worm that there is evidence presented such that this remedy would hamper Flyer, not just with harassment but with SPAs and other forms of unproductive editors who frequent this topic area, in ways that would not benefit the encyclopedia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Better Kolya, but I admit to some skepticism around AWiley's custom restrictions in general. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's an open discussion Kolya so in that sense sure. I know Awiley has thought a lot about these issues in general but I'm not sure what you hope to gain by doing that. If it's to convince me, that's probably not necessary for multiple reasons (I'm but one arb and I'm not sure any tweaks of this could get my support, being two of them). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even realize this existed until now, but it's somehow the perfect sanction for this case. Loki (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I've literally never heard of this restriction before, and it seems to be very rare (and is odd in how it is in userspace). It would be unworkable and easily prone to WP:GAMING by opponents since they can simply claim that comments about certain edits are personal comments. And she would be unable to report vandals and sockpuppets, something she is very effective at. It's also one-sided to only apply it to her and not WanderingWanda. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Crossroads that this would make it impossible for Flyer to report sockpuppets and the wiki would be worse off for it. I don't have an opinion at this time about whether to oppose or support this proposal, but that fact tells me it should be considered with caution. --Equivamp - talk 05:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer's views on socks are particularly personalized. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and it appears that Flyer sees socks as personal opponents. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Socks should be everyone's personal opponents. WP:Block evasion and votestacking are very serious. That doesn't mean that suspicion of sockpuppetry is a carte blanche, but sockpuppetry is a very serious and persistent problem on Wikipedia. Reminder, too, that it isn't wrong to ask if someone isn't new. [25] Something to keep in mind is that some of the socks Flyer22 deals with are extremely abusive WP:LTAs who spew misogynistic abuse at her when caught. And they return constantly. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that a continued focus on sock editors will foster a focus on editors in general, rather than content. This should not stop her from reporting harassment, as described in the similar WP:Thicker skin sanction. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm completely wrong (possible) LokiTheLiar, it doesn't exist. What Kolya Butternut appears to have based their proposal on and linked to is in fact a user sub page which has even less authority than an essay in Wikipedia space. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This sanction can be found in the WP:AELOG. The important thing here is just the concept; I assume we can propose sanctions which have not existed before. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume we can propose sanctions which have not existed before. Yes. A proposed sanction can be one that is entirely new, one that has been around many years or anything in between. Writing effective sanctions is difficult, and generally the ones that are widely used are those that have been shown to work (often after tweaking based on experience). However that does not mean that something new is not the right thing for any given situation (every sanction was new at some point). If you don't think a proposed sanction is appropriate and/or you think a proposed sanction will not work then explain why you think that with reference to what it actually proposed to do. Where the proposal originated, how long its been around, who wrote it, etc. are almost always going to be irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An exception could be made allowing for the reporting of sockpuppets at WP:SPI (and only at SPI); no accusing someone that they're a sockpuppet to their face or implying it on other talk pages, and no informing them they've been raised at SPI (a step which is not required and is often discouraged.) A put-up-or-shut-up restriction, essentially. I'm of the opinion that suspicions of sockpuppetry should almost never be raised anywhere but WP:SPI anyway; doing so serves only to warn actual socks of how they've been detected, while creating bad blood with legitimate users if you're mistaken. Unlike other behavioral complaints it is not necessary to inform a user that you have raised them at SPI, and is often counterproductive; at the same time, there is little harm to a user's reputation or editing experience if they're quietly raised at SPI and the case is just as quietly dismissed. So "only raise socks at SPI" seems like a reasonable restriction. (Actually I'm not sure the restriction, as written, would actually restrict her from raising socks at SPI - "no personal comments" normally applies to article talk pages within the topic area. Does "sitewide" in this case mean all topic areas but still only on article talk pages, or does it apply to all parts of the wiki? I would suggest having it apply only to article and user talk pages. The risk of raising invalid issues elsewhere is a WP:ROPE situation anyway - again, I think this is more useful as a "put-up-or-shut-up" restriction, ie. you're still allowed to report people when you think they've violated policy, but can't cast WP:ASPERSIONS on talk.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I intended "sitewide" to mean everywhere but appropriate forums for reporting misconduct. Personal comments on user talk pages could be limited to notifications along the lines of the WP:Courtesy in reporting sanction. I like your idea about only reporting sockpuppets at SPI. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the exact contours of any restriction ought to be spelled out to avoid confusion. --Aquillion (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is out-of-band. This case is (though I would have preferred it be about general editorial conduct in this TG/NB/GQ topic area) about the conflict between two editors, and your proposed remedy (like much of your evidence) has nothing to do with that, but is about what you think of Flyer22 overall across all topics and in relation to all editors. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom cases consider a user's overarching conduct as it relates to the central dispute and topic area, especially when determining whether an editors' conduct issue relate to a disagreement with one editor or are more broad. And there is plenty of evidence on the evidence page that fairly unequivocally shows that Flyer22 has a history of personalizing disputes with other users within the topic area by accusing them of advocacy and otherwise impugning their motives with very little evidence. See, for example, [26] and the followup diffs from my evidence section. For a more general willingness to personalize disputes, see eg. [27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. Note that these are all quite recent, mostly from the past few months, and that most of them are the precise same behavior that made her dispute with WanderingWanda intractable. It is reasonably clear that Flyer22's conduct issues (especially in terms of aggressively personalizing disputes and failing to assume good faith about editors she's in a dispute with) go beyond her interactions with one person in particular. --Aquillion (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The context and behavior of the other editor(s) in these discussions is important. In this [34] one, for example, the user she was arguing with has since been indeffed for "Severe personal attacks and abusing multiple accounts". [35] I see nothing even a little criticizable in this [36] diff. This [37] is a duplicate. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You stated, "I see nothing even a little criticizable in this diff." Flyer22 personalized the dispute when she said: "If you were to take to it at its literal word, then you have no issue with.... Well, except for personal feelings. But matters such as these should not be based on personal feelings."[38] Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is very much a stretch. Basically saying 'the policy doesn't say that, and we don't base decisions on personal opinion' is completely ordinary and very common. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the dirtlisting here does not constitute "consider[ing] a user's overarching conduct as it relates to the central dispute and topic area", it's just a laundry list of cherry-picked, unrelated, out-of-context diffs that either have nothing to do with this inter-editor dispute, nothing to do with this topic area, or both. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While this may be warranted and appropriate to the evidence, I don't find it necessary. We already have core principals that can be found in other cases around ASPERSION, BATTLEGROUND, personalizing disputes, and the like. I suggest that rather than trying to come up with a novel principal in this area, it is sufficient to rely on those that already exist that cover battleground and personalization and commenting on contributors rather than content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, this is a remedy not a principle. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Way over the top. Will be nothing but a stick to create drama. Flyer's past work unearthing people who are abusing others would become impossible. Montanabw^(talk) 21:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, do you feel like if this sanction only applied to article talk pages and edit summaries that it would still not be a good idea? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, could we invite Awilley into the discussion for his input on his custom sanctions? Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I agree with others above that this would be misused for WP:GAMING purposes. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Frozen restricted: No personalising disputes

2) Flyer22 Frozen is indefinitely prohibited from engaging in conduct which, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, personalises disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is a better way of handling the issues that you are suggesting, however, you would need to have a specific finding that Flyer22 does personalise disputes. I'm not necessarily seeing that. I'm seeing bluntness and bitey-ness, both of which can be problematic, but may be better handled with a warning or admonishment against specific behaviour. Worm^TT(talk) 16:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SandyGeorgia, I haven't reviewed the analysis section in depth yet (working top down) and had been focussed on workshop based on evidence presented, so it may alter my thoughts. Worm^TT(talk) 16:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How would this even work in practice? What does this remedy allow that our normal policies/guidelines/practices do not? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To Loki and Sandy, sure if we put a remedy in our decision it could be enforced via our standard enforcement. I'm just not sure what this remedy offers in terms of authority that more traditional policies and guidelines (e.g WP:CIVILITY, mentioned earlier in this workshop set) would not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Clarification request: Christianity and Sexuality Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See above. As with this editor's other proposed remedy, it's about Flyer22's site-wide activity in relation to all editors, when this case is about two editors' interaction in single topic area. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This persistent misconception is why I asked specifically about this on the Evidence Talk page. I don't know why so many people think that an off-hand comment by an arbitrator before seeing evidence was binding as to the nature of the dispute. What Wanda reported was a variety of problems with Flyer's behavior generally. Arbs added Wanda to the case because several people claimed that they were harassing Flyer, but that didn't restrict the overall case to merely interactions between Wanda and Flyer. Loki (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that and later comments did. For example, someone wanted to add Crossroads, who objected, and I wanted to add Sangdeboeuf and several others. One of the Arbs stepped in and said the Arbs decide who is and is not going to be a party, and they have so far declined to add a single additional party. The scope is in fact as limited as I observed it is, unless and until ArbCom decides to extend it. Given that we're already in the workshop phase, the odds of that happening are near zero. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only party that matters is Flyer. It's her behavior that's at issue here, primarily. You don't have to be a party to a case for attacks on you to be investigated. (But: let's not try to read minds here. We're arguing about the intentions of a handful of specific people who are no doubt paying attention to this page, so let's just ask them. Beeblebrox, David_Fuchs, could you please clarify whether the scope of the case is limited to interactions between Flyer22 and Wanda, or if it encompasses all problem behavior from Flyer22 and/or Wanda?) Loki (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Several of us are balancing out the inappropriate one-sided dwelling on Flyer22. So "The only party that matters is Flyer. It's her behavior that's at issue here"? Nope. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the fact that only a tiny % of Flyer's edits are problematic, and other extenuating circumstances, even an admonishment level remedy seems too severe, let alone a sanction. Your proposal does seem along the right lines though - perhaps Flyer could benefit from a reminder about WP:FOC and WP:BITE. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a big fan of the % of edits argument. For why, consider an editor who makes 10,000 tiny typo fixes for every time they completely blank a page. A very small % of this editor's edits are problematic! But my intuition is that this editor is only slightly better than a pure vandal who only blanks pages. My proposed alternative measurement, while it's somewhat loosey-goosey, is the overall level of disruption an editor causes. And, at least within certain topic areas, Flyer22's civility problems cause a lot of disruption, because she is very active, very rude to many other editors, and familiar enough with the rules of Wikipedia to be able game them to skew outcomes of discussions. I get that she also makes tons of good edits, and recognition of that is why nobody is proposing a full ban. But we gotta solve the problem, because the problem is quite serious, and based on how Flyer has reacted to warnings in the past I am not at all convinced a warning will do anything. Loki (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

False analogy. Intentionally damaging the encyclopedia by going around blanking articles is not comparable to losing ones temper or blurring the distinction between commenting on edit and commenting on editor here and there. I also don't see any clear evidence of that "Flyer22's civility problems", per se, actually exist, much less that they "cause a lot of disruption" or that she is "very rude to many other editors". What we're seeing is that she's a bit curt sometimes, and has an ongoing feud with a particular other editor. Also maybe could be more welcoming to new-ish editors, though her years of dealing with trolls tells us why her patience may be thin, at least in particular topic areas. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to say that I am a big fan of the % of edits argument when applied to Flyer22. I mean good grief Flyer22 is not making 10,000 spelling corrections, she's carrying and been carrying for a long time a heavy burden for the Wikipedia. She engages people who approach the Wikipedia with toxic and dangerous intent. Why are people so quick to disregard that. Are you going to replace her? No you're not because its really hard and requires specialized knowledge and ability. Yes Flyer22 is fierce because she is fiercely protective of the Wikipedia. She's been essential. When I think of of how many times the Admin Corps let Eric Corbett skate because "he was such a good editor", this whole thing makes me sick. Flyer22 is worth a lot more than Corbett. Just, oof. Herostratus (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to my comment above at "No personal disputes", I think this is likely covered in general pre-existing proposed remedies covering battleground and personalization. Kolya Butternut you also need to tie these back to specific diffs in the evidence. It is helpful for the arbs if you just pick the one diff that is the most convincing, as not all of them read everything. If you believe the arbs will read through all of this and work their way backwards, experience tells me some of them won't. You cannot even be assured that all of them will even read all of this page. So you should present findings together with the most specific diff that links back to the evidence that supports the finding and remedy (spoon feed it :) The same applies to all the proposals in this section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Worm That Turned "not necessarily seeing that", the entire discussion analyzed here (see specific quotes extracted) was personalizing a dispute. (Grateful that an arb is responding here to help guide feedback.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, maybe once the evidence phase closes we should have new evidence analysis sections in this workshop to discuss the most suitable diffs for each finding of fact. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kolya Butternut, thanks but no thanks :) I'd really rather have as little as possible to do with this case going forward, as I have rarely encountered such unpleasant unpleasantry. And after 15 years, that says a lot ... I thought I had seen it all. Was just giving you some feedback, as that has been a bit lacking here, and there is some incorrect information posted in several instances. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, I feel the same way about not wanting to be more involved with this case. I am concerned, however, to still hear Flyer22's language characterized as merely "blunt", so I feel like this case still needs attention. Your experience is invaluable.... Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also over the top, per SMcCandlish and others. It took two to tango here, and while tempers flare from time to time, Wandering Wanda clearly was at fault in a number of situations. Flyer's decision to not engage in this process is creating a dogpile where those who have opposed her for years. Montanabw^(talk) 21:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Barkeep49: presumably per the standard enforcement provisions. (Both Kolya and I omitted a portion of the original sanction which read Should Roscelese breach any of these restrictions, she may be blocked for per the standard Enforcement provision below.) Which is to say, it's a bit like discretionary sanctions except for behavior by a single user instead of within a topic area. Loki (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again in response to Barkeep49: WP:CIVILITY needs to be enforced by the community at ANI or similar, which is difficult given not only that the community has had trouble dealing with this before but also that Flyer has a history of ANI and BOOMERANG threats against anyone who suggests her behavior might be inappropriate. ArbCom sanctions can be imposed on the spot by any uninvolved administrator. I realize that this sanction is a sanction to not do things that are already against the rules: the point is to cover this particular rulebreaking under Arbcom standard enforcement because the ordinary enforcement procedures have shown themselves incapable of dealing with this. Loki (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Barkeep49: that I have to ask why you ask shows how even an experienced editor may be unaware of arb outcomes relative to enforcement. I believe Flyer has personalized discussions (you don't have to agree with me to deal with the Arbitration for Dummies 101 confusion). Am I incorrect in the following? If there is not a remedy in the final decision that Flyer should not personalize discussions, then if she does, I can't take it to arb enforcement, right? And then, if she does personalize a routine discussion (outside of the topic of Sexuality), I have to take it to ANI as a separate matter, right? And is it not apparent in the rest of the evidence that some editors know not to approach ANI with a matter related to Flyer? So absent a finding about personalization, how can we have routine discussions (like reliability of sources eg NORD) at WPMED without them turning battleground? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, are the expectations for editors under discretionary sanctions different from more traditional policies and guidelines? I thought the standards are stricter. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think Loki at least partly addressed my question. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Barkeep49; I completely understand now, and agree. We don't need 85 specific and different restrictions if they can be covered by one more general. My concern was that we would end up only with discretionary sanctions applied to Sexuality topics (which is kind of where we ended up with the Medicine case on drug pricing), which would afford no help in a routine discussion outside of Sexuality at WT:MED. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I am against most of these atypical sanction proposals (both against Flyer22 and against Wander). In a few years, no one will remember these exist (or if they do just not care), and they'd become pretty unenforceable. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem for me is, the options are:

1. Atypical sanctions

2. A topic ban, which seems definitely inappropriate since the misbehavior is not confined to one topic area.

3. An interaction ban, which fixes the only part of this problem that has already been fixed, and does not solve the majority of the problem since the misbehavior is not confined to interactions between these two editors.

4. A temporary site ban, which doesn't seem like it would do much especially considering Flyer already retired voluntarily.

5. A permanent site ban, which seems like overkill (at least based on the public evidence). Loki (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LokiTheLiar: Generally, we have the ability to select one option for one user and different ones for others. In this case, I think a two-way iban for Wander and Flyer22, a topic ban for Halo_Jerk1, and various reminders, warnings, and admonishments applied to the the parties. If Arbcom passes the right findings of fact, I imagine WP:AE and the current discretionary sanction regime are enough to prevent anyone re-igniting the other disputes mentioned. If Flyer22 comes back, she should be able to read this and see what got her in trouble to then make the relevant adjustments not to repeat the problem. Maybe I'm being optimistic, but I think she can change for the better! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This sanction would be misused by her opponents for WP:GAMING purposes. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Frozen restricted: Civility in communication sanction

3) Flyer22 Frozen is placed under a site-wide indefinite Civility in communication sanction:

The purpose of this sanction is to prevent editors from personalizing disputes. Editors subject to this sanction are strictly prohibited from making personal attacks. Aggressive, antagonistic, or rude comments, and negative comments about other users are unacceptable. Focus on content, not users or their conduct.

The sanctionee may only discuss misconduct (without explicit permission) following strict Conduct dispute protocols. Before reporting any user to an administrator or administrative noticeboard, they must first politely notify that user on their talk page alerting them to the problem and giving them sufficient opportunity to fix it. The notification should be short and polite, along the lines of:

Hi, I believe that you have violated [link to rule] with this edit [diff of edit violating the rule]. ~~~~

If the user ignores the post for 24 hours, deletes it without response, or indicates that they don't believe it is a problem the sanctionee may then report the problem to an administrator, following the same form: short and to the point with a link to the offending diff, and with a second link showing that they notified the user. If a user has banned the sanctionee from editing their talk page the sanctionee may skip the courtesy notification and proceed directly to the administrator or noticeboard. Also note that this required notification is not an excuse to engage in arguments on user talk pages, and doing so can also result in sanctions.

Suspected sockpuppets may only be questioned and investigated at WP:SPI.

3.1) Flyer22 Frozen is placed under a site-wide indefinite Civility in communication sanction:

The purpose of this sanction is to prevent editors from personalizing disputes. Editors subject to this sanction are strictly prohibited from making personal attacks. Aggressive, antagonistic, or rude comments, and negative comments about other users are unacceptable. Focus on content, not users or their conduct.

User conduct may only be discussed in the appropriate forums for conduct dispute resolution. Comments at these discussions must be polite, simple, and direct. Suspected sockpuppets may only be questioned and investigated at WP:SPI.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is quite an in depth sanction and probably too complex to be of value. Worm^TT(talk) 16:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed based on feedback. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing this and the previous two sanctions? Or is this meant as a replacement? Crossroads ^-talk- 04:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing we choose between options 1-3. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Worm That Turned, would this work if it ended at "following strict Conduct dispute protocols"? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps this simpler version 3.1. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that this is too complex. It would also be misused by opponents for WP:GAMING purposes. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WanderingWanda reminded: Civility, abide by previous warning

4) WanderingWanda is reminded to maintain civility, even when others may fail to do so.

4.1) WanderingWanda is reminded to abide by their January 27, 2020 warning to not engage in any behavior which might reasonably be construed as harassment against Flyer22 Frozen.

Comment by Arbitrators:

If you believe that the warning from January is sufficient, it may be worth specifically calling it out here in the reminder Worm^TT(talk) 16:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Language taken from Flyer Reminded, below. No further warning is necessary since WW's previous warning. [39] Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this needs to be a mirror proposal applicable to both parties and everyone else on WP. However, I would suggest stronger sanctions for WW. Montanabw^(talk) 21:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New option 4.1 added. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're way past the time for a reminder. The case request itself was harassment. WanderingWanda needs to be IBANNED from Flyer22 once and for all. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This ArbCom case is another example of how WanderingWanda has found a means to harass Flyer22. WanderingWanda's hands are not clean. Any sanction applied against Flyer22 must in justice and fairness also be applied against WanderingWanda. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 20:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Frozen warned: Canvassing

5) Flyer22 Frozen is warned against engaging in canvassing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Sandy has it right below. I will be ensuring there is something proposed in the decision about canvassing and pinging, however, I'm not certain it will be in the remedy section in particular. If you feel that this has been a clear cut breach, perhaps a finding to match, with links to evidence of breaches of CANVAS as written then fine - but otherwise, we'd need to explain both how the policies were breached and where / when. Worm^TT(talk) 16:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the sentiment that there needs to be a principle about canvassing and potentially a finding of fact. While I've skimmed the workshop before I'm currently reading in order so I'll be looking for those either below or by someone in the forth coming days. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comments above, and to avoid wikilawyering over the spirit and intent behind no canvassing, I believe it would be more effective to state this in the positive rather than the negative, along the lines of reminding that pinging large amounts of editors early on in a dispute is not the best practice for engaging towards building consensus, and could be viewed as breaching the spirit of no canvassing. And then, again, unless you have attached specific diffs from evidence to this, do not assume that arbs will pick it up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First off, should be applied to all, not just Flyer. But frankly, I think a better approach is to clarify the canvassing rules generally. We have contradictory guidelines (for example someone mentioned in a discussion should be pinged. Is that canvassing or is it properly alerting someone that they are mentioned in a discussion?) and quite frankly, the canvassing rules are often misapplied to penalize someone who is openly alerting interested parties as opposed to people who are quietly emailing everyone they know behind the scenes and not admitting it. Montanabw^(talk) 21:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 sanctioned: Professional behavior

6) Flyer22 is placed under a site-wide indefinite Professional behavior sanction.

The purpose of this sanction is to direct users to maintain professional behavior on Wikipedia at all times. Users subject to this sanction may be immediately blocked for incivility. Under the Civility policy, immediate blocking is normally reserved for cases of major incivility, where incivility rises to the level of clear disruption. However, users are subjected to this sanction because they have demonstrated incivility rising to the level of clear disruption.

6.1) Flyer22 is placed under a site-wide indefinite Professional behavior sanction.

The purpose of this sanction is to direct users to maintain professional behavior on Wikipedia at all times. While immediate blocking under the Civility policy is normally reserved for cases of major incivility rising to the level of clear disruption, users subject to this sanction may be immediately blocked for incivility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Language taken from WP:Civility#Blocking for incivility. This language clearly distinguishes between a civility sanction and the normal policy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vague and unworkable. This would be misused by opponents as WP:GAMING. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is this vague? It is completely based on the civility policy. Uncivil comments are blockable. Uncivil comments can be avoided by avoiding personal comments, but the benefit of this sanction over the "no personal comments" sanction is that it is based on existing policy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "generally" to "normally" and added "However" to clarify the sanction is different than the normal civility policy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate version. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC) modify wording Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of Flyer22 Frozen's restrictions

1) A user subject to this restriction who violates this restriction may be blocked. The first two such blocks shall be of 72 hours duration, increasing thereafter for each subsequent breach to one week, one month, and three months. Should a fifth block (three months) prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.

All enforcement requests relating to this sanction must be filed at Arbitration Enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

1.1) A user subject to this restriction who violates this restriction may receive escalating blocks up to three months. Should a three month block prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.

All enforcement requests relating to this sanction must be filed at Arbitration Enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

This sanction shall not prevent normal enforcement of major incivility per the Civility policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

To the question below, in my opinion, it is OK to discuss the effectiveness of past principles/FoF/remedies/enforcement mechanisms (and indeed has been done elsewhere in this workshop successfully). Talking about a controversial user who is not the focus of this particular case is unwise. So it's a fine line; give extra thought before doing so and this is definitely a case where less is more. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Taken from WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF#Eric Corbett prohibited. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolya Butternut: Now I may be a bit biased here for reasons I won't mention, but that was probably one of least effective measures ever passed by this committee (beat out only by this one). Check the Enforcement log there to figure out why (Spoiler: it was never followed). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: I see that it was enforced on 19 July 2015 and 19 August 2019. It was the only enforcement provision of its kind that I found. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolya Butternut: I don't want to re-litigate this topic. If you want to see why I don't believe custom/personalized sanctions work, see these WP:AE reports. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: based on what Loki was saying, it seems to me that our options to address site-wide incivililty towards many editors are atypical sanctions or a site-ban. You said that Eric Corbett never followed his restriction, but had he only received an admonishment would that have better prevented the behavior? I suspect not.

I see that you had initiated an Arbcom case against him last year which led to his retirement/indeff. I know you said you don't want to relitigate this, but it may be essential to discuss why the community did not enforce his sanction earlier, and whether more enforcement would have curtailed the behavior, or whether he should have just been indeffed at the 2015 arbitration. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really uncomfortable discussing someone who can't participate. —valereee (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Worm That Turned or Barkeep49, is it appropriate to discuss Eric Corbett's sanction to determine whether a similar atypical sanction is viable here? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read a couple of the AE cases ~~about~~ involving the atypical sanctions unique to ~~Eric Corbett~~ the linked cases, but I cannot see why we would infer from those cases that an atypical sanction wouldn't at least be easier to enforce than an admonishment. I also found the Civility blocks principle, which states: "The civility policy permits blocking for "major" incivility, which includes incivility rising to the level of disruption, personal attacks, harassment, or outing."[40] So, the atypical sanctions proposed here would lower the bar. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC) edit conflict, adjusting comment Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Rereading the discussion I can see others avoiding naming names. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what I'm seeing here is 1. you ask if it's okay to bring up a blocked user by name to discuss the kinds of sanctions they're under 2. someone says they aren't comfortable with discussing them by name 3. an arb says talking about it in general is okay but discussing them by name is unwise 4. you bring them up by name again. Wut? —valereee (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's your solution? Calling it not "about" him but "involving the atypical sanctions unique to" him? That does not solve the problem of him not being able to address the fact he's being discussed. This IMO is not okay. —valereee (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KB, think about it: if we were discussing you here, and you were blocked, how would you feel? —valereee (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to not go down the rabbit hole that is comparing enforcement regarding two cases which have zero similarities (I say as someone with long-time knowledge of the other party being discussed). There is no similarity, and any reasoning about enforcements in one case has no bearing on the other. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Do you have any thoughts on atypical sanctions and their enforcement mechanisms? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have argued here, repeatedly, that we need something completely novel for this case. The arbs appear to be of one mind in rejecting a mentorship; I hope they will come up with something novel to deal with the unique characteristics of this case where we have otherwise good editors at each other, with battleground sometimes spilling outside of the area of conflict. I do not believe that the range of sanctions typically applied will serve anyone best here, and I hope the arbs have serious thinking caps on wrt something novel. But the possibilities and options for sanctions and enforcement are unrelated to any factors that drove behaviors in the other case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that user had a fairly large base of supporters who felt they didn't do anything wrong or that whatever they did do was justifiable, leading to a rancorous split among prolific editors regarding the disputes they got into; because that sanction relied on individual admins taking action, admins that did so often came under extremely heavy criticism, and their actions were often overturned at ANI anyway due to the stark split over the underlying policy dispute - which made others reluctant to step in, knowing that doing so would embroil them in a massive rancorous dispute. Or, in simpler terms - especially when attached to a controversial decision, a restriction of this nature is an invitation to re-litigate the entire case, its complete history, and every underlying issue every single time an admin tries to enforce it. The block log may be more informative than the enforcement log - note the unblocks. --Aquillion (talk) 09:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The case imposed both a civility restriction and a TBAN, but I'm not seeing that the TBAN was any easier to enforce.

Ok, so there was a whole arbitration case a year after the first one which discussed the effectiveness of the restriction [41] (which interestingly was originally titled "Vested contributors" [42]). After Arbcom discussed proposed changes to the enforcement procedure,[43] the sanction was amended to require that all enforcement requests be filed at AE rather than by any uninvolved administrator.[44] (Choosing this procedure may protect any one administrator from being attacked for their decision.) We may simply remove the "draconian" escalating blocks which Worm That Turned opposed [45] and allow community discretion if the incivility continues but becomes less severe. I've added this version, 1.1, above. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added line to clarify that the sanction allows for typical blocks for major incivility. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aquillion the oversimplification about “that user” with respect to his “base of supporters” is why going down that rabbit hole is a distraction to this case. I suggest we will get closer to finding solutions by not confusing the two, and by staying focused on the evidence in this case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:LokiTheLiar

Proposed principles

Aspersions

1) It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users involved, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.

1b) An editor should not make accusations, such as that another group of editors is biased or habitually violate site policies or norms, without evidence. A persistent pattern of false or unsupported accusations is particularly damaging to the collaborative editing environment. Significant concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users concerned, should be addressed through the appropriate dispute resolution procedures.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from WP:ASPERSIONS Loki (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added 1b, copied from WP:ARBPRINCIPLES, as an alternative version of this principal because I think it's more directly relevant to this case. Loki (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Threats

2) It is unacceptable for an editor to threaten to use Wikipedia processes against another editor to prevail in a content dispute, or to prevent another editor from going through a dispute resolution process with them. This includes threats of sanctions, threats to have a CheckUser determine whether another editor is a sockpuppet, threats to edit protect a page in one's preferred version, and any other threat to use Wikipedia processes to prevail in a dispute with another user, regardless of whether those processes are appropriate or even possible to use. If the processes are appropriate, the appropriate thing to do is to use them, not to threaten their use to intimidate other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

While true as a statement, this is such a broad statement it covers behaviours that are beyond the pale and are not occurring, which will be the reason for the backlash. It would be better re-written to specify what the problematic behaviours are and giving diffs so that people can see the level of behaviour. Worm^TT(talk) 16:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's reasonable. I've rephrased it to be a bit more precise and will add more diffs below in a bit. Loki (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This might fit better as a clause of the above section, not sure. Loki (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence either party has done that. Mentioning the possibility of noticeboard action, the likely outcome of continued disruptive behavior, etc., is acceptable and normal; it's something we have an entire WP:UWT template system for. If this is about something that actually constitutes a threat, then what evidence are you relying on, and in relation to whom? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Loki, this is a pretty serious thing to say. Let's see evidence or a retraction, please. Herostratus (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between what the template is for and this is that this is for the purpose of influencing some other dispute. You can warn people about possible noticeboard action if the intent is to stop the behavior itself, and not to prevent them from disagreeing from you or potential consequences of your own misbehavior. (And no, warning people that they are activists and should stop being activists is not "stopping the behavior itself". You might have a colorable argument for that if Flyer was remaining neutral in the content disputes and warning people on their talk page of a pattern of behavior, but she doesn't do that: she accuses people of activism during content disputes, when they're taking an opposing side of the content dispute, and never ever when they support her side of the content dispute.) Loki (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LokiTheLiar this is entirely apt for the case, and there is ample evidence of it occurring, but as you can see here, you should be attaching specific diffs from the evidence to support this. In my experience, you should not assume that all arbs will read through all of the evidence, and you should pick the one most convincing diff of this happening, and spoonfeed it here. I find point 2b particularly chilling, but I have not read all of the evidence, and you may have others that are more suitable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A handful of specific instances of the above behavior:

And of course, we know that all this intimidation has a general intimidating effect, because, at least sometimes, people say they have been intimidated by it into not criticizing Flyer at all. Loki (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we already go over all this stuff? Short version: It's not possible to "threaten a BOOMERANG" (which is a community reaction not an editor's action). Observing that ignoring 6 or so P&G to push a POINTy image change (while citing the same P&G to try to censor an image at another page!) is apt to result in reprimands, warnings, or bans, is not a threat; it's a heads-up of likely outcome (and Flyer made this abundantly clear, even with a case study to examine [46][47]; meanwhile, WW's pointy proposals there failed, and then failed). Asking for page protection to stop editwarring is not winning an edit war, it's stopping one and forcing discussion. That (plus short-circuiting vandalism bouts) is why WP:RFPP exists.

In detail:

It isn't possible to "threaten a WP:BOOMERANG". BOOMERANG is something that may happen when someone opens an unclean-hands proceeding [like this RFARB], or is otherwise a bonehead in wasting the community's time, going after another editor. BOOMERANG is an effect, a community reaction, not an individual's action. If I predict you will get soaked if you go out in a rainstorm without an umbrella, am I "threatening a soaking"? [Technically, someone in a position to close a discussion with a BOOMERANG decision could be in a position to "threaten a BOOMERANG", I suppose; I've seen this happen at WP:AE. But that has nothing to do with Flyer22.] Flyer22's prediction was spot on; the evidence she thought would be used against WW is in fact being used against WW in this RFARB, which is at least as likely to result in sanctions against WW as against Flyer22. I.e., BOOMERANG. Prediction and threat are not synonymous.
Your second diff is just to someone fixing typos. If you mean the entire context shown there, there is no threat of sanctions in it. There's an observation that image-switcheroo actions which Flyer22 characterizes, in sum, as crossing LEADIMAGE, PERTINENCE, SHOCKVALUE, GRATUITOUS, ADVOCACY, and GREATWRONGS lines predictably lead to reprimands, warnings, or bans. This is correct in gist, even if one disagrees that the image selection in question fits every single one of those shortcuts. (The clearly stated advocacy motivation for the image selection and its inappropriateness per LEADIMAGE is sufficient.)
- A salient point (found at the top of that material) is that WW had just recently been citing many these same shortcuts on another page at which WW sought to censor an image that offended WW's socio-political sensibilities [48] [49] (their RfC on this did not succeed, which was predictable, given all the similar debates that have come before, sometimes including public, international drama that gets into the press). WW even extensively quoted GRATUITOUS: "controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article."
- So, WW knows exactly what is expected and what these WP:P&G pages mean, but only wants them applied if it suits WW's ideology, and chose to defy them in WP:POINT fashion at this page. The Human sexual activity article obviously has to be diverse in total coverage, and surely provide images that reflect the diversity, but there's no interpretation under which an M-M-F threesome is the appropriate LEADIMAGE.
Flyer22 is not an admin and cannot edit-protect a page. Declaring an intent to seek page protection because of editwarring is not a threat or any other kind of problem; it's observation of the problem and of the low-drama solution we have for it (the much-higher-drama one being WP:ANEW). WP:RFPP does nothing to "win an edit war"; it puts a stop to one for the duration, and forces discussion instead. Moreover, it often results in a page being frozen in "meta:The wrong version" for the interim, since there is no guarantee that the page will be in the state the RfPP-seeking editor last saw it by the time protection is put in place, which may take hours (and the protecting admin is free to revert to the status quo ante version, before the dispute broke out, as they lock down the page).

It's hard to take Loki's complaints seriously here. Shall we just delete WP:BOOMERANG, close our noticeboards, and stop protecting pages? If no one should henceforth be allowed to mention these possibilities exist, why have them? Or, should they not be available except to non-participant, third-party observers? In reality, editors in disputes mention these things and the possibility of their application all the time, because it tends to snap editors out of disruptive behavior, to rethink their approach. No one leaves an NPOV, NOR, or RS warning template on someone's talk page because they neutrally have no opinion whether the editor transgressed such a policy; they do it because they're quite certain and because they oppose it happening again. If we just ran straight to noticeboards for every issue instead of talking about it and invoking pertinent shortcuts and dancing around the dramaboarding for a while, thereby negotiating better behavior, WP would just be a nonstop firehose of noticeboard drama with little else happening.

Such stuff is better done on user talk pages, but we know for a fact that WW is no more responsive to criticism there; User_talk:WanderingWanda is where this all started in the first place. Several times every single day, one admin or another leaves a conduct-related admonition somewhere other than user talk (e.g. here [50]); why should Flyer22 in particular be told not to? Just because WanderingWanda gets mad?

PS: Suppose I tell you that WanderingWanda, Fæ, Newimpartial, and several other editors with a largely-shared viewpoint in this topicspace have intimidated me away from almost all participation in this area, for nearly two years, other than at guideline talk pages, RfCs, and other "process" – including me avoiding criticism of those editors and their article talk posts and article content edits. Is your conclusion going to be, "And of course, we know that all this intimidation has a general intimidating effect, because, at least sometimes, people say they have been intimidated by it into not criticizing [these editors] at all"?
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think claims like "it's not possible to threaten a BOOMERANG" don't deserve much of a response, but briefly: of course it's possible to threaten a BOOMERANG. I don't know what else And after what WanderingWanda has stated in this thread, WanderingWanda could look foward to a WP:BOOMERANG at ANI anyway is supposed to be. Yes, BOOMERANGs are a community sanction that are not in Flyer22's control, which is why it was in that particular case an empty threat. Making empty threats is still unacceptable. Same goes for the threat to edit protect a page.

Insinuating that people who have taken the opposing position in content disputes against you have been sanctioned, is also obviously a threat of sanctions. I am trying to assume good faith here but I think that it's reasonably obvious that there is such a thing as an implicit threat and that saying bad things happen to people who oppose you is obviously such a threat.

You also claim that you've been intimidated away from criticizing certain other editors. How? I'm honestly open to the possibility, but the only time I've actually seen you interact in this topic area was the Signpost incident and its aftermath, in which case the people telling you that your Signpost article was inappropriate were not limited to a small group of opposing editors but were instead a pretty overwhelming consensus of editors who read it. (Including, by my count, three admins, and two arbs currently on this case, for the record.) Being intimidated away from rulebreaking behavior because of sanctions that happen when you break the rules (in this case just the blanking of the article) that originated from consensus-driven Wikipedia processes is not what the above principle is about, and in fact is what the processes and sanctions are for.

The threats above were, at least by what I view as the most plausible reading, attempts to subvert ordinary consensus-driven Wikipedia processes by causing other editors to feel intimidated and back out, without the risk caused by actually having to go through the processes and get an actual consensus. Loki (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This not being a forum for endless threaded debate, I'm going to skip most of this. I believe my arguments are more cogent; restating them won't make them even more so, nor convince anyone they are even more so. You didn't answer my question; whether I actually do feel I have been subjected to intimidation and whether you would agree I should feel that way is immaterial to the question, which was about the standards you are applying. Let's recap that standard: "intimidation has a general intimidating effect, because, at least sometimes, people say they have been intimidated by it". Your flippant, dodging, inappropriately speculating response actually does provide an answer, I suppose. Your guess work is wrong, BTW, while "the only time I've actually seen you interact in this topic area" helps prove my point (and is the IDONTKNOWIT fallacy). If I wanted to make a case about these matters at this time, I would have done so with more insistence on adding parties. But I will likely do so in a future RFARB, ARCA, or AE action, but only as actually necessary in the advent that the current case doesn't significantly suppress disruptive behavior in this topic area and those specific parties renew such behavior. That, by the way, is an example of making reference to future possibility of noticeboard action and potential sanction yet is not "a threat". It's a description of processes available and whether I'll be using this one for it or dealing with it later (or at all), and why. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose I tell you that WanderingWanda, Fæ, Newimpartial, and several other editors with a largely-shared viewpoint in this topicspace have intimidated me away from almost all participation in this area

It's hard to know how to respond to this. I guess I'll say: I am not responsible for your feelings nor for the actions of any editor apart from myself. No one has pointed to any major feud between me and any editor except Flyer, an editor who engaged in an unrelenting and deeply stressful targeted campaign against me. To you personally I believe I've been kind and civil. When you filed an SPI against me I did not respond with bitterness; instead later on I sent you a friendly email. I once said at ANI I'd also like to defend SMc. I agree he's not transphobic.[51] And during a conversation at Talk:Ezra Miller, when you made what I took to be a personal attack against me (responding to a point I made with a weird rant about editors grinding axes and decisions...being made on a basis of who can be loudest, who can besmirch the intentions of the other side more[52]) I ignored it and stuck to the matter at hand. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Calling for allies

3) It is unacceptable for an editor to threaten intervention by outside editors known to be friendly to them to win content disputes or prevent another editor from going through a dispute resolution process with them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I realized that a few of the diffs in my evidence section were of a different nature than the others, so I'm separating out the relevant principle. See here where Flyer pings a bunch of uninvolved editors in response to relatively mild criticism as a very clear example of what I mean by this. Also see here where Flyer pings a friendly admin with the seeming intent of dismissing a request to stop personalizing a dispute if you're wondering how this is different from canvassing. Getting an uninvolved admin to look at a dispute can be appropriate in some circumstances, but in those circumstances the admin should be as uninvolved as possible: they should ideally not be an admin that either of you know well, and the intent shouldn't be to tell the other editor you're right but to get a neutral third opinion. Loki (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:FANCLUB. I believe the above diffs demonstrate that Flyer has such a fan club and that she calls upon it not-infrequently to win content disputes or protect herself from sanctions. Loki (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view

4) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. A neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant interpretations. This refers to legitimate differences in interpretation of the sources, as opposed to views considered fringe, outdated, or significantly biased or inaccurate by the substantial consensus of reliable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from WP:ARBPRINCIPLES with "historical" and a reference to the "historical record" removed. Added mostly because I feel many of the other NPOV principles proposed seem to be trying to cast "legitimate differences in interpretation of the sources" as advocacy. Loki (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That change has changed the meaning of parts of it significantly, since "interpretations" now looks like it must be referring to editors' own interpretations of sources and hence, OR. This was from two cases about European history, which is quite a different context. I also believe that the WP:NPOV page describes these matters more clearly. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the very first sentence of WP:NPOV (emphasis mine): All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. I continue to think that your/Flyer's/SMcCandish's interpretation of NPOV and therefore of what is "advocacy" is wrong: it doesn't mean only representing one "neutral" or "objective" view (and in fact the WP:NPOVFAQ calls that out specifically as a misunderstanding). It means proportionally representing all significant views that are present in reliable sources. Which is to say, concerns that articles about trans people neglect significant trans POVs are not in themselves POV-pushing, and can in fact be a valuable part of helping to reach NPOV. Loki (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly know that NPOV doesn't mean 'one point of view' or anything like that. That very sentence you bold I have myself quoted on talk pages many times when dealing with people who push to remove reliably sourced material for bad reasons. That's the same approach that I see Flyer22 and SMcCandlish take as well. Key words are "proportionately" and "published by reliable sources". My point here, though, is that the principle proposed above diverges from the NPOV policy's wording in ways that can be a problem. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Flyer22 Frozen incivility

1) Flyer22 Frozen has repeatedly engaged in uncivil behavior against several other editors.

Evidence:

Here she uses an editor's LGBT status and the status of their partner to accuse them of bias: you stated, "I identify as queer and have been in a long term relationship with a trans man." To me, it has seemed that you let your personal life (in addition to your political views) affect how go about editing here. (it's the second edit, scroll down)
Until recently she had a polemic against Kolya up on her talk page
Edit summary I don't care what you think is a good idea. [link] is just one example that you don't know what you're doing
Quite a lot more: [53], [54], [55], [56], [57]. In addition, the FoFs about threats and aspersions below also contain evidence of uncivil behavior, because threats and aspersions are uncivil behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

See: [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]; also evidence for the below findings of fact is also evidence for this since aspersions and threats are also uncivil behavior. Loki (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC) amended Loki (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is basically off-topic again. This case is about Flyer22 and WW's interaction, in a particular topic area. It is not for trying to dig up every single time someone over many years lost their temper with other people and in other subjects. There are essentially no long-term editors about whom a "dirt list" of civility failure cannot be assembled. Much of this "evidence", maybe most of it, is either extraneous to the case or too old for ArbCom action. ArbCom is not court for punishment of past transgressions, it is for resolving an ongoing problem (in the least intrusive way it can). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. ArbCom cases look at each participant's broad behavior in the topic area, not merely their narrow behavior with each other. More importantly, such evidence is vital to understand whether an editor's issue is with a particular person, or whether they show the same behavior consistently; obviously that affects whether they will be sanctioned or, if so, the nature of those sanctions. --Aquillion (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, the dirtlisting you and a few others have engaged in is cherry-picked, unrelated, out-of-context diffs that either do not relate to the topic, to this inter-editor dispute, or both. So it is not "evidence ... vital to understanding ... an editor's [alleged] issue" that has been brought to ArbCom; it just a shotgun approach to trying to paint a very long-term editor in a bad light in comparison to a much shorter-term editor, when the latter's relevant behavior has been worse, and more frequently worse, than the former's. Fortunately, I know the Arbs are smart enough to see through this FUD cloud. People try this demonization tactic at ANI, AE, etc., all the time too, and the entire community sees through it and dismisses ancient and off-topic evidence as noise. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we'll see. Ultimately whether these are relevant to the case is for ArbCom to decide. Based on your personal belief that this case should only focus on direct interactions between Flyer22 and WanderingWanda, though, and that broader evidence to contextualize their interactions is inappropriate and broader conclusions are out-of-scope, will you will be striking your supportive comment here, replacing it with one admonishing Crossroads for requesting a remedy that is out-of-scope? Plainly that is not directly about interactions between WanderingWanda and Flyer22; if you think that it is relevant because it was part of the crux of their dispute, then I don't see how you can disagree that evidence indicating Flyer22 has behaved similarly with numerous editors is as well. Just like Flyer22 and - in her absence - her supporters have argued that the crux of this case is that WanderingWanda is indeed guilty of advocacy, clearly WanderingWanda and her supporters are arguing that the crux of the case is that WanderingWanda is essentially innocent of at least that charge and that Flyer22 casts such WP:ASPERSIONS far too freely and generally approaches the topic area with a WP:BATTLEGROUND perspective. Obviously, based on your statements, you agree with the former and disagree with the latter, but it isn't reasonable for you to argue that the latter case cannot even be made when ArbCom has not yet ruled on it, and clearly it is at least equally relevant until then. --Aquillion (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WW's activism is not out of scope (which encompasses these two editors' interaction with each other and their behavior in the topic area central to that dispute). WW's PoV-pushing and incivility in this particular topic is the proximal cause of this dispute, and the central reason for its long-term perpetuation. What's out of scope is all the "Party X was rude to Editor Y" diffs that have nothing to do with either this topic or the two-party dispute. And evidence from a very long time ago is generally disregarded by ArbCom, as not evidentiary of a current problem, unless there's a continuous line of topically focused disruption for a long term. What we have in Flyer22's history is long-term participation in a topic area with only very intermittent issues arising, until the two-editor conflict erupted and became ingrained. What we have in WW's case is a shorter but lengthening term of single-minded focus on WP:WINNING and WP:BATTLEGROUND in a particular topic, laced very frequently with disruptive behavior. It's not helpful to frame this in terms of "supporters" of one party or the other. This isn't a personal matter for me, but an issue of what is best for the project. Inveterate PoV pushing laced with character assassination and baiting is clearly worse than policy-minded prevention of PoV pushing, marred occasionally by baited and momentary alleged civility lapses (of a sort that, as others have pointed out, is far less heated than that engaged in by many long-term admins – no one has a "right to not be criticized"). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem accurate to state POV pushing is the proximal cause of the dispute. Prior to Flyer waltzing onto Wanda's talk to make the sock suggestion, Wanda had hardly made a single edit that could be perceived as advocacy even by a moderate conservative. I hope no one still thinks opposing the misgendering of trans people is an activist position? Id not agree that either party has engaged in "character assassination", but there has been negative personalisation, and an objective review of the evidence shows Flyer is the one who started it. Some of Wanda's post 9 April 2019 edits & suggestions do indeed seem quite misjudged, FWIW I think Flyer made the right call on content virtually every time. But it seems dangerously wrong to characterise Wanda's edits as "Inveterate PoV pushing" - what sort of message does that send our LGBTQ+ editors? Such editors should be welcome to make suggestions from the LGBTQ+ perspective, especially if they do so in a collegial and good humoured way, with reasonable if not always successful good faith efforts to respect NPOV. (As does Wanda, with the exception of their interaction with Flyer.). None of this btw is to argue for any censure of Flyer – she's successfully helped identify dozens of disruptive and harmful socks, and can't be blamed for occasionally getting it wrong, even if on this occasion the likely mistake has had spiralling consequences. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Take Wanda's edits to the Fred Rogers page. At 06:15 on 6 March Wanda added text to the article suggesting that Rogers was bisexual [63] as well as restoring the content while it was being discussed (2 April) [64]. A talk page discussion was started at 06:11 on 6 March (4 minutes before Wanda's post) by an editor with 6 total edits, with the Rogers edits being the only 2 outside of their own talk page.[65] That close timing certainly could raise suspicions of coordination between the two accounts. Between that and the way Wanda had a strong understanding of how to work in the Wikipedia bureaucracy I can see why Flyer might have been concerned about a sock account. The talk page discussion also looked like LBGTQ advocacy. That was started by the new editor stating, "And although sexuality may not seem significant to some, it is important that lgbtq be acknowledged through history and important figures so that misconceptions and prejudices may be disproved. To prove that the lgbtq community are part of history and have had influence, and that they not a product of the modern age or chemicals or trends.". When another editor objected Wanda pushed back citing bisexual erasure, "Bisexual erasure or bisexual invisibility is the tendency to ignore, remove, falsify, or reexplain evidence of bisexuality in history, academia, the news media, and other primary sources. In its most extreme form, bisexual erasure can include the belief that bisexuality does not exist.". Flyer first posted to Wanda's talk page on 9 April asking if Wanda had a prior account.[66] Certainly there was reasonable evidence and this was not an accusation of POVPUSH at the time the question was asked. The discussion did lead into Flyer's concerns about advocacy. [67]. So, at least in the case of Flyer's concerns over advocacy, Flyer presented evidence the first time she confronted Wanda about the concern. Springee (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is consistent with my evidence analysis response at #Analysis of one exchange from Feyd Huxtable's timeline, way below. I'll also point out that at least 4 other editors suspected WW was a sock (I think the others all or mostly appear here, including at least Guy Macon and Thomas.W, and me, being the one who opened the SPI request). As for Feyd's more general point: I am not swayed by argument to emotion along those-poor-LGBT+ lines (though I wonder if it's presumed I am not under that umbrella). The key here is "in a collegial and good humoured way, with reasonable if not always successful good faith efforts to respect NPOV". We have abject failure at this from WW's quarter. Nor does "bad faith" have to enter into it; most PoV pushers, aside from commercial spammers, are entirely convinced they are doing the right thing for Wikipedia and the world. That doesn't make it okay, and such people must be removed from the topic area if they will not stop. Furthermore, even if Feyd's timeline interpretation were correct, being suspected of socking and being told that one's editing pattern looks PoV-pushing is no excuse to double down on PoV pushing and go into "let's be enemies" mode. I've addressed some of this in the same Feyd-related section I just linked to above. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC); rev'd. 03:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LokiTheLiar this case has not been restricted as described above (few arb cases are), but demonstrating a pattern outside of the WW/Flyer locus would be helpful to those arbs who might not read the full page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vague and meaningless. Anyone with over 1000 edits—and probably every single person who is posting on this page— has occasionally lapsed into "uncivil" behavior at times. We get cranky. Further, what is incivility can be a gray area, often in the eye of the beholder. Someone at WP:MED trying to promote their alternative medical beliefs is going to be met with waves of opposition that it apt to leave them with hurt feelings and tempted to accuse the regulars of incivility, when the regulars are merely going "oh no, not this crap again." Montanabw^(talk) 21:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Frozen threats

2) Flyer22 Frozen has threatened to use Wikipedia processes against other editors several times in order to prevail in content disputes or to avoid dispute resolution processes.

Evidence:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

See: [68] Loki (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, mentioning the possibility of noticeboard action, the likely outcome of continued disruptive behavior, etc., is acceptable and normal; it's something we have an entire WP:UWT template system for. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loki, see my other comments. To support this, you have linked to your entire evidence section on that portion, and not all arbs will read everything. It may be more effective to pick out two to four diffs that best and most explicitly back your proposed finding. Ditto for your aspersions section. And ditto for your canvassing section: please see my comments to KB regarding wikilawyering of canvassing relative to better practices on how to resolve disputes and build consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above for the principal:

And of course, we know that all this intimidation has a general intimidating effect, because, at least sometimes, people say they have been intimidated by it into not criticizing Flyer at all. Loki (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Frozen aspersions

3) Flyer22 Frozen has repeatedly cast aspersions against WanderingWanda and others instead of going to the proper dispute resolution mechanisms.

Evidence:

Flyer accuses Wanda of being an activist who is trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS without evidence. Several times in fact.
Flyer accuses NewImpartial of being an activist without evidence.
Flyer accuses me, Tsumikiria, and Wanda (multiple times) of being socks.
And many more! [69], [70], some of the diffs in [71]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

See: [72], [73], some of the diffs in [74]. Loki (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is likely true, but "WanderingWanda has repeatedly cast aspersions against Flyer22 Frozen and others instead of going to the proper dispute resolution mechanisms" is even more true, both as to frequency and as to severity of the aspersions. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wander made commitments to avoid Flyer22 and frequently reached out to the latter's talk page to resolve things between the two. Also, we're only here because Wander used a dispute resolution mechanism (Arbcom). No evidence I am aware of has shown Flyer22 acting in a similar manner. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one of the notable things about this case is that for all the aspersions Flyer22 cast against WW, she never once, to my knowledge, initiated any kind of dispute resolution process against them. Or anyone else in the topic area she accused of activism. I would have much less of a problem with her accusations if she had done so: at least then we could either say definitively that the community regards what WW was doing as activism, or that it doesn't. Loki (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Frozen canvassing

4) Flyer22 Frozen has repeatedly tried to canvass editors to disputes by pinging large numbers of editors she believes will support her, while declining to ping editors she believes will oppose her.

Evidence:

Comment by Arbitrators:

The big problem is establishing intent. I do think canvassing and pinging should be in the final decision, but perhaps not as a finding against a specific editor. Worm^TT(talk) 16:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing my thoughts above about canvassing, I don't think this matches the way I'd describe Flyer's pinging. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

See: [76]. Loki (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The idea to add "pinging" to the canvassing guideline has been discussed and there was not a consensus for it. [77] ArbCom cannot dictate that pinging is canvassing and thus overrule the community. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the opposing arguments in that discussion were, essentially, "pinging can obviously already be canvassing so there's no point to adding this". Many of the remainder were "this change is pointy". Not a single person argued that pinging should never be canvassing, which means that more people argued in that discussion that the canvassing guideline should be entirely deleted (yes someone argued that) than that pinging is not canvassing.

The actual guideline simply uses the word "notifying" and does not specify method except when it, for example, refers to canvassing off-wiki as especially inappropriate. A ping is a type of notification and so, while not all pings are canvassing, pinging can obviously be canvassing. Loki (talk) 04:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Crossroads. The fact that LokiTheLiar would like to interpret the (somewhat vague) guideline a particular way is immaterial when we already know that this specific interpretation was rejected by consensus. More to the point, though, the "other side" in this dispute has not only also pinged but asked for leeway to do so even more, so this matter is completely moot. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Arbitrator section in response to Worm's 16:49 5 January comment

The clearest sign I have of intent is the diff for this very case, where everyone she pinged who commented on the case supported her, and she mentioned several people by name who were clearly involved in the underlying situations yet did not ping them (and all of them at some point commented on this case against her). Pinging 14 people of whom 13 commented in support, while conspicuously avoiding pinging 3 other people and Wanda herself, of whom all 4 eventually commented against, does not sound like a coincidence to me.

The second clearest sign of intent is this diff where she pinged a bunch of completely unrelated editors to, pretty clearly, suppress a piece of mild criticism against her. Loki (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the evidentiary merits, this seems to have a wording confusion. The proposed text says "uninvolved editors" but your explanation seems to be that Flyer22's ping choices are a wrong because those pinged were involved, not uninvolved. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By "uninvolved editors" I meant "editors who had no good reason to be pinged" and not "neutral editors", but you're right that it could be confusing. I'll just take that out, it's not that important to the underlying point. Loki (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On intent, what about the diff from WW's opening statement where Flyer22 pinged people to an image discussion because they had disagreed with me in another image discussion? [78] Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That diff is worth reading. WP:APPNOTE allows for notifying Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics). Crossroads ^-talk- 07:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The diff, regarding the lead image at Prostitution includes Flyer22 stating: "I stand by that since I feel that the current image aligns more so with what MOS:LEADIMAGE states than any image of a brothel, and since the editor who made the September 3, 2020‎ change will show up at an article they never edited and incessantly debate to add their preferred image. The most recent instance of the editor doing thats is this discussion and a related one on their talk page regarding the Drag king article. Despite objections from SergeWoodzing and Seraphimblade, the editor re-added the image they wanted to add." That's an example of both canvassing and poisoning discussions. While I had stated that I objected to the current lead image on the grounds that it does not give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page per MOS:LEADIMAGE, not one editor who Flyer22 pinged actually discussed my argument that a simple nude is not recognizable as a prostitute, besides merely declaring the opposite. It felt to me like an instance of "calling for allies" and pinging editors who she knew didn't like me. The resulting discussion felt like a gish gallop. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take this the wrong way as you come across as a very useful editor, so I hope you find this constructive. But the image related discussion on Talk:Prostitution seems to show Flyer making good accurate points. And while you made some valid points too, your central argument seems not even wrong, so it's unsurprising you didn't like how the discussion played out. It may be worth explaining in detail as this is also applicable to some of Wanda's pushiness re lead images, though in their case it's a bit subtler and might take even longer to tease out.

Extended discussion on lede pic pushiness and "not even wrong" arguments.

The central argument against the existing lede pic seems to be It is simply a nude and does not "give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page". Looking at just the nude woman, while I may be missing something, I'd agree it's not obvious that she's a prostitute. But here's the thing - the pic is not just a nude - two different women are foregrounded, and if one doesn't zoom in on just the nude, it's much plainer that they're prostitutes. For starters, the clothed woman has a robe that was typical work wear for prostitutes in late 19th century Paris. Granted, many readers wouldn't know that or even realise that's where the pic is set, despite its caption.

So let's consider the scene the pic is showing us. The nude woman is tidying up the bed, presumably feeling too hot after a session with a client to first put on her clothes. Per the tilt of her head, relative posture ect, the robed woman is saying something to the nude, perhaps confiding, perhaps just sharing some gossip. The pic is giving the reader educative information about prostitutes in all sorts of subtle ways. Each of them takes quite a few words to explain, so I'll just sketch out the most obvious.

A naked woman has considerable power. Hence why you're attention was so captured by the nude you don't appear to have noticed the other woman. In non sex work circumstances, if a young woman was naked and in close proximity to another there would be all sorts of emotional energy apparent. E.g. shame on the part of the nude, or more likely a certain pride in her beauty. All of which are absent in te pic. Obviously we cant see their facial expressions, but a good painter like Toulouse-Lautrec would show the emotion in their stance, the play of muscles on the nude, etc. The pic is conveying the emotional deadening effect that prostitution has on some women, which goes beyond the normal effects of familiarity (that you might have with woman that frequently see each other naked in the changing rooms for sporting activity, saunas or whatever.)

Not all readers or even edtors would articulate it quite like that, but they'd get some of this intuitively from the visual relationship between the two women, and hence immediately see the pic as confirmation they've arrived on the right page, plus derive some educational benefit.

To be blunt, as Flyer suggested most of your alternative pic suggestions were not well selected, and Flyer has a right to express some exasperation with your pushiness in trying to force changes. No one is born with a great eye for pics, it might be beneficial to sign up to one of the many free online art appreciation courses - you might find one where you can get chatting to fellow students, who unlike Wikipedia editors, are happy to get into long discussions about the merits of particular pics. After that, you might get much more agreeable results for any future on wiki discussion. Anyway, for brevity, let's just discuss the single best alternative you advanced, the pic of editor Jucos. In fairness, you're right to say that the pic is an even more obvious visual confirmation to the reader then the existing image. And in a sense more obviously educational. So here's the reason why it's arguably less suitable. As per MOS:LEADIMAGE the lede pic should be chosen with care. In this case, that includes being careful about what message we send on the Empowerment v Exploitation dimension. We'd not want to perpetuate the happy hooker stereotype. Granted, like most issues in the sexuality/ gender topic class theres many different opinions here. Some SWERFs might say the happy hooker is a complete myth, that it's impossible for any woman to enjoy being a prostitute, and any claims to contrary are due to false consciousness. More realistic feminists know that female sexuality varies widely from woman to woman, and that studies suggest that in some countries, prostitutes report higher job satisfaction than do women in other entry level sectors like care work or retail. But they also know that many women (and also men + non binaries) only become prostitutes due to coercion. And that a great many who become so voluntarily suffer psychological harm as a result. The Toulouse-Lautrec pic get the balance perfectly right IMO. There's the deadening effect described above, and the nude looks a little stressed. On the other hand, it doesnt overdo it - the robed figure doesnt seem stressed at all, and the even the nude might only be stressed temporarily as her last client was a bad one. Granted, the Jucos pic is used at Prostitution in Germany, but it stands to reason that editor Jucos's relaxed attitude to sex work is more representative there than on an article with global scope, per Germany having a much more liberal attitude to the oldest progression than most of RoW.

Ok, so that's quite a lot to read and I've only began to scratch the surface of the considerations that go into carefully choosing lede images in this kind of area. I hope you can seen why highly knowledgeable editors like Flyer don't always want to get drawn into detailed discussions, as it's such a distraction from productive editing. Being collaborative isn't just about avoiding the use of aggressive language, it also includes being respectful of other editors time, knowing when to take no for an answer, and taking care not to advance arguments that aren't even wrong. All that said, sorry that you experienced the discussion as stonewalling, and I hope you don't find this demotivational.

I added one of my five proposed images next to yours for easy comparison. I had cited Talk:Prostitution as an example of canvassing. I was not being pushy; the editors Flyer22 pinged were pushing me away.[79] Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing why it's a strong example of canvassing - Flyer pinged a small number of relevant people to the discussion, just like you did with Daniel Cardenas & Patrick. Looks like a very minor violation at worst. I'm sorry you felt pushed away - my point was that the discussion may have turned out that way due to quality of argument, not due to any "well poisoning" by Flyer. I see you noted that several editors seemed not to like you. Liking you and not being impressed with your argument are two different things. I immediately took a liking to you on first sight (per your cool user name & user page) but some of your image change suggestions seem almost trollishly bad. Lets look at your last proposal. Granted, it's very slightly more obviously related to prostitution than the current pic. Apart from that, it's completely no contest. The existing pic is sensitive and rather lovely, whereas the proposed pic is icky and grotesque. The existing pic is highly educational as it's saying timeless things about prostitution, whereas the proposed pic is dated as it's commenting on a sexual health situation that no longer exists. As said, no reason for anyone to feel bad if they don't have a great eye for pics - that can easily be improved by a free online art appreciation class. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FeydHuxtable, I just wanted to say I loved your analysis of the Toulouse-Lautrec painting above :) Anatashala (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's an example of WP:Canvassing#Spamming and excessive cross-posting from the dispute with Bionic where Flyer22 notified nine projects, noticeboards, etc. of a move discussion.[80] Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is really reaching. That section of CANVASS is about spamming individual editors. WP:APPNOTE specifically permits drawing in uninvolved editors by posting at such central locations and noticeboards, as she herself states there, and was explained by her and another user, Mathglot, here: [81] Seems like no matter what she does other than roll over and yield to her opponent, she gets accused of canvassing. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Revised. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot was not commenting on the nine cross-posts that Flyer22 had just made to the move request, they were commenting on her pings to the initial informal discussion from three months before that.[82] Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WanderingWanda

4) Several times during a conflict that occurred in 2019, WanderingWanda has taken the bait and responded to hostility by other editors in a similarly hostile manner. They promised to stop this behavior (and were warned to stop it) at an ANI in January 2020, and did so.

Evidence:

Comment by Arbitrators:

While I am not a huge fan of the wording of this, I definitely would support FoF that reflect the efforts (and outcome) of previous dispute resolution efforts, mainly at ANI in this case. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think most of the accusations against WW are unsupported but this one is not really deniable, especially seeing as how some of the diffs in evidence involve me telling them to not take the WP:BAIT at the time. Loki (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loki, I didn't immediately find a 2019 warning, just the one from 2020. Is there another one? Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that the ANI I was referring to is from January 2020, not 2019. Loki (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Want to add the link to the warning next to your finding of fact? This finding would support my proposals for WW. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Flyer22 Frozen civility restricted

1) Flyer22 Frozen is indefinitely prohibited from engaging in conduct which, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, casts aspersions, or personalises disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Taken from this prior case, which I found through WP:EDR. Loki (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support this or the version I proposed. I had not seen your proposal before I also found the restriction at WP:EDR. I removed "casts aspersions" because that is part of personalization, which I think should be the focus. This remedy would be better than the WP:No personal comments restriction because it would also prohibit aggressive grandiose comments. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing I said about Kolya's version: This is out-of-band. This case is about the conflict between two editors, and your proposed remedy (like much of your evidence) has nothing to do with that, but is about what you think of Flyer22 overall across all topics and in relation to all editors. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loki, again, cases are not restricted as stated in the post above mine, but you should attach to this the most specific diffs that explicity back your proposal; there are ample. It would also be most effective to indicate whether these occur across the board (that is, beyond the WW locus). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, one-sided, vague, over the tope, and potentially unenforcable or over-enforcable. This is just a stick to beat down a long-term productive editor who has chosen to disengage with this process. Montanabw^(talk) 21:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Frozen anti-threat restricted

2a) Flyer22 Frozen may not, in the view of any uninvolved administrator, threaten sanctions or the use of other Wikipedia processes in a dispute with another editor.

2b) Flyer22 Frozen may not, in the view of any uninvolved administrator, threaten to use Wikipedia processes against another editor in a dispute without actually using those processes within a reasonable period of time afterwards.

Comment by Arbitrators:

If we think about this in terms of standard warnings, it seems like this would restrict Flyer from anything more than a uw1 comment to another editor (unless she follows through in 2b). I do not believe there is evidence to support a FoF which would justify this remedy which strikes me overly harsh. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

These are supposed to be two different variations of the same proposal. I'm not quite sure whether the evidence more supports a general "don't threaten sanctions" sanction, or a more specific "put up or shut up" sanction. (Also, if others can help come to a consensus as to what is a "reasonable period of time" that would be helpful.) Loki (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons I think these are helpful, especially 2b, is that if Flyer22 is correct and WW is some horrible activist, this is barely a sanction at all. This just means she needs to actually try to stop WW and others from doing activism instead of simply grousing about it all the time. (And of course, if she's right, the consensus should be with her, sanctions will be imposed on WW, and the activism will stop.) On the other hand, if she's not right and consensus is against her, that means we actually see the lack of consensus and it becomes much harder for her to make spurious claims of activism in the future. No matter what your position is on the underlying dispute, the correct thing should happen. Loki (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And such threats should never occur in article talk pages or edit summaries. Hopefully we can incorporate this proposal into a more general civility proposal. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WanderingWanda

3) WanderingWanda is reminded that bad behavior by other editors does not excuse bad behavior in response.

Comment by Arbitrators:

So in ArbCom speak, at least as I interpret it, admonish, warn, and remind are a continuum from most severe to least severe. Loki given that, which word would you use, as you're combining the most severe (in the heading) with the lead severe (in the wording)? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I don't think anything more than a reminder is necessary since this isn't really an ongoing problem. WW stopped the bad behavior on their own. Loki (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

re Barkeep49: I wasn't clear on that hierarchy and have therefore struck "admonished" from the title. Loki (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Thryduulf

Proposed principles

Bad behaviour is not excused by the bad behaviour of others

1) An editor who has been on the receiving end of bad behaviour from one or more others is still expected to behave in accordance with community standards. Accordingly they may be sanctioned if their own actions have fallen below the expected standards.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I agree with this, though it may not appear in it's exact form - it covers a lot of the outsider views and why behaviour may still be a problem. It certainly feels like the crux of so many of the committee's cases. Worm^TT(talk) 16:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd like to see something along these lines included. To speak to SMcCandlish's point, maybe Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Evaluating user conduct? It makes two points (this one, and that positive contributions don't excuse bad behavior), though the other probably applies too. --BDD (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with SMc's larger point about recycling rather than recreating, I'm not seeing an existing something that gets at this idea that in a 2 way dispute both parties of the dispute need to own their behavior. The one BDD links to reads to me as something different (but also applilcable in this case) which is that if you do good work in one place that doesn't excuse bad behavior in another place. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous principles such as "Standards of editor behaviour" apply broadly to the same point, I think. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like the suggested wording from Kolya on 8 January for reasons similar to SilkTork. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This needs much wordsmithing, but I feel it is important to include something like this. The evidence shows that both WW and Flyer have both been at both ends of the stick. Thryduulf (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, perhaps incorporate language from WP:Civility: If others are uncivil, do not respond in kind, and #3 and #6 from WP:Civility#Dealing with incivility. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Thruduulf. I would think that WP:ARBPRINCIPLES has something on this already. I would think it generally desirable to keep recycling already-decided principles statements rather than continually generate new ones in slightly different wording. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I'm not objecting; if the extant ARBPRINCIPLES material doesn't quite get the job done, then a new variant is fine. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about:

"When users are subject to behavior which violates Wikipedia's code of conduct, they are not given license to respond in kind. Users are responsible for their own behavior. Concerns regarding the conduct of others should be raised following appropriate conduct dispute resolution procedures." Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Thryduulf that it's important to have this as a principle. I like Kolya Butternut's revised wording. I like the switch from a warning to being informative - letting people know what they should do, rather than just caution that they may be sanctioned. I also like the reminder to be personally responsible - most times we create or enflame a conflict by focussing too much on the flaws of the other person rather than look to our own actual or potential flaws. SilkTork (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf and SilkTork: I agree this is getting better because of the switch to being informative rather than cautionary (frame it in terms of best practice rather than punishment), but there is still a missing piece (which I won't try to wordsmith myself 'cuz not my strength). The missing piece is to be aware not to carry acquired inkind response reactions from battleground in one area to other areas of Wikipedia. Something like, yes, there is a huge mess of battleground over in the Sexuality topics, but check those negative experiences and discussion methods at the door when weighing in at other fora, like WT:MEDMOS or WT:MED. Something about being aware of the different fora, different audience. Somehow, acquired behaviors (which were not checked by "friendly" supporters) became adopted as a standard discussion style and carried into other fora, but there has to be a way to state this more in the affirmative (best practice) than the negative. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I think you may be trying to go for something like this:

Maintaining civility in contentious environments

1.2) An editor who frequently edits in contentious areas of the project, where bad behaviour and disruption are the norm, is still expected to behave in accordance with community standards. They should always try to maintain their own civility and encourage others to do the same. Accordingly, an editor may be sanctioned if their own actions in any forum have fallen below the expected standards of the project. Editing in contentious topic areas cannot be used as an excuse to avoid accountability for their own actions.

Let me know if that's about right. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not my strength, will leave it to others :) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: That's certainly along the lines I was thinking reading SG's comment. I think it would work better as a separate principle though as responding to bad behaviour by user:Example by behaving badly towards user:Example (in the same topic area) is not the same as assuming bad faith towards user:Foo regarding a dispute at Talk:Welding because they share an opinion with users who have behaved badly in an acrimonious dispute at talk:Anchovy, even if user:Foo's behaviour has been exemplary. Thryduulf (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: Thanks for giving that a go - though it's Kolya Butternut's wording that has impressed me. The principle in this wording is the same, but it somehow lacks the clarity, impact, and helpfulness of Kolya Butternut's wording, and returns to tub thumping threats, and potentially petrol-throwing advice ("encourage others to do the same" in a contentious area is likely to be contentious in itself if coming from one of the parties in a dispute - see WP:FOC, our policy on dealing with such situations, which is to follow the recommendation that Kolya Butternut gave). SilkTork (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: I was less trying to make a proposal here than putting something into words for SandyGeorgia as Thryduulf noted. I don't normally try to draft principles like this. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I'm not sure Sandy's suggestion can be turned into an ArbCom principle. We all understand what she's saying - and that is good informal advice to give to people. But I'm not sure there's an existing guidance or policy which says it's acceptable to misbehave in one area but not in another (and ArbCom cannot create new policy). The principle is the same in whichever part of Wikipedia one is in: we must treat each other with respect. And if people are not treating others with respect, then do not take that as an acceptable code of behaviour for that part of Wikipedia, do not start behaving the same way - do as the wording in Kolya Butternut's suggestion says: "Users are responsible for their own behavior. Concerns regarding the conduct of others should be raised [by] following appropriate conduct dispute resolution procedures". I would urge people just to go back and read it again carefully. Thryduulf's principle is the central principle to this case. It is probably the only principle needed. And Kolya Butternut's wording nails it. I like it so much I'm going to stick it on my user page. SilkTork (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: I'm not sure there's an existing guidance or policy which says it's acceptable to misbehave in one area but not in another I think you're missing the point slightly here. All the policies and guidelines apply across the project unless they explicitly say otherwise, and it is not ArbCom creating new policy to affirm that this does mean importing a dispute from one area to another is a bad idea. As I said in reply to MJL, it's a different principle to the one I proposed but equally valid. Thryduulf (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I may be missing Sandy's point Thryduulf, and if so please clear it up for me. (Forgive me Sandy if my following interpretation is not what you intended, and I have misunderstood your point.) Sandy said "The missing piece is to be aware not to carry acquired inkind response reactions from battleground in one area to other areas of Wikipedia". I took that to mean that when editing in certain heated areas of Wikipedia, say American politics, a person may find that debate is so frequent and intense that incivility is commonplace and unreported, and so a user may acquire a new learned behaviour of being more blunt and uncivil than is acceptable and take such behaviour to other places; and so it would be useful to have a principle saying that we shouldn't do that. However, our guidelines are that we shouldn't be modelling our behaviour on incivility in the first place - which was the principle you brought to the workshop, so I don't see how we can have ArbCom writing a principle which allows someone to ignore the principle you brought to the workshop, because if we accept that someone has acquired "those negative experiences and discussion methods" which we are then encouraging them to "check in" when they move to less heated areas of Wikipedia, we are by implication asking ArbCom to give their blessing to people ignoring policy and behaving badly in heated areas because that's the norm in those heated areas. I saw the point as something an experienced Wikipedian may say informally to another Wikipedian because, though we do have communal standards of behaviour written down, we do turn a blind eye in some areas to mild infractions of those standards in order to facilitate a greater purpose. Here on ArbCom pages, for example, we may tolerate more bluntness and emotion than standard because people here may be emotional, a little stressed, a little angry, frustrated, perhaps frightened, and clamping down too rigidly may not be beneficial to fully airing the dispute and getting all the information required. It's unofficial, and it has a sliding scale. For some cases the Committee may request of the clerks a looser or stricter focus on incivility depending on the circumstances. But while we may informally tolerate uncivil behaviour, it's another thing to write that into a formal ArbCom principle. Though, we do have this: Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#First_offenses_and_isolated_incidents, our No personal attacks policy page which says: "Often the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is to simply ignore it." And perhaps some essence of what Sandy is saying could be incorporated into a principle, referencing such as WP:Grudge and WP:Ignore it, that we should be more tolerant and forgiving of others in order to prevent a build up of tension and resentment; something like "Don't let others annoy you". SilkTork (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork and Thryduulf: I will attempt clarity, but I may just make it worse :) Not carrying disputes from one place to another is already an established thing. Not holding grudges is also already an established thing. This is slightly different (or appears to be) a lack of awareness that one has been affected by editing contentious topics in ways that could carry over to other areas. What I am suggesting is an affirmative statement (not a change in policy, or guideline or anything) that it is good editing practice to be aware when one might be falling prey to repeat negative interactions in contentious areas and letting that seep in to interactions everywhere. It's not entirely encompassed in IGNORE or GRUDGE. I try to think of it as compartmentalizing; something I had to do as FAC delegate, in terms of setting aside anything else related to any editor that may have happened anywhere else on Wikipedia, and simply look at the article before me at FAC. I had to have walls and boundaries to view the work of contentious editors without prejudice. If I have a heated disagreement with you in area X, I stick that in a different part of my brain when I encounter you at area Y. I don't let it in. Otherwise, how could we ever all get along in here? I'm not suggesting a principle; I'm saying that an affirmative statement to that effect might help the parties move forward. Not my strength, but if I try to frame it as part of Thryduulf's original proposal, it might look something like ... An editor who has been on the receiving end of bad behaviour from one or more others is expected to be aware to not carry negative experiences elsewhere and is still expected to behave in accordance with community standards." If I were to try to tack something on to KB's wording, it would be something like: "When users are subject to behavior which violates Wikipedia's code of conduct, they are reminded not to carry those bad experiences into interactions in other areas of Wikipedia, and are not given license to respond in kind." Obviously, I am not very good at this, but I hope to help us try to find a more affirming way to bring and keep good editors in the fold.

And, SilkTork, per our shared experience with a previous mentorship, and also wrt to another otherwise good editor whose name has also come up on this page but is now gone, the reason I think this is important is that we must find affirming and non-punitive ways to retain otherwise good editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see the sense in that. SilkTork (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Flyer22 Reborn restricted

1) Flyer22 Reborn may be banned from any page or discussion which, in the opinion of either an uninvolved administrator or a consensus of administrators at WP:AE, they are disrupting. Bans placed by individual administrators may not exceed 12 months in duration, bans placed by a consensus at WP:AE may be indefinite.
Bans may be appealed only by Flyer22 Reborn and may only be made at WP:AE or to the Arbitration Committee. For an appeal to succeed at AE there must be either (a) the explicit agreement of the administrator placing the ban and no consensus among uninvolved administrators that the ban should not be removed; or (b) the clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Based on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Sarah777 restricted. Restricting the appeal venue to AE is an attempt to avoid the pile-on of friendly commenters at ANI that has let the dispute get this far. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This might work. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WanderingWanda restricted

2) WanderingWanda may be banned from any page or discussion which, in the opinion of either an uninvolved administrator or a consensus of administrators at WP:AE, they are disrupting. Bans placed by individual administrators may not exceed 3 months in duration, bans placed by a consensus at WP:AE may be time limited or indefinite.
Bans may be appealed only by WanderingWanda and may only be made at WP:AE or to the Arbitration Committee. For an appeal to succeed at AE there must be either (a) the explicit agreement of the administrator placing the ban and no consensus among uninvolved administrators that the ban should not be removed; or (b) the clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Based on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Sarah777 restricted. Proposed for parity with the restriction proposed for Flyer22 Reborn, but I'm significantly less convinced the evidence justifies this one. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Aquillion

Proposed principles

POV-fighting and tendentious editing

1) Approaching a topic area with the intent of pushing back against advocacy for a specific point of view is, itself, a form of tendentious editing and is broadly inappropriate. This does not apply to pushing back against patently fringe perspectives or pushing back against all advocacy regardless of point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I disagree with this principle. I do think once you are committed to defending the wiki from one POV you lose perspective on which edits actually violate policy, fall into a reflexive hair-trigger assumption of bad faith when encountering editors you disagree with, and become entrenched in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. has some truth to it, though I'd phrase it more along the lines of "an editor may lose perspective" rather than a blanket statement that it's inevitable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Based on WP:POVFIGHTER. The exact wording probably requires workshopping - probably ought to acknowledge the importance of addressing genuine problems and suggest better ways to deal with them, and implementing actual remedies on it may prove difficult. But this is something that needs to be stated clearly, since it is so, so easy for experienced editors to fall into this trap. While I do think most of the people who run afoul of POVFIGHTER are well-meaning and legitimately see themselves as serving an important purpose - and I suspect that much of their zeal comes from having encountered genuine and serious problems in the past - the obvious problem is that this leads to hair-trigger presumptions of bad faith that lead to intractable disputes, as well as vicious cycles and WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct that cause topic areas to break down into warring sides each convinced that only they can save the wiki from the POV-pushing of their opponents. --Aquillion (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This would have a chilling effect and inappropriately equates POV pushing and resisting POV pushing. Resisting POV pushing is good. In many topics, one form of POV pushing is predominant. If a certain article essentially only suffers from right-wing POV pushing, for example, pushing back against that more than other kinds of POV pushing, and "intending" to continue doing so, is not tendentious editing, but the right thing to do. It is indistinguishable from a "mission to protect article content from any edits that are against Wikipedia policy" as WP:POVFIGHTER commends. And POVFIGHTER comes from an explanatory supplement that "has not been thoroughly vetted by the community". Crossroads ^-talk- 01:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Intentionally seeking to resist a particular POV is a form of POV-pushing, because once you are committed to defending the wiki from one POV you lose perspective on which edits actually violate policy, fall into a reflexive hair-trigger assumption of bad faith when encountering editors you disagree with, and become entrenched in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. That this happened here is extremely obvious from the timeline and diffs FeydHuxtable presented - this edit may be debatable in terms of whether it's an improvement overall or the best way to address the expressed concerns, but the policy concerns it cites are valid and it was utterly inappropriate for it to lead to this response. Around the time of that edit Flyer22 plainly identified WanderingWanda as the enemy, dismissed all further engagement as coming from an inappropriate intent (something which was impossible to refute or discuss), and further constructive interaction became impossible. How is it possible to constructively engage in a controversial topic area with that mindset? You say that it would have a chilling effect, but sweeping accusations of advocacy are something that should be made with caution, since we rely on the assumption of good faith to make disputes between starkly divergent perspectives resolvable. --Aquillion (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit (WW's second attempt to insert the picture) cites no policy concerns whatsoever, and combatting "narrow mindedness" and "heteronormativity" with a WP:UNDUE picture is an attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and contrary to the WP:NOTADVOCACY policy. Setting aside the specific wording of Flyer22's reply, the fact is that noting that sort of problem with the edit is perfectly fine, just as citing the WP:NOR or WP:V policies is fine. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From the very first line of WP:NPOV: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The argument that an image is biased due to placing undue weight on one aspect of the topic (which, of course, is what is being argued by saying that an image expresses heteronormative bias) is one of the most common arguments made in image selection discussions there is. Likewise, saying "viewers are not so narrow-minded" (in response to an assertion that the image is shocking) is simply a reasonable dispute over the applicability of the relevant policy. Both aspects are entirely reasonable and normal policy-based arguments to make. Whether it is strong enough to persuade people is another story (and of course the counterargument is that the replacement image just has a different bias, which is also a common argument in image selection discussions; that problem is part of the reason they are often difficult to resolve), but it's a reasonable, policy-based argument to present and in no way justifies the level of vitriol it engendered or the sharp discarding of WP:AGF WanderingWanda faced afterwards, let alone the actual sanctions people are calling for based on it here. And, to get back to my main point, the reason it led to such a disproportionate response is because Flyer22 was on a hair-trigger with regards to anyone who held a perspective on the subject that differed from her own due to her conviction that the entire topic area was under assault by POV-pushers who held that view (something she fairly flatly states in the second diff.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't cite a guideline or policy. One can engage in retroactive reinterpretation of what they just must have really meant, but what was plainly there was advocacy reasoning. And the entire topic area is suffused with POV pushing. That's why discretionary sanctions exist. As other editors have said, though, Wikipedia has lots of POV pushing on lots of topics. That's not news to anyone in these topics, and denying it would be naive. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citing heteronormative bias as a problem with an image is obviously referencing WP:BIAS, which (while an essay) is grounded in WP:NPOV. Again, "this image is biased" is one of the most common arguments in image discussions - this isn't some obscure or convoluted policy argument that needed detailed point-by-point explanation. I think it's reasonably clear the word "heteronormative" set off some alarms, but that's specifically the problem I'm aiming to address here. And yes, I am aware of what you think about the topic area, though I would point out that the discretionary sanctions exist because of incivility and frequent intractable disputes, to which WP:POVFIGHTERs are also a contributing factor. More generally, though - if you genuinely believe that the topic area as a whole is overwhelmed with POV-pushers who are pushing a particular POV, you ought to ask for a broader ArbCom case to address that. If you don't think that you could prove that broad statement, or if you are not confident in the outcome of a broader case, then you need to stop making WP:ASPERSIONS. Everyone on Wikipedia is concerned, sometimes, that they are dealing with POV-pushers, people with an agenda, people whose arguments are mere sophistry, and so on; sometimes, when stressed, we may even feel set-upon by unfair hordes of people with whom we disagree. Nonetheless, in order to maintain a workable editing environment, we need to generally bite the bullet, WP:AGF, swallow those presumptions unless we have clear evidence of misconduct, and work with people who we disagree with and may not even entirely want to trust. Editors who are unable to do so should not be editing in controversial topic areas. --Aquillion (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And POVFIGHTER comes from an explanatory supplement that "has not been thoroughly vetted by the community". Just as a reminder, the same is true not only for WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS but WP:ADVOCACY itself, which you have cited throughout this case as if they were policy. All of them are relevant, but the policy in this case is WP:NPOV, which is about producing a neutral outcome rather than questioning editors' motives. If anything I feel that this case has shown that WP:ADVOCACY and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS may need cautionary references to WP:AGF (which is a behavioral guideline with full consensus) and WP:BATTLEGROUND (also policy). Advocacy is certainly undesirable, but weak or unjustified accusations of advocacy are actual policy violations, while sweeping presumptions of advocacy are clearly a form of battleground conduct. --Aquillion (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd replace a specific type of advocacy with advocacy for a specific point of view, and I'd also add or pushing back against all advocacy regardless of point of view at the end. Otherwise I like this proposal. Loki (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. That's roughly what I was getting at, yes. --Aquillion (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should patiently be patently? I think I get it in as far as once you identify an editor as a POV pusher it is easy to see all their edits as POV pushing. However I feel this runs the risk of hampering editors trying to keep articles neutral. While Flyers method was probably not the best, resisting POV pushing should be encouraged. It also has the effect of painting editors who resist the POV pushing as being on the "other side" (see SMcCandlish's evidence for this happening in this case). AIRcorn (talk) 05:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point of WP:POVFIGHTER is that, once you've determined that there is one problematic POV lurking around and set out to fight that POV, you are the other side. Editors should not be fighting against a POV but against POV editing in general: if you're fighting against a POV that means you are implicitly supporting the opposing POV. This is only not problematic in the case where that opposing POV is unambiguously where all the reliable sources are, i.e. if the POV you're trying to fight is WP:FRINGE. Loki (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I feel Wanda having a POV and Wanda editing to support that POV are the same thing. Don't get me wrong, this is very common and they have generally been amicable (outside of interactions with Flyer22). I do however strongly feel that reverting a POV edit should not be characterised as holding the opposite POV, even subtly. Something along the lines of AGF would be better than this (i.e. just because an editor has made a POV edit in the past doesn't mean all their edits are POV). AIRcorn (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, fixed. And yes, it is complex; I'm welcome to proposed rewordings that acknowledge the complexity here. It is natural that users will be more sensitive to POV-pushing they disagree with and will notice it sooner; and when things like off-wiki canvasing can be demonstrated, or when plainly weak or repeatedly-rejected arguments are presented over and over, it is fair to respond appropriately and lower our presumption of good faith for a narrow area and timeframe. But I don't think it is tenable to have editors who edit under the long-term presumption that an entire topic area is under broad, sustained assault from POV-pushers with one particular (non-fringe) perspective - doing so isn't compatible with WP:AGF, will essentially lead to battleground conduct, leads to extremely disruptive vicious cycles, and ultimately means that they are editing to enforce their own POV. --Aquillion (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those patient fringe POV pushers are the worst. Saying that I do think defining patently fringe in this case could also be difficult. I feel AGF is the key here. I understand that once things reach a certain point it is hard to do and obviously it is not a suicide pact, but it is probably the only way to edit these topic areas without it turning to custard. Maybe make clear it is with the "sole intent" although that too is easily gamed? AIRcorn (talk) 07:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. I feel it's a step in the right direction, but as worded it could probably weaken it a bit too much (nobody approaches anything with a sole intent of advocacy or fighting a battleground; even the most devoted POV-warrior believes that they are fundamentally in the right.) Perhaps weakening it to say that approaching from such a perspective can be a form of tenacious editing, not that it always is; the point is that "I must push back against the POV-pushers with this point of view" is a mindset to be wary of. The important thing is to encourage at least a degree of introspection, especially when an editor's determination to push back against what they see as POV-pushers brings them into conflict with numerous other editors in good standing. --Aquillion (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One more thought on this: Regarding the "intent of pushing back against advocacy for a specific point of view", Flyer22 hasn't done that. She has pushed back against anti-trans-advocacy POV pushing as well. [83] I don't see how this can end up in the final decision since she is not singularly focused on one kind of POV pushing. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'll point out that this is just a proposed principle; I didn't (yet) write up a finding of fact about Flyer22 in particular, in part because I believe that this is something that has affected both sides and that the mindset of "I'm just fighting back against their POV-pushing" is near-universal among POV-pushers. But regarding your argument that this can't apply to Flyer22 because she holds some pro-trans views, I think this will require a separate evidence-analysis section. A lot of the "evidence" on this page (on both sides) gets into unproductive mind-reading about whether Flyer22 was or wasn't transphobic, which isn't important and isn't something ArbCom can decide. But what they do touch in (which is relevant) is whether Flyer22's edits are prompted by her own strong views on certain aspects of the subject matter, which would show that her own edits are WP:ADVOCACY (even if, in her own mind, she is convinced she is merely defending the wiki from people she disagreed with), and, in particular, whether her strong views have led her to react inappropriately severely to essentially innocuous edits on the topic due to her sense that she is on a WP:BATTLEFIELD against a specific group of people who she strongly disagrees with, leading to (or at least contributing to) the current dispute. I think that it's pretty easy to demonstrate that that is the case. --Aquillion (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I wrote out my explanation below about the underlying ideological divide and Flyer22's position in it, with an eye towards explaining the point of view she advocates. I'll reiterate that despite the nature of my evidence and analysis, I don't mean to say that Flyer22 alone or one "side" in this dispute is at wrong; everyone involved clearly has strong opinions. The reason why I am focusing on this principle, and the reason why I haven't suggested any findings of fact (let alone sanctions) stemming from it, is because I feel that the most important outcome of this case - more important than sanctioning any individual editor - would be to make the editors involved question the baseless conviction they are completely and entirely in the right, that (for instance) they are fighting back against a clear wave of POV-pushers and WP:ADVOCATEs and that everything they do is right and justified as part of that. That conviction and the WP:BATTLEGROUND siege mentality it leads to is one of the root causes of this dispute, so it needs to be addressed here. Flyer22, WanderingWanda, and indeed most of the editors who have weighed in on this case have strong feelings on the topic (that is why we have written so much, after all, and it is why the dispute continued for so long.) As the diffs here show, these strong feelings have led editors to make mistakes. But it is a case of well-meaning editors who have come into conflict while trying to adhere to Wikipedia's policies as they see them, not a case of an apocalyptic battleground between good and evil; and it can only be resolved by making everyone understand that, stand down with sorts of broad and strident accusations we see in some of these diffs, and come to the table as equally-invested editors even with people with whom they strongly disagree. My hope is that a firm statement along the lines of "falling into this mode of thinking is dangerous" could help with that. --Aquillion (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. The chief activity of many regulars at WT:MEDRS, WT:FRINGE / WP:FTN, WP:NONAZIS, and other topical noticeboards is countering the PoV-pushing of various specific viewpoints commonly advocated by WP:NOTHERE parties. Trying to shoehorn a "BTW, FRINGE is an exception" into this doesn't help, since it would still be WP:GAMEable by wikilawyering over what constitutes "fringe". This WP:POVFIGHTER thing was added to the page without much discussion and clearly does not represent actual community consensus. An RfC should be opened about removing it or seriously revising it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SMcCandlish here. This proposal just carries over advice that (a) was never thoroughly vetted by the community, and (b) is in practice useless at best, counterproductive at worst. It invites wikilawyering over what is "patently" fringe. Indeed, it sounds almost circular: which perspectives are "patently fringe"? Those which can be pushed back against without being tendentious! I believe I can appreciate the sentiment behind this proposal, but elevating and codifying it in this way risks making a lot of honest work much harder. I suspect that WP:BATTLEGROUND would make a better starting point for phrasing to workshop. XOR'easter (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, at WT:TE I have opened a rather broadly advertised review of the POVFIGHTER material. I was original going to open an RfC to delete it, but a freer-form discussion on revision as a first step seems more useful. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Crossroads

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopedia, describing the world as it actually is with a neutral point of view. Wikipedia cannot right great wrongs or advocate for any cause whatsoever, as this is incompatible with a neutral point of view. Wikipedia does not lead; it follows. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

A complement to the NPOV thought I had above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Strongly support. While I would generally rather see statements of principle recycled from WP:ARBPRINCIPLES, this case in particular cries out for something custom-crafted to this situation. It might even forestall the necessity of a broader case (which I have already been drafting) with a much larger number of parties. If they're all on notice that NOTADOVACY/GREATWRONGS/TRUTH/NOTHERE activity (from any of the at least three actual "extremes" in this topic area) will no longer be tolerated, it could short-circuit a lot of the bad behavior that has been ongoing for the last several years. That would be a much better result than it continuing and leading to more RFARBs. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy and activism

Old versions

2) Editing Wikipedia in order to influence wider society is prohibited. Wikipedia cannot be used to try to change social norms. Advocacy and activist editing - the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies - is not allowed. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2) Editing Wikipedia for the purpose of advancing one's own social or political goals is prohibited. Wikipedia is not to be used to try to change social norms. Advocacy and activist editing - the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies - is not allowed. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2) Advocacy and activist editing - editing Wikipedia in order to promote personal beliefs, social agendas, or political goals at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies - is prohibited. Wikipedia is not to be used to try to change social norms. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Given the underlying topic matter, I would be extremely careful in talking about "chang[ing] social norms". Newimpartial's commentary is apt. --BDD (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I suggest narrowing the scope of the first sentence. I think many Wikipedia editors want to influence wider society through the dissemination of freely available knowledge about a broad spectrum of topics. (Although Wikipedia:Purpose is just an informational page, I imagine a lot of editors' motivations align with it.) isaacl (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The central idea of this is correct, but the wording is weird. The second sentence is the important one (though change "cannot" to "is not to"). The first could be deleted, or replaced with something like "Wikipedia is not a means of changing society." or "Wikipedia is not a socio-political tool." Aside from these quibbles, I think there is a key point here, for the same reason point no. 1 above is important. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I rewrote the first sentence to hopefully clarify the point and tweaked the second. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there's an important idea here, but I am still struggling with the presentation. What is the distinction between "influence wider society" and "change social norms"? It seems to me that claiming to edit without one's own social or political goals is like claiming to speak without an accent. If I think that society would benefit from people valuing the scientific consensus about issues and learning what that consensus is before opinionating about them, then contributing to a free encyclopedia is promoting my personal belief, isn't it? I'm just advancing a personal agenda that aligns with Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, rather than being at odds with them. Perhaps the point could be communicated by telescoping the first and third sentences, e.g., Editing Wikipedia in order to promote personal beliefs, agendas, or political goals at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies is prohibited. XOR'easter (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's difficult to wordsmith something like this. The second version is an improvement, but one could still drop the entire first sentence. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another version has been written. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, though one could squeeze it a bit. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the core of this principle seems relevant and appropriate. However, by framing it as Advocacy and activism and concluding that Wikipedia is not to be used to try to change social norms the draft text seems to imply that POV editing aiming to resist ongoing changes to social norms - particularly changes to norms that are taking place in global society - does not count as advocacy and is not equally a case of advancing one's own social or political goals through editing. To reflect the actual Wikipedia consensus about what NPOV means, it seems to me that further changes to this proposed principle would be required. Newimpartial (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, "ongoing changes" have not become widely accepted yet such that they are the NPOV, which is why they're ongoing. Neutrality requires that changes that are "ongoing" not be presented as though they have acheived more acceptance than they have; such POV RGW editing should be resisted. Your comment conflates resisting POV editing with resisting the social changes represented by that POV. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but neutrality also requires that changes that are "ongoing" not be presented as though they have acheived less acceptance than they have. It is also up to the WP community - not warriors of truth to decide, based on reliable sources, what degree of acceptance should be indicated for ongoing social changes. WP:RGW also applies to those crusading for the retention of terminology (and underlying metaphysics) that was last current 20 years ago, as I believe you know. Newimpartial (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have serious issues with a phrase like "Wikipedia is not to be used to try to change social norms." Wayyyyy too broad, and in particular, this is an absolutely bizarre remedy given the subject that triggered this particular case. What is a "social norm?" Who says? In what nation/culture/time/place/social group? Sometimes the very purpose of Wikipedia—to gather and disseminate the world's knowledge— is itself changing social norms. RIGHTGREATWRONGS is probably the most misunderstood guideline on Wikipedia, by disseminating knowledge for free, we are changing social norms here every single day. Montanabw^(talk) 21:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the broadness as a problem since it speaks about the underlying motives. Whether one is tendentiously editing to "progress" norms, or to change them back, it applies, and to whatever society the tendentious editor has in mind. Fulfilling the purpose of Wikipedia may ultimately contribute to other changes, but editing with the goal of some specific form of change that is not Wikipedia's purpose is not appropriate. That said, this is ultimately just a proposal. If the arbs use this idea, they can cut off that sentence or modify the proposal in other ways. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral editing

3) All editors must strive to edit in accord with a neutral point of view. Editing with a focus on raising the visibility or credibility of a specific point of view, term, or topic at the expense of a neutral point of view and due weight is not allowed. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The last three include some wording adapted from that found at WP:RGW and WP:Advocacy. Since the case so heavily revolves around advocacy, the arbs should not let this go uncommented on and so seem to endorse it. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree with the wording and with the rationale. (Though I would change the second "point of view" to "viewpoint", just to read less repetitively.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment shouldn't the text read "raising or lowering the visibility or credibility" of a point of view, etc.? Right now it sounds as though editing to promote a term is bad, while editing to undermine a term would be fine. Surely deviations from NPOV in either direction can be equally problematic. Newimpartial (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

WanderingWanda has harassed Flyer22 Frozen

1) WanderingWanda has engaged in a pattern of provocation ("baiting") and harassment toward Flyer22 Frozen. [84] Crossroads ^-talk- 23:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC) Rev. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This seems unquestionably demonstrated by the diffs. I would add "baiting" as well. ArbCom has in the last couple of years increasingly tried to address that kind of behavior as actionable, so – make it so. Kolya Butternut even included a principle statement about this already, from ARBPRINCIPLES, and it seems a good one to include, so this would dovetail with it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revised accordingly, thanks. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WanderingWanda has engaged in advocacy

2) WanderingWanda has engaged in POV pushing and advocacy editing. [85] Crossroads ^-talk- 23:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC) Rev. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I notice that the evidence offered by Crossroads and Aircorn showing potential advovacy behavior by Wanda are from 2019. Is there anything more recent that demonstrates this behavior from Wanda? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Crossroads for the answer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Yes, but we don't read minds, so I would change this to something like "editing in an advocacy pattern". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "advocacy editing". Crossroads ^-talk- 05:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: WanderingWanda has been much less active in 2020 than in 2019, [86] especially since March. Nonetheless, I have argued the nature of their case request shows that their attitudes remain unchanged. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I haven't really had much free time to look through the edits as in depth as I would like and my personal interactions with WanderingWanda have been minimal. I did notice this edit at Charlotte Clymer, followed by the removal of a section on the talk page.[87] (apologies if it has already been presented I have not kept up here). Removing Deadnames is defensible and often correct, but removing legitimate sources because they contain deadnames should not be done lightly and removing a whole talk page section that contains links to potential references is just wrong. It was reverted and is now oddly archived even though it is a low traffic page with only two threads. AIRcorn (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

WanderingWanda interaction banned

1) WanderingWanda is indefinitely one-way interaction-banned from Flyer22 Frozen. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I could support that, though in my evidence comment I also supported a two-way ban (that is explicitly not a finding of fault for either party), just as a peace-keeping move. The more I look at the harassment/hounding evidence, the more it looks to me like a one-way is justified, as an actual sanction. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WanderingWanda admonished

2) WanderingWanda is admonished for not respecting the neutral point of view policy in their editing. They are further admonished that future tendentious non-neutral editing may result in a topic ban. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

At bare minimum. The harassment-style approach to this in combination with constant activistic PoV-pushing (sometimes going to absurd levels) is probably worthy of a topic-ban by this point, as this is "not their first rodeo". For that reason, I've added a proposed T-ban in my section. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC); updated: 00:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this was phrased as a warning, then I would support it (even if I disagree with some of the evidence provided). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I, again, do not think the evidence that WW has engaged in advocacy is at all convincing. They've certainly engaged in content disputes but they haven't aggressively pushed a POV, far from it. Loki (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Aircorn

Proposed principles

Casting aspersions

1) An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This applies to accusations of being an activist looking to promote a point of view or of being transphobic, homophobic or a TERF. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, at appropriate forums.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

A modified version of Lokis to more specifically include potential aspersions made by both editors. Based partly on the WP:ARBGMO one. AIRcorn (talk)

This is a serious false equivalence. When editors engage in activistic PoV-pushing, we should address that (though preferably through WP:DR mechanisms). There is a policy against using WP for advocacy (WP:NOT#ADVOCACY) and for viewpoint-pushing (WP:NPOV). Accusations of "homophobia", "transphobia", being "anti-trans", etc. are just smears (personal attacks) of a completely subjective "thoughtcrime" nature, and are not based in policy concerns. (If someone were to, say, harass other editors for being trans, that's covered by WP:HARASS; if they were to besmirch editors for being trans without quite harassing them, that's covered by the WMF ToU; and so on; any "transphobic" or "anti-trans" viewpoint someone had that translated into disruptive action is already covered by general policies and meta-policies against such disruption.) Moreover, the vast majority of accusations that other editors are transphobic/anti-trans or homophobic prove to be false. I'm hard pressed to think of an instance that has not been demonstrated to be bullshit, other than with regard to drive-by trolls of the sort we rapidly block for multiple reasons. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But there is a hidden premise to this "false equivalence" argument - the proposed principle concerned accusations of activist editing, but SMcCandlish is placing actual POV editing against accusations of transphobic editing / being transphobic. The hidden premise here is that accusations of activist editing are true, so it is not necessary to distinguish between accusations and actual activism. The proposed principle concerns accusations of activist editing, which can be just as damaging to CIVIL discourse as accusations of homophobic or transphobic editing.

Example: several editors have provided diffs in the evidence section from the dispute on MOS:BIO last year, when you, Crossroads and Flyer persistently re-added some non-consensus text (this seems to have been based on different readings of the status quo ante, as can also be seen in diffs posted to evidence). In this instance, Flyer and Crossroads accused those of us who objected to this language of "activist editing" and bad faith, even when the different interpretations of the status quo ante had been explained in edit summaries and on Talk.

In cases like these, which is exactly the type of case where I see "activist editing" bandied about by Flyer and others, assuming that the accusation is automatically true and therefore not an WP:ASPERSIONS violation runs directly counter to the principles of CIVIL discourse and of concentrating on the contribution rather than the contributor. Newimpartial (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Interaction ban

1) Flyer22 Frozen (talk · contribs) and WanderingWanda (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Just to note SilkTork and SandyGeorgia, I am about and watching this case, though not a drafter - I'd be happy to help propose a solution if I felt one would work. However, I'm extremely sceptical that mentorship would would if Flyer22 Frozen was not receptive to the idea, forced mentorship does not work. Given she has already declined the idea and has not yet participated in the case, I am not hopeful.
I guess from her point of view, it will come down to a bit of a gamble. If she returns during the workshop, she could help define a mentorship group that would address concerns and work well with her - and arbs would likely be more receptive to the idea. However, if she doesn't return, or returns at PD stage after any sanctions (and there may be none) are already being discussed, the definition of the mentorship group and role could be less favourable, and crucially the arbitrators may not be as receptive to the idea. Worm^TT(talk) 08:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been busy with other Arb/wiki work and am behind in both evidence and here. I plan to catch up but since this caught my attention, I agree with Worm that I'm skeptical that coerced mentorship is appropriate for anyone except new editors. Voluntarily mentorship can happen in a variety of ways even for experienced editors but if we suggest or impose it, I think it loses its voluntary nature. I also agree with SilkTork that iBans are successful. I think SilkTork's musings about the freedom to try, even if it proves to be an unsuccessful way, to improve the encyclopedia is important and might be a necessary principle for me in this case. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Seems the most logical solution. Not sure how it will work as WanderingWanda and Flyer intersect a lot in topics of interest. AIRcorn (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was what I was originally suggesting (when the evidence phase first opened), but I now lean toward the one-way proposed below. That said, I'm not opposed to this one as a potential remedy, but would like to see something like "This is a peace-keeping measure to address a personality dispute, not a sanction for transgress." added; I think we have all seen by now that 2-way I-bans will be used as weapons against people despite them usually being peace-keeping measures not sanctions. ArbCom has to get more specific about this every time they issue one of these, or the situation will never improve. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC); revised: 00:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is needed, though rather than being indef, maybe it could be time limited to a year? After extensively reviewing the two editors contribs, the two seem to have a lot in common, and it seems they could both learn from each other, to the benefit of the encyclopaedia. Also, could this be worded to say it's a no fault iban, so that it's not a sanction as such? Otherwise it might be de-motivational, as both parties might reasonably think they've not done anything to warrant a sanction. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FeydHuxtable: I say this with much love and respect in my heart, but I can't possibly see this working unless an IBAN is in effect until the literal end of time. There is absolutely zero good will between these two, and the problems will restart as soon as a temporary IBAN expires. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, maybe not. I used to be in a personality dispute with someone over animal breeds, and I think had ArbCom examined it, they would have concluded on a two-way I-ban as a peace-keeping measure. We eventually just wore out after a period of mutual WP:SHUN (i.e., a voluntary I-ban). These days we get along fine, because a year or so of getting out of each other's hair was sufficient for the tooth-grinding to dissipate. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously just keep coming back to this. It's probably the only sanction that should be applied in this case. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is it. This is all that is needed. The evidence page has not given us anything new to what was on the request page. Flyer is a prolific and respected editor who has been the significant contributor to some complex, high profile, and sensitive articles such as Vagina and Clitoris, both of which she took to GA. She works in the difficult area of sexuality, and does so with skill and knowledge of both the topic area and of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in relation to article writing in these areas. Her knowledge and experience is invaluable. However she can also be blunt, pushing on and sometimes beyond the boundary of civility, to those she feels are inhibiting the progress of an article. She feels she is more right than wrong in her suspicions of people who might be subverting Wikipedia's aims (intentionally or otherwise) - on that matter I can't comment as I have not seen evidence in that area; however, I'm not entirely sure, even when she is wrong, that, in itself, being concerned that articles are balanced, neutral, and rigorously cited to reliable sources is sanctionable, albeit that her manner of going about this could be improved. Her incivility while working in sensitive areas is not ideal, and it is not excusable, but it is occasional, is fairly borderline, and does not rise to the level of a sanction. It is something that should be pointed out to her, and she's an intelligent and sensitive person who can take on board such advice/criticism and respond positively to it. WanderingWanda is a relatively new editor to Wikipedia, who essentially started in 2019 having previously made three edits in 2016. She is not that active, and has made few edits in 2020, though people are saying that she shows promise as an editor - Beyond the Red, for example, is an article she created and mostly developed herself - it's the one she has spent most time on.

People are commenting that an iBan might inhibit one or other of them; however, I'm not seeing that Wanda's main edits (science fiction and video games) are in areas where Flyer spends much time. So we have two OK editors who have clashed over the most appropriate way of handling some transgender articles, and this has become emotional. The accusation is of Flyer being anti-transgender, and of Wanda being a transgender activist; both accusations are inappropriate, but are typical of editors who are clashing over a contentious topic. So that's what this comes down to. A fairly new and fairly inexperienced editor clashing with a senior editor who can be rather blunt and uncivil with editors who want to make what appear to her to be inappropriate changes. I've not examined the arguments to see who was in the right regarding their content disputes, as that's not the issue here. The issue is that this is a storm in a tea cup best resolved by a simple everyday iBan. I am not seeing the incivility diffs provided in evidence as being of the levels we typically see in an ArbCom civility case, but certainly of the level we typically see in everyday disputes and personality clashes that are resolved by an iBan. SilkTork (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, SilkTork, you are just the person who has been on my mind, and here you are :) I realize you say you haven't read all the arguments (neither have I, as I reached a point where I couldn't stomach it anymore), but could I please entice you to read my evidence and the Girth Summit's Evidence analysis section, and the SandyGeorgia evidence analysis section? For two reasons: the problems are not only between Wanda and Flyer, and an iBan could allow disruption (even if minor relative to the considerable issues between the two of them) to fester elsewhere. But much more significantly, as you are a veteran of an Arbcom-sponsored mentorship, might we avoid an iBan or any other stiff sanctions if someone like YOU :) :) were to put together a group to try a structured mentorship? Possibly Flyer would be comfortable with a team that included Girth Summit, no idea who might represent WW as I haven't followed that closely, and perhaps one other ... and you could have a working team. If these issues occur on a limited scope, a mentorship would help contain them and give others a place to go when issues arise. You are best positioned to know the reasons the other mentorship did or didn't work, and whether one might work here, and it is also encouraging that at least one sitting arb has institutional memory of the other mentorship. As much as I hated what happened in the other mentorship, you are uniquely positioned to make sure one works, and it could be an alternate solution here ... and one that at least one arb is open to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy. For reasons you know only too well, I am not keen on mentoring as a solution. I am open to being consulted, and that already takes place on an ad hoc basis. I am one of what I imagine to be a number of editors that Flyer approaches for advice now and again. I want to stress that Flyer and I are not friends. I don't know her real name, and I don't recall us exchanging any personal comments. Any communication has been purely work related. She, unfortunately, did not reach out to me about this situation until the case request had been made. While she does seek out and listen to advice, and does work well collaboratively, she is, like many of our best contributors, quite strong minded and individual. It takes a certain strength of character and determination to produce quality work in complex areas. I don't think mentoring would work because of that. I wouldn't wish to see her confidence or individuality eroded. However, I do think User:SMcCandlish's suggestion that Flyer should be officially "reminded to maintain civility" is useful. I will take a close look at the evidence you have suggested. I don't want to get involved in this case, but I respect you, so if you make a reasonable request of me I will try to oblige. SilkTork (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SilkTork; my thought was that, if a mentorship were to be a possibility, it would require someone of your experience to make it work, because you know the pitfalls and possibilities. I guess my "reasonable request" would be, reach out to Worm That Turned to explore the idea? Possibly bring in SarahSV or Girth Summit? Probably not on arbcase pages ? Thanks, Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Worm That Turned; so I will drop that the idea/hope for now, then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mentoring a long-term senior editor is not a solution. I don't know if a mutual iban would work here or if it would just inject more drama. I do think that some ibans just wind up being a hammer that one side (usually the individual who initiates the drama and then cries foul when they are called on it) uses to bully the other. Frankly, I think that other behaviorally-focused solutions are better than telling people to stay away from one another. For example, it is useful to apply admonitions against personal attacks, a 1RR restriction, reminders about topics that are already under DS and reminder that everyone is to follow the rules. Montanabw^(talk) 21:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ibans do work. The users (I'm talking generally now, no actual users in mind) can carry on working without annoying each other. They are one of our more successful sanctions. Nobody is restricted from doing productive work, and nobody is inhibited from working for fear of unjustified criticism or complaint. The most common objection I hear about iBans is from one or other of the parties saying that they would be restricted from pointing out to the world how evil the other person really is. That very objection is why iBans are so good at reducing disruption and disharmony. If only one person is complaining about another user it is generally because what the user is doing is not an issue. Our dislike of someone because they have irritated us on the internet can totally prejudice us against everything they do. Of course at some point a user will make a mistake or lose their cool and say something out of order. Happens to all of us. The last thing we want is some hateful goblin sitting on our shoulder gleefully waiting for the moment when we slip up. Without the liberation to make mistakes now and again and be forgiven, we can't build the confidence we need to be bold and work in a dedicated fashion to make useful articles. SilkTork (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork, Worm That Turned, and Thryduulf:, yes to all that, but there is still a missing piece, and I think a part of it has been expressed by Thryduulf in his proposal here, but there is more (and why I thought pursuing a mentorship was preferable to any stiffer sanctions). Bad behavior has occurred. Bad behavior begat more bad behavior, and as bad behavior became routine and escalated and spread, possibly as a result of constantly living under fire, but also as a result of enabling by "friends". And so what came to be routine behavior in a bad environment, came to be routine behavior in other environments, with spillover that seemed to permeate and affect Flyer's other areas of editing. An iBan will not address the other areas. In terms of "bad behavior begat more bad behavior", one missing piece is that it is not OK to say, well the way I treated that editor was justified because they were later blocked. We see that rationale throughout the evidence. No, it's never justified, and it converts to a pattern, and it moves to other areas, as it did in this expression of an editing pattern, in this example of heaping battleground intimidation, threats, and abuse on another editor ([88] taunts "go report me at ANI and see what happens".[89]) and in the NORD reliable sources discussion I mention at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop#Girth Summit's Evidence. Defensive behaviors became customary, and extended to other places. Aside, had the extensiveness of the self-defense mechanism occurred to me sooner, I would have always chosen my words exceedingly carefully around Flyer, so as to never leave a misimpression about exactly what I was saying in other places, re let's not go down paths that have not proven fruitful before, which is then misinterpeted as a threat of arb action, with the misinterpretaton then reinforced by "friends", to an extent that no apology, clarification, or positive reinforcement helps (my evidence point 9.) Hence my only suggestions in this case: get a team in place who is objective and neutral and will call out conduct; and remove automated tools so that Flyer can slow down, be less stressed, and focus where she is most valued and needed, rather than using Rollback at a shopping mall or bridge article, as here. OK, I've heard you all that mentorship is out, but I think we should be thinking of this as PTSD. And thinking of how to protect not only the person traumatized, but those who may then be traumatized because of faulty coping mechanisms. What remedies will best serve to resolve the primary conflicts, while also not leaving other areas exposed as issues seep out elsewhere? Something needs to be done to avoid the chorus of friendly supporters that appear to follow Flyer to disputes, and also prevent Flyer from hearing other voices, like Drmies. A real critical missing piece here is to put neutral people in a position to mitigate the damage being caused by "friendly" supporters who are trying to shield Flyer from all the unsavory things they have been exposed to on Wikipedia. They have not done that in a healthy way, that is good for Flyer.

In other words, if the remedy is an iBan, without something else (and I see that something else is not a mentorship, but I don't know what it is), what does one do if the behaviors return to WP:MED? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Something needs to be done to avoid the chorus of friendly supporters that appear to follow Flyer to disputes, and also prevent Flyer from hearing other voices [...] A real critical missing piece here is to put neutral people in a position to mitigate the damage being caused by "friendly" supporters who are trying to shield Flyer from all the unsavory things they have been exposed to on Wikipedia. They have not done that in a healthy way, that is good for Flyer. Yes, this is important and I see it here in many (but not all) comments by SMcCandlish and Crossroads (not exclusive to them, but they are I think the most voluminous). The same has been true (to a lesser extent in this workshop, but still present) of friends (to use SandyGeorgia's term) of WanderingWanda. There are far too many voices commenting from the perspective that one or the other party has obviously done nothing wrong and so all the bad behaviour must be the fault of the other. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have studiously avoided commenting on the WW portion, as I don't even want to branch out beyond the parts I have experienced personally and am aware of. I've seen all the unsavory diffs I can stomach. But re "I see it here in many (but not all) comments by SMcCandlish and Crossroads", yes. They are not helping Flyer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of reaching outside of the scope of this case, I’d object to the terminology “enablers”, "friends", and that neither Crossroads nor SMcCandlish are helping Flyer by taking positions in her favour and defending her against allegations in this case. I don’t think these terms are productive or helpful. One does not have to be either a friend or enabler to speak in her favour, defend against this case’s allegations against her, and there’s no support for Crossroads, SMcCandlish, or others speaking in her favour as being “enablers” by taking positions in her favour. I think that’s assuming their motives and mindsets for them. They can, and are likely, speaking because these are their own positions too. Additionally, in my view, there are just as many or more people misrepresenting Flyer.

When it comes to allegations as serious and harmful to reputation as transphobia is, I think it’s reasonable there will be objection and defense against such allegations. Moreso when it involves an editor who has worked on LGBT+ articles for as long as Flyer has, has sought to maintain and improve the quality of these articles per Wikipedia’s policies, and has spoken up in support of LGBT rights in various parts on Wikipedia. I think there’s quite a bit of distortion of her comments. I don’t think misrepresenting things helps Flyer.

I don’t know Flyer personally. My comments are not based on friend status. I came across this case because I was going to ask her a question about an article we were working on together and saw her retirement notice. The comments I make here are things I feel quite strongly about (particularly taking one’s comments out of context and misrepresenting them).

As for the proposed remedy, from what I’m seeing, I wouldn’t support an iBan against Flyer. When flare-ups do occur between Flyer and Wanda, it’s over policy. Flyer doesn’t look like she’s going out looking for Wanda. At the risk of re-igniting the “who is engaging in advocacy editing, who isn’t” arguments, I would gently agree that Wanda is engaging in some advocacy editing at times. I don’t know Wanda outside of the linked material I’ve read here and I’ve seen editors say Wanda has made positive contributions to Wikipedia. However, though I think Wanda’s intentions are good, I don’t think all of their edits are in-line with WP:NPOV and here, I think Flyer’s edits to help maintain WP:NPOV are important. That said, some softening of the tone and dialing back the edge can benefit tensions between these two. Anatashala (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anatashala, I agree. This is casting aspersions on those (like me) who agree with Flyer..... What makes those agreeing with Flyer any more enablers or fans than those agreeing with WanderingWanda? I don't know Flyer personally either. Just don't like the misinformation. This[90] is not abuse. Just Flyer talking about the editor's problem behavior.... She was right. Editor was topic-banned again. This[91] old argument is not abuse. Just a hot dispute. Other editor is ruder. And there was no misuse of rollback.[92] NORD discussion was misrepresented.[93]

I've read the arguments, and I say.... Blaming someone's misconduct on "biased" admins and rewarding the party with an Arb case to further their distortions of the facts is not helping Flyer.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is probably the most reasonable action - I believe a 1-way IBAN would be inappropriate. On those saying it is not a sanction, I say a) the Community has been fairly sceptical of arbs saying that IBANs are non-sanctions, but with a 2-way it is at least possible. A 1-way IBAN is always a clear sanction. b) This case may well warrant a "sanction IBAN", even if its purpose is preventative. While gaming is always a risk, I'm at a loss on what other steps could reliably mitigate the issues. Perhaps the IBAN should specifically exempt any arranged mediation between the two, which could happen even if mentorship is a no-go? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:MJL

Proposed principles (MJL)

Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee

1) The Committee retains jurisdiction over prior cases, in this instance, the GamerGate case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I worked on that case, I'm curious as to why you believe it is relevant here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of shifting away from calling it Gamergate but as SMcCandlish has pointed out elsewhere that seems beyond the scope of this case. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that GamerGate is an outdated case name, I would certainly go for re-naming to something more...descriptive. Though such an action is out of scope here. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: Essentially, practically everything in dispute within this case is within GamerGate's pre-existing discretionary sanctions. We can definitely say they didn't work here. I sort of hope users start looking at things from that end. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the GamerGate sanctions applied to the Chelsea Manning naming dipute case. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are we ever going to switch to a different name for sexuality- and gender-related discretionary sanctions? It seems a bit silly that we're still using that one given that the underlying proximate dispute cooled down years ago. If there's another, broader case stemming from this one, whoever starts it should at least remember to give it a better name, then maybe we can convince ArbCom to reapply the GG discretionary sanctions there so we can at least shift to using a name that doesn't constantly leave people scratching their heads. When even an arbitrator who worked on that case fails to see the relevance, it's a sign the naming convention may have a problem. --Aquillion (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree. It's interesting that Template:Ds/alert has already had several "alias" lines added for this, indicating that there may be already some other terminology that can be used instead of "GamerGate". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: The sanctions provided in GGTF were merged into GamerGate's.
@Aquillion: To be honest, I seriously doubt it unless Arbcom does a Horn of Africa-type of thing. I would be more than happy to write that case request if Arbcom seemed willing. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or gosh, if gender/sexuality could get Palestine-Israel articles 4 treatment, then I probably could just cry. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, that would be good. Though it's weird to me that it was filed as a case instead of a WP:ARCA. There wasn't anything deficient about the earlier case names there. But even though this topic area needs a sensible case name to refer to, we already know that ArbCom can decide to rename old cases, as they did with some that were inappropriately named for specific editors but which broadened a lot as they proceeded. So, this should be doable with just an ARCA request and some proposed consolidation and case-rename motions. I.e., let's invoke less bureaucracy rather than more, when possible. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: Just a note, this proposal does not seek to rename GamerGate, just acknowledge it as the case that grants the committee original jurisdiction over gender disputes. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to think of a better phrasing for this and in doing so, realize I still don't understand what you mean. Yes, Flyer and WW generally interact in areas covered by the GG discretionary sanctions regarding gender and sexuality. Is it important to mention that here? This seems like a principle for the likely follow-up case on the broader dispute in the transgender topic area, not this one focused on behaviors of specific people. Loki (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider a "follow-up" case likely at all. Indeed, 2020 was calmer in this regard than 2019. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is about it for what we are likely going to see. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions and circumstances

2) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of their participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Taken from Medicine. Very useful here imo. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proposing this. I saw it and considered it but wasn't totally sure. Loki (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casting aspersions (MJL)

3) An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence in an attempt to besmirch their reputations. This includes accusations that users holding a particular WP:POV based on their onwiki editorial stance, and it includes accusations of bias due to an editor's membership in certain groups or for their personal identity. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with substantive evidence, on the user talk page of the editor in concern or in the appropriate forums, if at all.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I modified wording from Eastern European disputes, Climate change, and Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds. I am pretty proud of the result.
cc: SMcCandlish, Aircorn, Loki, Koyla. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do like this (though "If ... must be made" and "if at all" in the same sentence are redundant). It is quite correct and well done. However, it does not get at the specific concern I have about the growing habit among a narrow subset of editors of accusing everyone who disagrees with them of being "transphobic" or "homophobic", and attempting to chill discussion of sources with these smears. Your draft could be said to encompass these in a vague way, but if we do not specifically address them, then the behavior will continue indefinitely, especially since few admins possess the will or the fireproof suits to take action against anyone using such smears, since the smears will be turned against those admins in turn (quite possibly including at off-site forums). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: Noted, but I leave that for the arbs to do if desired.
I have yet to see any evidence, for example, WanderingWanda has ever even implied Flyer is homophobic. You wrote in your evidence: Diffs already provided show Flyer22 very wrongly accused of transphobia/homophobia/TERFism. However, that isn't how accusations work during Arbcom proceedings. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of article talk pages

4) Per the talk page guidelines, ~~article~~ talk pages should generally only be used to discuss the content of a given page. They should not be used as forums for people to discuss other contributors or the topic in general. It is also not the place to threaten an editor with a ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As I mentioned in my analysis of Ozzie10aaaa's evidence, this type of thing is what starts to delve into violating the WP:TPG. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is apt. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This principle should not be limited to "article talk pages". The guideline also extends to talk pages in other namespaces and userspaces, like project namespace ("Wikipedia:") and project talk namespace ("Wikipedia talk:"), used to discuss the improvement of the encyclopedia. Probably scrape out "article" from header, and you'll get "talk pages" broadly. George Ho (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: stricken, though I will note that some locations like project namespace and user talk do allow an editor to discuss another user. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Equality and Respect

5.A) Wikipedia editors and readers are culturally diverse by virtue of their race, ethnicity, national origin, citizenship, religion, age, sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, blindness, neurodiversity, or physical disability. Comments that demean fellow editors, an article subject, or any other person; on the basis of any of these characteristics are offensive and damage the editing environment for everyone. Such comments, particularly when extreme or repeated after a warning, are grounds for blocking or other sanctions. Harassment of other editors for any reason will not be tolerated and is also grounds for blocking or other sanctions.

Without added groups

5.B) Wikipedia editors and readers are culturally diverse by virtue of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, or sexual orientation. Comments that demean fellow editors, an article subject, or any other person; on the basis of any of these characteristics are offensive and damage the editing environment for everyone. Such comments, particularly when extreme or repeated after a warning, are grounds for blocking or other sanctions. Harassment of other editors for any reason will not be tolerated and is also grounds for blocking or other sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

More likely to be included in the final decision than my FoF since Arbcom has already passed this principle before in Arbitration enforcement 2. I did some light copy editing and added groups I believe the community would recognize as protected. However, I have included an alternative wording that does not include any new groups or word changes (only gramatical) in the collapsed portion underneath. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact (MJL)

LGBT+ Wikipedians

1) According to a recent WMF statement from Maggie Dennis, many LGBTQIA+ users on Wikipedia have been targeted, harassed, and attacked on Wikipedia.^[94][95]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Even if Flyer22 is in the right here and Wander in the complete wrong, I still think this FoF is necessary. If this FoF is accompanied by sanctions against Wander, it shows Arbcom still acknowledges this important fact. If not that, then the wording can be re-worked to ensure it doesn't cast bad-faith motivations against Flyer22 not being supported by evidence. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how it's worded, something like this would look like casting of WP:ASPERSIONS on Flyer22 by the arbs. That LGBT+ editors deal with this is well-established elsewhere such that there is no need for the arbs to add on in that regard for this case. Also, as a woman, Flyer22 faces harassment for her gender and few editors are women. [96] Best for the arbs to steer clear of anything that could be read as comparing identities or the like. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to make the most polite and empathetic response to this comment, Crossroads. However, per my evidence, it has been shown that Wander has received identity-based personal attacks before. This clearly could have coloured their response to this dispute.
Even though Flyer22 may have meant to only protect this project in her dispute with Wander, this is still worth mentioning because it is still something that Wander has had to deal with. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict between Flyer22 and WanderingWanda

2) There has been an ongoing conflict between Flyer22 Frozen (talk · contribs) and WanderingWanda (talk · contribs). The two parties have repeatedly been the subject of unsuccessful attempts at dispute resolution. (MJL's evidence)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Pretty standard stuff. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ripped from Catflap08 and Hijiri88. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Halo Jerk1

3) Halo Jerk1 (talk · contribs) is Flyer22 Frozen's brother (Evidence presented by MJL [1]). He has edited unconstructively in the topic of gender and sexuality (Evidence presented by Newimpartial and MJL [2]). Further, despite his previous agreement to do the contrary, he has (A) sought to engage in disputes on behalf of his sister and (B) edited using proxies (Evidence presented by MJL [1] and WanderingWanda).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Some info on Halo_Jerk1 might be helpful here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Halo has not edited using IP proxies since being warned not to in December 2012. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to be clear, the few gender-related disputes he's been in since 2012 Flyer22 studiously stayed away from. There was no impropriety there. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be even more clear, the condition on the Flyer household was that the "brother" not edit while logged out at all, not just using proxies. And I have provided nine diffs in my FoF for Halo that show the account engaging in disputes on Flyer's behalf, in violation of WP:FAMILY. Newimpartial (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be most clear of all, WP:FAMILY speaks of editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute. That did not happen. There was no "on anyone's behalf", just disputes he was at that she avoided. There were no "conditions" placed on the "Flyer household" (if there were, they would be invalid) because Wikipedia doesn't do sanctions on "households" made up of definitely separate people. More on this in your proposal section. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies (MJL)

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Halo Jerk1 topic banned

2) Halo Jerk1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban passed under GamerGate. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after one year has elapsed after the closing of this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Starting at 2 because I support the Interaction ban proposed by Aircorn. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need to reinvent the wheel here. The scope of a potential topic ban can just be what was set under GamerGate. See the finding of fact above. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement (MJL)

Special enforcement of restrictions

1) In the case of the interaction ban between Flyer22 Frozen (talk · contribs) and WanderingWanda (talk · contribs); should either user violate said interaction ban, in the first instance, that user may be partially blocked from editing on the page where the user violated the restriction. Such partial block shall be applied by an uninvolved administrator for a period of time as determined by said administrator but not to exceed six months. In the second instance, the same will apply but the period of time for a partial block should not exceed 9 months; or more than one year for the third instance and beyond. For the purposes of this provision, each page where a violation occurs is to be treated as separate instances, but multiple violations on a single page shall only count as a single instance.

If after repeated violations or applications of partial blocks an uninvolved administrator finds either Flyer22 Frozen or WanderingWanda to have been disruptive or engaged in tendentious editing, that user may be topic banned from editing the topic of gender and sexuality, broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I honestly don't even know if this is worth considering, but I wanted to provide a clear path towards a topic ban if the IBAN restrictions are repeatedly violated. Partial blocks were chosen to remove the editor from the area which caused the violation while still allowing them to be productive in other parts of the project. There is a significant amount of overlap between these two's editing interest, and this enforcement provision could allow them some safety to keep editing so long as the spirit of the iban is still followed.
I'm just putting this out there. I doubt it will lead to anything though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appeals and modifications

2) Appeals and modifications

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:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
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:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
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:

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.

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.
These provisions apply only to discretionary sanctions 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.
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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Literally the same text from {{Arbitration standard provisions}}. If the custom enforcement section passes, this would need a seperate vote. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by George Ho

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still result in sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine#Purpose of Wikipedia. --George Ho (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems correct, but not terribly pertinent. I think some of the purpose statements proposed by Kolya Butternut get at the matter a bit better. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Role of the Arbitration Committee

2) The role of the Arbitration Committee is to decide on Proposed Decisions, including the Finding of Facts based on examinations of the evidence (e.g. "diffs") presented in the Evidence Phase and written analyses presented in the Workshop Phase (if made available), and the Remedies based on the Finding of Facts. Neither characterizing named parties involved in the case, especially based on how evidence is presented, nor evaluating issues that are not directly related to the case is part of the Committee's role or the purpose of arbitration requests.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Based on one of arb's comments at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence#purpose of evidence. I read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine#Role of the Arbitration Committee, but I'm not copying that one exactly. Well, this principle is still in the works, so I expect one of case drafters to fix up my prose. --George Ho (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really like this one (aside from All The Weird Over-Capitalization, LOL), especially given that one of the Arbs felt compelled to open this page with concerns raised about this process being abused as a sort of "dirt-listing back to the end of time to get back at my least favorite opponent" kind of thing. That said, closing this with "the Committee's role" seems off-point; maybe "the Committee's role or the purpose of arbitration requests". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amended as suggested. --George Ho (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by SMcCandlish

Proposed principles

Accusations of bigotry

1) An accusation of "transphobia", "homophobia", or similar bigotry (including equivalent wording such as "anti-trans", "gay-bashing", etc.) without sufficient evidence constitutes an actionable personal attack, as it goes beyond mere aspersion-casting into socio-politicized character assassination.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Just noting that it would aid navigating this submission if there were section titles, when one looks at the TOC it looks like you've just entered a blank submission. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is the number one issue I would like to see resolved here. This goes way beyond a two-editor feud, but is the proximal cause of this one and many others. This has to stop. I'm amenable to wordsmithing, as long as we get to a principles statement (or an FoF) that this isn't permissible. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like this as a proposed principle. @SMcCandlish: The heart of this dispute is that there is no consensus for what constitutes sufficient evidence of being anti-trans. Does misgendering other editors count as being anti-trans? Does having the wrong opinion about MOS:DEADNAMES make an editor anti-trans? What about being hostile towards trans editors and civil to everyone else? Maybe those trans editors were jerks..
It isn't just enough to say that we need evidence. We need agreement about what even constitutes evidence. Before anyone starts to answer the question I raised, they're purely rhetorical. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: Well, that would seem to make this even more important. If we can't even agree on what these mean, but we know that they make people very, very angry, that is even more reason not to throw such accusations around. How would you rephrase this? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: I would start by noting that there is a substantive difference between calling an editor transphobic versus calling attention to individual edits as transphobic. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But there is not. This is precisely the WP:FALSECIV problem we're dealing with, the WP:CIVILPOV + WP:GAMING ploy. There's no such thing as an edit with a phobia. By its very nature and definition, transphob[e|ia|ic] is an allegation about someone's mental state and belief system, i.e. it is an attempt at mind-reading, at pegging someone with a thoughtcrime. It's extremely problematic for editors to go around labeling other editors' posts as "homophobic" or "anti-trans" then trying to hide behind a "but I was just talking about that post content, not the contributor" CYA wall. Not gonna happen. There's not a person here who doesn't understand that these provocational ad hominem accusations stick to the contributor who is maligned by them, not to inanimate posts in a vacuum. Fæ also tried to use the "I only said that post was transphobic" shield, and it did not work for them either. But it took several years of repeated bouts of dramaboarding for them to be topic banned (again), because of the marginal wiggle-room of doubt left in some editors' minds about what should or shouldn't qualify under NPA. It is long past time to remove that doubt. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're splitting hairs here. Accusing someone of saying something anti-Trans is no more different that accusing them of saying something racist. However, saying something bigoted does not make someone a bigot. I don't think there are very many circumstances at all we should label another editor as such. However, if we are not allowed to speak freely and call out potentially hateful speech from our colleagues, then you are dooming us all to accept that as a normal part of our community. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, I'm avoiding splitting hairs and seeking to avoid people WP:SANCTIONGAMING by splitting hairs, claiming they have not grossly maligned another editor by characterizing "their posts" as something awful instead of directly characterizing their person. Repeat: It is not possible for an inanimate post have a -phobia or an -ism. These are characteristics of persons. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I share MJL's concern that the first step would have to be agreement about what even constitutes evidence. It might help to start with a statement of the form, "By itself, X is insufficient evidence that an editor's actions are transphobic". XOR'easter (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll think on that. No rush I guess. That could be complicated to construct. The problem I see is that such a list of insufficiencies could be taken as exhaustive. I.e. "What I did isn't listed as insufficient, so I get away with it." — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you decided to title your proposals yet, Stanton? --George Ho (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed more important to respond to walls of analysis first, since that's material that's likely to influence the course of this, while which FoF and principles and remedies get voted on will come last. I'll think on it some. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish: I'd like to suggest adding a phrase like "or any other sort of [prejudice/bigotry]". The same principle applies to (and would be useful for) the use of other highly charged, poison-the-well attacks like "racist"; cf. WP:CRYRACIST. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic to this idea, especially given that I was the main voice in support of generalizing CRYRACIST to WP:CRYPHOBE. However, racism has a different "regulatory framework", for better or worse. The site-wide consensus appears to be to shoot first and ask questions later, at least when acting as an admin in response to new editors who make clear signs of being neo-Nazi/white-power types. I can try adding it in, but I'm not sure how to word it in a way that doesn't impact WP:NONAZIS (which, at least at its core, comes from Jimbo and isn't easy for the community to undo, even if there were a way to do that without seeming to "go soft on Nazis"). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see about replacing this with an approach that simply ties such terms to existing principles, without the definitional problem of "sufficient" evidence. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

WanderingWanda aspersion casting

1) WanderingWanda has repeatedly cast aspersions against Flyer22 Frozen and others, instead of using the proper dispute-resolution mechanisms.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is to match an essentially identical finding proposed with regard to Fly22 Frozen, as the evidence for such a finding pertains at least as strongly to WanderingWanda. It would be reasonable for most forms of wordsmithing pertaining to this proposed finding to be applied to its twin and vice versa. I tweaked this one's wording a little ("going to .... mechanisms" → "using ... mechanisms", plus some punctuation cleanup). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WanderingWanda character assassinating

2) WanderingWanda has repeatedly accused Flyer22 Frozen and others of transphobia and/or homophobia, without sufficient or even reasonable evidence for such claims. This ad hominem tactic appears to have the intent, and has had the effect, of causing reputational damage to and politicized polarization against WanderingWanda's debate opponents.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This more specific finding, along with the harassment pattern, are why I believe a topic-ban is warranted. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with this FoF. There has not been enough evidence whatsoever for this to be justified. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that evidence phase is actually over, I think you'll find there's more than enough. I'll be doing an entire analysis segment on this, but as the Workshop phase is nowhere near over, I need a break from this drama for a while. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I also think this is pretty obviously false, and I've not only read your evidence but participated in some of the underlying disputes. Loki (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: Honestly, I just had a look and was more than unimpressed; I am seriously horrified that you think that any of what you presented in the evidence section made a compelling case against Wander. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've had no doubt that various participants ("in some of the underlying disputes", as Loki put it) would make their partisanship on the matter clear enough. That won't make the evidence go away, and neither will weird argument to emotion antics like MJL's. That said, I'll be replacing this with a more tailored remedy draft, since WW's behavior was actually even worse that I'd believed it was from the early evidence. My original take on this entire case, remember, was that this should probably just close with a two-way no-fault interaction ban and a principles statement that -phobia/-ism aspersion-casting uncivil. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: I will say this clearly and in no uncertain terms; I think you are letting your previous bad experience with Fae blind you to the basic facts of this case. I agree that you came in with the right mindset, but you let yourself draw way too many connections to Fae since then. This is not the same as that. They aren't even remotely similar. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's you "clearly and in no uncertain terms" pretending you are a mind-reader. Being melodramatic (more argument to emotion) while making stuff isn't going to convince anyone you're not making stuff up. I did not mention Fæ in relation to this particular pattern of WW's; Fæ's tactics are different, and involve more direct false accusations, off-site hounding, and canvassing, which is why Fæ was more quickly re-removed from the topic area. That WW's PoV pushing is similar to Fæ's in some other respects neither means every criticism of one is a criticism of the other, nor that I or anyone else here is confusing them. (However, to the extent the two editors' behavior and motivation are similar, no one is discredited in criticizing one by criticism of the other; arguments about one are actually rather apt to apply well to both.) When I observe that these arguments seem to be turning partisan, your response trying glom everyone into camps of WW+Fæ versus "blind" opposition serves as an example not a rebuttal. It's easy to text-search this page for every single mention of Fæ (and the misspelling Fae), and see that no one is in fact engaging in the confusion you claim. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

WanderingWanda topic banned

1) WanderingWanda is topic-banned from the subject of human sexuality and gender, broadly construed, for a period of one year, due to a pattern of viewpoint-pushing, harassment, and aspersion-casting in this topic area.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This just borrows scope from previous cases like Fæ, et al., but could be made more specific, e.g. "human gender and sexes". However, I think it's better to not introduce fine-grained differences in remedy areas, as it makes enforcement more difficult, and even leads to confusion as to exact scope boundaries on the part of those subject to the restriction, as we've seen several times already. Given that previous ARCA, AE, ANI, and other discussions have made it clearer what the breadth of "human sexuality and gender, broadly construed" is, I would advocate sticking with that. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is justified by the evidence. I don't think WW has engaged in "viewpoint-pushing". I think this is just a bog-standard content dispute that WW and Flyer are on opposite sides of, where one side has decided that it is a good tactic to constantly accuse the other side of being non-neutral. Loki (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence analyses (more of which will be forthcoming) make it obvious why many of us to not agree with your assessment on this. After a breather, I'll diff here the key evidence in support of this particular remedy, too (so much was added shortly before closure that additional analysis is necessary, and most of it is not favorable to WW, or to claims against Flyer). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Frozen reminded

2) Flyer22 Frozen is reminded to maintain civility even when others may fail to do so; to avoid speculation on editors' motives; to address content not contributor; and to use established dispute-resolution mechanisms when addressing contributor behavior seems necessary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I believe this is entirely sufficient when it comes to Flyer22 Frozen's behavior. The evidence brought is a carefully cherry-picked "dirt list" from a long editorial tenure, and is not indicative of an ongoing problem that requires ArbCom remedies. Much of the evidence is off-topic (in pertaining to editors who are not parties to this case, and/or to other subjects than the one at issue here), and/or is too old for ArbCom to consider pertinent. WP:CIVIL is not a policy that requires deference, constant sweetness, or refusal to address problematic editing behavior. Criticism ≠ attack. And a focus on preventing injection of fringe, advocacy, and other non-encyclopedic viewpoints and bad sourcing into a particular topic area is not any kind of policy problem, but a normal editorial "job" undertaken by many editors. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support this sanction but don't believe it's sufficient. Flyer's behavior seems to me to be straight out of WP:UNBLOCKABLES. She's already been warned multiple times about her behavior. We're at the point where some kind of enforceable sanction has to happen. Loki (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone blocked repeatedly [97] is obviously not unblockable. And that's an essay a lot of people don't agree with anyway. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Direct quote from the essay: They have usually been repeatedly blocked and rapidly unblocked, often for edit warring or incivility. (Also, sure, but I know for sure one of the drafting arbs does, because he wrote it.) Loki (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 2012 blocks were all not her fault, but from her brother's behavior. [98] The one 2014 block was undeserved [99] and was rightly lifted early; the administrator who gave it was desysopped later that year for exactly those sorts of hasty unwarranted blocks. [100] That's all there is. The essay clearly does not apply; this is not someone who's blocked for misconduct but unblocked anyway again and again. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Revised. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be an admonishment if it is going to have any effect. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WanderingWanda focus-on-content restriction

3) WanderingWanda is placed under a site-wide indefinite focus on content sanction, and is not permitted to comment on contributor, outside the usual exceptions such as dispute resolution venues, suspected sockpuppet investigations, reporting vandalism, etc.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Am I to understand SMcCandlish that when you comment that something is to match the same X as proposed to Flyer that you support that for Flyer as well? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying SMcCandlish. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is to match similar remedy proposed with regard to Fly22 Frozen, as the evidence in support of such a remedy pertains at least as strongly to WanderingWanda. It would be reasonable for most forms of wordsmithing pertaining to this proposed restriction to be applied to its twin and vice versa. I've already revised it to be clearer as to its actual meaning, and to refer to the actual policy at WP:FOC instead of some userspace essay (WP:No personal comments). I'm not convinced either party actually needs this sanction, and it is easy for others to WP:GAME against them. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC); revised: 00:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this sanction is appropriate. Other than the dispute with Flyer that ended in 2019 where they did definitely take the WP:BAIT and lose their temper, WW is by far one of the most civil and collaborative people I've encountered on this encyclopedia. Loki (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being skilled at using WP:CIVILPOV, WP:FALSECIV, WP:SANCTIONGAMING techniques to malign editors and BLPs, without directly saying things like "you're a fucking bigot", is not civility. It's use of an illusion of civility as a CYA shield for aspersion-casting. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that WW is even a civil POV pusher, for the record, nor is their civility in any way "false". They are as a rule genuinely a very polite and collaborative editor and have edited against their personal views many times. (This is all, again, with the exception of the conflict with Flyer in 2019, and even there Flyer looks even worse.) Loki (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:FALSECIV and WP:SANCTIONGAMING accusations here are completely out of line. You have not even attempted to present evidence that would support them. I suggest you strike them immediately as WP:ASPERSIONs. --Aquillion (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: No, just I opened these as procedural matters originally, because the early evidence seemed to suggest that remedies drafted like this about Flyer would make at least as much sense applied to WW. At this point, I think several of them pertain more to WW than to Flyer. But both versions are present so they can be discussed. I'm skeptical of the remedy and a similar one being applied to either party. "Restrictions" that amount to "follow the same rules as everyone else" aren't a good idea. They're a bit wrongheaded on their face, and they're often used to try to pillory people for minor things (plus they are difficult to get rid of later; there's low impetus to remove a restriction that doesn't really look like one, even if others keep using it years later as an intimidation weapon). I think the "Flyer22 reminded" thing I drafted, and some version of a WW topic ban, will be better-crafted remedies in regards to all the evidence now available. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WanderingWands dispute-personalization restriction

4) WanderingWanda is indefinitely prohibited from engaging in conduct which, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, personalizes disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is to match an identical remedy proposed with regard to Fly22 Frozen, as the evidence in support of such a remedy pertains at least as strongly to WanderingWanda. It would be reasonable for most forms of wordsmithing pertaining to this proposed restriction to be applied to its twin and vice versa. I'm not convinced either party actually needs this sanction, and it is easy for others to WP:GAME against them. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I again don't think this sanction is appropriate because, other than the dispute with Flyer22 that ended in 2019, WW doesn't personalize disputes. (And that 2019 dispute I hold Flyer mainly responsible for. Sure, WW should not have taken the WP:BAIT, but FeydHuxtable's timeline and many diffs in evidence show that WW was perfectly collegiate with Flyer until Flyer started swinging wild accusations at them every time they interacted with each other.) Loki (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not be silly; it simply is not possible for the dispute to have ended in 2019 and to be open here as an RFARB at the same time (a case WW opened against Flyer, I remind you). Trying to link terms like "transphobic", "anti-trans", and "TERF" to other editors by falsely labeling sources with them and making other false accusations about the sources, then diffing other more neutralilty-minded editors correcting WW's falsehoods as supposed proof that these editors have a "transphobic/anti-trans/TERF" agenda, is personalizing disputes, is aspersion-casting, is baiting, and is advocacy editing. So is using anecdote about what WW claims to have seen people say in off-site webboards to tar sources and editors who try to correct WW's falsehoods about them, and to imply (in one case directly accuse) meatpuppetry by those editors on behalf of those forums. The only actual evidence we have of an editor in this matter who spends a bunch of time in activistic web forums is WW, by their own admission. What WW does is more clever than the average drive-by troll, but it is still wrong and still has to stop. That said, I don't think this exact remedy is the best way to do it, specifically because it is easy to game around definitions. I just included it as a counterpoint to a similar proposal regarding Flyer. The actual remedy for WW's behavior of this sort needs to be much stronger that a "prohibition" that really amounts to "just follow the same rules everyone else does". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Feyd Huxtable

Proposed principles

WP: Focus on content

1) Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor. Wikipedia is written through collaboration, and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is therefore vital.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

A direct quote from WP:FOC. While it may be unreasonable to expect 100% compliance, especially in inherently emotive topic areas, this is the ideal we should all be aiming at. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Non productive relationship between Flyer22 Frozen and WanderingWanda

1) Relations between Flyer22 Frozen and WanderingWanda have deteriorated, having a long term detrimental effect on collaborative editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As evidenced by ANI threads one and two, plus this Arb case. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

An apology

1) Either Flyer and/or Wanda apologise to each other to bury the hatchet.

Comment by Arbitrators:

While I endorse the spirit of this proposal, in practice once we've reached the point of arbitration I don't think it's feasible, and I agree with Montana that it feels like it's as useful as enforced schoolyard apologies. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Obviously this is not something that should be enforced, but would be an ideal resolution if one of the two main parties was to voluntarily apologise to the other before the workshop ends. E.g., Wanda could say something like "Flyer, having read about your history in dealing with disruptive socks in our shared topic area, I now see I over reacted to the suspicions you expressed about myself and other newbies. Apologies for whatever stress and timewasting this has caused you." Even after an apology, it would probably be wise for the two editors to mostly avoid each other for a year or so, to give things a chance to settle down. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to oppose solutions like this. It's about as helpful as telling a couple 10-year-olds on the playground, "now you tell each other you are sorry." Where there is no actual meeting of the minds, people either lie and make the right noises to get others to go away, or they are honest and refuse to do so. These two are not going to apologize. It is better to just outline expected behavior and be done with it. Montanabw^(talk) 22:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what Montanabw said. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's good reasons why it's a near timeless & cultural universal to force young children to apologise after calming down a quarrel. Sincere apologies are an extremely effective (though not always essential) component to a lasting reconciliation. With ten year olds, a meeting of minds is often not needed, just an emotional reset. Even if it doesn't resolve the particular quarrel, the lasting benefit is that the children internalises the idea that saying sorry is part of the reconciliation process. The French having a saying, "to understand all is to forgive all". With adults, often when they sit down in a formal or informal arbitration environment, they'll come to see elements of the situation they didn't appreciate before. And hence understand the annoying behaviour from the other party, and then regret that they responded to it aggressively, leading to a sincere apology and then restoration of a collaborative relationship . There seemed a chance this might happen here, and I stand by the view that it would be an optimal outcome. That said, I agree that forced apologies are harmful for adults, and in this case it seems you were correct about the two parties. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Frozen is reminded

2) Flyer is reminded that editing Wikipedia is best done with a sense of fun as well as seriousness.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'm not 100% sure this would help, but obviously Flyer would be free to ignore if they dont find a reminder helpful. They do seem to take editing very seriously. Granted article quality is an important goal in and of itself. And NPOV is even more vital when one considers the RL effects that might conceivably arise from non NPOV content in the sexuality & gender topic class. But editors might do well to remember that both Wikipedia and RL has comic as well as tragic components. Cause and effect are sometimes related in ridiculous ways. For example, Sue Gardener herself once said she had considered encouraging deliberate spelling mistakes in article space, as typo correction was seen as one of the chief ways in which non advocate readers take their first steps to become editors. If editors can maintain a sense of the absurd it might help them feel less stressed about content disputes, and less likely to make comments that others find uncollegial. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. ArbCom is not the mood police. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WanderingWanda is reminded

3) Wanda is reminded not to edit other users talk page comments.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This may not be an absolute bright line rule, but the evidence does seem to show that Wanda has crossed the line here a few times, so a reminder may help them avoid further occurrences. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, especially since since it was done in a pointed fashion, intended to brand Flyer22 as transphobic/anti-trans and to imply their material was transphobic attacks (which clearly was not true). That is, WW was using talk refactoring as a weapon, and continued doing so after objections. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Editing others' comments should be as immediately sanctionable as 3RR or similar automatic penalties. Montanabw^(talk) 22:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FeydHuxtable, is there a link to this? SilkTork (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork: It's in Crossroads' evidence:^{[101][102][103][104][105]} (also mentioned in Pyxis Solitary's evidence). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that MJL. For clarity for the Arbs and interested parties, this was not a talk page, it was an ArbCom page where a user was appealing a topic ban and Flyer was giving her opinion as to why the appeal should not be given. WanderingWanda was removing material ~~she~~ they thought was a personal attack. It wasn't a personal attack, and ~~she~~ WW was informed of that by an ArbCom clerk. While the incident is evidence of the tension between Flyer and WW, if, since that incident and ~~her~~ their agreement not to do it again, WW has not actually done it again, then ~~she~~ WW doesn't need to be reminded. If ~~she~~ WW has done it again, then that would need to be brought forward as evidence before a reminder is considered. Has ~~she~~ WW done it again since then? SilkTork (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I don't think they have (or else Crossroads/Pyxis would likely have found it and brought it up when they brought up the above incident). Second, while I agree it would have been best for WW to request the personal attacks be deleted instead of deleting it herself, I also think that the redacted material were personal attacks, and fairly serious ones at that. Specifically, they implied Jokestress and anyone who supported unbanning Jokestress were pedophiles. I don't see how that's "merely commenting on a user's editing". Loki (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: I don't know. You would have to ask the users who submitted that evidence. I wasn't able to find anything else on the matter, but maybe they know where to look. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Loki –that doesn't seem an accurate rading of Flyer's remarks. Flyer didn't say just pedophiles, but also mentioned "related POV-pushers". Obviously said POV-pushers can include those who are strongly against any form of child abuse, but are sympathetic to those who feel attracted to children but don't act on it. That's a respectable POV, no one choses to feel such attraction. But such as POV can be problematic if taken too far. In this area, there's a strong case to always ere on the side of children's interests.

@SilkTork. Wanda's preferred pronouns are they\them , not she\her (no worries I made that mistakes a few times too) Not all Wanda's mistaken redactions were on Arb pages, they've also done it at ANI. The way I read this , Wanda only agreed not to repeat the redactions at Arbcom (they didn't even agree explicitly, they just said "fair enough" to Camrons comment which mentioned "instead contact the clerks team", and hence only makes sense on the Arb boards). That said, I'm half regretting even proposing this now – IMO they were good faith mistakes by Wanda and perhaps they have got the message. You have a good point that with an iban, no other remedy may be needed, not even reminders. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add on to this, regarding Loki's claim, it was an ArbCom clerk who ruled - correctly - that those comments were not personal attacks. The rest of the material beyond the sentence FeydHuxtable addresses was very clearly not a personal attack of any sort. It was just WanderingWanda attempting to suppress criticism of an editor who attempted to paint themselves as just ensuring trans representation but whose editing actually had very serious problems and whose topic ban was rightly left in place. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FeydHuxtable:: Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I hope I have made the appropriate corrections. SilkTork (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Loki "...I don't think they have (or else Crossroads/Pyxis would likely have found it and brought it up when they brought up the above incident)." The only reason I know about that WanderingWanda offense in that ArbCom Request is because I was keeping an eye on a particular editor (that has since been banned) that injected himself into it. However, the undercurrent that led WW to delete a bulk of Flyer22's statement, is the animosity that exists from WW towards Flyer22. And based on this dummy edit summary by Flyer22 regarding the deletion by WW:
"Comment: Do not touch my posts again. You've been told this before."
it appears that it was not the first time that WanderingWanda had taken liberties with a post written by Flyer22 and behaved in a confrontational manner. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by SandyGeorgia

Proposed remedies (SandyGeorgia)

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Flyer rollback rights removed

1) Rollback rights are removed from User:Flyer22 Frozen

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Leaving the wordsmithing to those more experienced. This will help not only the IPs and new editors impacted, but may also help Flyer22 slow down and be less pressured in editing. See SandyGeorgia evidence, point 7. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Protonk's complaint about Flyer22 regarding Rollback was overturned by the community here [106] and their latest attempt at it was rebutted by administrators and other editors here. [107] ArbCom should not be overturning the community on things like this. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary personalizing of an ongoing dispute --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I was going to provide the same two diffs, but Crossroads beat me to it. I'll add this one [108]. I'll also remind that ArbCom's job is prevention of ongoing and clearly predictable future disruption, not punishment, nor vague what-iffing about alleged potential for misuse of tools. (All tools are potentially misusable by anyone using them.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I'm getting an uneasy sense that there is some kind of "SandyGeorgia vs. Flyer22" personality dispute lurking in the background, in addition to this "WanderingWanda vs. Flyer22" one, but that it centers on medical topics. I'm not sure what is going on here, but would hope that these proceedings stick to the topic area this case is about and/or the two-editor feud this case is about (which mostly overlap), and not further mutate into "dig up every extraneous reason I can think of to dogpile on one of the parties" stuff. I see quite a bit of restraint on the part of respondents here in not "diff-digging" to try to find case-unrelated reasons to criticize the party WanderingWanda, but a marked lack of such restraint regarding Flyer22. Coupled with all the "supporters/detractors/allies/fans" mis-framing of these discussions, this is not a good sign.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I very much have the same sense of an old personal dispute being behind this; it probably stems from the fact that SandyGeorgia sees Flyer22 as being in the 'Doc James camp' as seen at the Medicine arb case [109] and even tried to get Flyer22 restricted there despite Flyer22 not being a party. [110] Crossroads ^-talk- 21:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, perhaps incorrectly, if the community wants to overturn the guideline at WP:ROLLBACKUSE, then the community should do that (they haven't), so that all editors are held to the same standard. And ArbCom rules on existing policies and guidelines, and attempts to address disputes that have not been resolved at ANI or other dispute resolution forums. That is exactly the situation here. Unless there is a big piece I am missing (which was the basis for my original question to Protonk anyway, after several years of absence from editing), the "rest of us" have to adhere to ROLLBACKUSE (only for vandalism), while Flyer was able to muster enough friendly support to be basically exempted from the guideline, in ways that align with their overall expressions about how they feel about "newbies" and IPs. Is that an ANI fail, or are the "rest of us" also now exempt from a written guideline? Because we are trying at WPMED to craft templates. Clarity in this matter would help, since everyone I edit around is under the distinct impression that ROLLBACKUSE is ONLY for clear vandalism, and that is precisely what led to my query to Protonk that got him maligned. Do the rest of us get to ignore ROLLBACKUSE? Drmies did not seem to be of that impression in his response at Flyer's talk. (Overlooking the rest of the speculative tit-for-tat above.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this has been addressed in the discussions I've linked. But I find it very interesting that Protonk bringing up the matter again was at your instigation. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I took my query about whether rollback use had changed during my absence from editing to an admin who was part of the discussion, rather than ping any number of admins I am "friendly" with for a ruling that would have been "in my favor" (the admins I am "friendly" with tend to have the same impression about Rollback I and everyone else in the conversation on my talk page have). This would be a good time to stop the tit-for-tat; I have lodged two proposals here for the arbs’ consideration, as this is the place to raise the concerns. I will be fine with whatever they rule. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a tit-for-tat. It is very pertinent for the arbs when evaluating claims to know that while you accuse Flyer22 of canvassing via pings, [111] (even though e.g. [112] this was explicitly of everyone in a discussion, allowed per WP:APPNOTE) you use much less transparent user talk page notifications (and another one very recently [113]) to get Protonk to weigh in, who very obviously was "friendly" to your claims of rollback misuse and would have been "in [your] favor" (had you wanted a neutral voice you would simply have gone to AN). Crossroads ^-talk- 22:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero and Moneytrees: is it time to get this tit-for-tat to stop? Yes, of course I notified Protonk that I had explicitly mentioned him in evidence that directly relates to him. "To get [him] to weigh in" is not an assumption of good faith. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, both WP:STiki and WP:Huggle allow for reverting unconstructive edits as well as for vandalism: STiki is a tool available to trusted users that is used to detect and revert vandalism, spam, and other types of unconstructive edits made at Wikipedia and Huggle is a diff browser intended for dealing with vandalism and other unconstructive edits on Wikimedia projects. Anatashala (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22's improper use of rollback led to her dispute at Talk:Shopping mall. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Similar at Fruitvale Bridge, which I diffed in my evidence—an article about two bridges that a new editor was (rightfully) trying to split in to separate articles about each bridge. That editor appears to have given up after the interaction with Flyer after the rollback (a promising new editor, gone). This is two non-Sexuality-related topics (a mall and a bridge), and there are others. My hope is that by taking things like this out of the mix, Flyer will be less stressed and better able to use Wikipedia time to address and deal with disputes in the areas where Flyer's contributions are needed. A bridge and a shopping mall ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shopping mall accident was because of her health.... She said, "A health issue temporarily prevented me from clearly reading the block message in your account. I apologize."[114] Also mentioned her health here[115] and on her user page.[116]

No misuse of rollback. See my evidence.[117].STIki/Huggle not just for vandalism.[118][119] Permits option to not use edit summaries. Standard among those who use the tools.[120][121][122][123][124] Permits leaving messages on editor talk pages, which Flyer does and which is better than newbies missing edit summaries.[125] She might leave a personalized message[126][127] or revert self.[128][129]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As Coolcaesar said at Talk:Shopping mall, "Notice how Flyer22 Frozen only apologized for and explained the failure to properly read Keizers' block, and not for the more significant failure to simply read the extensive discussion on this talk page."[130] Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer said she read the preceding discussion on the shopping mall talk page so I don’t think she’d have to apologize for not reading it.

Anyway, I did go through the diffs regarding Flyer's rollback usage but I’m not really seeing anything indicating misuse about Flyer’s utilization of rollback. Here, when an editor asks why Flyer reverted his edit, she gave the editor a polite and explanatory response. At the shopping mall talk page, Flyer explained the reason for the revert and that the editor had been blocked, mistaking this as an indefinite block. After the editor explained that they were blocked from one article, Flyer admitted she had made a mistake and apologized. She concluded interactions with the editor she initially reverted on a positive note. I don’t see this as a pattern of behavior though or a misuse of the tools, per their descriptions though.

As Ozzie points to in his evidence section, [131] STiki and Huggle both allow to revert edits that are viewed as unconstructive, editors are not required to leave a reason (only classify the revert), and this (as evidenced by Ozzie) is standard among users of these tools.  Anatashala (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If she read the discussion before her rollback that means she disregarded the consensus to split the Shopping mall article; either way her rollback was improper, as was her incivility which followed.[132] Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to her reading the discussion after she was pinged to the discussion. When the initially reverted editor explained the situation and that they were not an indefinitely blocked user, Flyer explained her mistake and apologized. It looks like a simple error. The reverted editor appears to understand and it looks like the issue is closed. Then two other editors, who seem to have a history with Flyer judging from the discussion (?), criticize how she approached this and this is where the conflict flares up -- but not between the reverted editor and Flyer. I didn't see anything alarming about Flyer's use of rollback here. Anatashala (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't think so; I get the impression that they don't know each other at all. You are free to ask them all about their experience, but I am not! Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my lack of clarity. I wasn’t asking if they knew each other. I was noting that Flyer and at least one of the other editors at that talk page knew each other since Flyer points to a previous interaction they’ve had on another article. Anatashala (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see, it looks like Flyer's comment, "We both know from your history at Talk:Frozen (2013 film) how you ~~feel about~~ may go about splitting -- expanding and expanding the article, with no thought given to WP:NOTEVERYTHING, until it looks like there is no choice but to split the article -- and who was considered problematic in that case. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2020" [133] is an example of a grudge against Coolcaesar from 2017,[134] and Flyer did not know Keizers, or Red Slash who also commented on her "incredibly rude" behavior.[135] Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was referring to Flyer’s interaction with Coolcaesar on that page when I was talking about a history. However, briefly looking into their histories, Red Slash and Flyer have also interacted before, as you can see here and here. Anyway, I can’t speak to all that has gone on with these three editors' previous interactions or the characterization of a “grudge” since I’m hardly inside Flyer’s mind. Anatashala (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only significant discussion is the one at Talk:Ridicule (disambiguation). [136] I'm not sure how to interpret this other than canvassing, but that's getting beyond the scope of the existing evidence. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer’s interaction here with Red Slash seems more significant since it’s a discussion concerning an addition he made to the disambiguation guideline. In the 'Ridicule' discussion, she simply makes a statement to him.

Anyway, I don’t believe Flyer’s pings at Talk:Ridicule (disambiguation) qualify as canvassing. All that looks like is Flyer trying to confirm positions of participants in a poll who voted to move ‘Ridicule.’

Here is the original discussion and vote over whether or not to move the article, with the consensus being to move it. Flyer responded that she thought the votes which were in favour of the move had wanted the article to be redirected, and so she pinged those editors in question to clarify or confirm their positions (ie. redirect or disambiguation). Because consensus was already for a move, Flyer did not need to ping those who opposed the move. She was also thanked by editors on that talk page for pinging them so they could clarify over what they wanted to happen with the move. Anatashala (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

POLEMIC redacted

2) POLEMIC at User:Flyer22 Frozen and User talk:Flyer22 Frozen in paragraph about WP:MED, focused on SandyGeorgia, to be removed or redacted by Arb clerks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Leave wordsmithing to those more experienced, but I don't know how one gets this addressed without making it a remedy-- there is probably a better way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is off-topic. Also, there is no "POLEMIC ... focused on SandyGeorgia" at Flyer22's userpage. There's a rather typical "why I'm leaving statement", but SandyGeorgia's only mention there is in relation to that editor and Flyer22 getting along fine for a while. The rest of it is personal-life statements, principles-and-policy observation, complaint of being mischaracterized in general, and some past-history rumination, which attacks no one. The talk page material is identical. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Trying to delete an editor's entire retirement message over that is just way over-the-top. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem if the arbs decide it is not a polemic, but this is the place to raise the question, to the best of my knowledge. It is curious that only I am singled out when one considers the enormity of the evidence on this page from so many others. And nowhere did I suggest "delet[ing] an editor's entire retirement message"; please re-read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Valereee

Proposed principles

Sanctions and circumstances

1) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances, specifically including the proportionality of the problem. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of their participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This represents an addition to a principle used multiple times before: ", specifically including the proportionality of the problem" —valereee (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to the addition "specifically including the proportionality of the problem". My fear is that this principle would ask us to consider how much misconduct is acceptable as a proportion of constructive edits. Our goal is simply to prevent further disruption to the project; no amount of abuse is acceptable. These are the latest of two separate principles for comparison:

Proportionality of sanctions

No matter who is the sanctioning authority, any sanctions imposed on an editor or administrator for misconduct should be proportionate to the nature and severity of the conduct. Relevant factors to consider may also include how recently the misconduct took place, how clear it is that the behavior constituted misconduct, whether the editor has expressed or carried out an intent to improve their conduct, and whether lesser sanctions have been employed without success in trying to resolve the problem. For example, a lengthy site-ban will usually not be the appropriate sanction for on-wiki conduct by an experienced, good-faith contributor who has never previously been blocked at all.

Sanctions and circumstances

In deciding what sanctions to impose against an editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of their participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

Valereee, would you add the number of automatic edits to your evidence statement? Those numbers are out of context without considering the huggle edits and welcome messages. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to originally; xtools is timing out on it. I tend in general to object to "zero-tolerance" policies except for the most egregious incidents. One crappy-but-not-itself-actionable remark per 1000 edits -- meh. We all have our less-than-shining moments. One crappy-but-not-itself-actionable remark per 10 edits? A much bigger problem. At what point does it tip from problematic edits to problematic editor? That's why arbcom get the big bucks. —valereee (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, what precise searches timed out on you? I can work on it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to point out that "no amount of abuse is acceptable" is materially different from a "Zero tolerance" policy "which imposes a punishment for every infraction of a stated rule." While every instance of abuse does not necessarily warrant "punishment", abuse is never ok, and we should always try to prevent it, not excuse it. Although, I do have one thought on proportionality: rather than measuring instances of misconduct against number of edits, we could count the number of editors receiving abuse over a time interval. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure tolerating "no amount" equals tolerating "zero". It's fine, you're welcome to argue that is what we should tolerate. I'm just saying: tolerating "no amount" is the same as tolerating "zero". —valereee (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got xtools to work, looks like there are only 25K automated edits, so not even@ ten percent. I don't think it really changes anything. —valereee (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, what precise search are you performing? For my evidence statement [137] I found that there were about 21,700 (semi-)automated edits just in 2020.[138][139] Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's timing out on me again, but if it's working for you and you found those numbers are for a single year, then I must have made a mistake, no worries! —valereee (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was there any other edit count information you had found? Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the addition of the proportionality clause is helpful or likely to be adopted by ArbCom; that an individual editor makes mostly good and productive edits, and that the arbs do take this in to account, is already covered in wording from existing arb templates.

There are at least three problems with this "proportionality" argument. 1) If it excused lapses in conduct in editors with considerable productive edits, Eric Corbett would still be with us. 2) It is based on WP:EDITCOUNTITIS, which is rife with issues. Giving myself as an example, I have over 200,000 edits that include no automated edits, and yet, that number means absolutely nothing if used to compare me to other editors, or gauge my contributions to a page, because of how I edit. I have a back injury (along with old eyes and eyesight issues) that, for reasons too long to explain, causes me to have to repeatedly come back to a post and correct typos, and my content editing is always done in small pieces so that I can leave instructive edit summaries for the benefit of others at FAC and FAR reviews. Other editors manage all their edits in one post, with no typos. Counting edits to judge a "proportion" just won't work. 3) The other side of the same coin is that any editor with such a high contribution count as Flyer should know not to engage in any non-policy-compliant editing.

So, I just don't see where adding this is any more useful than just acknowledging that, in some editors, there is plenty of good editing and the arbs do take that into account. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Newimpartial

Proposed principles

Tendentious editing

1) Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained bias. Problems arise when editors see their own bias as neutral, and especially when they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view; the perception that “he who is not for me is against me” is contrary to Wikipedia’s assume good faith guideline: Users who disrupt articles and their talk pages by engaging in sustained attacks on other editors or inflammatory comments may be banned from the affected articles. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Text is slightly massaged from WP:TEND, itself. Newimpartial (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

2) Users who disrupt articles and their talk pages by engaging in sustained attacks on other editors or inflammatory comments may be banned from the affected articles; in extreme cases they may be banned from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Text is from ARBPRINCIPLES, very lightly massaged. Newimpartial (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Single-purpose accounts

3) Single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Text is from ARBPRINCIPLES, lightly edited. Newimpartial (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closely related accounts

4) Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives, such as editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute. For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Text from WP:FAMILY and the Ted Kennedy Arb decision. Newimpartial (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty good (though could use some wikilinks). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this is that Flyer22 and Halo, after the issues in 2012, have avoided each other's discussions, articles, and specific disputes. They have not double voted or done any of that sort of thing. (Halo being at one gender-related discussion which Flyer22 conspicuously avoided is not a violation.) This remedy doesn't apply to anyone in the case. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the many edits provided in Evidence where Halo explicitly supported, defended, "protected" or explained Flyer's behaviour are violations of the first part of this principle. The latter part of the principle confirms the appropriateness of sanctioning the entire "Flyer household" for Halo Jerk1's violations - this has independently been established by the actual conditions for Flyer's reinstatement, but it is always best to have an explicit basis in existing policy (in this case, prior Arb decisions) for the proposed sanctions. Newimpartial (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The previous case you copied this from is a completely different situation all the way back in 2005 (!). I have no idea what your first sentence in this reply is alluding to, so I repeat - Halo and Flyer22 have not been at the same discussions in recent years whatsoever. The "latter part of [this] principle" does not apply because there is no uncertainty that these are two separate users. [140] Flyer22 was unblocked back then because it was confirmed that she was not her brother, period. Nothing said there puts any responsibility on her for what her brother does, which would be grossly unjust and cannot be argued to even be implied. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The key phrase from the first sentence is supporting each other in any sort of dispute - the first nine diffs in my finding of fact concerning the Halo Jerk1 account offer instances of this sort of support. Also, there is indeed uncertainty concerning who has been editing from the Halo account since 2019. In addition, according to policy and the specific terms tied to Flyer's unblock, Flyer's return to editing was conditional on the other members of the household not participating in logged-out editing or other policy violations - and the Halo account clearly did so, multiple times. Newimpartial (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And again, none of those diffs involve supporting each other in a dispute. They were not at the same discussions like meatpuppets would be. No such "uncertainty" exists except you casting that aspersion just now. They clearly have a different style of writing. As for the so-called "conditional", I address this below. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They clearly have a different style of writing - I didn't think you were allowed to use humor at ArbCom. Touché. Newimpartial (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking disruptive accounts

5) Disruptive editing is cause for blocking an account. Repeated violations of Wikipedia behavioural and editing policies may lead to indefinite blocks which become de facto bans when no administrator will consider unblocking, particularly if the editor uses multiple accounts to behave disruptively.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Text is from ARBPRINCIPLES, lightly edited. Newimpartial (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are not warranted here, and nobody has used multiple accounts. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Flyer22 has edited tendentiously concerning gender-related issues

1) As tendentious editing is a pattern of edits displaying a bias, it is best demonstrated through a series of indicators evident in an editor’s behaviour on a certain topic over time. Evidence of the Flyer22 POV on gender-related issues includes:

Objecting to the use of the singular “they” for trans or non-binary people; [141]
POV editing concerning gender-related name changes; [142] [143]
Treating “Transgender ideology” as something that actually exists; [144][145]
Referring to differing interpretations of existing Manual of Style language (on the treatment of trans people’s former names) as “activism”.[146]

Relevant characteristics of Tendentious editing by Flyer in this topic area include the following (from the list of characteristics on the current version of WP:TEND):

Accusing others of malice

To WanderingWanda But, of course, you have implied that I'm transphobic before. … Yes, let's call a spade a spade: You are, as usual, letting your political views affect how you go about editing these articles. [147]

To Newimpartial We are allowed to focus on the arguments. We are allowed to attack arguments. When I see any kind of activist arguments, like I'm seeing now,I will state so. And that's that. [148]

Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources

The Canadian source, as I and others have pointed out to you, can only apply to Canada.[149], (whereas Newimpartial actually cited three Canadian sources and one each from the US, Australia and the UK, which Flyer did not address)

Adding citations that are inadequate, ambiguous or not sufficiently explicit

Using an op-ed by Andrew Sullivan as a reliable source to establish factual information [150]

Repeating the same argument without convincing people

The many available examples include the discussions ending with these edits: [151] [152] [153]

Ignoring or refusing to answer good faith questions from other editors

The discussions ending with these edits are illustrative: [154] [155] [156] [157]

Assigning undue importance to a single aspect of a subject

Note the emphatic interpretation of the sources as documenting “a conflict between lesbians and trans people” (rather than within both communities) [158] the insistence that “gender-based violence” and “sex-based violence” are the same thing [159] and the repeated restatement of a certain interpretation of the Manual of Style (even after the blind spots of her reading had been pointed out) [160]

"Banning" otherwise constructive editors from their talk page

One good example was presented in Evidence; presumably one from a very long list: [161]

Threatening to quit Wikipedia

Most recently [162] (but several previous times as well).

Seeing editing as being about taking sides

since we have a certain group… [163] a lot of our LGBT editors engage in activism editing [164] I'm just going to copy and paste what I posted last time. If the article is moved even considering this, I'll just consider that activism has finally won out.[165]

Flyer’s consistent habit of selective notification, where she only pings accounts that have sided with her in previous disputes, also clearly shows a view of editing as “taking sides” [166]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Noting here that all of these claims have been addressed at the evidence and workshop pages. The Sullivan claim, for example, is completely false. Disagreeing with Newimpartial's or anyone else's POV in a discussion is not POV pushing or tendentious editing. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the diff you cited as an example of WP:TEND and the bias you’re arguing Flyer edits with, it doesn’t look like Flyer [o]bjecting to the use of the singular “they” for trans or non-binary people. Nowhere in this diff does Flyer speak against individuals using or choosing this pronoun for themselves, nor does she give an opinion about this. All Flyer is doing is pointing out the practical challenges of using ‘they’ from a reading/writing standpoint as it can lead to confusion and hinder readability, which is an issue per the verifiable sources she cites. She’s explaining how the usage of ’they’ is subject to debate among academics per sources. This looks to be an instance of Flyer editing away from personal opinion and feeling about this topic to focus on the practical benefits and challenges of a pronoun’s usage. Anatashala (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that that particular diff can be read in two ways: either Flyer's concern about readibility animated the argument not to use them in the case if this trans/NB BLP, or Flyer marshalled the concern about readibility in service of an existing POV. In the context of the totality of the evidence, I find the latter more plausible, but I recognize the former at least as a theoretical possibility. Newimpartial (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with all due respect, I’m not really finding evidence of a POV you’re arguing that Flyer is editing in service of. I’ve reviewed your diffs and the diffs others have provided but I’m not seeing this POV.   Plus, in my view, there's evidence for Flyer supporting LGBT rights and trying to maintain WP:NPOV in her edits.[167][168][169]

In another example, going by discussion here and here, as well as sources and material in the lesbian erasure article, and what I said in my evidence section,[170] I think Flyer also has legitimate points about there being a rift or significant tensions between cisgender lesbians and trans women.

In the discussions[171][172] concerning the interchangeability of "sex-based violence" and "gender-based violence," Flyer provides plenty of sources to support her argument. She’s not arguing a personal POV but trying to reflect accepted sources. Her argument is also supported in the Violence against women article itself.[173] This also seen in the lead of that article.

I recognize that we see some things differently regarding Flyer, but in my opinion, I think your claims are misrepresenting her positions. Anatashala (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is all very interesting, but the comments about Flyer supporting LGBT rights do not engage in any way with the POV I am talking about, positively or negatively. Flyer has consistently objected to what she interprets as trans activist positions, not trans people or trans rights as such. And my experience has been that people who do not see the Flyer/Halo POV on gender-related issues when it is presented to them in diffs, like SMcCandlish, Crossroads and Ozzie10aaaa, generally have a very large overlap with Flyer/Halo in POV for these issues, and therefore do not see it as POV. Newimpartial (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree. I am not involved in these areas and am offering an outsider's opinion on these matters. I don't see what you see regarding Flyer. Anatashala (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This section alleges "has edited tendentiously" and the first diff asserts that Flyer objects to use of the singular "they". The diff does not show that. I'll explain what it says if asked but Flyer's comment agrees with this November 2018 permalink of Singular they. Also, what she said about confusion is correct—see "Sulkowicz declined to pursue an investigation, and stated that NYPD officers were dismissive and had mistreated them" in this diff and the subsequent discussion here. Flyer merely says that avoiding they/them by rewording might sometimes be better and consensus agrees because there is only one use of they/them referring to the subject in the current Emma Sulkowicz. Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Halo Jerk1 edited as an SPA concerning gender-related issues

2) From June, 2019[174] to January, 2020[175] the Halo Jerk1 account acted as a single-purpose edit to “protect” the Flyer account [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182] [183] [184] and to pursue an agenda on gender-related issues (e.g., [185],[186], [187]). Over this period, the account made few substantive edits on other topics, and has become largely dormant since the end of that activity.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Halo hasn't been solely focused on gender issues, so he can't be an SPA. As for his so-called agenda, actually, the community agreed with him both times, on Fæ [188] and on TERF. [189] Note too that Flyer22 studiously stayed away from both discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

POV-pushing can be harmful to the project even if - perhaps particularly when - it is successful. Newimpartial (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When numerous uninvolved editors at a noticeboard reach a certain consensus, it is conspiracy-theory levels of far-fetched to depict that as "successful" POV pushing rather than actual NPOV. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The terms of restoration/creation of the Flyer22 and Halo Jerk1 accounts have been violated

3) The Flyer22 account was restored and the Halo Jerk1 account created after a series of proxy and sockpuppet violations. To be unblocked, these accounts were subject to specified terms, one of which banned the Halo account from logged-out editing. [190] However, when the Halo account became active again in 2019, Halo admitted to having edited as an IP.[191] This was a violation of the terms by which the Halo account was created and the Flyer22 account restored.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This has nothing whatsoever to do with Flyer22 and it is unjust to say that she should be punished for Halo's behavior, as you do below. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The terms of Flyer's unblock seem quite clearly conditional on sibling accounts - notably the account that became Halo Jerk1 - refraining from editing while logged out and other shenanigans. These terms were not met, as there has demonstrably been editing while logged out as well as other shenanigans from the "Flyer household". Newimpartial (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 was unblocked back then because it was confirmed that she was not her brother. [192] Nothing said there can be WP:WIKILAWYERed to put responsibility on her for whatever her brother does in the future, which would obviously be grossly unjust. Flyer22 followed the instructions studiously. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't what either the unblocking conditions (linked above) or WP:FAMILY says, but of course you are entitled to your own perspective. Newimpartial (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your "interpretation" of the unblocking conditions are refuted in a lower section of yours. As for WP:FAMILY, it speaks of editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute. That did not happen. There was no "on anyone's behalf", just disputes he was at that she avoided. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 and Halo Jerk1 have tendentiously pursued a single POV on gender-related issues

4) The Flyer22 and Halo Jerk1 accounts have pursued a single POV on gender-related issues, editing tendentiously and disruptively. Elements of this common POV have been established at evidence; they include the Halo account offering direct support of Flyer’s positions[193] and participation in Flyer's disputes[194], as well both accounts expressing similar views (in similar language) concerning “Transgender ideology”,[195] [196] the niche source Andrew Sullivan, [197] [198] and “Lesbians vs. Trans people” [199] [200]. Someone from the “Flyer household” also attempted to recruit off-wiki to support their POV in editorial disputes (according to the evidence submitted in email).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As I said above, these are the same claims that have already been refuted elsewhere on this page and on the evidence page. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Flyer22 topic-banned

1) Flyer22 Reborn be topic-banned from Gender-related issues (as defined in the relevant Discretionary Sanctions) for a period of 90 days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I am not at all certain what the appropriate length of sanction actually is for this, but the template insists that I insert a recommended length. Some kind of topic-ban seems essential, given the magnitude of disruptive editing that has been documented. Others might want to propose other remedies as well. Newimpartial (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not warranted at all and harmful to the encyclopedia. I give more detail below under the more severe remedy you propose. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Halo Jerk1 blocked from editing

2) Halo Jerk1 be blocked indefinitely from editing, and no appeal to the committee allowed until one year after the closing of this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Since this account has violated the terms of its creation, and has engaged primarily in POV promotion since it was reactivated in 2019, this sanction seems appropriate to minimize potential disruption to the encyclopedia. Newimpartial (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, with your request that Arbcom consider the proportionality of the problem against an editor's constructive contributions, what are your thoughts on this remedy for Halo Jerk1? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the proportionality in this. He hasn't been solely focused on the gender topic, and his edits in the topic were not as bad as is being claimed, as I address above. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Halo Jerk1 violated the terms of his unblock and is essentially a meatpuppet. His affected language which is drastically different than his style under User:JacobTrue shows bad faith. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 and Halo Jerk1 blocked for violating the terms of creation/reinstatement of their accounts

3) Both Flyer22 and Halo Jerk1 accounts be blocked indefinitely for editing in violation of the terms of their reinstatement/creation, with no appeal to the committee allowed until one year after the closing of this case. .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

These indeff-blocks are proposed to take into account the fact that the events of 2019-20 show that the activity associated with these accounts in 2010-11 is, in fact, part of a pattern of disruptive editing (and other actions) that have continued to the present day. Newimpartial (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: I'm not sure I understand why you have this proposal alongside #Halo Jerk1 blocked from editing and #Flyer22 topic-banned. The temporary topic ban is pretty much moot if you are going to block the account indefinitely anyways. I also don't exactly get why you phrased this as a block instead of a ban on a policy level (and for that matter why you want to double sanction Halo_Jerk1). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if I did this wrong, but my understanding of the ArbCom voting process is that they vote separately on each proposed sanction. I have therefore proposed sanctions on different levels and based on different principles/FoF. For example, the Arbs might not be convinced by the "related account" principle/evidence, but might still find the FoF concerning the Flyer account or for the Halo account compelling, taken on its own. Or for that matter, the other way around. Newimpartial (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 violated no such terms. I note this above. To block or sanction her at all - let alone indefinitely - for Halo doing some logged out editing is just wrong. There is no grounds for someone who edited so conscientiously in sexuality and gender for many years to be punished like this - unless it is being seized on as an "opportunity". This is grossly out of proportion and would harm the encyclopedia (which is what we are here to build and maintain, after all). And her thwarting POV pushing went way beyond trans topics. Homophobes, anti-feminist "men's rights" activists, and pedophiles will be beside themselves with joy if Flyer22 is taken out. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The terms of Flyer's unblock seem quite clear: closely related accounts / persons - notably the account that became Halo Jerk1 - must refrain from editing while logged out and other shenanigans. These terms were not met, as there has demonstrably been editing while logged out as well as other shenanigans. I don't see any reason (besides WP:UNBLOCKABLES) why the proposed sanction is not proportionate for a violation of the terms that allowed an UNBLOCK from the previous, serious, disruptions associated with the "Flyer household". But of course that is not for me to decide. Newimpartial (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 was unblocked back then because it was confirmed that she was not her brother. [201] Nothing said there can be WP:WIKILAWYERed to put responsibility on her for whatever her brother does in the future, which would obviously be grossly unjust. Flyer22 followed the instructions studiously. Let's call a WP:SPADE a spade: You are trying to get Flyer22 blocked indefinitely for the deeds of her brother. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But you don't think Halo Jerk1 should be sanctioned? Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads, I am not trying to get Flyer22 blocked indefinitely for the deeds of her brother. The Flyer household was subject to certain conditions for Flyer's account to be violated, and those conditions were compliant with policy and Arb precedent. The Flyer household violated those conditions and edited tendentiously in a discretionary sanctions area. There would not be anything unjust about blocking both accounts - it is what policy would seem to require. Newimpartial (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't intentionally do conditions or sanctions on a "household", and the concept of a 'household editing tendentiously' is absurd. And these two no longer are in the same household anyway: [202] You are arguing that because Halo years later edited logged out a few times, an out-of-context unblock comment from 8 years ago means that not just he but his sister should be blocked indefinitely. That is not policy, that is WP:WIKILAWYERing (using the rules in a manner contrary to their principles) to remove an "opponent" from the topic area.

Here is a big part of why Flyer22 was addressed in the unblock. Her account had been hijacked by her brother in July 2012. [203] It was given a "Temp block to get brother away", then the same admin said "Flyer22 back in control, account secured" 3 days later. Flyer22 (the account) was unblocked on the condition that Halo not misuse it ever again. That's why the CheckUser who Skyped with the two repeatedly said she was unblocking the "account". [204] If one reads it without a preconceived motive, it is clear that the CheckUser did not mean, "If your brother does anything wrong ever, you will both be blocked indefinitely". And even if it were, which it very clearly was not, it would be invalid today as preposterous. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and admin comments are not perpetually binding to be twisted in ways that are clearly disproportionate, unfair, and/or unintended. Flyer22 held up her end of the agreement scrupulously and therefore would not receive a block. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAMILY and the Arb provisions it references about closely related accounts are not limited to persons living together; I was just using "the Flyer household" as an expression in this discussion as it seems clear enough and it had already been introduced by other editors. (The expression from before Flyer's block had been "the Flyer sockfarm", as I recall.) In any event, it seems presumptuous for you to say that Flyer has held up her end of the ageeement - for one thing, neither Flyer nor Halo took responsibility for the off-wiki POV canvassing that undoubtedly occurred, and we can't really speculate about which sibling would be more likely to have done so, because they share the same POV. Newimpartial (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAMILY is explicitly limited in that way. It isn't about "relatives" no matter where or what they do. The heading is titled Sharing an IP address, and is about two or more registered editors [who] use the same computer or network connection. On top of that, it speaks against editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, and they avoided doing that. They were not at the same discussions at all. The "sockfarm" comment is refuted by that CheckUser's own later comments. [205] You can't cherry pick outdated information and cast WP:ASPERSIONS like that. Lastly, regarding any supposed off-wiki stuff, the burden of proof is on those who claim it is Flyer22 or anyone in particular. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But according to his own statements, Halo only used his account from the IP shared with Flyer, even since 2019. That, the Halo account's constant defenses of the Flyer account, and their shared POV on the "gender-related" DS area, make them closely related WP:FAMILY accounts, from a policy-compliant perspective, whether you would like them to be or not. Newimpartial (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those diffs do not say that. "Closely related" is defined differently from what you are claiming at Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Sharing an IP address (a.k.a. WP:FAMILY). There have been no policy violations. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts that share an IP address and a POV are WP:FAMILY, by definition. Newimpartial (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with Crossroads. I don’t think Flyer should be sanctioned for the activities of another editor. Flyer controls her brain. Halo controls his. Flyer isn’t responsible for what Halo does or doesn’t do and vice versa. I also agree with Crossroads that Flyer’s efforts to maintain WP:NPOV went beyond the scope of LGBT articles. And her absence is already being felt. Here, in a discussion[206] initiated by an editor who feels intimate partner violence is now overly biased, another editor strongly encourages others to read through a RfC comprised of many of Flyer’s comments on this issue. Anatashala (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but not really relevant, is it? Newimpartial (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by WanderingWanda

Proposed findings of fact

Off-Wiki behavior

1) In 2019, Flyer22 Frozen, Halo Jerk1, or both, went to an off-Wiki anti-transgender site, engaged in canvassing and recruitment, attacked transgender editors and transgender people generally, and targeted specific editors for criticism who were perceived to be either transgender or transgender activists. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per evidence in email. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WanderingWanda's relationship with other editors

2) WanderingWanda has not had a major feud with any editor apart from Flyer22 Frozen. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

WanderingWanda's recent conduct

3) In January 2020, WanderingWanda wrote: I can promise to not personalize things between [me and Flyer] on any article talk page again. I'll stick to the content...If I have a problem, I'll take it to ANI, or another appropriate venue.[207] WanderingWanda has not violated this promise. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Pyxis Solitary warned

1) Pyxis Solitary is warned against making personal attacks against transgender editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The personal attack policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia, including ArbCom proceedings. Pyxis Solitary's defamatory and ad hominem attack against a group of editors on the basis of their gender identity was inappropriate: 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.[208] WanderingWanda (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Asking that an editor be punished for expressing their opinion in their ArbCom case statement is an attempt to intimidate said editor.
My opinion is based on my experience editing articles that include trans-related subjects. My opinion is also based on being attacked by now-banned editors who were fanatical regarding trans-related matters -- and how editors who shared their mindset stood by while it happened, and in some instances fanned the flames.
Any ArbCom member worth his/her salt will check how many editors here have received warnings, topic bans, IBANs, and blocks ... and consider their history of violations when they contemplate the accusations they've made against Flyer22.
Your asking that I be warned for what I expressed in my statement is a transparent revenge-seeking. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 02:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Example

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Analysis of one exchange from Feyd Huxtable's timeline

I've discussed this above, but it seems so crucial to the case and the broader dispute in the topic area. that it requires in-depth analysis here. The root of this particular breakdown is vividly obvious in these two diffs:

This edit by WanderingWanda, while it is debatable whether the chosen image was an improvement or was the best way to address the issues she raised, was expressing entirely reasonable policy concerns and was a valid content dispute over which reasonable editors might differ. WanderingWanda is entirely correct that we are supposed to push back against biases; it is entirely reasonable to suggest that we push back against (in some cases) heteronormative bias, and it is entirely appropriate to question an image on those grounds. That doesn't mean that that particular change was necessarily the right way to go about it, or that those arguments were strong enough to actually convince editors for that particular change in that particular context, but it was a reasonable content dispute based on a reasonable disagreement over policy. The argument for why that edit is evidence of a conduct violation seems to amount to "saying that we need to address heteronormative bias on Wikipedia is advocacy", which sets such a broad definition of advocacy that it becomes impossible to engage in discussion on the topic without being accused of it. (Would we likewise accuse someone of advocacy for saying we need to address gender bias? If not, what is the difference? Is there a "correct" way to raise concerns of heteronormative bias, or is simply using the term grounds for sanctions?) And that led to...
This edit, especially the presumption of bad faith in the second half. This is entirely inappropriate. Note in particular the strident "you are just like all the other bad editors who held your point of view that I have fought on this battleground" tone of the final part of that reply - once WanderingWanda became identifiable as holding a point of view on the topic opposed to Flyer22's own, she was an enemy whose every edit was presumed to come from a point of view of advocacy.

These diffs are particularly telling because they are ones people from all perspectives on this dispute have focused on (ie. there is a broad agreement that they are central, especially the attempt to change that image), but there is a stark disagreement over what they show - it is reasonably plain that several editors, not just Flyer22, feel that the attempt to change that image was stark enough misconduct or sufficiently far out of line that it justified Flyer22 discarding the presumption of good faith, and, indeed, it serves as a crucial part of purported evidence among people calling for sanctions against WanderingWanda. Many other editors (including, obviously, myself) feel that Flyer22 essentially crossed the line at that point in her reaction to it. Therefore, if the goal is to address the underlying long-term dispute, it's important to look at them and understand what went wrong there. --Aquillion (talk) 05:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Indeed. Agree with most of that, - especially that the 4 reasons given in the edit summary for this edit are all sound in principle, even if I'm more in the camp that sees the particular image Wanda wanted as a clearly bad choice.

My timeline evidence wasn't aiming to point to any form of remedy against Flyer. It was to answer a mystery - why does someone like Wanda, who normally seems an exceptionally collegial editor, have such a confrontational relationship towards Flyer? Up until Flyers bluntness in early April 2019, what little direct interaction the two had seems to have been fine - by late March they'd even had this collaborative exchange that had ended with Flyer allowing Wanda to add a new pic to the article in question. And then BOOM!, the sock posts arrives on Wanda's talk out of no where, and then two days later there's the threat of a permaban. One would need to be ice cool not to find that hurtful, especially as until 9 April their relationship seemed on its way to being one of mutual respect, and the fact Flyer is clearly one of the most respected editors in the area Wanda is most interested in. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't really explain things, though. I've more than once been accused of socking (including by an Arb!), but it has not caused me to form a "wiki-enemies" relationship with anyone. (Hell, I don't even remember any longer who it was, in either case, who pointed the suspicion finger.) Why has WW not been able to move on from this? And why did my filing an actual WP:SPI request about WW not result in a similar trench-digging exercise? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't just the sock accusation. Wanda originally responded to it with their customary collegiality. No reason to think Wanda would have bore a grudge if it had stopped at that, just like they don't seem to have with the ~dozen other folk who have made minor criticisms against them.

Extended somewhat off topic reply to SMcCandlish

Just two days later, there was the threat of a permaban which Wanda understandably saw as "an absurdly hostile escalation". If it had stopped at that, Wanda would have likely returned to being collegial with Flyer. But while >90% of Flyers talk page comments are excellent, there was enough further negative personalisation directed at themselves & other near newbies for them to continue to view her as problematic. Theres 3 reasons why it might not be helpful to compare with yourself. 1) Wanda clearly has well above average emotional resilience, but perhaps not to the level that you do. 2) Youre not a specialist in the topic area that Wanda is most interested in, at least not in the way Flyer is. 3) Whereas until the sudden switch on 9 April there were limited signs that Wandas relationship with Flyer was improving, yourself & Wanda were somewhat opposed right from the start (discussion of your pronouns essay - btw I still find that extremely funny when I imagine it against elite SJWs, it spoiled it a bit when you said it was also intended to be against aristocrats and clerics who insist on being addressed with proper title.) While Wanda's comments were among the more moderate, bits of them were a little judgemental, so they'd not have blamed you for having a negative view of them. Hence Wanda even defending you a few months after you launched the SPI.

That said, cant believe I seem to have spent more time defending Wanda than the vastly more productive Flyer. I still see reminder level remedies as the optimal outcome, or maybe a no fault 2 way iban. But have been slightly swayed by the analyses of yourself and others. If Flyer gets just a reminder & Wanda receives a minor sanction that wont seem unjust. Wanda does seem the one more at fault for the latter half of the feud. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the details. I think I can buy most of that boxed analysis, but there's still some kind of a personality thing here. E.g., I repeatedly warned a particular editor, for about a year, that I found much of their WP:RM behavior disruptive and would seek an RM or broader AT/MoS topic ban if it didn't improve, not because I didn't like them or whatever, but for x, y, and z spelled-out policy reasons. And I came close to lodging such a T-ban request several times. But they took it in stride and largely did change their approach, and we get along fine, and I usually have no further concerns. Why was a noticeboarding "threat" the proximal cause of all the acrimony in this case? I don't necessarily mean that as a question I expect you or someone else in particular to answer; it's more a wondering-aloud. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am misreading the timeline this occurred after Flyer posted at WanderingWandas page (Flyers post [209] WanderingWandas edit [210]) If anything it probably invoked a strong reaction because of this. Also we are supposed to be writing an encyclopaedia not pushing back against biases. This is essentially the root of the problem. We have an editor that is trying to change the encyclopaedia to align more with their POV against an editor trying to keep the encylcopaedic content neutral. AIRcorn (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, though I'm not certain who you're replying to here (Aquillion, or Feyd) or exactly which diffs "this occurred" refers to. Also, I think your second diff (which is identical to the first) was meant to be [211] or [212]. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional analysis of this User_talk:WanderingWanda material:

Flyer's response to the initial interaction (Flyer [213] then WW [214][215]) was entirely sensible: [216].
Things didn't even immediately deteriorate, though WW went immediately on the defensive instead of accepting Flyer's (quite correct, I think) explanation at face value. Flyer suggested that "editing a Wikipedia article to combat heteronormativity is a WP:Advocacy action. It is a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS action" [217]. While easy to read as an overstatement, the meaning of this is clear: a "combat" approach, a GREATWRONGS approach, is the problem: WP does not "ride the crest of the wave" of social change, it only WP:DULY reflects what reliable sources are saying. (This interpretation is not in any doubt, as the rest of this entire thread consisted largely of Flyer explaining these matters to WW, several different ways, and WW just WP:NOTGETTINGIT.)
WW's response [218] completely ignores these policy concerns, and instead tries a "clever" defense of why WW thinks they're justified in taking the advocacy position, while simultaneously denying they are doing so. Great example of WP:WIKILAWYERING + WP:SANCTIONGAMING.
Flyer's counter [219] is entirely calm and factual, about what WP policy is, how processes work, that guidelines do not trump policies, and even provides examples of what Flyer does within policy to work on WP:SYSTEMICBIAS problems with regard to LGBT+ matters. Flyer didn't accuse WW of anything, but addressed edits and their stated rationales, and how others might perceive them ("things you['ve] done that some see or might see as advocacy"), and exactly why. This had the beginnings of very good mentorship.
Then WW made it very clear they were here for advocacy, indicating an intent to lobby against long-established consensus on how WP:COMMONNAME policy relates to MOS:GENDERID guidelines, to get to a "respect" (i.e. GREATWRONGS) result they want with regard to pronouns [220].
It was downhill from there, though Springee defended Flyer's stance both as to asking about a previous account and advising on PoV/activism [221].
Not long after this, the WP:FACTION lines start being drawn up in earnest. WW launched an ANI [222] to try to help Fæ force another editor (who objects to singular-they on grammatical/informality grounds) to have to use they specifically, instead of other gender-neutral writing approaches. It's all part of the same advocacy-based editing pattern (which escalated after Flyer raised issues about it with a very clear policy rationale for doing so). WW had every opportunity to rethink their approach, to make it clear they're really WP:HERE to work on an encyclopedia from an encyclopedic perspective, but instead doubled down on the activism angle.

My collapsed-boxed responses to Aquillion's other analyses already address any other responses I would have to this one, except this bears individual examination: "once WanderingWanda became identifiable as holding a point of view on the topic opposed to Flyer22's own ..." is projection of what Aquillion wants to see to help weave a bothsidesism narrative, that Flyer has an equal-but-opposite agenda to push against WW's. What the evidence actually shows is that Flyer identified and reacted to pushing of an agenda, period. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC); revised: 23:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm uncertain where to put this, but AIRcorn's depiction that We have an editor that is trying to change the encyclopaedia to align more with their POV against an editor trying to keep the encylcopaedic content neutral and SMcCandlish's statement that Flyer identified and reacted to pushing of an agenda, period do not accord with the facts (diffs) presented in evidence. In reality, the Flyer and Halo accounts have pursued a definite POV based on the understanding that changing deadnames rapidly to post-transition names in articles (Flyer), and using the term TERF in BLPs (Halo) represent irruptions of activism ("Transgender ideology", in Halo's terms) in Wikipedia and justify the use of BATTLEGROUND tactics in return. Participants in this ArbCom discussion might want to ask themselves whether, if they do not regard the Flyer/Halo perspective on gender-related issues as a specific POV, that might be because they share the perspective in question, perhaps without realizing it. Newimpartial (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Flyer22 never said anything against changing deadnames rapidly to post-transition names in articles; (2) the Wikipedia community agreed with Halo in an RfC at the BLP noticeboard about not using "TERF" without attribution. [223] Crossroads ^-talk- 18:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Flyer asked [224] Should editors simply be allowed to change these article titles to the significantly less common name with no regard to WP:Article titles but rather on what they personally believe is a WP:Ignore all rules?, among other instances of complaint about rapid change to post-transition names. (I'll add one or two diffs to my evidence; no worries). Diffs added to evidence

And the fact that Halo's RfC was successful does not imply community support for Halo's related arguments; for example, that The Sullivan [op-ed] source is absolutely appropriate for the issue of gender identity politics (included in a diff I provided at Evidence). In fact, the Halo argument that "TERF is a slur" was explicitly based on the sourcing of the sections of the article TERF at the time of the RfC; the quality of sources supporting the argument that the term is not a slur has strengthened since then, and the support for the term being a slur has not. So I wouldn't see the success of Halo's RfC strategy as an example of how the Flyer and Halo accounts have not pursued a clearly-defined POV on gender-related issues. Newimpartial (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC) Note added Newimpartial (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And MOS:GENDERID / MOS:DEADNAME matters have been community-discussed and refined many, many times. I think the world-record longest thread in Village Pump history (as to size of the debate sprawl and as to time-span of the RfC) was about this. The consensus did not conclude (then or ever) that WP:COMMONNAME is an invalidated policy with regard to TG/NB/GQ people, that former names used within the notability timeframe cannot be used on WP as contextually appropriate (e.g. to avoid rewriting history in a reader-misleading way), etc. Newimpartial has no "smoking gun" here.

It's often illustrative to just switch the topic: Lots of editors would like to see WP have a policy that whenever a company or other organization makes name change (to itself or one of its products/services/whatever) that we immediately change our material to "comply". WP:RMs of this sort are a very frequent occurrence (and there have even been some WP:NLT incidents relating to it). Yet there is a consensus against this idea; we make the change when the bulk of contemporary, independent RS have done so. If I see someone going around moving articles and making other changes to commerce-related articles that indicate the editor is unaware of COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME, and I revert them or otherwise challenge them on the basis that they're pushing a branding-related PoV and not abiding by our policies and consensus, that doesn't indicate in any way that I think they are a bad person, that I hate commerce, that I'm an opponent of or disrespectful to the particular companies in question, or any other such nonsense. It just means I'm following our rules while noting that the other editor is not, and what the pattern appears to be. If the rules change, then I'll abide by and enforce those rules. We don't have any convincing evidence Flyer22 is operating any differently from this. The fact that Flyer22 observes and identifies PoVs and their subcultural sector of origin, and resists their pushing here, is not evidence of a personal, antagonistic counter-viewpoint to those viewpoints; it simply shows analytical skill and a WP:HERE approach.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression, based on the heading structure, that WP:NAMECHANGES is a subsection of WP:COMMONNAME. Is this not the case? Newimpartial (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, concerning If the rules change, then I'll abide by and enforce those rules. We don't have any convincing evidence Flyer22 is operating any differently from this. Actually, we do. For a considerable time, NAMECHANGES has read, If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match - this seems, as I say, to be a subsection of COMMONNAME. However, in diffs I cited in the Evidence section, Flyer argued against applying the provisions of NAMECHANGES (without acknowledging that this was what she was actually doing: she posed the issue as GENDERID vs. COMMONNMEas though the issue had not already been resolved in NAMECHANGES). That strikes me as a rather clear example of Flyer pursuing a POV, rather than following the rules as they change which is the way you describe (more plausibly) your own intentions. Newimpartial (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't in any way inconsistent with what I laid out. Again, WP waits until the real world is routinely using the name; we don't do it pre-emptively immediately after announcement/news of the change. "Flyer argued against applying the provisions of NAMECHANGES (without acknowledging that this was what she was actually doing: she posed the issue as GENDERID vs. COMMONAME" appears to be you putting words in Flyer22's mouth. We (or at least I) know from experience that people will argue both ways on any case like this, and it basically will come down to what a COMMONNAME analysis tells us (more specifically a NAMECHANGES one, i.e. constrained to contemporary sources and excludion pre-change ones), and those are pretty subjective analyses, fraught with a lot of improper use of searches, etc. Editor A and Editor B not agreeing, quite some time after news of the change, that today is the day to make the change here isn't an indication of bad faith or PoV pushing on either editor's part. Arguing to make the change immediately is definitely an indication of PoV pushing (as would be, in the opposite direction, someone today arguing to move Caitlyn Jenner back to the deadname, or Washington Football Team back to its former name). Fortunately, these "do we change it now?" disputes usually only have a pretty short time window in which to exist, and I think far too much is being made of one here. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the NAMECHANGES analysis you describe has no bearing on what Flyer actually wrote in the diffs I provided. On the Joey Soloway case that I mentioned, she cited COMMONNAME, not NAMECHANGES, and continued to argue that the subject's deadname was their COMMONNAME on the basis of sources published before the name change, and without providing any sources published since the name change that used the deadname. So, no, I was not putting words into Flyer22's mouth; I was accurately describing the argument she made in the diffs I cited. This was not a dispute of the kind you describe, where editors examine the sources published since the name change to determine the COMMONNAME. Newimpartial (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect what's happening here is that you're simply not familiar with the fact that COMMONNAME (or UCRN, for brevity) is frequently raised in discussionos about what name to primarily use in an article's text and what name(s) to mention secondarily. NAMECHANGES is part of UCRN. Flyer22: "MOS:GENDERID does not apply to article titles. It is not about that. The policy to look at is WP:Article titles, specifically WP:Common name and WP:NAMECHANGES in this case" (opening statement on the matter [225]). "But you argue that this new name is now the common name? I disagree. But I'm not arguing to change the title of this article." [226] Flyer22's argument isn't about moving the page, but about preventing removal of that name from the lead section (which an anon did [227] by changing it in situ instead of adding the new name and moving the old one to later in the lead). This diff sums up the entire argument, both as to Flyer's reasoning and your failure to even read the policy material correctly: [228].

UCRN comes up pretty often in lead-section discussions because it is undesirable for the title and the rest of the text to be confusingly contradictory, and because even if there's some CRITERIA reason to not have the page at the most common name (UCRN is an elaboration on RECOGNIZABLE, which is only one of the criteria), the most common name should certainly be in the lead, per MULTINAMES and BOLDSYN and, in a case like this, DEADNAME. Just because someone mentions UCRN doesn't mean they are arguing for a page move. If Flyer22 had wanted to make a page move, she would have opened an RM discussion and wouldn't've said (at least twice, to you specifically) that she wasn't seeking a page move. If this still isn't getting through: NAMECHANGES is a special rule within UCRN about when to move and on what basis after a namechange. It has no effect on what the most common name actually is (a matter of source-statistical fact and reader expectations); rather, it's a rule about what sources to use for determining the most common name in new source material, which is what matters for post-namechange article titling. NAMECHANGES has no implication of any kind for article content, other than arguably for what the first name mentioned in the lead should be so that the lead and the title match. But UCRN's base rule (involving all RS not just brand new ones) matters a whole lot for what additional name must also appear as a BOLDSYN.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep this brief, but what SMcCandlish describes here is not what actually happened. The diff he provides, which which Flyer opened the Talk page discussion on Joey Soloway [229] created the discussion heading MOS:GENDERID with regard to article titles and made no reference to what additional name must also appear as a BOLDSYN. Also, SMcCandlish's claim that the first paragraph of COMMONNAME applies to article content beyond the title but that NAMECHANGES does not - and that therefore deadnames should per policy appear in bold after page moves - is an interpretation with which clearly not the whole community agrees, and is not even an argument that Flyer bothered to make in the discussions differ. Newimpartial (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, it's not an argument Flyer22 had to spell out, because no one in the discussion was so confused about the relevant P&G material as you, and the depth of your confusion about it wasn't even apparent until here and now. The policy basis of DEADNAMES (i.e., retaining in the encyclopedia the person's former name if it dates to their period of notability), largely is UCR (along with ENC, etc.). The fact that "not everyone" agrees with the P&G material and exactly how to interpret it does not matter; that is true of every line-item of every policy and guideline on the system.

That discussion is short enough everyone can just go read the entire thread for themselves, and they'll see that your interpretation of it is not only wrong, but that you are reaching and reaching to invent the most negative possible interpretation (i.e. assuming bad faith) regarding flyer, and manufacturing DRAMA out of nothing, even after you've been corrected on it in great detail, both at the thread and here. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would encourage anyone interested to read the discussions at Talk:Joey Soloway and at Talk:Manual of Style; I think my good faith and accurate reading of policy are clear in both instances, as is the alignment between my comments and the outcome in each case. Newimpartial (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Analyzing Ozzie10aaaa's evidence

So far, Ozzie10aaaa (talk · contribs) has made 6 claims in the evidence phase of this case. Here is my analysis.

Just one diff

First of all, two of these claims ("WanderingWanda has terribly harassed Flyer22" and "Accusations of WanderingWanda's advocacy are well-supported/Wikipedians are not to engage in it") aren't really Ozzie's own evidence. These are each sections of Crossroads' evidence that Ozzie has lazily linked to instead of providing their own research for. Either way, This diff (provided by Crossroads) comes up a bit later, so I will debunk it now. In it, Wander suggests using this photo to illustrate human male sexuality. It's been referred to as a depiction of gay sex (which I disagree with since they appear to just be hugging as that was the focus of the photo), but we're talking about a potential lead image to use for an article about human male sexuality here. Two men expressing their love for eachother is an obvious potential example of human male sexuality. Do you need to agree with it as the lead image? No, of course not. However, Wander's proposing of that clearly falls closer to common sense rather than advocacy in my opinion.

If the premise that WanderingWanda has engaged in activist editing is based solely on diffs like this, then in my opinion that proposition is without merit.

Proportionality

Original section: "There is more to say about Flyer22 than there is to say about WanderingWanda"

None of this is actually evidence for arbcom to do anything for or against either party. Ozzie seems to just want to dismiss the concerns of editors who have registered their concerns by dredging up previous interactions with Flyer. Even still, this entire section contains no true diffs (apart from a single quote from Beeblebrox which I doubt Beeblebrox would find necessary). It would seem Ozzie10aaaa has misunderstood the purpose of this phase of the case. I therefore can't really adequately respond to this at all.

Anti-POV Fighter

Original section: "Opposing POV-pushing, advocacy, and reporting sockpuppetry is not a "POVFIGHTER" approach. It is the Wikipedia approach."

This is the section that inspired me to write this analysis. In the first half, Ozzie dismisses WP:POVFIGHTER as WP:ONLYSUPPLEMENT and having little support. Anyone who reads the diff can attest to its support. Yes, it is only a supplement, but so is WP:RGW which Ozzie later lauds as critical to how Wikipedia should operate. ~~To add some further irony here, while Flyer sought to remove WP:POVFIGHTER,^[230] Wander tried getting rid of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.^[231]~~

In the second half of the section, there is a bit more to chew on here from Ozzie10aaaa. They bring up similar MOS:LEADIMAGE debates as discussed earlier. ~~In the first diff, we have Wander probably arguing the most absurd point in the history of Wikipedia (this is evidence I find to be helpful in making a case against Wander).~~ On the other hand, we can contrast it with the second diff...

A second diff

I find the behavoir put on display by Flyer in that conversation to be unnecessarily personal. For the most part, Flyer argues a fine point against Wander's proposed change to the lead image to that of one depicting a threesome. She then does a hard turn in discussing WanderingWanda as an editor rather than what they have proposed. Flyer then proceeds to aggressively assert that Wander is completely out of line for their edits and will likely be blocked soon for them.

This is nothing short of intimidation if you ask me. That kind of conduct should never be allowed to occur on an article talk page.

Cantor and the art of wit

Original section: "WanderingWanda mocks those with differing opinions and belittles experts to further own advocacy"

Besides the diffs that can easily summarized as "Wander disagrees with James Cantor" (last I checked, editors are allowed to disagree with other editors even if said editor is famous, notable, and/or an expert), there are a few things still worth responding to here.

In my personal experience, WanderingWanda thinks of themselves as pretty funny (In the Eeng type of mould). In a surprise to no one, Wander actually isn't that funny. However, that does not change the fact that they occasionally bury a good point in some feudal attempt at being witty.^[232] A random website that shows a bunch of people tweeting about they hate X group does not provide any actual evidence the term used to describe said group is an insult. On the other hand, this does show some clear attempts by Wander to stir the pot if you ask me.

Conclusion of analysis

Gosh, that was a lot of writing I just did. I see why these things always turn into walls of text now.

Regardless, I hope Arbcom and other interested parties find what I had to say at least marginally helpful in determining the validity of some of the evidence presented by Ozzie10aaaa. While it is obvious someone else looking at this might come to drastically different conclusions than myself, I do think I did a decent job at being fair despite having my own biases.

Kindest Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

What Flyer22 said about WP:POVFIGHTER has not been represented accurately above, seemingly in service of a narrative of equivalency between her and WanderingWanda. Flyer22 said about the section, [233] "I understand why you added this (the section). And it is an okay addition." Then she relayed what I've noted above - some topic areas essentially only have POV pushing from one side, giving the example of "men's rights" and pro-pedophilia pushers. She didn't try to delete it, while WanderingWanda did say about RGW [234] "The "Righting Great Wrongs" section of this page should be deleted, or drastically rewritten, and its various shortcuts should be deleted too."

Additionally, it's worth noting that RGW has been around much longer and is more widely cited than POVFIGHTER. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads: Stricken. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MJL. Some comments:

1 - While Ozzie did cite many of the diffs already present in Crossroads’s section, I think characterizing this as “lazily” is going a bit far. He did make the effort to write up an entire section on the evidence page when none of us have to, we’re all volunteers. Volunteering, to me, seems the antithesis of laziness ;)

2 - Only so much can be said about Wanda so some diffs may be referenced by a few parties to support points an editor would like to make. It also makes sense to me that some editors would refer to Crossroads’s section for reference to save wordage. I don’t think that makes an editor’s points less valid about the dispute occurring between Wanda and Flyer. In his section, Crossroads appears to have provided all the evidence there is to support arguments of advocacy editing and harassment toward Flyer. SMcCandlish trimmed his section since Crossroads had already linked to these diffs.[235]

3 - Re: claims that Flyer tried removing WP:POVFIGHTER. I looked into it and it seems the issue was it still needed to undergo refinement but Flyer had no strong pro/anti feelings about it. Rather, she had concerns that it was added by an editor without review. [236] [237]

4 - Ozzie was agreeing with the statements of two other editors who posted on the evidence page (here and here). He appears to making the point that because Flyer has far more edits than Wanda, there is more content from which pieces can be selectively picked to create a specific narrative that isn’t really accurate or fair (Any number of her many edits can be taken out of context to make her look routinely uncivil or confrontational. Such encounters can be found in a lot of editors' histories and piled up to make it look routine.)

Regardless, I think Ozzie’s point is a valid one to consider.

5 - I’d agree with Ozzie that what Flyer is doing is not WP:POVFIGHTER. Flyer states that she’ll add pieces that even she, personally, does not agree with for the sake of WP:NPOV: Keeping personal and political views out of one's editing can be challenging, but it's what I do, and it's why so many Wikipedia editors have stated that they trust me to edit articles or have given me barnstars for it. I'm not even very political. Per WP:Due, I add things that I do not agree with, even though it may look like I agree with it just by adding it. In the diff you’ve provided, Flyer is for combatting bias in general, not specific bias per WP:POVFIGHTER. Anatashala (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anatashala: (1) Ozzie added nothing to the conversation there, and that was what I was trying to point out. (2) You seemed to ignore what I was trying to say. I don't see evidence of Wander being activist in their contributions. (3) This is moot per above. (4) I don't buy into that arguement and its reductive to say that about the evidence against Flyer without any real analysis. (5) My point in doing this was to examine the evidence against Wander, but I have no clue how you can look at Every time we get editors doing what you are trying to do, they get reprimanded...whether via a warning, a WP:Topic ban or a site ban, think that's fine to say on an article talk page, and have it be construed as anything less than a threat. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 5, how is that any different than the user talk page warning templates? Flyer22's statement was less direct than those are, and this was far from her first experience with WanderingWanda. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I have told my adoptee many times, Article talk pages are for discussing content not contributors. If you start to discuss those things there, it muddies the waters and ruins any chance of consensus emerging. It forces everyone else in the conversation to start replying to those allegations rather than actually trying to improve the article.
I can speak from experience here. An editor once started to bash my contributions as a whole and used the article talk page to question my fitness for this project altogether. All that seemed to accomplish was hurting my feelings and drive me away from editing the article (which no surprise I eventually did). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Flyer22's views and WP:ADVOCACY

Apologies in advance for this lengthy section - I feel that the fact that Flyer22 has strong feelings on the topic of trans issues is already obvious from the diffs focused on her behavior, but I also think that the crux of both this dispute and the larger intractable issues in the topic area are that several editors (including Flyer22, as she has indicated in several provided diffs) believe that the topic area is under broad one-sided assault from POV-pushers, and that the consistent aggression of her contribution to that battlefield is therefore justifiable and not necessarily evidence of her own views.

This does not mean that both sides are equally at fault, and despite the header my point in this section isn't to say whether one or either of them have crossed the threshold to inappropriate WP:ADVOCACY (that will require more analysis) - obviously simply having a point of view isn't against the rules, and no editors are completely free from their own biases. But establishing that "I am here to fight POV-pushers" is often a way people internally rationalize their own POV-pushing is essential for ever bringing this to a long-term close; and outlining the two strong views that have defined the divide over trans issues on Wikipedia is necessary to understand how that relates to this case.

One key point in these diffs is that there is a generational divide among progressives on how to handle trans issues (and to a lesser extent LBGT issues, but trans issues are the focus here.) Flyer22 (as I feel the diffs below show) identifies strongly with one side of that divide, identified WanderingWanda as being on the other, and most of the conflict stemmed from that; while Flyer22 sees herself as "defending" the wiki from the other side of that divide, her edits are, in effect, WP:ADVOCACY for her own position via confronting the views she opposes wherever she can identify them. This explains the fairly stridently confrontational tone in many of the diffs presented as evidence and analyzed above, as well as the aggressive determination to accuse people she disagrees with of WP:ADVOCACY.

I'll start with Loki's diffs, since I think they reveal a key point that Loki didn't note:

[238]: This diff plainly shows strong feelings about the term TERF. There are transgender people who have also spoken about overly broad use of that term and the term transphopbia. Ask enough lesbian feminists about being called a TERF or a bigot simply because they are not sexually attracted to male-bodied people or people who have a penis, and it's clear just how the term has been used in an overly broad way. ... I have seen "TERF" and "transphobic" used in ways that even many transgender people do not agree with. (Flyer22 cites her own experiences on the topic, which I would argue contributed to the hardening of her position and her shift into more aggressive advocacy later on.) April 2019.

Here, as well. While she does discuss sourcing, she also says To address your accusations against me, I have a suspicion that you define "TERF" and "transphobic" very broadly -- the way a number of young people define those terms these days This is crucial, since it identifies who Flyer22 sees herself as being on a WP:BATTLEGROUND against, and the views (of certain young people today) she is engaged in WP:ADVOCACY to fight. Again, note the focus on how she feels that stuff has shifted recently (the way a number of young people define the term these days), which suggests a hardening of her views that bled into her editing.

Here: I've seen and talked to a number of transgender people who disagree with a lot of the current views transgender people have. It also seems to be a generational thing, like older LGB people who still consider queer a slur while younger transgender people tend to not view it as a slur. I see and talk to older transgender people (including those who identify as transsexual, while younger transgender people hate the term transsexual) not subscribing to current transgender views, and younger transgender people generally subscribing to them. I think the implication here is clear, especially given the previous one objecting to "the way a number of young people define terms these days" - Flyer22 agrees with what she identifies as the older group, identifies WanderingWanda as the younger group, and sees herself as participating on a WP:BATTLEGROUND along those lines, in which she is engaging in advocacy for the understanding of the topic she prefers. Additionally, note that the larger dispute here is whether Sullivan is WP:BIASED, ie. it at least an entirely reasonable argument for WanderingWanda to call the other side transphobic (though they may or may not be right, it is a legitimate thing to discuss.) Flyer22 essentially dismisses the entire argument on the grounds that WanderingWanda has used the language of the enemy, so to speak, and their points are now axiomatically invalid.

Here is telling in light of the above. As for your activism, you remain more objective than some others; so I appreciate that. When it comes to LGBT issues, a lot of our LGBT editors engage in activism editing, which is understandable, given the extent that LGBT people are marginalized. Note that her framing implies that not being an activist is something LGBT editors must actively prove to her; again, this fits into her feelings about a strident younger LGBT generation whose views she opposes. This is WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, but more importantly, it is battleground behavior that stems ultimately from Flyer22's own strong views - she is engaging in WP:ADVOCACY (per the above) in that her own views are so strongly-held that anything that goes against them feels like advocacy to her and must be aggressively opposed.

Some vital context to the last two diffs in particular: There is indeed a divide among transgender people (though it exists along generational lines, it is not solely generational.) See [239]. This seems to be what Flyer22 is referring to here. One unifying cause among them is an opposition to trans activism (or, more broadly, a very specific type of trans activism - from the article, They see a difference between living as a woman and being one. Perhaps most of all, they object to the strain of online trans activism that seeks to erase sex distinctions through language alone—for example, by designating the penis a female organ, or by removing the word “woman” from reproductive rights activism.) Flyer22's determination to identify, out, and fight what she views as trans activism on Wikipedia needs to be viewed in this light. While obviously using Wikipedia to engage in advocacy or advance culture wars is inappropriate, Flyer22's determination to identify and fight "trans activists" on Wikipedia, and her conviction that when it comes to LGBT issues, a lot of our LGBT editors engage in activism editing, have to be viewed in this light.

Now, Crossroads' evidence is best understood in light of the above. Note that it is mostly from earlier in the timeline - I feel that this generally indicates that Flyer22's views hardened over time, which is why I note the dates here. But even beyond that, keep in mind that this is a dispute between people with strong feelings about different ways to handle trans identities - no one is suggesting that Flyer22 rejects trans identities entirely.

[240][241]: While Flyer22 certainly acknowledges the existence of trans identities, and notes an existing consensus, she actually provides the user with advice in two possible ways to avoid using the subject's preferred pronouns. (Specifically regarding the two lines above that you take issue with, if WP:CONSENSUS is formed to use "Teena" for those instances, that would be acceptable...since we use "Teena" as his surname. ... If you feel that wider views are needed on this matter, you can always start a WP:RfC about it. Additionally, note the date - this is from 2012. People's views can and do change over time; and virtually all of Flyer22's more serious confrontations in the subject area are much more recent, suggesting that her views may have hardened over time.

Here, being asked to contribute to "add balance" doesn't mean anything in and of itself; in fact, it could (and by my reading, does) mean that the editor understands that Flyer22 has opinions on the topic and wants her input so all sides (including hers) are accurately represented. Date is 2014.

[242]: Here, she does indeed defend the use of the subject's preferred feminine pronouns for Ruby Rose in 2015... but it is important to note that Ruby Rose was identified as female at birth. In other words, she is plainly taking a stance against any position that would lend additional weight to Ruby Rose's genderfluid identification. (Her position here is correct; I am just pointing it out because it is being used to argue that Flyer22 is neutral rather than an advocate for her own POV, and that is plainly not the case. This fits squarely into the side in the broader dispute she implicitly identifies herself with above.)

Here (and the rest of that discussion) bears analysis along similar lines - she is arguing against any interpretation that would lend additional weight to Kroc's (alleged) genderfluidity. Date is 2016.

This has no connection to trans issues (the area of Flyer22's alleged advocacy) at all.

Here, it is certainly true that she acknowledges the existence of trans identities - but that is not the crux of most of the disputes she falls into elsewhere; she can acknowledge it and still have strong objections to some (reasonably broadly-accepted) ways of framing or discussing the topic. This one is relatively recent (Feb. 2020)

Whew. Apologies again for the lengthy discussion; again, my point isn't necessarily to say that either side has necessarily crossed the bounds into inappropriate WP:ADVOCACY (it is, after all, a spectrum; almost all editors have views on the topics where they edit, and no one is completely unbiased.) My point is to map out the underlying views and dispute from at least one perspective and to illustrate that Flyer22's determination to identify the "LGBT advocates" she thinks are so common does not come solely from a neutral, apolitical desire to maintain Wikipedia policies. She plainly has strong feelings about trans activism that go beyond her belief that it is commonplace on Wikipedia, and this has led her into conflict with editors who she disagrees with on trans issues based on her conviction that they (and any arguments they present) are automatically suspect.

The reason I'm laying this out isn't to use it as a justification for additional sanctions (it is ultimately just a special case of WP:ADVOCACY and does not require that, and the really problematic aspects fall under WP:BATTLEGROUND and a failure to WP:AGF.) I'll lay it out in a bit more detail in my explanation for why I'm requesting the related proposed principle above. --Aquillion (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: One additional set of diffs added by Newimpartial that seems worth providing some context for per the above; here, Flyer22 and Halo talk about transgender ideology. Those words are a talking point among activists who oppose what they see as that ideology; as far as I know the term isn't used in that sense anywhere else. It is comparable to eg. talking about the "gay agenda" in this context. An extremely important caveat is that it is possible to read this as Flyer22 paraphrasing anti-trans views mentioned in the article (which she is discussing there) rather than expressing her own interpretation, but I thought I'd provide context on why that phrase is relevant in any case, and that explanation definitely, by my reading, can't be applied to Halo's strident defense of the term. --Aquillion (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here, as well, while pushing for the opinion piece by Sullivan to be given focus in the article, she specifically argues that he is correct, going off on the sort of WP:FORUM tangent typical of editors with strong opinions they are trying to use Wikipedia to advocate. This one diff captures the essence of how Flyer22 is the problem here - a stark reaction to a keyword that identified someone as an ideological opponent to her, an impassioned defense of Sullivan's argument (note, not an impassioned defense that he is useful as a source, but a defense that he is right, ie. he agrees with Flyer22's views and perception of the world), followed by casting aspersions at WanderingWanda for standing in the way of the advocacy that Flyer22, herself, wants to use that opinion piece for. --Aquillion (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I object strongly to this, not only because it focuses so heavily on her personal views allegedly being what some would call "anti-trans", much like a cancellation attempt, but also because its point is to string together a narrative that she's the real activist. Even saying that there is a generational divide is only true on average; contrary to what some parts of the political spectrum seem to think, there is no single trans view, or Hispanic view, or black view, young-and-LGBT view, etc. There are activist views and conservative views and centrist views and so on, since that's literally how ideologies are defined, but that's it; beyond that is only rhetoric and averages. What you've done is taken quotes from where Flyer22 is trying to note these facts to people who seemingly think there is only one trans/LGBT view and show it is not that simple. And this is done because it is very easy for an inexperienced editor to think in simplistic black-and-white terms; e.g., such-and-such view held by them and all their friends is the capital-T Truth and "the right side of history" and so on. She knows that NPOV often includes reliable sources that advocates don't agree with, not just ones they do. This whole narrative leads to a dangerous path of treating striving for NPOV in topics where one POV is more common as inherently its own kind of POV pushing, thus making resisting actual POV pushing stigmatized and ineffective. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've been repeatedly asking that this dispute be viewed through the lends of WP:ADVOCATE; an ArbCom case involves looking at all parties, so it is entirely reasonable to analyze both sides, which requires laying out their beliefs so we can understand what they are accused of advocating. I feel the evidence I analyzed here, in concert with my other analysis above, clearly shows that she has strong opinions on the topic, which pulled her into conflict with people who disagreed while contributing to making those arguments intractable, even when she believed she was entirely in the right and therefore that the other people must be the ones engaging in advocacy. More broadly, I feel that unpacking this is necessary because it's at the root cause of this dispute - almost all editors have biases at some form, and we're usually capable of discussing and unpacking them, or at least putting them aside. As Feyd Huxtable's timeline shows, though, once Flyer22 had identified WanderingWanda as an 'enemy', all willingness to engage shut down; this is, in practice, a form of advocacy - that's part of the point of WP:POVFIGHTER and the reason why its caution is so important. --Aquillion (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3 more points:

(1) WanderingWanda calling a source "transphobic", etc. (not merely "undue") is plainly a casting of WP:ASPERSIONS on the source and anyone who would dare argue to use it afterward.

(2) Here [243] and in the rest of the discussion, Flyer22 strenuously defends the correct female pronouns for Janae Kroc, who was assigned male at birth. Immediately above that, you dismiss her insisting on the correct pronouns for Ruby Rose [244] as implying any sort of neutrality since Rose as assigned female at birth anyway. Yet you dismiss the relevance of what she said about Kroc as well, even though it's the opposite situation. Your method of analysis cannot find Flyer22 to be neutral no matter what she does.

(3) You dismiss this [245] on the grounds that it's just 'acknowledging the existence' of trans identities. It is not. It is about making sure they are included in article content when the due weight of sources requires it. The point of your larger argument is that she has strong personal feelings on trans issues that affect her editing. But this diff completely contradicts that. If she were biased in the way you say, she would have been siding with the editor in that debate who said that sexual orientation should be defined so as not to include transgender identity, not arguing against them. Once again, your analysis leaves it impossible for her to come out ahead. It is a clear case of framing the evidence to fit the narrative, rather than the other way around like it should be. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, point-by-point...

1. Disagree. An imperfect source can be used; an editor can simply argue "it is not transphobic", or they can say "nonetheless, he is a valid source for these views." Editors who introduce or use imperfect sources are not necessarily themselves imperfect. More generally, is it your assertion that no source can ever be called transphobic (or racist, or sexist, or some other severely negative term?) I would agree that it isn't something to do lightly, especially if the author falls under WP:BLP, but I don't see how it falls under WP:ASPERSIONS in and of itself, and when it clearly applies we should say so (if only because it is necessary for editors to clearly voice their objections - if a source legitimately is transphobic, that is something that needs to be considered when using it, and an editor who believes that to be the case should not be compelled to speak euphemistically.) Editors have broad leeway when discussing sources specifically because it is necessary for them to be able to state their position in order to resolve disputes.
2. The point of these is that you presented them as evidence that she has pushed back against anti-trans-advocacy POV pushing as well. (And, more generally, your assertion that she cannot have said or done anything anti-trans because she supports trans rights.) But your evidence doesn't hold up to interpretation - in all these cases she is arguing with someone who can reasonably be inferred to support that subject's trans identity, simply disagreeing on how to frame or describe it. Likewise, all of them are compatible having a view of trans activism and identities that diverges with WanderingWanda - they don't support your interpretation, above, that she is neutral.
3. Again, the entire point of my analysis was that she strongly disagrees with what she identifies as a particular strand of trans activism, and that this strong belief has bled into her interactions with others severely enough to lead to conduct issues. You are consistently trying to frame the interpretation of this evidence as a black-and-white "is she, deep down inside, transphobic or not", which you yourself acknowledged above is meaningless because opinions on trans issues are not so binary.

You can't have that one both ways. You say that contrary to what some parts of the political spectrum seem to think, there is no single trans view, which is absolutely true and which I carefully explained for you in pedantic detail; but if you acknowledge that, then you also have to recognize that simply illustrating that Flyer22 supports trans rights is not sufficient to indicate that she is neutral on the topic or that she lacks strong views that contributed to her conflict with WanderingWanda. --Aquillion (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's stark-obviously being missed here (well, one thing, anyway – I might address more of this later) is that opposition to PoV-pushing of "a particular strand of trans activism" (that which is most often PoV-pushed on Wikipedia) tells you nothing whatsoever about Flyer22 Frozen's personal opinions about the messaging/intent of that activism in the real world, only about the editor's disinclination to see it PoV-pushed in our content. (Similarly, I have no issue with idiolect neo-pronouns being invented by people for use in their lives; I find it rather fascinating. But I will revert attempts to use them in Wikipedia's own voice, because it is not encyclopedic writing and also has WP:NPOV problems.) You are confusing evidence of a strong opinion against abuse of Wikipedia for activism (and action against that abuse, mostly in a particular topic, since Flyer has limited volunteer time and attention just like all of us), with an imagined strong opinion against the beliefs of the activist. We already have clear evidence to the contrary in Flyer22 Frozen's case. But let's just blindly assume for a minute that Flyer22 is actually a "TERF", a gender-critical feminist. That is one of the three most common viewpoints on this subject! Just as Christian conservatives have as much right to edit Wikipedia within its rules as atheist liberals, it is not a moral wrong to not be in agreement with every bit of dogma generated by the largely American and millennial intersection of one branch of feminism and one variety of trans activism. You argue things like "your interpretation, above, that she is neutral", but there is in fact no requirement that anyone be neutral, about any socio-political or other content matter. We are not robots, and none of us are truly neutral about much of anything. The requirement is that we not inject our PoV into the encyclopedia's content. We have clear evidence that Flyer22 Frozen can and does refrain from doing that, but that WanderingWanda does it all the time. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that Flyer22 absolutely injects her culture-war POV into her assessment of editors and her interactions with them, which is a form of POV-pushing; if you look at the evidence presented here, it is plain that once she has identified someone as being on the opposite side of that culture war from her, she characterizes them as a "trans activist" without regard for their actual edits and will no longer assume good faith for anything they do. The "evidence" compiled against WanderingWanda, indeed, is quite weak given the fervor and intensity with which Flyer22 confronted them - certainly there are some things that could have been done or expressed better, but those are all reasonable content disputes over which editors could be expected to differ; nothing in the sparse evidence presented here remotely justifies the stark assumption of bad faith or battleground conduct shown in the diffs of Flyer22's conduct. --Aquillion (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you are again mistaking a) objection to imposition of culture-wars PoV on our content from users who dwell on such matters, with b) a position in the culture wars. This is essentially an activistic form of logic myopia, an "either you're with us or against us" failure to understand that editors who disagree with the bringing of offsite advocacy concerns to a topic and who resist it (which in most cases is going to be resistance against a particular repeatedly pushed PoV), are not indicating anything at all about their personal feelings about the message of that advocacy, only the presence of the advocacy in WP editing. Regardless of topic and with any slice of the editorial pool, when some editor has indicated a desire to push a particular PoV here, then, yes, we are apt to see them as PoV pushers and take their apparent motivations into account in that topic area. They have eroded the amount of good-faith assumption that can be extended to them when it comes to that topic, and in relation to editors who have blockaded their PoV-pushing attempts. That doesn't mean we have a stance against their viewpoint; we're simply aware that they're here to push that viewpoint. When they engage in things like character assassination and WP:FACTION activity against those who get in their way, then WP:PACT and WP:DUCK and WP:SPADE come into play. I'm not going to drag this point out any further, since this page is not for extended threaded discussion. The short version: you can be seen as assuming bad faith, reading into the evidence what you want to see so that you can paint Flyer22 in the worst possible light, to arrive at your accusation of that Flyer22 assumes bad faith. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe it is always wrong to chracterize a proposed source as bigoted; however, doing so with a source from a mainstream publication that multiple experienced editors have supported using is nonetheless very inappropriate. As for the rest, I stand by my case that your analysis was fundamentally flawed. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced editors can and do legitimately disagree on those things, especially (as in a case like this) where both have strong feelings about the topic area and are clearly heavily invested in it; and mainstream sources can, and do, sometimes publish pieces from authors with strong biases, including ones that could reasonably be characterized as racism, transphobia, and so on. Suggesting that an editor should not even express such concerns is completely inappropriate, and implying that an editor could be subject to personal attacks or WP:ASPERSIONS about their motivation simply for expressing such a concern is frankly shocking. It was an entirely reasonable and appropriate concern; while I would have worded it more sedately myself, I (an established, experienced editor who has edited since 2004) agree that the source's bias on trans issues was at least a cause for concern. Flyer22 taking such a concern as evidence of wrongdoing is precisely the sort of WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct I'm establishing here - by expressing a different understanding of transphobia than she did, they said something that she identified as placing them at the opposite side of the culture-war divide she is a part of in this topic area; and after that her presumption of good faith immediately evaporated. When it is repeated on a large scale, that is unacceptable conduct. --Aquillion (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Going to sneak a response to WanderingWanda calling a source "transphobic", etc. (not merely "undue") is plainly a casting of WP:ASPERSIONS on the source and anyone who would dare argue to use it afterward. here. Sources have motivations and biases, and if we can't question those in frank terms then we sacrifice some of our ability to be critical of which sources we use for the project. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doing so does not require character-assassination or anti-trans conspiracy theorizing. And WP:BLP applies to living authors of sources, just like everyone else. You can't defame people and get away with it just because it's on a talk page instead of in mainspace. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's neither a character-assassination nor anti-trans conspiracy theory (thus in line with WP:BLP) to make the safe assumption (1) that a person who says they are conservative is conservative or (2) that a written article is anti-trans when it praises TERFs and opposes the Equality Act. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~I’d like to respond to this on Sunday when I have more time to give a more thorough response.~~ My primary concern here with your post, Aquillion, is that some of your analysis is becoming personal analysis of editors without support for such kind of analysis. I think many of your statements about Flyer’s own views (which she has not stated so I think it’s wrong to assume those for her) rely on conjecture and affirming the consequent. Flyer has been taken to task[246] by some editors for stating, WanderingWanda...you [once] stated, "I identify as queer and have been in a long term relationship with a trans man." To me, it has seemed that you let your personal life (in addition to your political views) affect how go about editing here, with these editors accusing Flyer of engaging in a WP:PERSONALATTACK and accusing her of viewing all LGBT editors as biased for being LGBT based on the statement that “a lot of our LGBT editors engage in activism editing”. Yet, it seems to me you have an entire post describing Flyer’s mindset, views, and reasons for editing, etc. when you have no way of knowing that unless you either are Flyer or are a close friend/family member of Flyer’s. Anatashala (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC) Post updated. Anatashala (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear difference between interpreting someone's intent based on their statements and actions, and inferring it based on their sexuality (or other inherent traits); you can argue over whether this evidence is sufficient for the conclusions I drew from it, but that is not at all the same as the implication that a trans individual's neutrality is automatically suspect simply for being trans. --Aquillion (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that’s what Flyer was doing (implying that a trans individual's neutrality is automatically suspect simply for being trans) as I’ve argued here. Nonetheless, I think there is quite a bit of inference and assumption going on in your post wrt to Flyer’s personal views based on her statements wherein it seems you're putting together a narrative that isn’t accurate, fair, or supported. Anatashala (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anatashala: While I don't think Flyer's intentions were anything but decent, it still seemed like that was what she was saying with this diff. Like if Flyer had actually meant that LGBT editors are generally activist while editing in LGBT areas, then I certainly don't think she would say something much different than a lot of our LGBT editors engage in activism editing. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still, in my review of that diff, I didn't see Flyer applying this characterization to LGBT editors as a whole even in impression. She qualified this with words like ’some’ and ‘a lot’, which may reasonably be the case based on the LGBT editors she, herself, has interacted with in her long history editing these articles rather than trying to characterize an entire community. Should that be her experience, it’s not saying that a trans individual's neutrality is automatically suspect simply for being trans (if Flyer had meant that, I think Flyer would say that) but an observation she has made about the LGBT editors she has interacted with. Anatashala (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC) Post updated. Anatashala (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I did not find those two posts by Flyer to be tactful at all, but it doesn't make them ill-motivated. They have to be read in their context, which is WW repetitively pushing a viewpoint then turning WP:IDHT about it when it's explained why this is a bad idea. After enough rounds of this, one starts running out of the more obvious ways to make the point (a good reason to back away rather than reach for an iffier way to get the message across, of course). The comment about WW's personal life possibly coloring their editing was clearly a mistake. However, it's a relatively easy mistake to make. Once. It's not a behavior problem if it's learned from, and one has to be pretty dense to fail to learn from it. (For a humor break, see Space Force ep. 3: "Acknowledge my gender again and I will f*** you in the a**." —Jane Lynch as Chief of Naval Operations, after Steve Carrell's character pulls one of those as-a-woman-you'll-know-what-I-mean gaffes.) The observation that there's a lot of PoV editing from a particular subcultural sector was correct (and is correct about many of them); it's just not a collaboration-inducing thing to say in mid-dispute to someone one thinks is in that sector, plus not a popular sector to select for such an observation. Neither were exactly great posts, but they were not attacks, nor anti-trans/homophobic, just boneheaded flubs that appeared to be the products of exasperation. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To address Aquillion's first four bullet points ("I'll start with Loki's diffs"):

Extended content

Observing that there are real-world disputes about terms like "TERF" and "transphobic" and that they run along polarized "this camp vs. that camp" lines does not "show strong feelings about" these terms on the part of Flyer22; it shows an editor paying attention to off-site coverage of these matters. That is our editorial "job".
The fact that this had to begin with "To address your accusations against me" tells us where the problem really is. WW has a habit of making nasty, character-assassination, WP:WIN-at-all-costs accusations about anyone who gets in their way. To get to the meat of the diff: Observing that there are real-world definitional differences, and that they can be somewhat identified with particular groups, then wondering which definition a particular editor is running with, does not in any way "identif[y] who Flyer22 sees herself as being on a WP:BATTLEGROUND against". Aquillion is simply reading into this material whatever that editor wants to see to paint Flyer22 in the worst possible light. That is, Aquillion is manufacturing a battleground out of normal editorial discussion, though WW's habit of throwing unreasonable accusations around was already pointedly steering it into battleground territory.
The same thing all over again. Correctly identifying from sources that particular groups hold different definitional concepts of the same terms in no way tells us what Flyer22's personal views are nor sets up a battleground. The problem here is that Aquillion is not distinguishing between "Editor X identified a PoV and resists it being pushed here" and "Editor X holds the opposite PoV and is pushing it". They are very different. "[I]t [was] at least an entirely reasonable argument for WanderingWanda to call the other side transphobic"? Um, no, it certainly was not. With regard to the Sullivan source in particular, it is not appropriate without a preponderance of other reliable sources demonstrating that the Sullivan source is faulty; WP:OR to cast shade at sources you don't like for ideological reasons is just about the worst kind. But much more important here is that WW uses highly socio-politicized smear labeling like "transphobic" as weapons against other editors. This is the central reason this dispute exists and that this case is open.
"Note that her framing implies that not being an activist is something LGBT editors must actively prove to her; again, this fits into her feelings about a strident younger LGBT generation whose views she opposes." This is pure fiction. The first half Aquillion just made up, and the second half is dependent on none of the problems identified with the three bullet points above existing. This is the fallacy of circular reasoning, a house of cards that falls apart because "her feelings about a strident younger LGBT generation whose views she opposes" is a fantasy of Aquillion's own imagination. Identifying belief structures and their particular cultural and sub-cultural origins is a research skill that implies nothing whatsoever about an editor's personal feelings about the veracity or merits of any particular one of them. That includes when an editor thwarts attempts to PoV push one of them in our content.

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To address Aquillion's next six bullet points ("Now, Crossroads' evidence"):

Extended content

It's entirely normal to write around potentially confusing pronoun usage. Flyer22 is doing the right thing here, and MoS directly advises doing this. See MOS:GENDERID. Aquillion thinks they have a smoking gun here, but have really found a candy bar.
Agreed. Just being asked to chime in on a thread doesn't tell us anything, absent a clearer statement why the ask was made.
This is more fanatasizing by Aquillion. It's entirely dependent upon imagining the worst possible interpretation (i.e. is a WP:AGF failure), to force it to fit into the house of cards this editor constructed in the first four bullets, above. Worse, it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" setup, in which evidence against Flyer22 being a transphobe is warped into a weird argument that she must really be one after all, that it's all just a ruse. This kind of "deep agenda" conspiratorial thinking really doesn't belong here, though it "makes sense" in a weird way if the battleground is one's own, if one is identifying with a particular WP:FACTION and trying to get rid of editors who stand in the way of the pushing of that viewpoint.
Ditto. Aquillion's suggestion to read the entire thread is a good one. You'll see Flyer22 following WP:V, WP:NOR, and MOS:GENDERID closely and calmly, while other editors try every trick they can come up with to defy what the actual sources are saying, to try to make the subject and our coverage thereof conform to their own personal viewpoints of how things "should be" for someone who identifies as gender-fluid. This is actually a quite important discussion for several reasons.
Nope. The ANI case is pertinent, which becomes obvious if you actually read it. The editor in question was being disruptive with regard to various LGBT+ related pages (not just the religion ones the ANI opened about, which actually accounted for far fewer instances of that editor's disruption), so it is within the topical half of the case scope, even if not related to the Flyer22/WW interaction half.
This is another attempt at "damned if you do, damned if you don't". If you actually read that long post, it contains nothing whatsoever indicative of an "anti-trans" position, or any other PoV pushing. It is a source-heavy refutation of various attempts to push an OR-based PoV through selective wording choices that do not match what the sources say.

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re:Crossroads- Once again, I am not sure where to put this, but I wanted to react to a comment by Crossroads, concerning Flyer: She knows that NPOV often includes reliable sources that advocates don't agree with, not just ones they do. This whole narrative leads to a dangerous path of treating striving for NPOV in topics where one POV is more common as inherently its own kind of POV pushing, thus making resisting actual POV pushing stigmatized and ineffective. I think this comment approaches the heart of the issue but then reaches a diametrically wrong conclusion. What the evidence actually shows is that Flyer and Halo pursue their own (shared) POV while presenting their actions as "striving for NPOV", and one technique they use is the selection and presentation of sources not based on their quality, meaning and relevance but rather their usefulness in "winning" a discussion. For example, I have presented diffs (in Evidence) from Talk:Lesbian erasure and Talk:Woman where Flyer has made insistently tendentious readings of Flyer's own sources, while disparaging other sources (often apparently without reading them), in defense of their predetermined POV. I also showed where Halo used sources in precisely the same way while opposing the use of "TERF" and defending the use of "Transgender ideology". Crossroads has presented Flyer as taking a broad and neutral view and opposing the selective use of sources by opponents. The record shows the opposite. Newimpartial (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second comment, re: SMcCandlish - I'm afraid I have a weakness for pointing out irony, so I can't help but react to SMcCandlish's second comment on this topic. Near his conclusion he points out, apparently without irony: When they engage in things like character assassination and WP:FACTION activity against those who get in their way, then WP:PACT and WP:DUCK and WP:SPADE come into play, but this is a perfect description of the posting pattern of the Flyer and Halo accounts on gender-related issues. According to the diffs submitted in evidence, Flyer and Halo have routinely called editors "activists", dismissed the perspectives of other editors based on their gender identities, participated in off-wiki coordination (perhaps only with each other) to promote an agenda, posted threats (and followed up on them) to limit the participation of their "opponents" on gender-related issues, and used nearly the whole range of tendentious editing techniques to prevail in the domain of gender-related issues. When SMcCandlish notes a difficulty in distinguishing a) objection to imposition of culture-wars PoV on our content from users who dwell on such matters, with b) a position in the culture wars, perhaps consider whether The Mote and the Beam might apply. Newimpartial (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that quote about how advocates sometimes object to sources slipped my notice the first time, but it seems telling to me. The flip side of "sometimes advocates object to valid sources" is that sometimes advocates insist on giving undue weight to sources they agree with, and react negatively when this bias is pointed out. Several of the disputes Flyer22 had with WanderingWanda involved disagreements over how much weight to give sources Flyer22 supported that had very strong opinions on the subject at hand, which Flyer22 often downplayed or tried to argue over. Opinionated sources are absolutely usable, but it is necessary to acknowledge their bias. In this discussion, for instance, Flyer22 doesn't merely argue that Sullivan's opinions can be included as an example of his views; she tries to argue (at length) that Sullivan is largely correct. Keep in mind that this is a single opinion piece - we are not talking about a key study or something of vital importance, but something that (at best) can be used to represent Sullivan's personal opinions on the topic, to the extent that that is relevant. I think it's plain that in that discussion Flyer22 was engaging in WP:ADVOCACY by pushing for extremely undue weight on an opinion piece she agreed with - after all, again, she repeatedly tries to argue that Sullivan is right. Conversely, WanderingWanda isn't even trying to remove the piece entirely (she specifically concedes that it can be used at the start), she merely wants to make sure the stark POV it represents is properly-balanced and handled with care, as is appropriate for a WP:BIASED source. And I would say that as a general rule, while opinion pieces can be useful in some contexts, editors who argue extensively for giving heavy weight to an opinion piece are likely to be advocates - the whole purpose of an opinion piece is to argue a position; there is room for them in articles, but they are very much beloved by people trying to push a POV in an article for that reason... as Flyer22's frankly startling paean to Sullivan's argument shows. --Aquillion (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Halo account made essentially the same argument about Sullivan. I believe relevant diffs were already presented in Evidence, but I can dig them up if required. Newimpartial (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was there for that and Halo was not. WanderingWanda was edit warring over their preferred wording (proof at Evidence page) and that wording was rebutted. What both Flyer22 and I said about that source was that it was usable as representing a very common viewpoint per WP:NPOV and how "society and culture" sections are usually done. Anyway, ArbCom is not for mind reading, rehashing old content disputes, or getting editors sanctioned for alleged wrongthink. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to reread the discussion. WanderingWanda was the one who said, at the start of that discussion, that they were fine with including the article as an example of Sullivan's views as long as those views were properly represented and not given undue weight. Flyer22, meanwhile, was arguing that Sullivan's views were broadly correct. Flyer22, meanwhile, responds here by arguing that Sullivan is not merely usable as a way to represent his views, but that he is largely correct, saying: "A pro-TERF and anti-trans piece"? Certainly not for talking about the real and valid sex-based sexual attraction that gay men usually have (and, yes, "usually" based on the scientific literature). Certainly not for talking about transgender women in sports, which is something that transgender people disagree on, as made clear by this "Do Transgender Athletes Have an Advantage in Female Sporting Events?" video from Good Morning Britain. ... You can dislike it as much as you want to, but to repeat: "Sexual orientation is not measured based on sexual attraction to gender identities, which are people's internal perception of who they are, and includes gender identities that have only recently been conceptualized." The biology of sexual orientation is sex-based. And, yes, the vast majority of "sex-based" literature with regard to the sexual orientation is about assigned sex. In other words, her argument is that the opinion piece cannot be biased in that way because it makes some points she broadly agrees with. As I said above, this is the sort of WP:FORUM degression typical of editors with strong feelings about the topic area that they have trouble separating from their editing. --Aquillion (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is more mind-reading and removes necessary context. In her actual editing on this specific matter, Flyer22 defends the inclusion of "gender" in defining sexual orientation: [247][248] Crossroads ^-talk- 05:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the diff I provided at evidence, Halo argues (in full-on Halo voice): There ain't one rule on the Wiki that says that conservative sources are unreliable. The Wiki speaks of WP:RSCONTEXT, but a lot of sources that Pyxis Solitary and other folks have provided, sources you disagree with, are appropriate for the contexts of what we've been talking about. The Sullivan source is absolutely appropriate for the issue of gender identity politics, which is what has been discussed in this thread to a degree. That's why the source is appropriate for use at the Attraction to transgender people page. Sullivan is also appropriate for commenting on some feminists issues, like he does in the source, if the material is on-topic. He ain't an unreliable op-ed. That sounds to me like an illustration of the scenario Aquillion mentioned - editors who argue extensively for giving heavy weight to an opinion piece are likely to be advocates - though perhaps light on "arguing" and heavy in "extensively" and bald assertion. Newimpartial (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't at that discussion. It's very important to note that Halo and Flyer22 have studiously stayed away from each other's discussions - they aren't meatpuppets. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that you have recently consulted WP:MEAT, or reviewed the section of my evidence concerning family resemblances. In fact, I for one have difficulty imagining two people "studiously staying away from each other's discussions", the way Halo and Flyer have, without a degree of coordination that would violate WP:CRONY. But I digress; my point was that both Flyer and Halo accounts have used their shared high regard for Sullivan in various BATTLEGROUNDs. Newimpartial (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No coordination necessary; one simply avoids conversations where the other is present to avoid impropriety. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Been over the gist of this before. Identifying PoV and its origin, and resisting it being pushed on WP, is not itself PoV; it's just being observant, and enforcing policy. When one editor mischaracterizes the content and meaning of a source and maligns it (and thereby its author, who is a BLP, and any editor who wants to cite it) as "transphobia", "anti-trans", "pro-TERF", and allegedly making false claims, then another editor correcting them is normal, not the pushing of a counter-PoV. Pointing out where an unduly attacked source appears to be correct from what other sources tell us, just in ways detractors of the author's alleged viewpoint would like to ignore, is not a PoV exercise – except maybe in the imagination of someone with a PoV to push against those facts.

When two or more editors notice that someone is pushing a PoV and challenge them on it, that does not constitute the formation of a counter-PoV faction; it's an indication that the PoV push they've pointed to is probably a real one (and it's hardly just these two editors, Flyer22 and Halo_Jerk1, taking such notice). Some parties here are having, or acting as if they are having, a hard time understanding the difference between "I'm opposing this because it's obviously pushing a PoV" and "I'm opposing this because I have a PoV which is opposite from yours and I want to push mine." Not the same thing.

To catch up on the subthreading: Newimpartial claims "difficulty imagining two people 'studiously staying away from each other's discussions'". So ... how does Newimpartial think interaction bans work? Also, unless I'm missing something, Halo appeared to find this topic area and some of its regulars immediately irritating, and seems to have left it quickly [249], as well as not being a frequent editor anyway. I'm suspicious as hell about potential socks, but my alarm bells are silent here. PS: I'll get into a detailed analysis of WW's cancel-culture and source-shaming approach later, because it involves more that just this Sullivan incident, and is part of a broader guilt-by-association approach to CIVILPOV tactics. Just have to figure out how to compress it to 1/3 the current draft size. Update: done.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC); updated: 00:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well as far as When one editor mischaracterizes the content and meaning of a source and maligns it - or unduly lauds it - that is exactly what both Flyer and Halo accounts have been demonstrated as doing in the diffs provided in Evidence. And as to your depiction of WW's cancel-culture and source-shaming approach, that sounds to me much more like an expression used by someone "taking sides" in a culture war dispute than someone who has done the work required to assess NPOV from a standpoint of relative objectivity. But I will await the analysis of whichever Sullivan incident you choose before commenting further - that seems like a relevant touchpoint.

For the record, I don't think I'm the one having a hard time understanding the difference between "I'm opposing this because it's obviously pushing a PoV" and "I'm opposing this because I have a PoV which is opposite from yours and I want to push mine." Rather I observe that, on gender-related controversies, the Flyer and Halo accounts are demonstrably doing the second thing: their sloppy readings of good sources and emphatic endorsements of bad sources are only one example of this. They are just practiced enough at it that they make their actions pass for the first thing, at least to more sympathetic or more casual observers. Newimpartial (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no demonstration of any error in Flyer22's (or Halo's, that I'm aware of) analyses of Sullivan or other sources in evidence here. Describing what they contain and pointing to where claims they make are supported by other source material we've seen does not constitute advocacy of, "undue lauding" of, the viewpoint of the source under analysis. By contrast, the claims WW made about Sullivan's article are demonstrably false. Blockading a PoV while refuting one of its pusher's bogus claims about a source, is not advocating a counter-PoV much less making also false counter-claims about the source. "Doesn't agree with my opinion that this author is a transphobe" does not equate to "is a supporter of this author and is therefore also a transphobe", or "is arguing the PoV that is opposite my PoV", or anything else like that. It's just calling someone on their PoV pushing. This false-equivalence tactic on the part of WW [and some other editors on one side of this topic area] is central to the reasons this case exists [and why some of us think it should've had more parties named]. I do not actually believe anyone here is incapable of distinguishing between "Your claims about this source are wrong" and "I believe in the message of this source and am advocating its viewpoint". What's going on here is socio-political posturing and gamesmanship.

It is not okay that side A takes positions that it's fine to cite opinion pieces that agree with them, but then decides side B may be freely accused of wrongdoing and a noxious PoV for citing opinion pieces that don't agree with side A or even for just refuting side A's dubious claims about the motivations and meanings of those works (and this seems to relate strongly to your verbal altercations with Halo Jerk1 at the Fæ ANI someone else diffed here). Part of our editorial "job" is to present each topic, including encyclopedically relevant real-world views about it, in a DUE-balanced manner. Prominent opinion pieces are a major source type for this real-world-views material; their very utility is that they are expressing viewpoints. Aspersion-casting at other editors for trying to use them for this purpose, and to be accurate about the viewpoints, is beyond wrongheaded. So is WP:OR to try to smear a source/author's supposed motivations and gin up conspiratorial background alliances. So is trying to use opinion pieces and other advocacy material for viewpoint A (and "I saw that source Liked on a gender-crit forum" handwaving) to smear an opinion piece on viewpoint B to intimidate other editors into not including it. This is all battlegrounding, advocacy behavior. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sullivan's op-eds were presented by Flyer and Halo as reliable sources about gender-related issues. They are not, except as statements of one man's opinion, and are therefore not reliable as statements of fact. Halo for example used Sullivan as a source supporting the claim that transgender ideology exists diff presented in Evidence - whether or not you personally believe this is true, it can't be supported by op-eds, and the Sullivan source Halo linked is a hostile op-ed. As far as I do not actually believe anyone here is incapable of distinguishing between "Your claims about this source are wrong" and "I believe in the message of this source and am advocating its viewpoint" - Halo, in the diff I just provided and in the entire discussion preceding it (visible in the diff), is very clearly doing the latter. Newimpartial (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Flyer22 nor Halo have argued that source is anything other than WP:RSOPINION; namely, they have not tried to use it for unattributed fact in a Wikipedia article. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Halo used it to make factual claims at an ANI discussion. I'm not saying he violated RSPOPINION, I'm saying he placed undue evidence on an unreliable source, as an example of BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Newimpartial (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your material is mischaracterizing again. Andrew Sullivan (our article is quite in-depth, nor does it address that op-ed by him at all, which suggests low real-world controversy about it or its contents, though it may just be editorial lag) is certainly controversial in various quarters. He does not focus exclusively on LGBT matters, but is very, very well known as a political commentator in the area, was a 2006 LGBT History Month "icon", and is one of the best-known conservative gay writers. Certainly relevant enough to help establish that a particular phrase in writing about this topic has a general meaning, at least to a particular target audience. "Transgender ideology" wasn't even Halo's term, but Pyxis Solitary's, which you said yourself (see next diff). Your material there attempts to demonize Halo Jerk1 (and Flyer22, and Pyxis Solitary) [250] [251] [252] for using a phrase you don't seem to like, but we can see that this term is in real-world use, with various shades of meaning, within LGBT writing circles. It is not, in and of itself, the slur you claim it is. Like just about anything, it could be used as one by someone with an intent do so, and you are thereby aspersion-casting (unless you have more evidence to add) – either that Halo means it your way and is a transphobe, is doing it ignorantly or heartlessly and is thus barely better than a transphobe, or is just stupid and can't tell the difference. There is no way to positively spin what you wrote, there or here.

Pertinent aside: It wouldn't be the first time in this topic area you've maligned another editor with false accusations, character-assassination, and bogus claims of consensus [253]. You got corrected on it [254], then (after the thread was moved en masse to ANI) did it again [255], got corrected again [256] twice [257], did it yet again [258], then got administratively admonished for it: "Newimpartial, pro tip: don't pick fights with nice people who have orders of magnitude more experience and goodwill here than you do. See also: WP:AGF" [259].

Anyway, if making noises about noticeboards and sanctions is a "threat" as you and Aquillion and someone or other else have suggested, then any proposed FoF and remedy relating to that should include you as well, for this: "Are you taking Pyxis Solitary's position on this, Halo Jerk1? That will be good to know, the next time you are at ANI." [260]. Given that you say you don't know if Halo's viewpoint agrees with Pyxis's, and "trans ideology" wasn't the former's term, perhaps you'd like to seriously revise what you've been writing here? Your material has a strong PoV in this topic area, and it seems to have a whole lot to do with language-policing and stance-taking about what others can say (even about themselves!), e.g.: "I will be happy when the last self-avowed 'homosexual' is dead and buried and only we queers, fags, dykes and non-binary people remain." [261] This is closely aligned with genderqueer activistic viewpoints (and aggressive editing in furtherance of them) seeking to break down conventionalized, reader-understood meanings of "gender", "sex", "woman", "male", etc., etc., which is bound up in why Fæ was T-banned (again) and why WanderingWanda is before ArbCom (and why Flyer22 is, for resisting such language-change and viewpoint-reeducation PoV pushing in WP's own voice and which often doesn't agree with the preponderance of reliable sources). WW even explicitly ties that Newimpartial statement to WW's own "TERF-wars" PoV [262]. Oops.
PS: Lest you think I'm just generally displeased with you, even in this topic area, consider that I quoted and praised something you said, that was critical of me [263]. I just think your input here is adding heat not light. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion that ranges far afield from the analysis that is intended to be discussed here

SMxCandlish, you are not a party to this case. I am not a party to this case. You had your chance to petition to become a party, or to petition for me to become a party, and you didn't do either as I recall. So any diffs of gender-related disputes between you and me are not particularly relevant here. Thanks, however, for making your own POV on gender-related issues so precisely clear. You have also confirmed for everyone that Andrew Sullivan is not an expert in gender identity (or in ideology, for that matter), while not providing any evidence that "Transgender ideology" has a general meaning any more than all of the misuses of "Cultural Marxism" give that term "a general meaning" apart from the conspiracy theory. By pointing this out I am not demonizing you, I am objecting to POV-promoters rallying behind biased language in order to promote an agenda (in this case, the agenda that WP must be protected against "trans activists", presumably the ones trying to restrict the inclusion of deadnames in articles and who disagree with the assertion that "anti-trans" or "trans-exclusuinary" is always a slur).

You cite me talking about my own preference for seeing "homosexual" replaced by "queer" as an off-wiki identity and then you expound: This is closely aligned with genderqueer activistic viewpoints (and aggressive editing in furtherance of them) seeking to break down conventionalized, reader-understood meaning of "gender", "sex", "woman", "male", etc.. But that isn't actually related to anything I do, on-wiki or off-, except through a funhouse mirror. I am not "genderqueer" and the understood meanings of "gender" and "sex" that I would like to see used in articles (and that I use on Talk pages) are precisely those that have been well-established in English since at least the mid-20th century. The fact that, e.g., "woman" and "male" are terms that refer to gender and/or sex depending on context is well-established in English usage, and does not reflect an "activitic" viewpoint. Your construal of my position is a very clear expression of your own biased lenses in this topic area, where my attempts to ensure an appropriate integration of the most recent and best sources on these topics for you turn into "genderqueer activistic editing" - your inserting "TERF-Wars" into a statement by WW that doesn't use that term at all is yet another example of you forcing your own framing onto other editors' contributions. Newimpartial (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's some interesting imagination. Arbs can add parties at any time (and write FoF and remedies in relation to RFARB participants without making them parties); I have no qualms being added as a party. My diffs speak very directly as to your "loose" interpretation of evidence in this topic area, your will to bend it to suit your preferences, to use it as a weapon for PoV ends. I've said nothing at all about my own views (about Sullivan or anyone else); I'm simply telling you what our article on him makes clear, and how that relates to our use of op-ed material. (I also said nothing about his qualifications in "gender identity" or "ideology"; you're just making up stuff again, the same handwaving pattern you used in the previous discussion I diffed). There is no agenda that WP must be protected against "trans activism"; there is a policy that WP is to be protected against activism. I know you think (having said it before) that your "self-avowed 'homosexual'" comment is taken out of context; what you're missing is that I do not bring it up here because of the "dead and buried" hyperbole, but because of "self-avowed". It's extremist not because of the hyperbole but because of the though-policing, which closely relates to that brought by WW, who chose to ally themself with your statement. I put "TERF-wars" in scare quotes because I think it's a silly term (people use it because it sounds like "turf wars"); no one should be a warrior for any viewpoint here. No one needs another lecture on definitions and biological and psychological science and the politics of language. You're totally missing the point.

The key to the entire debate is right here: I'm making a simple observation about reader comprehensibility being marred by viewpoint pushing, but you cannot or will not understand that my saying this is not the pushing of an equal but opposite viewpoint from yours, but is an expectation that viewpoint pushing cease in favor of following the majority of reliable sources. This is the Flyer22/WanderingWanda dispute in a nutshell.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish, you literally accused me of being closely aligned with genderqueer activistic viewpoints (and aggressive editing in furtherance of them) seeking to break down conventionalized, reader-understood meanings of "gender", "sex", "woman", "male", etc. - while providing no relevant evidence, and listing a whole series of things that I do not do. (Nor can I reasonably be expected to do those things, just because I prefer the label "queer" to "homosexual" and am not indifferent to whether others share this preference - it is not as though this I have ever promoted this personal preference in my edits to articles.)

And how does any of your accusations relate to the simple observation about reader comprehensibility being marred by viewpoint pushing that you claim to be making? Where, for that matter, have I either made or defended any edit that undermined reader comprehensibility in any way? I am seriously at a loss here - this isn't a straw man but more of a straw octopus; it bears no resemblance to my editing at all.

As far as you having said nothing about [Andrew Sullivan's] qualifications, you used him in your previous post to demonstrate that "Transgender ideology" has a general meaning, but that argument would only be valid if he were qualified to establish that. To point that out isn't "handwaving" on my part; I am pointing directly to a flaw in the logic of your argument, which you don't see because of your prior assumptions about my POV.

Finally, what POV are you accusing me of promoting, and how have I "bent evidence"? None of my edits at MOSBIO, or at Joey Soloway, or at Meghan Murphy or Trans woman or Woman have "bent evidence" in any way. Noting that the Canadian government and the WHO acknowlefge both sex and gender isn't "bending evidence", it is simple empirical fact. Noting that the only promotion of "Transgender ideology" of a concept is by its ideological opponents in op-ed writing, rather than reliable sources, is also empirical fact. And my discussion with you, which you diffed above, was not an example of me "handwaving" but my earnest attempt to get you to see something you missed about the impact of utterances, just as when I approached you on your user talk more recently it was to get you to see something else that you missed - namely, that you were participating in an edit war to maintain a novel, non-consensus edit. In neither case did I treat you as an "opponent" or push an "agenda" - I value your contributions to WP and want you to see what your prior assumptions are preventing you from seeing in this domain. Which is why this particular subthread is frustrating to me: as with the (mercifully brief) edit war on MOSBIO, you simply do not see that I am the one following the vastly majority of recent, reliable sources, and you are the one aiding and abetting POV-pushing by the Flyer and Halo accounts. Sigh. Newimpartial (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to take the bait of being drawn into more circular argument with you about this. I diffed you doing exactly what I said you were doing, and the pre-existing diffs you've been trying to rely on of your interactions with Flyer22 and Halo just establish it further. I'm entirely confident in ArbCom's ability to see that the diffs indicate what I suggest they do not what you suggest they do. This is a not a "court of public opinion", so arguing about it with repetitive text walls will not do anything but waste everyone's time.

On Sullivan, phrases, meaning: Language doesn't work that way, sorry. It does not matter whether you are satisfied with Sullivan's authority on any subject; it matters that he is a major voice in the topic area, has many hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of readers, and they understand him. I.e., he successfully conveys meaning to them with the words he chooses. You don't have to agree with his message or the terms he prefers in making it (I don't like everything he says or all his wording choices either), but it is unquestionable that he has done it. Your case is that a particular two-word string he used is a weapon you can use against other editors because a definition of it in your mind, from sources you like better, is "the" meaning. That case is an abject failure. It is logically impossible for you to prove this phrase has only one meaning, much less that another editor necessarily has that one in mind, much less that their motivation for it is the wicked one you say it is. You're beating a horse with not a stick, but something like a handful of wet noodles.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to remind me here that your WALLOFTEXT in this section is a lot bigger than my humble WALL. And I don't understand how you can miss the basic principle underlying WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:RSOPINION, namely that the opinions of non-experts cannot be used to establish facts. By your reasoning here, we should have a Cultural Marxism article in addition to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article because some (non-expert) sources talk about "Cultural Marxism" as if it were an actual phenomenon, apparently without realizing that they are relying on the tropes of a conspiracy theory. That view, however, was roundly rejected at AfD and RfC on WP long before I ever stumbled on the topic. And the way Sullivan (and others) use "Transgender ideology" is the same as the way Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro use "Cultural Marxism" - as a caricature of those they believe to be their opponents. "Transgender Ideology" is never used any other way, or at least Flyer, Halo and Pyxis never linked to anyone using it in any other way. I can't prove a negative, of course, but it is reliably shown to be used the way I describe and this fits literally all of the uses (including those by fringe Trans people) that anyone on WP has produced on the topic. Alleging that someone, somewhere has used the term differently is what I would call a "handwave". Newimpartial (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit's Evidence

Comment by Arbitrators:

Girth Summit - you note in your evidence that you believe Flyer pinged you as an uninvolved administrator. Do you have any insight into why she directly appealed to you rather than using a more general way of getting assistance from an uninvolved administrator? Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Barkeep49 I flatter myself that I have a reputation for trying to de-escalate tensions - the discussion was getting rather heated, and I interpreted Flyer22's ping as her hoping that I might try to cool things down, avoiding the drama of an ANI thread. I'll add that I wouldn't have commented if I thought that Flyer22 was trying to get me to take sides, or indeed if I thought that I wouldn't have been able to be impartial. I believe that SandyGeorgia, one of the people in the opposite camp in that thread, has faith in me as an admin, since she has in the past pinged me to ask that I comment on issues (example) - if she or the other people in that discussion were folk who I would have had difficulty treating impartially, I might have thought and acted differently. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping (taking this opportunity to note that my editing tone and pleasure has immeasurably improved since I disabled all web pings, and now only see them when I happen to check my email, which I did this morning).

Girth Summit, you might notice that in the RFC you diff above and where I pinged you, you have 15 entries on that page as the uninvolved admin who was adminning that particular discussion (or at least, that was my assumption). At the time, I cannot say that I had ever encountered you or knew anything about you; I knew only that you were actively adminning that RFC, and were precisely the admin to ping for that case, which was exactly akin to pinging Barkeep49 while he was adminning the drug pricing RFC.

I take difference with the use of "opposite camp" terminology (which is rampant in this arbcase) because you might notice in that discussion you were pinged to that I disagreed with every one of my WPMED colleagues (Colin, WAID, Berchan) and agreed with Flyer (for which I was nevertheless excoriated by Flyer).

You mention if I thought that Flyer22 was trying to get me to take sides, or indeed if I thought that I wouldn't have been able to be impartial. Flyer's ping referenced by Barkeep49 occurred on 26 September. Considering your post here from a week earlier, in this discussion, where you turned on a fellow admin for rightfully and politely raising a concern, might you re-evaluate whether you would have been considered "impartial" a week later? This is the kind of enabling that I reference in this discussion in response to this worthy idea, as admin and other "friends" enabling could be a central factor in what came to be Flyer's editing style.

As an example, in your response to the NORD reliable sourcing discussion at WT:MED, you seem to find no problem that, even though I agreed with Flyer22 as we were all struggling to instruct a new editor in the non-trivial application of MEDRS under complex circumstances (a discussion in which I not once became "heated" as you say), Flyer22 nonetheless quickly took offense to any disagreement and posted the following battleground and personalizing statements (samples only):

References the Competence is required essay in referring to a "newbie" who "has not a clue".
Gratuitously pings multiple other editors to the discussion (samples only): "But, thankfully, we have editors like Alexbrn and MrOllie looking out for that article." "Well, it was a problem, as made clear by Mathglot on his talk page." And others.
Personalizes: "Encourage newbies in whatever way you want. Encourage CycoMa to add sources like pathologyoutlines.com. I'll be taking the True hermaphroditism article off my watchlist." "I don't appreciate being painted as someone who doesn't know that and is just picking on a newbie or being overly harsh on a newbie. I've dealt with plenty of editors who simply had no clue and didn't improve for whatever reason, with a number of them not even trying to improve."
Escalates personalization bringing in unrelated discussions while we are trying to instruct a newish editor: "the recent bickering involving you, me, and Sandy at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles, it's not like I put much stock into a thing that you state, especially as far as it concerns me. All I see is an editor supporting inappropriate behavior because of a personal grudge. Instead of walking away, you just had to come back with more. I really should know by now not to take the bait when it comes to you two. But I'm not going to sit here and let you badmouth me." And: "I think I should send CycoMa to one of the articles you two care about. I'm sure he'll get a lot of experience that way and you two will embrace all of his edits."
Rolls me in to something I have nothing to do with and never mentioned: "You and/or Sandy are more than free to report me."
Misrepresents my position relative to Mayo as a reliable source.

And, well much more in that one discussion, where I stuck to trying to help a new editor understand a complex discussion about reliable sources. And where I agreed with Flyer on the source. And where a new editor was affected. And where not one editor agreed that, MEDRS or not, the text should have been blanked. Girth Summit, might you re-evaluate whether this kind of approach (not pointing out personalization and BATTLEGROUND, or misuse of rollback while turning on a fellow admin who pointed it out) was helpful to Flyer in the long run ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, first off, I apologise for describing you as being in the opposite camp - I didn't mean that in a general sense, I was referring to that particular discussion, in which you disagreed with some of the reverts that Flyer had made. It was also perhaps unfair of me to name you in particular - I particularly recalled you being part of the discussion since we had interacted in the past, but I agree that you did not become heated. Other people were accusing each other of making personal attacks, and words like 'liar' and 'disingenuous' were being bandied about, so I feel it's fair to say that the discussion had become heated. My contribution was intended purely to help cool things down. I didn't threaten anyone with sanctions or criticise anyone - I said that you were all experienced editors who knew what they were doing, and that I didn't see any need to take administrative action. I also thanked the new editor for their efforts. That was my honest attempt an impartiality, if it wasn't helpful then that's something I need to think about.

I must say that I don't think your description of what I said to Protonk as 'turning on a fellow admin', or as 'enabling Flyer' is fair. The discussion is there for anyone to read; I did tell Flyer that I thought edit summaries would have been appropriate in those instances, but I did also point out that Protonk's recent contribution history had a number of reverts without substantive edit summaries, perhaps that is what you are referring to. I stand by the point that very many editors are not perfect in their use of rollback, singling Flyer out for criticism did not seem fair.

Your final point is well-received - perhaps I do need to re-evaluate whether my own contributions have been helpful to Flyer in the long run. Maybe I can become better at supporting people by offering more constructive criticism - that is something I will consider. I think that where we have ended up, here and now, is a collective failure, and I'm sure I have my share of blame for that. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reasoned and contemplative response; most appreciated. The reason I took the length to write all of this is that somehow, in the final remedies, I hope the arbs will find a way to set up a structured mentorship for Flyer, if they can find any truly neutral admins willing to take that on. I noticed in the Protonk discussion that Drmies did respond adequately, but his advice was not heeded.

I will address the Protonk issue when I present my evidence. (Protonk did not "single out Flyer". CycoMa is not the new editor I mentioned when I said in my case statement "how hard they make it to recruit new MED editors". And AGF is a good thing in all cases.) For now, I have not finalized my evidence because reading through some of the frankly horrific diffs in this case merely make me want to retire forever, and I keep having to restart my evidence as others present diffs worse than even I had experienced, negating the need for my diffs. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have some comments about this discussion that Flyer was involved in.

Reading through this discussion, I feel it’s clear where some of Flyer’s comments are coming from in the context of the discussion.

She’s concerned about the quality of the source the new editor is using to cite information in an article about true hermaphroditism — and disagrees with the characterizations that her objections are due to “elitism”, the source not being the “fanciest”, and intended as a personal attack toward the new editor who referenced the source in question.

Flyer states, We also shouldn't be encouraging newbies or other relatively inexperienced editors to state "Hey, I'm adding this source. And if you want it gone, then add a better one." We should be encouraging newbies or other relatively inexperienced editors to do better. Pointing them to the part of WP:ONUS that states "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." and asking them on the article talk page (or here) to look for better sources with respect to WP:MEDRS is a start. If they can't find them, then maybe the lower-quality source(s) should remain in the meantime.[264]

Her issues with the new editor are reflected in her following statements:

And even with this editor lacking an understanding of sources they add, I don't think the solution is to say, "Instead, go ahead and add those lower-quality sources you understand...or sort of understand.”[265]

And, really, per the WP:Competence is required essay, which is often given as a reason by admins for some blocks, an editor meaning well on a topic they do not understand is not always good enough. We do take into account editors' abilities and whether they are editing outside of those abilities.[266]

I wouldn’t agree that Flyer's intent is to attack the editor personally, but is about the editor's current and past editing habits where it’s referenced they’re having problems adhering to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. It’s not commenting on the editor’s character, but on their abilities as an editor.

I didn’t view Flyer’s pings as gratuitous in the context of the discourse. The first instance, Flyer appears to be noting the work of editors whose work she views as benefiting the quality of the article. The second instance, Flyer notes a new editor who was directed by Sandy to work with her and other experienced editors.

This seems to tie into the topics at hand where her concerns over the discussed source are being painted by another editor as a personal attack to try to rubbish the ability of another editor[267] rather than what her clearly stated issues are (the poor quality of the article).

In this discussion, Flyer’s motives for objecting to this source are being misconstrued as “elitism”, an attempt to attack a new editor, and an accusation that Flyer is exposing this new editor to an inappropriate tone, leading to her frustration.

With respect, because from what I’ve observed in my lurk-abouts, Sandy does good work on medical articles, I’d say these remarks on Flyer’s motives aren’t accurate, particularly when she’s explained her concerns multiple times and is getting pushback over her motives.

I didn’t see Flyer use an inappropriate tone when talking to this new editor. I saw her expressing concerns on his sourcing abilities based on current and past experiences. Flyer also later advisors this editor on where to look for suitable sources. Anatashala (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been aware mentions of this case showing up on several pages I watchlist. Having read some of it, this section seems pertinent since I'm one of the participants. I hope it is ok if I make some observations.

The NORD discussion began like many at WP:MED with a request for help/advice on a source being disputed. Very quickly, Flyer22 got two responses from experienced editors saying that the source was fine, and advised them that they shouldn't have blanked the text, which was adequately sourced, but that if they had the ability/experience to find a better source then it would be better to substitute the improved source. Flyer22 got an answer they did not want, along with a suggestion their action wasn't best. Their responses got longer and more ranty and more defensive with every post. One problem with much of what they wrote was it put words into people's mouths about how unfairly they were being treated/criticised, and so the discussion can veer off into defending what one actually did say, rather than sticking to the topic. I think Flyer22 genuinely thought this source was such an obviously terrible one per WP:MEDRS, that when multiple MEDRS-experienced editors disagreed, they were left with the only conclusion that they were criticising them because of a grudge. Addressing me they said: "All I see is an editor supporting inappropriate behaviour because of a personal grudge." This is a personal attack, and far from the only attack and insult from Flyer22 on that page. When I complained about this and said that if they continue I would "be making an admin complaint" there followed an even longer rant where I am repeatedly insulted. Flyer22 is "watching [me] spew [my] nonsense". My comments are described as "asinine" four times. And then, in the section with "I really wonder..." multiple times, they repeteadly boast about how untouchable they are and how impotent I am against them. To prove this point, they then pinged Girth Summit to settle the matter. And Girth Summit turns up to say they see no personal attacks.

I don't follow then how Girth can write on the evidence page "I don't believe that was a case of Flyer22 trying to get me to take sides". The "conduct issue" was Flyer's: "Admin Girth Summit can go ahead and tell us right now if anything I stated above is going to get me into some serious trouble". The problem with "none of this seems to me to require administrative attention" is that waving the block stick is not the only thing an admin can do. They can, for example, just make a comment about behaviour that needs to stop. And Flyer22 crossed that line multiple times in that discussion. I don't know Girth, but at the time I glanced at Flyer or Girth's talk page (I forget which) and fairly quickly established Girth had recent supportive history wrt Flyer. That made me feel like someone was playing me.

The discussion then continued between me and Sandy to analyse the source->text with advice for the newbie editor. Flyer22 made a final long defensive/ranting post accusing me, Sandy and WhatamIdoing of "lecturing" them. I think Flyer22 had expected us to lecture the newbie and explain to them why their edits had been blanked. Not only was Flyer22 wrong about the source but multiple editors said they were wrong in how they handled the newbie by blanking/warring with them.

There were a lot of hateful posts in that discussion from Flyer22 towards me and Sandy in particular, but also attacks on WhatamIdoing, who is usually masterful in avoiding personal confrontations. I felt that Girth's contribution was unhelpful and enabling someone to continue being thoroughly hostile. They confirmed Flyer22's boasts about being untouchable and Flyer then felt able to continue making attacks afterwards.

I see from the above comments that Girth was genuinely trying to help and genuinely thought they could be impartial, but IMO they are unable to see that not only were they not impartial but that they would be perceived as not being impartial. And sometimes that latter flaw is the most important one. -- Colin°^Talk 21:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the discussion, which people should look at and judge for themselves: [268] Her position was that material not sourced to a WP:MEDRS-compliant source can be removed because it may be inaccurate. She is correct. Material in other articles sourced to non-RS (some random blog, for example) can be removed, and the same applies to MEDRS, per WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS. The whole reason MEDRS is its own guideline in addition to RS is because medical topics require a higher standard. There is absolutely no obligation to retain WP:PAG-non-compliant material in a misguided effort to encourage newbies or for any other reason. That way leads only to an encyclopedia of accumulated garbage. As for personal attacks, you in that discussion engaged in that by saying, Frankly, I smell elitism here. [269] Then later you say she's confused, fault her for high personal standards and say about her upholding the rules, That's how we got here ("here" clearly being negative, in context). [270] Again, people should read the discussion and see for themselves. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above does not characterise the discussion at all. This was not a debate between those who uphold MEDRS and those who want medical articles sourced to some random blog and to be garbage. Some context may help those not familiar with the other participants in that discussion. Berchanhimez is a relatively new editor but respected, with some medical GAs under their belt and a clear interest in helping newer editors understand our guidelines: they link to their draft Berchanhimez/sandbox/New Med FAQ from their user page. I (Colin) created MEDRS many years ago by splitting the nascent medical project guidelines into one for MOS (MEDMOS) and one for Reliable Sources (MEDRS). Together with Sandy, I worked for years to get it to guideline status. WhatamIdoing is our most expert medical editor on the topic of Wikipedia guidelines and policy in general. This was Flyer asking "Is this source compliant with MEDRS" and getting an answer they didn't want to hear because they were engaged in an edit war. I don't know why they didn't back down or walk away or agree-to-disagree in the face of so many experienced editors disagreeing with them.

Crossroads, your claim "later you say she's confused" is an unhelpful twisting of what was actually said in order to make it sound like a personal attack. I said "the problem is that Flyer22 Frozen has confused advice that generally tends towards sources written for professional medics and academics with the fundamental rules of reliable / verifiable sources on Wikipedia that could be used to justifying reverting/removing text" Flyer22 was removing material that the majority of MEDRS experienced editors at the discussion thought was reliably sourced per MEDRS. To find superior sources to those that had been used by the newbie would likely require a paywall journal subscription or access to a university library. Hence the charge of elitism, which isn't (necessarily) a motivation, as suggested further above, but simply an unintended consequence of wrong-headed thinking about standards. We end up not with "The encyclopaedia anyone can edit" but "The encyclopaedia only academics or doctors can edit". -- Colin°^Talk 10:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think “elitism” is an accurate charge. Flyer’s concerns aren’t whether or not the source was behind a paywall. If this source was behind a paywall, I’d expect Flyer to have the same comments and a paywall wouldn’t change the quality of the discussed source.

That the new editor doesn’t have access to better articles because of a paywall wouldn’t be, in my opinion, a reason to include (or encourage) the inclusion of a lower quality source within an article on Wikipedia.

To me, it looks like Flyer had valid concerns over the source being used by a new editor, objecting to it not meeting standards and she had issues with encouraging new editors to utilize such sources.

In her comments, wherein she had issues with her objections being reduced to “elitism”, the source not being the “fanciest”, and that her concerns were being construed as a personal attack intended as a personal attack toward the new editor who referenced the source in question, Flyer was trying to explain her position. Her frustration in this discussion doesn’t seem to come out of nowhere. Her objections were being dismissed as, Frankly, I smell elitism here, especially that the above comments descended towards personal attack to try to rubbish the ability of another editor. Flyer's concerns were about the material and the source the editor was using in a medical article.

Finally, it doesn't appear that multiple editors said the source was fine. In this section, Sandy said she agreed with Flyer about the source. However, she disagreed on how Flyer went about matters relating to it and interacting with the newbie. Anatashala (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC) Post tweaked. Anatashala (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brainstorm

OK, @Thryduulf and SilkTork: so that's out and mentorship has been nixed, so back to the drawing board. We don't have to agree with any individual's take on what happened at the NORD reliability discussion to use it as an example for crafting a novel approach to this case. Since it is a relatively less "charged" example than some of the other issues seen on the page, maybe it can serve for generating novel approaches outside of mentorship. Crossroads's take on the NORD discussion being different than mine is what sparked this idea; I'm thinking of something modeled on what I saw of Barkeep49's adminning of the drug pricing RFC, where generally he could step in to keep things moving forward, and head off problems at the pass, but in one instance, he suggested that problems had moved beyond his remit as a neutral admin. In this case, the Barkeep role of adminning one RFC would be a neutral appointed panel overseeing the editors and sanctions applied in this case, a stop short of arb enforcement.

Suppose we had an Arbcom Appointed Panel (I will call it AAP, but let them come up with the fancy-schmancy inoffensive name, since they get the big bucks).
AAP would be comprised of five admins: 1) an arb (because they are privy to the private evidence), 2) an admin acceptable to WanderingWanda, 3) an admin acceptable to Flyer, 4) and two other demonstrably neutral (as in, never before engaged in these disputes) admins appointed by the arbs. This balances the "friendly" supporters/admins who won't enforce problem.
The AAP would expire in a year, with regular Arb enforcement taking over after that (that is, Not A Perpetual Nanny State, and this is an experiment).
AAP would be a place short of Arb Enforcement for heading off trouble at the pass. AAP could still issue sanctions if necessary, or remit events to Arb Enforcement if needed (to maintain their own neutral stance), but the idea is they would be a stopping place for resolving budding issues before they escalate to the level of needing arb enforcement.
I see that having something like this could have prevented the NORD discussion from escalating, and helped keep it on track. Suppose as soon as things began to go sideways (but hadn't yet dramatically escalated), any party had been able to approach AAP (at the first sign of trouble). That panel would have been able to step in and say things like, "SG, do you see that you might have phrased this better", or "Colin, might you have stated this another way", or "This is beyond our peacekeeping/mentoring role and into territory of breach of the arb sanctions, and needs to go to AE". A mediation panel, but not of indefinite duration; just a way to bring an otherwise good editor back into the fold without constantly being under threat of arb enforcement. At any time, the panel could say, off to AE you all go, this is over the top. But at the same time, AAP would provide better role models and neutral adminning, aimed at de-escalation.
I'm putting this here because it's just brainstorming, and with the NORD example we see the need for previously uninvolved admins, and I sure don't know how to write this into a Proposal. Just food for thought, since everyone has nixed the mentorship, but I still hope the arbs will entertain something novel. Off-topic, I wish people would stop claiming that MEDRS is something it is not, but that's a separate discussion, although that misunderstanding and widespread meme is part of the problem in the NORD discussion and in the ongoing whack-a-mole approach to medical editing that led to the disagreement there. Thinking that MEDRS is above RS is a form of elitism, since MEDRS does not stand above RS-- it explains how to apply RS in medical content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This idea is not actually that bad as far as atypical remedies go in my view. I could actually see this being a thing that could work if the right people were drafted. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still of the view that if two users are in a conflict that they cannot resolve themselves, then we use an iBan. Both can continue doing good work but without irritating each other. We have an iBan proposal here which I feel would work. The other central point is if someone's conduct is uncivil that we should follow existing guidance to not respond in kind, but if appropriate use our dispute resolution procedures - a proposal has been put forward to have a principle reminding people of that. With those two things in place, I feel that is enough here. If there is anything else to be added, it would be more in line of a principle to remind people not to bear a WP:GRUDGE. After this case, if an iBan is put in place, I should hope that the issue that opened this case is resolved; and if anyone who has spoken out in this case has dealings with either WW or Flyer after the case keeps in mind the principles of GRUDGE and following appropriate conduct dispute resolution procedures, then that should reduce the potential for any future conflict. We have some wise and useful existing guidelines, policies, and procedures; we don't need to invent any more, we just need to use those we already have. SilkTork (talk) 11:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of the article mentorship remedies tried many years ago (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Mentorship from 2007 is one that comes to mind, although not the classic example). From memory these didn't really work (although your proposal to time-limit the remedy would resolve aspect of why) and evolved into the discretionary sanctions we have today. Kudos for trying to think outside the box, but I don't think we need something like this in this case. An iban between WW and Flyer combined with some enforceable sanction that keeps both away from personalising disputes and most of the issues here will likely be resolved (directly or indirectly), and if they aren't it will either be possible for standard processes to clean them up or it will become apparent what focus a new arbcase needs. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Crossroads' evidence regarding advocacy editing

These diffs do not justify the presumption of bad faith that WanderingWanda attracted; they show totally ordinary content disputes. This doesn't necessarily mean she's right in each case, but these are all reasonable perspectives for an editor to take and represent valid policy-based concerns. Going over them one by one:

[271]: Arguing that the lead image should represent a broad and non-stereotypical view of women is entirely reasonable, and gender-ambiguity is a valid argument to present for that. It's clearly a debatable point, of course (like all lead image discussions there are multiple competing requirements that cannot all be satisfied - the image should represent the subject without focusing unduly on one aspect of it, which is especially difficult for gender articles), but WanderingWanda acknowledges this by indicating that I know this is a controversial subject so 100% feel free to revert or put forward other candidates.
[272][273]: Again, these are valid arguments per the above, over which reasonable editors can legitimately differ. Likewise, there is nothing "activist" about their arguments here [274][275]. "Human sexual behavior" is a hugely broad subject and the current image does not capture that broadness. Sexual behavior covers straight sex, and gay sex, and young sex, and old sex, and group sex, and masturbation, and roleplay, and BDSM, and white people, and people of color, and prostitution, and a million other things, and the current image is, well, exactly what you would expect given Wikipedia's systemic biases: white is an entirely reasonable argument to make - we are supposed to push back against such systematic biases. It is not advocacy to suggest that an image for sexuality should contain gay representation. And, again, note that while Flyer22 both assumed bad faith and leapt to suggesting that WanderingWanda could be banned (!) simply for being on the wrong side of this content dispute, WanderingWanda nonetheless tried to strike a conciliatory note by ending with With all that said, am I married to the particular image I chose? No. As always I am happy to look at various options and try and work towards common ground.
[276]: This has to be understood in the context of the diffs above. Flyer22 absolutely was misusing RIGHTGREATWRONGS the way WanderingWanda says in the comment being responded to here; reducing systematic bias is a core goal for the wiki as a whole and not a form of advocacy or a violation of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It is natural for an editor to raise questions about a supplement when they have seen it misused. EDIT: Also, suggesting such changes to policy is normally protected per WP:NOTNOTHERE point 3, provided it is being done to improve the encyclopedia; in this case WanderingWanda cites other specific policies they could reasonably believe are coming into conflict with how RIGHTGREATWRONGS was being employed, especially (per the other diff) by Flyer22.
[277]: The edits made there are essentially reasonable ones; again, this is a simple content dispute between editors who strongly disagree on the interpretation (and, therefore, the appropriate weight) for the subject. Making it during a page move discussion was slightly ill-advised but is hardly evidence of advocacy.
[278][279][280]: Again, a reasonable content dispute. Editors can reasonably differ over whether WP:GNL applies in that context, and especially in terms of how it ought to apply to trans-related issues.
[281]: This is, again, a reasonable dispute over how to summarize or characterize Sullivan's views.
[282]: Already discussed above, but I'll point out that Sullivan himself says (when talking about those who hold a view that he devotes the rest of the article to articulating and defending) I’ve no doubt that many will see these women as anti-trans bigots, or appeasers of homophobes and transphobes, or simply deranged publicity seekers. That is to say that even Sullivan acknowledges that the views he ultimately endorses in that piece can be interpreted as anti-trans. How can it be unreasonable to at least raise that concern on talk in (as WanderingWanda does) a civil manner? Note that Sullivan has since then absolutely attracted coverage describing his views as anti-trans, eg. [283][284]; these aren't sources I would use to describe him as such in the article voice, but they show that it is reasonable for an editor to express concerns about his biases on talk. He has a clear and well-known position on this topic and it is entirely reasonable for an editor to object to that; more generally, while it is certainly debatable (and even WP:BIASED sources can be used), what would cause a chilling effect is if editors weren't allowed to directly articulate such concerns.
[285] It is plain that the more inappropriate comment here is Flyer22's I'm guessing some here will not like that, however, considering it's not as positive as they would like it to be, which WanderingWanda was replying to. Neither editor behaves completely ideally in that exchange, but WanderingWanda was plainly baited there. Beyond that this edit shows WanderingWanda making conciliatory statements (I wouldn't have a problem with reliably sourced and appropriately weighted information about what percentage of cis people would consider dating trans people or whatever. Be my guest.) and rejecting Flyer22's fairly assume-bad-faith presumption that they would automatically object. This particular diff is the precise opposite of POV-pushing.
[286] This is an entirely legitimate concern about due weight. Additionally, mentioning that an article has been linked from a subreddit devoted to anti-trans activism is an entirely reasonable thing to do; /r/GenderCritical has been described in reliable sources ([287]) as a “feminist” subreddit with more than 60,000 members that regularly promoted transphobic views; the subreddit has since been banned for violating Reddit's policies in that regard. Obviously it linking to any Wikipedia article related to trans topics raises WP:CANVASS concerns, just as we would respond to the risk of activists getting directed to Wikipedia from any other extremist subreddit.
[288]: Same as several of the above; pushing back against systemic bias is a legitimate argument to make, and, again, WanderingWanda expresses support for several alternatives and shows a willingness to compromise.

These are all entirely fair and reasonable content disputes; none of them amount to any indication of wrongdoing whatsoever, and most of them come down to one or two core disagreements over policy and sourcing, all of which are ones editors can reasonably differ over. As I said in my assessment above, it is honestly shocking that such relatively weak things were sufficient to subject WanderingWanda to the degree of a presumption of bad faith we see in some of the diffs above - some of them might show an argument or a position argued sloppily, but none of these are significant conduct issues. If these qualified as WP:ADVOCACY, there would be essentially no editors in controversial topic areas, on any side, who are not advocates. --Aquillion (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Regarding my gay proposal for the lead image for Human male sexuality, I see some irony in Crossroads accusing me of creating a chilling effect in his evidence, then going on to indicate that there is something inherently bad and sanctionable about proposing a gay image for an article. Talk about a chilling effect! Not that it matters, but as I recall I actually had a heterosexual image in mind when I went hunting for that image. Specifically, I wanted to find a mildly sexual image of a hetero couple where the titular "human male" was more prominent in the foreground, and the woman was more in the background. I was excited when I found exactly the image I was looking for...and then I looked closer and saw that the person in the background also happened to be male! I went ahead and proposed it, knowing that, these days, mainstream sources use gay couples to illustrate broad articles about sexuality and dating all the time.[289][290][291] WanderingWanda (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

To address these ten bullet points in the order they were provided:

Extended content

This is a whitewashing job. No concern has ever been raised here with the bare fact of WW suggesting image changes. Rather, the issue is with intentionally proposing a lead image at Woman that "feels ambiguous gender-wise", as "a good thing". This is completely contrary to MOS:LEADIMAGE, which calls for "a representative image ... to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page"; and "avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there"; and "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic ... the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see"; and "should be of least shock value". WW's lip-service to "a broad and non-stereotypical view of women" and using other than images of "young white women" is hollow, since the image WW proposed was of "young white women" in ancient Greece, and they selected it specifically because they thought it androgynous – "a good thing" in WW's activistic insistence on defying everyday-reader exepectations when it comes to human sexuality and gender topics. (Whether one considers the actual image to actually be very gender-ambiguious is immaterial; WW has stated their rationale clearly).
Same story, but worse. There's no sensible interpretation of trying to make a threesome image the lead pic at Human sexual activity to be anything but defying MOS:LEADIMAGE for POINTy, advocacy reasons. "[T]hese are valid arguments" – No, they are not. In particular, "The fact that we should be mindful of reader expectation does not mean we need to be afraid of reader narrow mindedness" indicates that this is an activism move, a PoV push, an intentional tweaking of reader expectation and sensibilities. Not doing this is why we have a guideline on it. "Heteronormativity is a form of bias and we are supposed to combat bias" turns WP:SYSTEMICBIAS on its ear. It is about ensuring that topics get adequate coverage, not about holding up exceptions as exemplary and normative. With very roughly 10% of population being gay or bisexual (estimates range widely from 3.5% to around 12%, with 10% being a frequent short-hand claim), and only a fraction of them bisexual, it is not possible for an image of a bi threesome to be representative, expected, the most natural and appropriate, and of the least shock value as the lead image at Human sexual activity. It would arguably make sense to use a montage image showing several sexual practices, rather than just an illustration of M-F intercourse, but it is absolutely not credible that WW somehow did not know that their choice was inappropriate, especially after being told so. The fact that it was Flyer22 who reverted WW and inspired them to throw up a huge WP:REVTALK with bogus attempts at justification is also a clear indication that the problem is with WW, not with Flyer. WW eventually coming around to the idea of a broad montage [292] is rather meaningless when this happened after being called out for pushing a make-bi-threeways-the-norm position earlier. If that had been the end of WW's PoV antics on gender and sexuality matters it would have been meaningful, but it did not actually make a dent in them.
No, it does not "have to be" interpreted the way Aquillion wants. WW's attempt to delete WP:GREATWRONGS in its entirety is not predicated on anything Flyer22 did, in any way visible to the community members expected to !vote on this proposal. It is a proposal that stood on its own [lack of] merit, and was in fact misleading in hiding its MO, which was tied to a specific interpersonal dispute. The very fact that WW took this excessive WP:POINT action is itself evidence of why this person needs to be removed from this topic area. If, when you find your weird PoV pushing thwarted by citation to a well-accepted community principle, you then try to get rid of the principle, you are failing at Wiki.
Absolutely not reasonable edits, forcing a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC at the DAB page when whether that meaning actually was the primary topic was the very subject of the discussion (and it concluded against, BTW). Pure advocacy/PoV. "I'm not getting what I demand this way, so I try to WP:GAME my way around it." See also the WP:FAITACCOMPLI principle. The fact that Aquillion happens to agree with WW's socio-political positions seems to be completely blinding this editor to what the evidence actually means and shows. (Doesn't have to be that way; I largely agree with them, too, until we wander into things like using neo-pronouns in WP's own voice, but I have no difficulty of any kind detecting when a PoV about these matters is being advanced on our content.)
Another case of the same problem. This "people with vaginas" and "people with prostates" stuff has failed multiple consensus discussions. You can't retroactively say they were perfectly valid points when the community has made it clear that they are not perfectly valid points. It wasn't wrong to ask the question, but it was wrong to push this rather extreme approach in the content without consensus and to continue to do so after controversy arose about it. WW, incidentally, can be seen here ignoring the intent and clear meaning of the guidelines to try to get what they desire: "Use gender-neutral language ... where this can be done with clarity and precision." That is the exact opposite of confusingly changing "men" to "persons who have prostates", as if it's equivalent to "people who have brown hair".
Substituting the summary out for a short direct quote, which addresses much less, simply removed context and clarification that was also provided by that source. It served a PoV purpose to reduce that entire source to a "soundbyte" that could be taken out of context as a socio-political opinion/stance rather than an analytical position. I note that the article has returned to using the summary in Wikipedia's voice rather than the quote. And we know from other diffs that WW has attacked this same source as "transphobic" (thereby smearing any editors who want to use it), even though it clearly is not.
Yet another attempt at "damned if you do, damned if you don't". It's logically invalid to treat an author's warning that their material could be misused as an argument for Z as if it is the author arguing for Z. This is just basic reasoning, folks. There's nothing "civil" about labeling the Sullivan material "[[transphobia|anti-trans]]" (see my proposed statement of principle also treating these terms as equivalent smears). See also WW's attempt at OR in wanting to rewrite the material to say "critical of the view that a man could be both gay and attracted to a trans man", which is not what the author said at all. It's all part of a concerned WW effort to discredit the author, to recast his position through rewording or selective quotation to sound crazy. This is by definition PoV-pushing, activistic behavior. (The correct summary of the piece is what we have now: "criticized the idea that gay men should necessarily be attracted to trans men"). Note also that WW tried to pin Sullivan with the label "conservative", part of their polarize-the-issue agenda. As I've noted elsewhere, this is not a dipole, two-extremes subject area. "He has a clear and well-known position on this topic and it is entirely reasonable for an editor to object to that". No, it's not. It is not our role as editors to object to real-world writers having viewpoints. It is not required that sources be neutral (when are they ever?), but that we give them WP:DUEWEIGHT. Anyway, WW did not just "raise a concern", but in no uncertain terms attacked the source and in so doing attacked any editors relying on it.
For some reason Aquillion wants to make a big deal out of "expand the section with scholarly sources on cisgender gay men's acceptance of transgender men as romantic/sexual partners; I'm guessing some here will not like that, however, considering it's not as positive as they would like it to be." There's nothing unreasonable about this. Discussion of compromise and what it entails, including that not everyone will be pleased (nor is such unanimity required by WP:Consensus) is a rather common feature of our consensus discussions. I say things like this very frequently in WT:MOS discussions, for example. That thread is giving me a strong sense of déjà vu. In this particular case, there had already been rather extreme attempts to discredit an author for suggesting lower gay-male attraction to transmen than some editors appeared to expect or be willing to hear, so the acknowledgement that a PoV issue was at play was on-point. It may not have been the best approach, but it wasn't some kind of attack, either. There is no "bad-faith presumption" on Flyer's part that WW would object; nothing in Flyer's post singles WW out as someone who might object (though the editing pattern of WW against that source certain suggests they might). WW's "be my guest" response is not "conciliatory" at all; it's a dare and an unevidenced suggestion that the current material fails to qualify as "reliably sourced and appropriately weighted".
The issue is not whether the WP:DUE question WW opens with was appropriate. What was inappropriate was yet another tar-and-feather-my-opponents-with-"transphobic"-labels tactic by WW against sources WW doesn't like and other editors who cite them: "Relatedly, it's worth noting that this article was linked on the transphobic subreddit r/GenderCritical a little while back." This is a patently absurd attempt at guilt by association, and a transparent "rewrite it my way or you are a transphobe" ploy. People on even the most extreme online forums and webboards, on all topics, routinely link to mainstream news, Wikipedia pages, and other non-extremist material that happens to say something that poster finds interesting (and sometimes not even because they agree with it; often it's because they intend to mock it). The sheer amount of "transphobic"/"anti-trans" label mongering engaged in by WanderWanda toward other editors is all by itself sufficient for an indefinite topic ban.
"incidentally, I expect one or two editors to pre-judge and object to it for a reason that hasn't been brought up yet, namely that both figures happen to be male": This is precisely the same kind of "attempt to prefigure objections from PoV-involved persons in the debate" action that Aquillion tried to pillory Flyer22 for a few points above (except it is not couched in terms of compromise, it's just a barb for its own sake). Overall, there's nothing else important in this diff, other than again WW advocating for gay/bi lead imagery in a general human sexuality topic, which is not the most representative, most expected, etc., per MOS:LEADIMAGE. Of the WW diffs examined here, it is probably the least problematic, but does help establish the PoV pattern here.

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, SMcCandlish, for your incisive analyses above. I was also going to note this: If Aquillion is going to explain away the above diffs as not a problem at all, then it seems that there is nothing I could even hypothetically present to convince them that WanderingWanda has engaged in advocacy editing. We have the specific WP:NOTADVOCACY policy for a reason; as well as the commonly cited pages on WP:ADVOCACY and on even civil POV pushing. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right. These policies and prinicples have to mean something and be applicable to obvious qualifying patterns, or we would not have them. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: Counter response:

Extended content

I have said it before, but I will say it again: Wander was being an absolute dummy when it came to that point. It was contrarian to the point of absurdity. However, as Wander would probably point out themself, the lead image was in fact changed to now be a woman doing what can charitably described a stereotypical male occupation. Either way, yeah.. A trout for Wander for thinking we should be ambiguous about what gender we were describing in an article about said gender.
Here, I cannot more violently disagree with your notions this is somehow worse. Wander made some really well-articulated points that human sexual activity is incredibly diverse. It's an article about human sexual activity and that's what a threesome is. I would say a threesome is ten times more representative of human sexuality than some guy poking a woman's no-no zone. At the same time, I still don't see a difference between these pictures because they're equally lewd to me. I don't like either image and would prefer something much less explicit like hand holding. I mean, that is a much more common experience than doing whatever is being depicted in the lead image imo. Now I'm just rambling though.
Aquillon is saying that WW only knew about WP:RGW because Flyer22 always accused them of that in a manner than many here (though not all) have found controversial to say the least.
The way Wander argued their case afterwords, it does not seem they had a good understanding of what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC even is.
I agree here, and that was a bad edit. If Wander makes edits like that in the future without a clear change in the current consensus, a topic ban would be appropriate. However, I have not seen any evidence that anyone properly explained GNL to Wander before that edit was made.
Um, what? You are reading a lot into that single diff here. If you got other evidence you want to rebut with, then use it. Otherwise please strike your assertions that WW has attacked this same source as "transphobic" (thereby smearing any editors who want to use it), even thought it clear is not. I also would like to see evidence that there is clear consensus this source isn't transphobic. As someone who has never heard of Sullivan, I would like you to tell me why you think it is so clear that he isn't transphobic.
Who are the opponents being labeled transphobic here? /r/GenderCritical? Are you suggesting it is inappropriate for a user to bring up potential canvassing concerns from a known hate site? Have you considered that maybe Wander labeled the "GenderCritical" subreddit transphobic in order to contrast it with the gender crits mentioned in the article? Seriously, I think you are being simply silly here.
Many editors did in fact pre-judge the proposed image since it was an attempt to break with the current editorial norm on Wikipedia.

(edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to clarify, briefly.

Extended content

Well, briefly for me, anyway.

I don't think anyone's criticized the idea of WP not being gender-role-stereotypical there. The issue was of WW intentionally seeking an image that was not recognizably of women. (Though I don't think that image really qualified, it was the explicit intent). The post's not a smoking gun, just part of a continual gadfly/potstirrer pattern on gender issues from a fairly extreme position.
I think I've already addressed this. No one suggested that the topic area isn't diverse and that we shouldn't have diverse imagery. But the image again fits the WW-has-an-agenda pattern, and it failed pretty much every single line-item in MOS:LEADIMIAGE.
Maybe, but it's not all Aquillion is saying. The point is that the proper response to a rule being cited against you (whether it's a policy, a guideline, a process, or a maxim everyone treats like a guideline) is to try to understand the rule, not to seek its deletion so you can "win". WW's entire approach to Wikipedia is off-kilter, and is closely akin to using social media to spread messaging. I.e., activism. I mean, I would know. I helped invent the entire concept of online activism, and know it when I see it, when I see someone following my own playbook. (Yeah, my hair is greying.)
Yes, though as with both of the above, I was more interested in it as pattern establishment, not as "a transgression". I don't seek punishment, but removal from the topic area someone who has been and clearly will continue to be disruptive within it because they have a PoV to advance. WW has overall been a net negative in the topic area, though not to the entire project.
It's WW's responsibility to actually read the WP:P&G material that they cite as justification for what they're doing, and to be familiar with it if they plan to argue against opposition from other editors who are citing P&G against what WW is doing.
See other diffs already present [293]: "we have to begin by acknowledging what the article is: a pro-TERF and anti-trans piece. Let's call a spade a spade", and WW goes on from there, including more of their typical guilt-by-association and false-dichotomy crap. It's especially instructive in that WW makes it clear if person or source X agrees with or praises anything about person or source Y, which WW disagrees with about something, then X = tranphobe. This is not in any way reasonable. It's pure dogma absolutism. Next, it is not ever necessary to "prove" the negative that a particular source doesn't have this or that bias, or any bias. It is not required that sources be unbiased, and they generally never are. It is only required that we treat them with due weight. Given what it is being cited for – an attributed viewpoint that gay men are not obligated to engage sexually with transmen – the question is immaterial to begin with. WW's attempt to suppress this source and hang a cloud of "transphobia" over anyone who argued otherwise was grossly inappropriate.
No, the problem here is the chain of guilt-by-association: The post can be boiled down to "Because an extreme site ever mentioned this article, it must be bad, and anyone who doesn't agree with me that it's bad, exactly the way I say is it bad, is just like those extremists (and, by obvious implication, might even be one of them and trying to canvass them to come here)". It's logically bankrupt nonsense on several different levels at once. See also the first evidence point I presented here; more of the same sort of stuff.
And when Flyer22 was prefiguring some likely reactions in the other thread, it was also based on previous directly relevant experience with the editors then present. My point was that these scenarios are similar in every respect – except that WW's was not in in the course of urging compromise, but just pointedly baiting dispute for its own sake. It was a "go ahead and object, I dare you, and will call you a homophobe if you do it" stance-taking. The entire sentence otherwise serves no purpose being there.

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Analyses of evidence up to 02 Jan 2021

Most illuminating evidence

The SMcCandlish point that neither party is "the problem" - their relationship is, and the topic area they're both interested in is inherently problematic. What's considered mainstream can vary from campus to campus, it's highly multidimensional, often provoking "visceral reactions" when one trys to engage with it.
The Girth Summit (& others) point that the excessively blunt edits aren't characteristic of Flyer, as is readily apparent if you "look at her contribs, set to 500, and start scrolling down." FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The case against Flyer

Is Flyer's FOC editing detrimental to collaborative editing and consensus-building?

E.g. is Flyer unduly careless in deploying anti LGBT+ "talking points" in her FOC posts?

Tentative No. The arguments that get the most traction in "Gender critical" sites and the like are naturally likely to include those that have the most mainstream resonance, so Flyer can't be blamed for occasionally deploying them. Its regrettable, but discussions aiming for NPOV in the genders/sexuality area almost inevitably risk offending folk who are especially sensitive to the interests of particular identities.

Has Flyer excessively personalised disputes?

Tentative Yes - but there are strong extenuating circumstances that should be considered.

As per the Girth Summit point, Flyer's overly blunt edits form only a tiny % of her overall interactions. And it's understandable Flyer doesn't AGF as well as some others when you consider her history in this topic class. Even before the establishment of WP:CHILDPROTECT , Flyer was one of the foremost editors opposing those promoting harmful views on coercive sex. Some of those promoters were sock masters who ran accounts which (in some of their edits) could seem sensible, civil and even collegial. This is a topic area where article NPOV really matters - as per this academic paper, "The line between sexual violence and normative sexuality is socially constructed" and is a focus of intense struggle across the internet.

More on extenuating circumstances for Flyer's occasional excessive bluntness.

It makes sense for editors to be more passionatly engaged in the sexuality/gender topic class than they might be elsewhere. Other than attitudes on coercive sex, the topic class has many other dimensions where what's said in the media can significantly impact the quality of peoples lives. For example:

In terms of shaping attitudes towards the various minority identities, which in turn affects the level of discrimination such people experience.

In terms of not worsening various trends that are seeing hundreds of millions of people across the world miss out on the healing and renewing benefits of sex. (Some may be sceptical of this, especially if they've encountered arguments along these lines from alt right sources. For an up to date summary of the recent studies and surveys that demonstrate these trends, I'd recommend reading the 'Sex, Love and Robots' chapter from this book by the impeccably progressive Noreena Hertz.

Somewhat conversely, in not contributing to society's over emphases on the importance of sex and romantic love, which the most senior folk in public health like vice admiral Murthy have recently said is a problem that contributes to mental health issues.

FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The case against Wanda

Is Wanda a WP:POVPUSH editor?

No - though it's understandable that Flyer and some of her buddies think otherwise.
Obviously Wanda largely edits in line with their own POV, as could be said about countless other editors. But this isn't a problem unless taken to extremes. As per WP:POVPUSH , the term is used "to describe the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view" (emphases in the original). Wanda is not aggressive about their POV, and indeed, some of their positions are arguably quite centrist.

Wanda's early focus was largely on respecting trans people's name & gender pronouns preferences. That's a centrist mainstream position, a matter of common decency that even many conservatives agree with. Even back in 2013, a clear majority of the press switched to calling Chelsea Manning by her preferred name only a few days after she expressed her preference - this included the Daily Mail and Fox news! (Wikipedia led the way here - her article was renamed only a few hours after she expressed her preference. While objectors were able to get it changed back for a few months, heroic actions by admins Morwen & David Gerard kept it in place for over a week, influencing journalists and contributing to the irreversible change in how sources handled the matter.)

Analyses of specific diffs alleging advocacy by Wanda

[294] "Argues to represent "human male sexuality" with image of gay sex."

while the quote above is a reasonable description, it might be more neutral to say the image was of a romantic hug, not of actual sex. (Granted some count foreplay as part of the sex act, but if one's sensitive to these things it's clearly a post-coital hug). Even most exclusively heterosexual folks would find the image non icky - it has high apparent sexual dimorphism and many would assume the more feminine figure is a lass with short hair. It nicely represents a commonly found benevolent aspect of sexuality that's shared with heterosexual males. And it was only one of the 4 pics Wanda was proposing - all 4 of which were a big improvement over the existing lede image at the time - a masturbating monster!

[295] "Argues to get rid of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS."

If an editors experienced a policy supplement as worsening non WP:FOC editing their entitled to argue against it. ( While I support WP:RGW overall, Ive had a similar experience to Wandas. By chance the only times I recall RGW being used against me is on my rare excursions into gender topics. While I've always found it easy to reflect it back on those who wrongly accused me of it (e.g. here ) it did indeed distract from WP:FOC . )

[296] Snide comment about removal of poorly-sourced material.

As with much of the evidence various editors have submitted against Wanda, it seems a little strained to call that harmless remark "snide".

Has Wanda excessively personalised the dispute against flyer?

Tentative Yes
I'd not agree that Wanda has been harassing Flyer. But they do seem to have been excessively confrontational, and there have been a small number of minor WP:bait violations against both Flyer and her brother. But again there are strong extenuating circumstances to consider, such as the largely unprovoked apparent aggression Wanda received from Flyer in early April 2019. And while most of Flyers talk page edits are excellent FOC posts, there were enough subsequent negative personalisation against both Wanda & other newbies for Wanda to understandably view Flyer as problematic. Especially as they might not be aware of Flyers many years of effort dealing with some of the worst sort of sock masters. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'm not sure this is the best place to make this comment, but I wanted to respond to the opening question, is Flyer unduly careless in deploying anti LGBT+ "talking points" in her FOC posts? To me, the more relevant and straightforward question would be: do Flyer's posts violate FOC and TEND norms when responding to what she perceives as "pro-trans" POV? I think they clearly do, when they do the following:

- accuse other editors of "activism" without evidence;

- order other editors away from pages or topics, proclaiming OWNership;

- deploy talking points such as "Transgender ideology" and "non-trans people claiming to be trans";

- dismissing contributors on Talk pages based on subjective perceptions of their editing history, rather than addressing content.

I would also point out that the rate at which Flyer's edits are combative or inappropriate is less important than the frequency with which they give rise to problems in certain subject areas - repeated ANI disputes and the many other conflicts given in evidence show that the problem in some subject areas is considerable, even if Flyer has also authored many high-quality and uncontroversial edits. Newimpartial (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of a piece of SMcCandlish evidence

SMcCandlish just added a Placeholder of search results for WanderingWanda AND transphobic OR transphobe OR "anti-trans" OR antitrans, to prove their contention that WW habitually uses such terms as a smear tactic. The problem is, that has nothing to do with anything.

As evidence, here is the equivalent search for Flyer22: [297]. As you can see, it's much longer.

"But wait!" I hear you ask, "Flyer is a much more prolific editor than Wanda!" That's absolutely true, but it's yet another reason why the original point doesn't make sense. Without knowing how often Wanda edits, we don't know how often we should expect the words "transphobic", "transphobe" and "anti-trans" to be used around them. (And of course, that's another problem: the search just shows when the words were used around them, not by them, and bear in mind they primarily edit in the gender and sexuality topic area so there are loads of reasonable reasons for those words to be snowing up near them.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LokiTheLiar (talk • contribs) 01:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was labelled a placeholder for a reason. Sifting through that stuff is a slow and dreary process. The link (I think I already removed it because I don't need it any longer) isn't evidence in and of itself, but a list of pages to start looking at for the specific diffs I had in mind (mostly of material I have not looked at/for in a year or so). I've added bullet points for a few of them I've dug up already, but it's just the first few that came up. Yes, of course, the placeholder search just showed pages at which "WanderingWanda" and a term like "transphobic" coincide; the hard work over the next day or so will be tracking down the places where it's WW using such terms inappropriately. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

SandyGeorgia evidence

Scope of issues

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

David Fuchs you mentioned here that issues appear "to mostly be confined to a select few topics". I hope my evidence disproves that, and that we won't again see sanctions applied to only one topic area (ala drug pricing), which potentially allows similar behaviors to continue elsewhere. We have two different general reliability of sources discussions now in evidence, along with related issues (grudge-bearing) resurfacing at WT:MED. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of rollback concerns

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I have read through SandyGeorgia's evidence, and I feel it necessary to offer some thoughts on her description of my actions, and on the interactions concerning Protonk. Sandy has suggested that I should reflect on the helpfulness of my own actions with regards to Flyer; I would ask her to do the same.

Sandy says that she was concerned about Flyer's use of rollback, and that she wondered whether her thinking on the use of the tool was current, or whether it had changed over time: fair enough. If I was in that boat, I can think of a number of possible tacks to take: I might approach the editor directly to ask about specific uses of the tool; if it was someone who I thought would not welcome my approach, I might consider talking to someone else who appears to have their trust, and see whether they agree there is a problem; I might start a discussion at WT:ROLLBACK, or even at AN, or ANI. The choice would depend on lots of variables, and I can see why Sandy might have rejected some of them, but high-up in my priorities in weighing up the options would be considering how to get the message across to them in a way that they would be receptive to.

What Sandy did was to e-mail an administrator with very little recent activity on the project (250 contribs since April 2016); certainly they are not actively involved in recent changes patrolling or counter-vandalism work. I do not mean to do down Protonk's contributions, I am certain that they have done a great deal of good work, but this doesn't seem to be the ideal person to approach if you want to know whether the thinking on rollback use has changed in recent years. This is also the same administrator who had revoked the rollback right from Flyer back in 2016. I'd ask Sandy to reflect on whether that was the best choice of person to turn to if she genuinely wanted Flyer to take on board concerns about her patrolling. Surely it was predictable that when a barely-active admin, who had previously yanked the perm, showed up out of the blue on her talk page, she was going to react defensively? And FWIW, I would not describe Protonk's approach as friendly; neither was it aggressive, it was simply neutral, perhaps impersonal. That's fine, different people have different styles, but personally I would have attempted to sugar the pill somewhat if I had a message like that to deliver and I wanted it to be heard.

In my comments in that thread, I did two things. I agreed that the instances that Protonk had pointed to were cases where an edit summary was warranted - they weren't obvious vandalism, and I said that experienced editors like Flyer ideally ought to try to set an example. However, I also pointed out that reverts like that are hardly uncommon, and emphasised the point by linking to instances where Protonk himself has reverted edits that he disagrees with, but which are not vandalism, without a substantive edit summary. I do a lot of recent changes patrolling, and I frequently see edits which I decide need to be reverted, but which were probably made in good faith and so require an edit summary. I dutifully click on Twinkle's green 'Rollback (AGF)' button and type out an explanation that I hope will be useful for a new user, only to discover that while I was typing it, another patroller (often an admin) has used Huggle to revert without an edit summary. This has been happening since I started doing recent change patrolling in 2018, and is why I said that Flyer was being 'singled out' - if the community feels that it's a problem, we should address it by centralised discussion, not piecemeal by addressing individual users. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is spot on analyses if a little over polite. One would have to be emotionally tone deaf to describe ProtonK's 2nd approach as friendly. In context, it was neutral at best. And as has been recognised by many, Sandys stunningly successful term as FAC Director show her to be one of the most emotionally fluent editors in the entire project. It's equally bizarre that ProtonK could find Flyers slightly defensive but civil responses "maximally unpleasant" . That would figure if ProtonK is some kind of ultra special snowflake, who lives out their life in a safe space where folk fawn on their every word. But ProtonK is the opposite. He was my GA reviewer for Lord Keynes back in 2009, and we got to talking off wiki about the Del v Inc wars. While he didn't share my views about inclusionist heroes like ANobody, ProtonK is clearly man of the world with good insight. You don't get that kind of wisdom without having experiences > 500x as fierce as the civil exchanges with Flyer. This isn't too imply SG & PK are being dishonest – they both seem of good character, and were they being objective, are definitely too smart to think the Arbs would be fooled with this nonsense. They must somehow believe what they are saying. How does this make the slightest shred of sense? Why have elite editors spent so much energy trying to attack someone like Flyer? Ive just burst a minor blood vessel trying to puzzle it out. This reminds me of how even just witnessing the intensity of the Medicine Arb case caused one of my friends to permanently retire from wikipedia, a practicing doctor and research scientist who got an article promoted to FA only a few months after arriving on English Wikipedia. Per not wanting to suffer further injury, and as I see Flyer has yourself & several other capable editors defending her, I think I'll bow out of this arb case and remove from watchlist. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for not pinging, Girth, and your tone is a breath of fresh air on this page. In hindsight, there are many things I may have done differently wrt Flyer in many instances had this possibility raised by Sarah occurred to me earlier ("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."). I prefer to think of it as, "It may look like bitey battleground, but it is really just a faulty self-defense mechanism". I don't know if a different approach would have gotten a better outcome (as it does not seem to have worked for WhatamIdoing), but I do wish I had thought of this and made an adjustment.

Your perspective on that one instance is that I "was concerned about Flyer's use of rollback"; that was not my mindset at the time. I was concerned about Berchan, keeping his efforts to improve WPMED going, and not giving him bad advice. I wasn't really focused on Flyer at all; it was a coincidence that I had just that week re-watched dozens of medical articles, and happened to see the same thing the very day Berchan raised it. Berchan edited medical content as an IP for years before registering, and came right out of the starting gate with DYKs, GAs, and has been a boon to WP:MED; if you look at that discussion on my talk, you can sense that he may have already been frustrated at how hard it was to effect change on Wikipedia, and he was simply my main focus, as his first stab at rewriting the templates had already been rejected. I wasn't thinking about getting Rollback removed from Flyer; I was thinking about getting the right information for Berchan.

In terms of my options, I did not think at that juncture that approaching Flyer on their talk was likely to be well received, and would only inflame Flyer's pre-existing tone with me. Please consider the intimidation and threats that have been in evidence for a long time, and that if you disagree with Flyer, you are most likely to end up at ANI, where her supporters will have your head. And. By that point, I had already been assailed by Flyer in a diff I am unable to find. (Flyer is trying to do too much, particularly with automated edits, and because we both edit medical articles, I have given up after weeks of searching on finding the main diff where she went after me, but I knew that approaching her talk would probably only achieve what we have seen in so many other instances; being targeted by "friendly" supporters. Because trying to do too much may be part of why Flyer isn't slowing down to engage in constructive dialogue, one idea I have is that taking rollback rights away will actually help Flyer in the long run.) All of same applies to approaching either ANI or AN; as a Wikifriend, you may not see it, but it is all over the evidence and one knows it: no editor gets a fair shake at AN or ANI when it involves Flyer.

I have quite a history of asking dumb questions for someone with my tenure on Wikipedia. I usually ask my dumb questions at Iridescent's talk, because he understands that most of my editing is limited to FA articles, so I don't often engage certain issues or behaviors, but I'm not entirely stupid, rather inexperienced in certain areas in spite of my tenure. I simply did not want to raise this publicly, because a) I knew I would be assailed, b) it could inflame a situation involving a promising new editor, and c) it was not even my primary concern then (Berchan was) and I did not want a sideshow.

Could I have chosen a different admin to email? Well, in hindsight, certainly; look at the mess I caused for Protonk. But look at my thinking in the RFC where I pinged you, not because I knew you or knew anything about you, but because you were the involved admin. I view that as part of "not spreading a dispute". Protonk was involved in the discussion, and it seemed to me that Protonk was the editor most likely to know how that evolved and whether the thinking had subsequently changed (please recall that I had been away from editing for a number of years because of WPMED dysfunction).

I will put myself along with you in the camp of people who wonder how we came to this "collective failure, and I'm sure I have my share of blame for that". One of the things that inflamed Flyer22 wrt me was a proposal I put on the Medicine Workshop (which I later struck), and once this is over, I hope to PESTER the heck out of the current arbs to improve the processes and instructions for arbcom cases, because they are horrid and in several ways only serve to inflame tensions. The processes and instructions simply are not clear, and we end up in worse shape after an Arbcase than before; I earned Flyer's animosity by adding them to a proposal when I should not have (which I later struck). Even having been through a lengthy arbcase, I still find issues where I do not know where to put something, and have already been inappropriately targeted for my two proposals; this process needs fixing, and that is evidenced by the number of queries on talk where people just don't know how to proceed, not helped because non-clerks are answering on talk and are frequently giving wrong answers.

My main reason for responding to Barkeep's query to you is to point out that there is a collective failure, and it was furthered and enabled by allowing a climate of threat and intimidation around Flyer's activity, and it was furthered by "friends", and we are seeing that climate furthered on this workshop page, where one is assailed for allegedly "being in the other camp", even in instances when one is not. One knows that to raise a concern about Flyer is to be targeted. Forever. Becoming a target in this case will be worth it in the long run if it causes "friends" (admin or not) to contemplate whether their actions are helping their friend, as it appears that this "circling of wagons" and not reigning in certain behaviors was a factor with three admins in the 2020 Arbcom cases (BHG, Kudpung, Medicine). And to point out that, yes, at the point that Flyer pinged you to that discussion, Flyer had every reason to not consider you impartial, based on your post from a week earlier. You may feel your response to Flyer about Protonk was adequate (most of us would), but Flyer did not "hear" Drmies on using edit summaries; she heard instead the chorus of friendly support that came after Drmies, and all those people contributed to Flyer's predicament. To overcome the chorus of friendly support, it appears that a person who adopts an entirely appropriate tone such as yours was unlikely to be heard. And the point now is, yes, I was the one who brought in Protonk, and I could have never revealed that, but I did it because some people owe Protonk an apology. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for formatting issues and not proofing, I typed this up, got edit conflict, and now must dash to vet for emergency will finish when back, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reformat this if necessary, but I wanted to point out to anyone reading this that much (not all) of WP:UNBLOCKABLES has seemed to apply to Flyer, over the years. Newimpartial (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back now, left the little one at the vet, minor formatting cleanup (was not as bad as I feared :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not applicable in this case. The essay is all about people who are blocked but rapidly unblocked because of bias by others. That's not the case with her. Occam's razor says that her lack of blocks aside from the old situation with her brother is the lack of actual substantive misconduct. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't see the ways WP:FANCLUB, for example, applies mutatis mutandis to this case, then I would suggest undertaking some additional reflection. Newimpartial (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know I would be—and would expect to be—blocked if I had written some of the things I have seen in diffs. Experienced editors are expected to know better. My hypothesis continues to be that Flyer did not acquire that knowledge over time because of “friendly” supporters who encouraged and enabled behaviors that most editors would be blocked for. I understand and accept the unpleasant factors that have rightfully led others to support Flyer. But they have done it in ways that harmed Flyer by overlooking and encouraging non-policy-compliant behavior. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re Feydhuxtable 14:35, 4 January 2021 (not pinging since they've left the room). I'm sorry if you've had adverse experiences with Protonk or more knowledge about them (I should go check intersecting contribs to see if I have any, but checking my intersecting contribs is rarely fruitful since I've intersected with everyone after 15 years). The best of my memory about them is ... none, but after 15 years, I can't even keep the "good guys" from the "bad guys" straight anymore. They were the admin involved so they were the person I wrote, just as Girth Summit was the person I pinged on the Down syndrome FAC. If my judgment was clouded there, it is simply attributed to the same ole thing I raise here about Flyer ... too many irons in the fire at the time ... an issue I have addressed by disabling pings. When I used the word "friendly", I meant there appeared to be no intent to have Rollback removed, rather just to raise the concern.

Regarding your friend's FA, you'll notice I did not review that FAC. There were long-standing battleground issues around that article, which I was aware of because even while I wasn't editing, I was frequently emailed to check on possibilities of a long-term sockmaster, whom I believe your friend encountered. I was aware of the battleground around that article, and for that reason (triggering the sockmaster), did not review it at FAC. I cannot say it would be an FA today if I had reviewed it; I am unimpressed by it, and have considerable concerns. I know they had considerable other issues affecting their involvement at Wikipedia; that is not to deny what they probably explicitly told you about why they left Wikipedia, but I suggest there is more to that story.

Your statement that "Sandys stunningly successful term as FAC Director show her to be one of the most emotionally fluent editors in the entire project" gives me a good chuckle, in a sarcastic way, because precisely the opposite is true. What may have appeared to have been my "stunningly successful term as FAC" delegate, is a brilliant example of my stunning ability to let my inner Pollyanna take over, where all I actually did at FAC was work very hard, up to six hours daily, for years, for a process where my efforts were not ultimately appreciated and I was kicked in the teeth as soon as I resigned and was no longer useful to some (not all-- there are some truly fine FA writers and reviewers). There cannot be a better example of how really clueless I can be, so thanks for pointing that out. You have indicated here that your support of that article's FAC was an involved one which was not disclosed. That sort of thing was highly discouraged during my tenure at FAC, and is an example of the kinds of issues that are commonplace now in the process (that is, since they fired the leadership, and there is no longer a "buck stops here" desk, and criticism is not allowed). Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may feel your response to Flyer about Protonk was adequate (most of us would), but Flyer did not "hear" Drmies on using edit summaries; she heard instead the chorus of friendly support that came after Drmies, and all those people contributed to Flyer's predicament. I think that this cuts at the heart of the problem with regards to how what ought to have been (based on the actual diffs of core disputes) a relatively minor sequence of content disputes managed to erupt into a feud that reached ArbCom. The entire content area has WP:BATTLEGROUND issues that go beyond any two individual users. I'm concerned that it may be necessary to have a larger ArbCom case to resolve them, but in any case it's necessary to understand the behavior of both editors in the context of two starkly divergent views of the larger topic area and its underlying issues on Wikipedia. This wasn't just two editors occasionally being uncivil or casting aspersions; at every step in the process, both editors received constant reinforcement from people who agreed with them that they were fighting a vital war against activists who threatened Wikipedia's ability to cover the topic neutrally and accurately. That isn't a sustainable situation - ultimately we may need to dredge up the broader core issues, put every accusation or counter-accusation on the table, and reach a resolution on them. --Aquillion (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aquillion, purely in the interests of keeping discussion on-track, I'd like to point out that the evidence we're analysing here concerns a discussion about rollback use during general patrolling - it's not about a particular topic area. If we need an Arbcom case to discuss this wider area, it would need to be about the interpretation of our policies and guidelines covering the use of technical tools like rollback, Huggle and Stiki (if anyone ever gets that working again) and appropriate messaging to new users. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence given for Wander's harassment of Flyer22

A main sticking point of this conflict is the harassment angle, so I wanted to provide the evidence and counter-evidence for this claim.

"WanderingWanda harasses Flyer22, and the community recognized this"

From Crossroad's evidence:
(notes and commentary are marked like so)

WanderingWanda has a long history of casting WP:ASPERSIONS about Flyer22, trying to paint her as transphobic and as a TERF (a.k.a. "gender critical"), as well as other attacks.

4-19 [298] Snide reply.
- When dealing with perceived uncivil behavoir, Wander resorts to bad humour rather than becoming confrontational. Flyer22 was not right to say basically nothing Wander could possibly propose would be worth considering. That creates a very unwelcoming environment.
[299] Misrepresents her behavioral caution as a threat.
- It was a threat. See my previous comments.
5-19 [300] Misrepresents her; puts bigoted words in her mouth.
- Maybe this is true (not sure what the bigoted words are meant to be), but this is a response Flyer22 putting activist words in Wander's mouth.
[301] Snide comment.
- See my commentary above Wander's tendency to make bad jokes.
[302] Mocks and exaggerates Flyer22's criticism [303] of an image. Also was soapboxing.
- This is one of the few examples I will agree is genuine harassment of Flyer22. However, this random soapbox does undermine a lot of the arguments that Wander is a POV pusher. I will probably write about that later in another thread. below
[304] Behavior called harassment by uninvolved editor; [305] warned about WP:POLEMIC by admin; [306] told not to edit Flyer22's words by another admin.
- (1) I don't know who the uninvolved editor is supposed to be. If it's me, then that's not what I was saying. (2) Johnuniq wasn't an admin at the time. (3) There is no diff for the last claim, and the heart of that was about differing interpretations of WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN and WP:OWNTALK. It isn't harassment.
[307][308][309] Admin Swarm strongly criticizes WanderingWanda's claim that Flyer22 canvassed, and their attempt to change the guideline as a result.
- With all due respect to my former mentor, these are just his opinions about a matter now in dispute with this case (if the type of pinging Flyer22 does can be considered canvassing). It isn't actually evidence of Wander doing anything.
7-19 [310] Harasses her on her talk page again on false [311] grounds.
- That wasn't harassment. I can speak directly to Wander's intentions there, and it was that we both found it incredibly odd and unsettling that Flyer22 only reverted the MOS change after Wander had copy-edited. If these concerns cannot be brought to a user's talk page, then the only place would likely be AN/I.
[312] Baselessly attacks Flyer22 for supposedly being "trans-exclusionary".
- Wander is expressing a disagreement with Flyer22's rhetoric in her opposition to Wander's WP:BOLD change (which was determined not to have consensus and against policy). The problem wasn't with what Flyer22 said, it was how she expressed it.
8-19 [313] Accuses Flyer22 of having socked and mocks that it was her brother; compares her to someone who used blackface and the "black friends" excuse; claims she has "trans-exclusive" sympathies.
- Honestly, this just seems like frustration on Wander's part for not being allowed to simply discuss their concerns directly with Flyer22.
[314] Snide reply.
- It was a response to some pretty out-of-line comments from Flyer22.
9-19 [315] Mocks Flyer22 and her brother, casts aspersions they are the same person.
- Wander did a little bit more than, so I would say Crossroads was actually being quite charitable by only mentioning the sock thing. First they made a bad joke at Halo_jerk1's expense (while actually pinging him), and then they made a mean-spirited accusation that implied the two were the same.
11-19 [316][317] Attacks, puts words in her mouth, lies about what she said on "erasure".
- Part of that diff has already been rebutted by Loki. Not sure I have more to add there.
[318][319][320][321] Tampers with Flyer22's posts at ANI and ARCA, for which they were warned [322] by a clerk.
- Wander should've contacted the clerk team instead of editing Flyer22's comments directly.
1-20 [323] Quotes her out of context to act like she is heartless.
- Wander certainly was making an unfair attack there against Flyer22. It isn't exactly her fault that these anti-trans groups get quoted so much.
[324] Says: Flyer, who likes to go on wearying five-hundred-billion-word-long off-topic rants...
- Yeah, not cool on Wander's part.
[325] Specifically warned in ANI closure: WanderingWanda, you are hereby warned that further egregious behaviour (including hounding or casting aspersions on Flyer22 Reborn) may result in strict sanctions. The thread shows why.
- I have wrote a more detailed rebuttal to that AN/I thread: here.

Submitted for consideration, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Here, [326] the bigoted words put in Flyer22's mouth are or if instead, you'd go off about how it's yet another example of WanderingWanda pushing their sinister feminist queer agenda. Regarding "I don't know who the uninvolved editor is supposed to be.", it's Curved Space. The "last claim" in that sentence is supported by this diff: [327] Crossroads ^-talk- 23:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Newimpartial's evidence

I can't make heads or tails of this evidence. It casts aspersions, especially framing Flyer as transphobic even though the Arbs said they won't be ruling on something like that,[328] and tries to frame Halo Jerk1 as Flyer's sock or meatpuppet. I know ArbCom isn't the place for socking or meatpuppet investigations. Halo Jerk1's contribs show that he's not a single-purpose account. He kept returning, every month or couple of months, after the TERF stuff to focus on his own interests.[329] The guy just doesn't edit much. He took an interest in a few topics his sister edits? So. He's followed her before, and there's no evidence that they work in coordination to bias articles. First of all, Flyer wouldn't do that. The private evidence WanderingWanda gave the Arbs isn't why they accepted the case. One Arb saw nothing to it while another saw it as compelling, but couldn't rule out a joe job.[330]

Newimpartial says "both accounts claim that 'transgender ideology' is a real thing, rather than a term used to discredit LGBT proponents." I don't see Flyer claiming that. And where Halo uses the word, he's saying that people use the term. In that discussion, editor Pyxis Solitary does use the word without attributing it to people using it,[331] but the real problem in that link[332] is editor Fæ, who was topic-banned from the area[333] and is currently indefinitely blocked,[334] trying to police what words Pyxis Solitary can use.

Even in the proposal to ban Fæ, Halo Jerk1 doesn't say trans ideology is real. I see him disagreeing with comparing it to "gay agenda" and claims that only anti-trans people use the term.[335][336][337] He directs us to sources provided by Pyxis Solitary.[338] In response to Newimpartial calling Pyxis Solitary's sources "a collection of non-RS op-eds and screeds in conservative blogs", he asks if ''The Economist, a reputable source that uses the terminology,[339] a conservatibe blog. Is it anti-trans?[340] He also asks if trans people (one example given is Miranda Yardley) who use the term "transgender ideology" anti-trans.

Halo Jerk1 says to Newimpartial, "You only want to mention the word 'opinion pieces' when the opinion pieces aren't your own pet sources. You have repeatedly used opinion pieces or sources of a likewise MO to present stuff as fact, including when trying to keep a controversial label applied to Murphy. Crossroads1 ain't the one who removes sources solely because he doesn't like them. He isn't the one who doesn't understand WP:BALANCE. Also, it's no surprise that you can't (rather than won't) provide any good sources criticizing the term 'transgender ideology' as transphobic or demeaning, like there are good sources criticizing the term 'gay agenda' as homophobic.[341]

Does Newimpartial ever provide sources for "the term 'transgender ideology' as transphobic or demeaning, like there are good sources criticizing the term 'gay agenda' as homophobic"? Not that I see.

Pyxis Solitary comes in to provide more context.[342]

Lesbians dating trans people? It's just Halo Jerk1 and Flyer reporting that people disagree on the topic, and supporting these claims with sources.[343] [344]. There is nothing out of the ordinary for Flyer at the Lesbian erasure page. I see that she made additions to that article that Newimpartial was very pleased with.[345][346] So like always, Flyer worked to maintain a neutral point of view. And another editor[347] defends Flyer because the material she added merits inclusion in the article.

I don't understand why Newimpartial is trying to frame Flyer in a POV-pushing light. But I see nothing of the sort when she's reminding people that transgender people don't always think the same on the subject, that there is disagreement in the literature, and is adding material/sources for both sides of the debate.

Newimpartial says, "Both accounts argue that 'some trans people' question whether this specific trans person is 'actually'/'truly' transgender (I have never seen this argued elsewhere)." I have. I just googled it and it brought up Jessica Yaniv.

This transgender author[348] says Yaniv doesn't represent trans people and that "I usually don’t question someone’s gender identity, but in this case, I do wonder if she is actually transgender. She could be a cross-dressing fetishist who is only claiming to be trans as a way to gain sympathy. That alone wouldn’t concern me because I don’t kink-shame and I see nothing wrong with consenting adults pursuing their fetish fantasies. However, since Yaniv has been displaying predatory behavior toward minors, that makes the possibility far more problematic."

A case about a person named Karen White also came up. The Times source here[349] says "The transgender neighbour said: 'Other than wear a wig and put on women’s clothing, she has made no more effort.' She said that White was referred to a gender-identity clinic in Sheffield but failed to attend three appointments. 'I believe Karen is not a transgender, I believe she is more transvestite than transsexual with no real desire to be a woman,' she said."

Because I see Newimpartial's evidence as lacking and peculiar, I'm not willing to dive in to the rest of it. I just wanted to look at a few points. Others can take it from it here,thank you Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'm afraid there are a few misapprehensions in this "Analysis" I feel compelled to correct. First. Ozzoe10aaaa says I am framing Flyer as transphobic, but where on earth am I supposed to have done that? I show that Flyer (and Halo) have a POV on trans-related issues, but I never characterize that POV. It is the fact that they are pushing a POV, and not what that POV might be, that is germane to this Arb case IMO.

As far as Newimpartial says "both accounts claim that 'transgender ideology' is a real thing, rather than a term used to discredit LGBT proponents." I don't see Flyer claiming that, I provided the Flyer diff (and the relevant quote) in evidence. And concerning the rest of the next three paragraphs, Ozzie10aaaa is simply reiterating the arguments previously made by Halo as if they were entirely sound (the same way Flyer used Andrew Sullivan's arguments, coincidentally). Halo was relying on poor-quality sources - and yes, an op-ed from The Economist, by someone without qualifications in the field, is a poor-quality source - to argue that it is fine to accuse editors and BLPs on Talk pages of promoting "Transgender Ideology". There might be a place to discuss whether "Transgender Ideology" is a real thing, but that place is neither at ANI nor at ArbCom, AFAICT.

I will spend a bit more time on "Lesbians dating Trans people", because I think this is a key example of my interactions with Flyer and Halo. According to the diffs I provided, it is not simply a case as Ozzie10aaaa suggests where Halo Jerk1 and Flyer reporting that people disagree on the topic. Both Flyer and Halo, according to the diffs, present the issue as one where "lesbians" as a group and "trans people" as a group were in conflict because "trans people" expected "lesbians" to date them. I was the one, not Flyer, who brought sources to the discussion on Talk:Lesbian erasure showing that the actual conflicts were within Lesbian communities and within Trans communities (as well as where they overlap). I was the one who pointed out that the only source that seemed to frame the conflict as "Lesbians vs. Trans people" only did so in the headline, not in the supporting text. While I have appreciated some of Flyer's contributions to that article (particularly once she stopped the WALLOFTEXT to recognize what the issues were around butch identities and leabian erasure), that doesn't change the fundamental POV from which Flyer and Halo approach the trope of "Lesbians dating Trans people".

As far as Flyer reminding people that transgender people don't always think the same on the subject, that there is disagreement in the literature - yes, she has done that, but (as others have shown at length in Evidence and elsewhere at Analysis) she has then generally boiled these differences down to "activists" - who apparently all think the same - and the "older generation" of trans people who support the language and positions she is most comfortable with. And meanwhile she is implicitly assuming that editors like myself are pretending that all Trans people hold the same attitudes, political positions and preferences, even though we quite demonstrably do not think (or write) this way.

And the fact that you found an op-ed questioning Yaniv's identity and then an example of a completely different person - a convicted sex offender - who seems to be making insincere claims to trans identity doesn't really undermine the "coincidence" of the Halo and Flyer accounts pointing to Yaniv as discrediting Trans activism, or whatever WHATABOUTISM the diffs I included in Evidence were actually intended to accomplish. Perhaps, since Flyer has declined to participate in this discussion, you could explain the point Flyer and Halo were trying to make there.Newimpartial (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ozzie. I'll also add that disagreeing with Newimpartial or anyone else about what is and is not DUE/RS/whatever is not evidence of any form of misconduct and arbitration is not for rehashing old content disputes. I also find it interesting that Newimpartial used the phrase insincere claims to trans identity; there is not a doubt in my mind that had Flyer22 or Halo used that phrase, it would have been included as "evidence". It goes to show that anyone can be made to look bad taken out of context. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that disagreeing with me about DUE, RS, NPOV, Andrew Sullivan or anything else is not necessarily evidence of misconduct, only bad taste.:p But certain ways of disagreeing - including WALLOFTEXT, ignoring or distorting evidence, holding sources to differing standards depending on whether or not they support your "side", and IDHT - make up tendentious editing. The point of my evidence is not "horrors: someone disagreed with me!" I actually value people disagreeing with me, when it is done well. My point (and it has been since the request stage) is that Flyer edits on gender-related issues from a POV that she mistakes for NPOV, and the bad faith that she assumes of her "opponents" leads to problems in this editing area.

As far as your WHATABOUTIST comment about my "insincere claims" statement, I have actually spelled out previously, at some length, the position (which applies jurisprudentially in some jurisdictions) that a sincere claim to trans identity is expected when invoking, e.g., legal protections. I may be right or may be wrong about that, but my mention of sincerity here is just to point out two kinds of examples. There is a difference between actually making an evidence-based argument, and name-dropping that "Yaniv is not really Trans", and the latter is what both Flyer and Halo did in the diffs I provided. Newimpartial (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting quickly that sources that speak about such a divide are listed here: [350] Crossroads ^-talk- 07:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying note: Newimpartial reduced their evidence length as seemed necessary; [351] it looked like this [352] when Ozzie wrote the rebuttal. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Kolya Butternut evidence

In this edit [[353]] KB states that this edit June 29, 2019 is an example of Flyer22 baiting. KB did not state that they are the subject of this "bait". Based on the actual back and forth I see two editors who are frustrated with one another. Just a few edits back KB says the following to Flyer22 Flyer22 and their strawmannishness. Not interested in more boring arguments under threat of tantrum. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2019‎ (UTC). This isn't Flyer22 baiting KB. It's just frustration that's ratcheting up until Flyer22 decides to disengage. How many other pieces of evidence are so much smoke and mirrors? Springee (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I was an inexperienced editor I met incivility with incivility; I know better now.

Flyer22's June 29, 2019 comment is a more recent example of her admitting to what is apparently a years long pattern of game-playing to bait editors, as she previously admitted in the 2015 diff where she said "When I'm bored on this site, and/or want to see how deep a hole editors can dig for themselves, especially if I want to know the psychological state of the editor(s) involved, then I keep commenting...in all sorts of ways, sometimes to deprive them of their precious last word." Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be a case of someone baiting Flyer and her truly in kind rather than the other way around. Certainly not a clear cut case of Flyer trying to bait an otherwise well behaved editor. Springee (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the word "did"[354] to clarify that the 2015 diff shows a previous admission to this tactic (although the discussion is worth a read). Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Crossroads' evidence

If you look at the diffs Crossroads presented, few of them are remotely problematic. The exceptions are in context clearly Wanda taking Flyer's WP:BAIT (e.g. it's hard to believe that Wanda complaining about Flyer constantly casting aspersions against Wanda is harassment when Flyer casts aspersions even in some of these very diffs; it's also hard to believe that a snide comment that WanderingWanda immediately thought better of and deleted constitutes harassment either.)

Furthermore, Wikipedia doesn't require people be robots with no opinions, it requires editors to not let their opinions get in the way of improving the encyclopedia. It's possible to improve Wikipedia's coverage of trans people with reliable sources and a neutral point of view. As other editors note, Wanda does not let their beliefs get in the way of Wikipedia policies, and this is clear in the diffs. Most of them are bog-standard content disputes, with Wanda collaborating well with other editors. Several of them Crossroads appears to be listing entirely because he disagrees with Wanda in the underlying content dispute.

(Also, none of these diffs is recent. This conflict was addressed at ANI already, and stopped.) Loki (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one has argued against improving coverage of trans people with RS and NPOV. And this [355] was not deleted, but replaced with something just as bad. Regarding most of this, I'll say that the arbs will just have to look at the diffs and see whose presentation fits the pattern.

As for "this conflict was addressed at ANI, and stopped", well, WanderingWanda showed it was not over for them by opening this case. I and others argued that aside from that action, it was indeed in the past and so it shouldn't be accepted. The case was accepted anyway and it has been stated at various times that the scope is focused on that set of interactions: the focus of the case would basically have been interactions between Flyer and Wanda [356] The case is not limited to a single topic area, but it is focused on these two parties and especially their interactions. [357] the core of this case- the dispute between Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. [358] You can't use my argument for denying the case to now argue that WanderingWanda is totally innocent. All that stuff is in fact relevant now since we are here in a case about it. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence and workshop analysis posts submitted by Ozzie10aaaa

I do not intend to respond to evidence submitted by Ozzie10aaaa (in a series of posts that do not include Ozzie's usual signature or writing, interspersed among posts that do include his typical signature and writing), other than to point out that long pieces of "evidence" or "analysis" that point back to claims made by Crossroads do not make those claims more true (for example, that I "threatened" Flyer with an arbcase, when I did no such thing, and several other claims of the same sort-- made by Crossroads, repeated in unchacteristic posts by Ozzie). If the arbs have any question or concern about claims made by Crossroads, and repeated in evidence submitted by Ozzie, I hope they will ask me for clarification. Enough on that, in the interest of brevity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No reason for them to only ask you. Since the alleged affect of what Flyer22 does is being treated as relevant, so should the effect of anyone else's behavior. Your claims about Ozzie have been addressed here: [359] You should not be continuing to cast these WP:ASPERSIONS on Ozzie10aaaa and publicly harassing him when the clerk Moneytrees already collapsed and dismissed your accusations in this regard. [360] This attempt to re-air them should also be collapsed. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerks...Moneytrees and Cthomas3, can something be done about this, please? I aim to type more formal in this case and I'm being punished for it. SG harassed me on my talk page[361] and now here. Suggests that either Crossroads or Flyer has written my evidence and analysis for me. This insults me. Is hurtful and harmful. I put a lot of work into writing that. Flyer is gone. I'm not proxying for her. At the evidence page, one of my sigs has two dashes, other doesn't,[362] but it's still me. SG casts aspersions on my participation. Suggests I can't think for myself. Harassed SMcCandlish.[363] Frames all those who see WanderingWanda as problematic and Flyer as acting in accordance with the rules as Flyer's enablers or fans.[364] I think SG's participation in this case has been unproductive. She's not helping and should be removed from the case.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Highlight analysis of SMcCandlish's evidence

Instead of going over everything said here, I am just going to pick out the easiest stuff to refute:

The summary section does not actually summarise SMcCandlish's own evidence. It's so far removed from what a summary should even be in all honesty.

Under "smear campaigning" SMcCandlish writes, WW insists on branding source/author "conservative" (US sense) despite left/right politics not clearly relevant [365]. Doesn't get consensus for this.

Wow, where to even start with this one. First of all, in the diff apparently showing Wander "insists" on calling this source conservative, Wander says in the first line: I don't feel strongly about the word "conservative" being left in.

Wander then provides legitimate evidence that this actual self-identified conservative is (you guessed it) conservative.

Politico: Are you still a conservative?

Sullivan: "Absolutely."

Well... besides that, SMcCandlish argues that Wander didn't get consensus. To that I say; so what? Plenty of pretty decent proposals don't. That's how things work here.

Okay, so then Wander ...switches to discrediting the gay-male-authored (Andrew Sullivan) source as "a pro-TERF and anti-trans piece" [366]

We read the same article, right? He praises people that he himself describes as TERFs as couragous.

I've no doubt that many will see these women as anti-trans bigots, or appeasers of homophobes and transphobes, or simply deranged publicity seekers. ...And it's true that trans-exclusionary radical feminists or TERFs, as they are known, are one minority that is actively not tolerated by the LGBTQ establishment, and often demonized by the gay community.

...one thing I can safely say about that Heritage panel is that the women who spoke had plenty of it.

It's a piece attacking the Equality Act. It argues that trans women shouldn't compete against cis women because "they keep winning and that's unfair"

Regarding, WW paints Flyer as agreeing with material WW calls "extreme anti-trans", because Flyer pointed out someone else pointed out the material (ironically, on women subjected to false "anti-trans" and "TERF" accusations) here. Also has WP:GANG tactics.

Wander shared that diff because And if you want to bring up what other people have said about me, it's only fair to bring up what other people have said about you.

Let's not make any mistake about what Flyer22 was doing there. Very rarely does someone point out things other people said in favour of their overall point because they think said points are invalid. Flyer22 was willingly associating herself with those comments even if only to raise rhetorical points of discussion.

No evidence is provided in that diff of WP:GANG tactics.

Skipping to the "Established pattern" bit. Honestly, the established pattern (according to the above) seems to be:

(1) Someone trying to quote an anti-trans source without proper attribution.

(2) Wander saying, "Well hold on that source is anti-trans."

(3) Said person responding, "How dare you smear this source as anti-trans?!"

(4) Deadlock.

Responding to § Lobbying is incredibly difficult without being completely sarcastic. I am genuinely feeling bad for SMcCandlish at this point.

Who was SMcCandlish quoting there? Why did he feel the need to use scarequotes for his own point?

What is it that SMcCandlish feels Wander did wrong? They wrote a comment in an RFC with preference for Option 1 (wasn't even alone there).

Wander in the second diff is actively admitting they were wrong in their original interpretation of MOS:GENDERID.

Why is it bad to disagree with current established policy; if (to paraphrase Wander's words) they are expected to be consistent, but they aren't?

To make a generalised statement here, SMcCandlish draws ridiculously over-the-top conclusions about Wander based on the flimsiest pieces of evidence. Saying a person is a conservative is a part of a smear campaign; participating in an RFC is lobbying. This is so unbelievably uncharitable that I don't know what to say. Part of me has to keep reminding myself that I did cherry-pick what I was going to respond to, but another part of me is screaming that this was still provided as legitimate evidence for this case.

That seriously terrifies me. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of WanderingWanda's evidence

WanderingWanda's evidence speaks of a concept they term the "Flyer household". This is quite strange. Normally, when a person's behavior is evaluated by a community, justice requires that each person is responsible only for their own behavior. There is no valid reason to intentionally conflate Flyer22 and Halo in this way, or for Halo's behavior to be attributed to a "Flyer household".

Flyer22 was cleared of all allegations related to socking and of her brother's misbehavior. [367] That behavior by her brother from many years ago was also addressed by the administrators at that time; we don't do double jeopardy.

There is no evidence of off-site misbehavior by her. Ozzie addressed this claim. [368]

WanderingWanda casts baseless WP:ASPERSIONS about me and Flyer22's interactions (despite the fact that I am not a party to the case). I have edited in the sexuality/gender/LGBT topic area since before ever interacting with Flyer22; e.g. [369][370] I became more active on Wikipedia with time as I saw that I could have a beneficial impact. Even after Flyer22 emailed me in June 2019 with helpful advice, she continued to use my talk page (e.g. [371]). The diffs of our overlap in editing are explainable quite simply: We have an overlapping interest in the topic area and both seek to edit with NPOV in a charged topic (which includes medical/MEDMOS aspects), while also being in general active editors who often participate in RfCs and the like. I have also disagreed with Flyer22, (e.g. [372]) even at great length (e.g. [373][374]).

Flyer22 showing up here [375] at some point is completely expected, since that CfD is about a sexuality/gender-related category. In January 2020, WanderingWanda was also warned at ANI [376] that further egregious behaviour (including hounding or casting aspersions on Flyer22 Reborn) may result in strict sanctions. And yet WanderingWanda continues with these aspersions at the case request and now at the evidence page, as has been laid out.

Most of the other diffs given involve disruption or tendentious argumentation on the part of the other editor, or are straightforward observations of their behavior. Above all, these are not really different from the sorts of comments that other editors and even some admins commonly make. Several diffs involve the Pansexuality article, where so much disruption occurs that it was recently semiprotected indefinitely. [377] Crossroads ^-talk- 05:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The WP:SOCKPUPPETRY policy says that Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives. If that applies to anyone, it applies to Flyer and Halo. Here is an excerpt from the email I sent to the committee:

"Not counting a few superficial stylistic affectations that Halo Jerk1 has taken on, Halo and Flyer write in strikingly similar ways (Flyer once said that Halo "use[s] my particular phrasings"). Flyer's brother also, it seems, takes on any beefs with other editors that Flyer has ("he will target and make enemies out of people I have...disagreed with"), edits with Flyer's interests in mind ("He started editing Wikipedia to try to help me"), and has even made edits for Flyer on her behalf (editing "by proxy"). Flyer and Halo apparently even share an IP address, and in fact, various comments imply that Halo currently lives apart from Flyer yet only edits Wikipedia while visiting her (whom he "visit[s] with...every week or so") for the bizarre reason that he doesn't "want my own IPs connected to this account")."

Given these unusual circumstances, I believe sometimes speaking of Flyer and Halo as a single unit is reasonable, and is essentially what Flyer, Halo, and checkuser Alison all did here, when Flyer and Halo jointly agreed to a series of rules governing Halo's behavior. WanderingWanda (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I would probably agree with you that the Flyer22 household thing was a bit strange during the case acceptance stage. However, if you look at the evidence, it does seem like one of Halo_Jerk1's main intentions on this site is to back up his sister in arguments.
The odd thing about this for me is that I actual have first hand knowledge of what having a sibling edit Wikipedia is like (MJL's Evil Sister). I therefore intuitively know that their first instinct is always to follow you (the older sibling) around to talk to all the people who you normally talk to. However, it becomes extremely imperative for the older wiki sibling to explain that kind of behavoir is not right and should be prevented.
As I mentioned here, there are some problems in the circumstances of how evidence was presented that you and Flyer22 are a tag team. Your actions are not under scrutiny in this case, so that was more than a bit unfair of Wander to bring up as they did. There are other concerns, but I think you already said them.
As for the CFD and the AN/I, well I have already commented on the AN/I and how it shows a noticeable level of bias towards Flyer22. No comment with the respect to Flyer22 showing up at that CFD since I think the evidence can speak for itself there. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I would add that editors having or coming to have a keen topical interest or two is not a reason for suspicion; isn't that true of most editors? (I was almost entirely focused on cue sports and albinism for several years here, then domesticated animal breeds.) Nor is it odd for editors to collaborate; we encourage this. Nor for editors to agree with each other; RfCs couldn't work if we expected everyone to disagree with everyone else. It's not even unusual for an editor without a long-term interest in a subject to take one after some drama erupts. This is the effect by which general-topic-area noticeboards draw neutralizing editorial attention to obscure articles that suddenly turn into hotbeds (and may stay that way for several years). WT:MOS (which is mostly an MoS noticeboard) is the main avenue by which I pick up new topical editing interests, actually (including this one).

It's really not helpful for any of us to speculate on whether so-and-so is communicating in e-mail (or Discord or SMS or whatever the kids use these days when they won't get off my lawn). I've had e-mail exchanges with both WanderingWanda and Flyer22 before, and it's meaningless. I don't have any "intel" on Flyer22 and Halo, and I don't have a close relative (that I know of) who is a WP editor. But I have younger sisters and have always felt protective of them. So it's not faintly surprising to me that Halo would react defensively regarding verbal hostility toward Flyer22. I would imagine it's taken considerable restraint for Halo to stay out of this one, especially given that he's also a named party. That the restraint is happening is a good sign.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wanda, not sure if you've noticed, but most of your links are 10 years out of date. The world has moved on since then. Ten years back, south US could feel like a different civilisation, maybe that's why the two Floridians look the same to you. Back in 2012, having a business meeting in New York was almost the same as here in London, whereas with oil men in Texas, they'd literally swagger in to meetings with John Wayne style gun belts. Sadly, such regional differences have since been largely eroded by globalisation. I had several virtual meetings in 710 Bricknell Miami back in Oct, and it was just like everywhere else. All straight to business and no chance to impress with my encyclopaedic knowledge of Chongas. Another big change is, as per your own links, Halo used to suffer from Echopraxia, but has since got it under control. More recently, he often posts with a very different style to Flyer, e.g. here. Any fool could see the two aren't the same (unless of course they've got emotional about the matter.). If only Flyer had more of Halo's light hearted and humorous qualities, then the two of you might well now be wiki friends instead of enemies. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you explain this and this as periodic relapses into Echopraxia? Genuinely curious. Newimpartial (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the whole idea that writing style matters at all is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether Halo and Flyer use different writing styles, because it doesn't matter whether they're the same person or two people on the same IP, because policy clearly says that two people on the same IP editing in the same topic area can be treated as one person with socks. In fact WP:BROTHER specifically calls out "my little brother did it" as an excuse that should not work. Why it did in this case, I can't say, but policy is pretty clear that it shouldn't have. Loki (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BROTHER is a humor essay, not policy, and does not apply anyway because it is about fake claims of a sibling doing vandalism, while the whole point of the 2012 unblock is that Halo is a separate person. This obvious effort to block Flyer22 for Halo having been in a couple completely-separate-from-her discussions years later is refuted above. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in WP:BROTHER (or its less humorous counterpart WP:GOTHACKED) that says it's only a bad excuse if it's false. Indeed, to quote it: In fact, if you are a registered user, this guarantees you won't be unblocked, because if true this means your account has been compromised and must remain blocked for security and attribution reasons. Loki (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What WP:WIKILAWYERing. There are no actual "security and attribution" concerns here. Flyer22 the woman has been in control of Flyer22 the account since 16 July 2012. [378] You just want Flyer22 (the woman) blocked indefinitely. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That Flyer22 had nothing to do with the off-wiki canvassing on Gender-critical sites that led to this whole case being filed has been asserted, rather than proven, particularly because no-one in the Flyer household has taken responsibility for doing it in the first place. Like the IP-socking (which was also in 2019 and took place around the same time as the canvassing), this off-wiki activity was a clear violation of the terms for creating/reinstating these accounts, AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In a civilized society, we go by "innocent until proven guilty". The people claiming that's her or him have the burden of proving that. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a legal proceeding, though, and it is governed by policy rather than legal jurisprudence. And WP:FAMILY is the relevant policy. Newimpartial (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. Those two edits have considerably more colloquial language than is typically employed by Flyer. That said, there are considerable similarities, and were they representative I'd agree that the simplest explanation is partially disguised socking. But they're not representative, they're cherry picked. As a btw, while I remain awe struck by Flyers overall command of the gender / sexuality science, over the course of the case it has started to look like she & her brothers may have a weakness on Trans issues, as per your diffs. In the off wiki circles where I discuss these matters, we've all known TERFs & SWERFs are a thing for years. I didn't know about some of the complexities of LGBT+ identities before, but reading your analyses & some of the sources in places like Talk:Lesbian erasure/Archive 1 , it did seem that you have a better handle on what WP:RSs are saying in this area. It was shocking that someone capable of such good analyses could come up with such a ludricous remedy as suggesting an indeff for both Flyer & Halo! I think Loki makes a good point here , although WP:BRO is just a humour piece, maybe Halo could benefit from a reminder along the lines of WP:Meat. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you that the Halo account used a wide range of authorial voice (including obscenities) while the Flyer account used a much narrower range. From this observation, however, our intuitions point us in opposite directions. In any event, Loki correctly points out that these speculations are idle.

And as far as my proposal to indeff is concerned, I thought we were living into the (off-wiki) era where "terms of account creation" violations are finally being taken seriously - and given the history of disruption from what used to be (pre-2012) called the "Flyer sockfarm", it does not seem disproportionate to me. But obviously each of us has our own perspective. Newimpartial (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial's claims have been addressed above in this section. FeydHuxtable, I see no reason to conclude that Newimpartial has "a better handle on what WP:RSs are saying in this area" of trans topics. Flyer22 has the better handle on the topic by far, and also seeks to edit neutrally. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is your own (frequently expressed) opinion, but as I understand it you also regard yourself as seeking to edit neutrally concerning gender-related issues - and the result is often non-neutral, as in the MOSBIO edit-war I linked in Evidence and many other discussions (notably ones recorded in the archive of Talk:Graham Linehan and in many instances where the community has not accepted your view of what is neutral on gender-related issues, e.g., the Pinknews RfC). So as I said at the Case Request stage, 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. Newimpartial (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shared POV applies to you and the other editors trying to take down Flyer22 so she's out of your way. This can be seen throughout the numerous discussions linked to in this case. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever been accused of sharing a POV with WW or Loki, so that's a new one. And if you think we're trying to take down Flyer22 through some kind of collusion, "we" are obviously doing a terrible job of coordination. But there is no "we". Newimpartial (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WanderingWanda's response: The first 3 diffs are all from before the December 2012 unblock; that behavior was addressed then. Again, we don't do double jeopardy. The so-called "editing by proxy" since then was only on Flyer22's user page; the admin who brought it up then said "if she's fine with it — sure, whatever". [379] Halo visits Flyer22 because of her health issues, not for using her IP. [380] Crossroads ^-talk- 20:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this is uncomfortably close to becoming an WP:SPI and I don't think it's right for the case to be used in this way. As for similarities between Flyer and Halo's speech, I don't see that Flyer makes frequent use of "man" or curse words as a matter of exasperation while Halo does.[381][382][383][384][385] I don't see that Flyer has ever written with green text while Halo has.[386][387] They've both used "peace" (Halo on -sche's talk page[388] and Flyer in an edit summary for her good-bye message[389]), but many have. However, Halo also uses phrasings such as "Jiminy Cricket"[390] and "what I spy with my eyes",[391] which seems to be the humor FeydHuxtable speaks of. I don't see that Flyer talks like that. Imitating another's speech can only go so far.

Based on this statement by Halo, it appears that he was visiting Flyer to take care of her, not to use her IP. She has mentioned her health issues at various instances.[392] We also don't know if he still visits her to tend to her health.

Also, FeydHuxtable, I'd just like to offer my two cents on Flyer's knowledge in these areas. As an outsider reading these talk page discussions and sources Flyer has provided on these topics, I’d say Flyer does have a good handle on these sources and I wouldn’t assess her handle to be less than Newimpartial’s. In my opinion, Flyer has made legitimate points in her comments. For example, in the discussion about Sullivan,[393] Flyer doesn't suggest using that source in an authoritative way or in Wikipedia's voice. She suggests that it can be used as just one opinion in a section about social views and she offers to provide academic sources on what Sullivan is saying. Sullivan is one voice to be included, as is Jamison Green's voice. And in this discussion at Talk:Attraction to transgender people, Flyer speaks on the terminology and complexities regarding the topic, as also indicated by expert James Cantor's comments. She seems very aware of what's in the literature, including correct terminology. I also gave my opinion on these things higher up on the page.[394][395] Anatashala (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It feels like the WP:FANCLUB is running out the clock now (to AGF), but this does bring to my attention a key phrase from Flyer's comments on Andrew Sullivan noted above, As for the proposal to include "gender identity" to the Human Rights Act, people (both cisgender and transgender) have raised valid concerns about it. Now the "and transgender" part of that is a callback to the discussion of younger trans activists and older "transsexuals" who prefer the language Flyer prefers. We've talked about that. But the key point I had not underlined is that according to Flyer, these concerns are valid. So here we have Flyer's own POV about "gender identity", given the authority of Andrew Sullivan and completely congruous with Halo's The Sullivan source is absolutely appropriate for the issue of gender identity politics at ANI (in the diff I provided above. This is agreement with the source; this is common POV. How Anatashala cannot see this is quite inexplicable. Newimpartial (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't appreciate being called Flyer's fan. You don't have to agree with me, that's okay, but I'm making comments I believe need to be said. I feel this is casting aspersions on those who agree with Flyer and are of the view that she has edited neutrally on this topic. This has already been addressed by me above and by another.[396] Again, I don't know Flyer personally. As for the Sullivan source, your comments on it have been challenged by others on the page. Anatashala (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ Anatashala, fair enough, maybe I was being over bold expressing that opinion. Looking at gender / sexuality overall there's no one Id trust more than Flyer to create NPOV content in this minefield, though of course even the best individual editor won't always be right on everything. I'll be saying some prayers that the Arbs can craft remedies that will help allay concerns from Wanda and their crew, but that also won't in any way inhibit Flyer's much needed return. FeydHuxtable (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Women debate analysis

File:Minoan Women.jpg - the proposed image. (February 2020)
[397] Flyer22: "ambiguous gender-wise"
[398] Wander's initial response
[399] Later response (May 2019)

So earlier I was pretty critical of Wander's initial response. I said they were probably arguing the most absurd point in the history of Wikipedia.

However, I believe I may have been wrong there. After analyzing the evidence given for Wander's alleged harassment of Flyer22, I first learned of Wander's contemporaneous account in May 2019. Though it was indeed probably soapboxing, as Crossroads mentioned, it does provide unique insight of Wander's actual intentions with that initial response.

So why did Wander propose the image? Well, according to Wander themself, they thought it looked stereotypically feminine not androgynous. If someone thought otherwise, then that wouldn't be a big deal.

This logic is very divergent from the "Wander was trying to challenge reader expectations" claim made variously throughout this case. In fact, this May 2019 diff directly contradicts that narrative. Hence, why I discussed it here.

Kindest Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I also said at the time my goal was not specifically to pick an androgynous image.[400] WanderingWanda (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This may be because I was aware of the May 2019 clarification before the original argument, but my interpretation of that argument has always been that it was a miscommunication. From Flyer's (and apparently your) POV, "ambiguous gender-wise" meant it wasn't clear the figures in the picture were women at all, and so Wanda's counterargument that that's a good thing sounds absurd. But from Wanda's POV, especially being aware of the uncropped image with breasts, "ambiguous gender-wise" meant that they looked unfeminine or tomboyish, which Wanda (IMO plausibly) argued was a good thing for the same reason we try to avoid pictures on universal topics like Woman being white Americans. Arguably the current picture on Woman is "ambiguous gender-wise", since it's a woman with short hair doing a stereotypically masculine activity Loki (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of off-Wiki evidence

In The Atlantic, reporter Kaitlyn Tiffany writes that TERF sites make the internet another dangerous place for trans women by enabling harassment, noting that anti-trans activists target and terrorize trans women.[401]

To get an idea of what targeted harassment against a trans Wikipedia editor can look like, Funcrunch's user page has a link to a blog post where they explore, in harrowing detail, the experiences they've had with an anti-trans antagonist.[402][403]

This is why the Flyer household's off-Wiki activity crossed a big, bright red line. When they went to a hate site, they didn't just try and recruit ideologues, but also targeted specific trans (and trans "activist") editors, opening a door wide open to harassment. Whether or not any on-Wiki harassment actually occurred as a result, these off-Wiki attacks were a profound betrayal of our community.

And this wasn't the first time the Flyer household leapt over a bright red line. In evidence, I brought up the time that an editor was framed for Flyer's benefit. Even though this was a long time ago, it shows a pattern of using shocking tactics against perceived enemies.

Are the off-Wiki posts somewhat "stale"? Yes, they occurred over a year ago. But as noted in the Fram case, there are no "strict limits" about age of evidence, and older evidence can be considered if it "demonstrates severe abusive behavior",[404] and I believe this more than qualifies.

Has Flyer denied making the off-Wiki posts? Yes, however, I have submitted approx. five pages of strong stylistic and behavioral evidence tying the posts to Flyer. Nothing is ever proven 100% beyond-any-doubt, and, sure, I guess there is some slim chance that the posts were actually by a very, very, very determined, subtle, and psychopathic joe-jobber. But I believe my evidence eliminates any reasonable doubt that the posts came from anywhere but the Flyer household. This is similar to a sockpuppet investigation, and the WP:CheckUser policy makes it clear that someone can be considered a sock based purely on strong behavioral evidence, without any technical evidence. (See also: WP:DUCK.)

If Halo Jerk1 and Flyer22 Frozen wanted to challenge my evidence, by the way, I would welcome it. If they jointly gave their permission, I would be only too happy to make all the evidence public, so that the community at large could evaluate things for itself.

In my mind, the one bit of genuine doubt about the off-Wiki posts is the question of whether they were written by Flyer, or her brother, or by the two of them working in collaboration. This is a difficult knot to untangle, since Halo is practically indistinguishable from Flyer in terms of temperament, POV, and writing style (barring various stylistic affectations Halo has tried out over the years, such as the recent penchant for southernisms like "ain't", or the much more long-standing use of all-lower-case edit summaries, which began partway through the tenure of the JacobTrue account, etc). I'm sure we would all appreciate it if Flyer and Halo both weighed in on the question of Halo's involvement. But, in any case, I believe situations like this are why the WP:SOCKPUPPETRY policy says it is sometimes OK to treat two closely connected contributors as if they were the same person.

Wikipedia should be a safe, collaborative, welcoming environment. If Flyer or Halo ever come back to Wikipedia, I will do my best to collaborate with them in a civil and productive way going forward. But after the Flyer household's targeted off-Wiki attacks, and after learning about the frame-up job of an innocent editor, I will never again feel safe editing alongside Flyer or Halo. WanderingWanda (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

One of the arbs said, Reading through this report, and the private evidence emailed to the committee, and I'm not seeing anything particularly compelling. Everything I've looked at appears to be vague, overblown, or so long ago that it's irrelevant. [405] None of the arbs' reasons for accepting the case appear to be based on the private evidence. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per my post in a previous section,[406] I'd disagree with this analysis. I also agree with Crossroads. Anatashala (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

To reply to the query below: The same thing that is most helpful in every arbcom case: principles, findings, and remedies that clearly and logically follow from the evidence already presented. That we don't always get that is a shame, but it's a well-established part of the case process. As the evidence phase comes to a close there will probably be more arbs commenting here on specific proposals. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new at this so I reserve the right to be completely wrong with what I'm about to write. I think what Beeblebrox writes is good advice. I also am torn between saying it's helpful to understand how a given editor views the case in total - i.e. if User:Foo were passing the decision singlehandedly this is how the case would look and here's the evidence that supports it ("here's the evidence that supports" X feels like a truly underappreciated part of the Workshop) - and not creating duplicate discussions/proposals. Also less is more, so the editor who is more concise with comments than I've just been here is an appreciated editor. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On a minor style note, if you aren't using sections in the workshop template (remedies, etc.), just delete that stuff. TOCs and reading long arbitration cases are difficult enough. You're not helping anyone keeping around placeholders. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'm curious at this stage what Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs and Beeblebrox (and any other arb for that matter) would find most helpful from contributors. How do things look so far and where should they be going? What would be the most of help to get you to where you have the information you need to render a proper decision? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with this query. I could take time and bandwidth adding specific diffs and examples of how new editors were affected by inappropriate rollback use (because the 500-word limit does not allow one to explain), on articles that have nothing to do with Sexuality and related topics, but no point in adding to this page if that is not going to be a concern for the final decision. Really, this whole business of piling a lot of ill will on to a Workshop page, that may or may not be relevant, is really an ineffective part of arbcom processes. Feedback, please. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Beeblebrox and Barkeep49. Gee, I can hardly wait to weigh in on the mud-slinging that is going on in all the proposals. It may be a "well-established part of the case process", but that doesn't mean it is one that is effective or useful. Looking around for where I left my asbestos suit ... and wondering how often one can realistically ping the clerks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unproductive and not really relevant to the core of this case- the dispute between Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 22:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of diffs that have nothing to do with WanderingWanda vs. Flyer22. I see diffs by the anti-Flyer22 contingent that are from before WanderingWanda made the first edit under the WW name on 27 January 2019. Therefore, I think the history of some editors, themselves, should be kept in mind if their POV is to be taken into consideration in this ArbCom case. For example:

Re User:Kolya Butternut

August 2019: Warned about incivility – KB1.
May 2020: Topic ban – KB2.
September 2020: "reminded to be more mindful of the boundaries of their TBAN...." – KB3.
October 2020: One-way IBAN – KB4.
December 2020: After unblock, a two-way IBAN under GamerGate sanctions – KB5.

Re User:SandyGeorgia

June 2013: blocked then changed to a warning for "Accusing others of socking without providing evidence after being warned not to do so." – SG1.

Re User:Newimpartial

May 2017: Warned – Ni1.
July 2019: Blocked – Ni2.
December 2019: Warned – Ni3.
July 2020: One-way IBAN – Ni4.
November 2020: Warned – Ni5.
4 January 2021: Reported for edit warring – Ni6.

It seems to me that in regards to several editors, there is an abundance of pots calling kettle black here. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 18:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyxis Solitary: We're really not supposed to be introducing new diffs for consideration after the evidence phase has closed... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pyxis, for letting me know about that January 2021 case, where the filing party did not provide the required notice and I had no idea that it occurred (the page protection prevented the filing party from continuing their edit war, so there was no reason for me to look into it further).

As far as my one (and only) block, that happened when I did not understand that 3RR counted total reverts to an article page, rather than reverts to specific content. I learned my lesson - and please note that the filing party in that case was also BOOMERANG blocked as well. But yes, I have resolved not to get an EW warning for 2021 - so far, so good. Newimpartial (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^{Can we please not discuss this? It's not going to go anywhere good. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)}[reply]

^{I agree, and let's ask the clerks about this: Guerillero and Moneytrees, above comment by Pyxis Solitary seems like it's outside the scope of the case.} Loki (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, several of the arbs well and good know the circumstances surrounding my (bogus) block log, and are probably tired of having it re-surface every time someone wants to "gotcha" on me. Especially with zero connection made to this case, as I have accused no one of socking. This page is great for mud-slinging! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the moment I became experienced with conduct policies to be when I received the May 2020 six month TBAN. All of the subsequent cases are discussed in my WP:AN appeal. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brainstorming

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have two remedies in mind that I'm not sure how to formally propose:

1. The creation of a Code of Conduct for the LGBT topic area. The aim would be a set of policies that help keep discussions cool and civil and ensure that LGBT editors feel welcomed. A CoC could cover, for example, avoiding sharing personal opinions about controversial topics, avoiding pointlessly inflammatory accusations of "activism" on article talk pages, avoiding making broad comments about LGBT editors, avoiding accusing editors of being "transphobes" or "TERFs", respecting other editors' pronouns, etc, etc.

2. The creation of an elected civility taskforce made up of trusted, neutral, civil admins who would pro-actively patrol hot button areas (like discussions about transgender people, Isreal-Palestine, etc) and nip unproductive discussion in the bud in a friendly but firm manner before feuds spiral out of control. WanderingWanda (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

No offense, but the Arbs would find your #1 idea out of the case's scope. Also, idea #2 would be too subjective to form and enforce. Furthermore, the time is almost up for the Workshop phase, yet somehow I don't know whether the clerks or Arbs will close the phase either today or tomorrow. --George Ho (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]