Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests‎ | Case‎ | Flyer22 and WanderingWanda

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) at 01:21, 7 January 2021 (ce; too easy to misread "WP" as "WW" in a section full of "WW"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Evidence presented by LokiTheLiar

Flyer has a history of general incivility

There are a whole lot of examples and I don't have a ton of words, so to establish this is a pattern, I count seven people on the case request (myself, Wanda, Kolya, Sangdeboeuf, SandyGeorgia, Newimpartial, and Protonk) who all say they've personally had extremely negative interactions with Flyer, with several more saying they've witnessed such behavior as a third party. I could also give more diffs, and did in this previous ANI.

I also note that she's been warned for these behaviors several times in ANIs linked by Wanda in the original case, including the one above. Some of the diffs in that ANI and the sections following have Flyer essentially claiming she's exempt from the civility policy. (e.g. [1] [2])

Flyer has said discriminatory things regarding LGBT people

First, Flyer clearly does have strong personal feelings on this topic: A, B. Even though these aren't themselves discriminatory, it's relevant that Flyer has, for example, launched into WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX territory to complain how much the word "TERF" is overused, that "many cisgender lesbians feel their orientation is under attack" from trans people, or that a certain Andrew Sullivan op-ed about trans people was not just relevant to the article but correct. You may also want to consider the private evidence here based on what's been described about it.

These two diffs were the focus of the ANI I made against her:

  1. this one in which she objected to a notification on the ground that it would pull in LGBT editors. Several people objected.
  2. this one (middle reply, tho note the FORUMing in the top reply as well) in which she claimed WanderingWanda could not be impartial because they ID as queer and were dating a trans man. Both Wanda and I said this was inappropriate, which Flyer responded to by threatening us.

Similarly to 1, she also implied LGBT editors are inclined towards WP:ACTIVISM.

There was also a later ANI where she had misgendered someone and refused to fix the comment when challenged (though she eventually did). Alone, this could be a mistake, and the closing admin interpreted it as such, but consider the pattern of previous behavior and that she (quite rudely) refused to fix the comment at first.

Flyer has a history of canvassing

See this ANI, this ANI, and this very case. In each of them, Flyer's first comment tags a list of people specifically because they previously supported Flyer in an argument. Also see here, where in a reply to mild criticism she pings ten completely unrelated people.

To establish intent: in this case she named four editors (Wanda, myself, Kolya, and Sangdebouf) who she didn't ping. Those four are also the only ones mentioned who've come to this case with complaints about her behavior. This is not similarly true of the people Wanda pinged in the original case: e.g. qedk was pinged by Wanda and defended Flyer in this case.

Flyer has a history of (apparently effective) intimidating behavior

Behavior

Sock accusations


Spurious threats of sanctions


General clout-throwing

Effect

Flyer has often cast aspersions against Wanda

Around early 2019, Flyer often accused Wanda specifically of misbehavior (usually WP:ADVOCACY) as an argument in content disputes. We've seen these already. See also: [3][4][5][6][7][8].

After the more recent ANI involving them, they mostly stopped interacting with each other and so this behavior mostly stopped (though as seen above, Flyer did not stop casting similar aspersions against other people).

Evidence presented by Crossroads

General

Arbs need to keep in mind that many editors and even admins are at times blunt in their approach, especially with editors who are determined to engage in policy violations. Flyer22 should not be "made an example" for the sort of scattered diffs and contextless quotes that could be dug up for any editor who, like her, has hundreds of thousands of edits, many in the most contentious topics.

Some may be assuming that Flyer22 is not LGBT herself. She has not said. She's said before [9] that people have assumed a variety of identities and POVs for her; these contradict one another. [10] Here specifically, she is accused of pushing an LGBT POV. Editing neutrally results in getting accused of bias from both sides.

Flyer22 repeatedly defends LGBT, and specifically transgender, people's identities

Diffs should be read in full; they cannot be quoted at length due to word limits.

  • [11]: we go by MOS:IDENTITY regarding this. As for "going against centuries of the English language and millennia of medical knowledge," I suggest that you read the Transgender article, the Causes of transsexualism article, especially the biological aspects of one or both of those articles, and the Intersex article.
  • [12]: People in favor of calling Brandon Teena a "female,"...can be argued as biased as well....I'd never edited this article or commented on its talk page until my attention was brought to [editor]'s repeated violation of MOS:IDENTITY....WP:CONSENSUS at this talk page is that Brandon Teena should be referred to in this article by male pronouns.
  • [13] Being asked for help on the TERF topic because the asker is "striving for balance, NPOV, and sourcing...would like to make it as robust as possible."
  • [14]: Brief discussion, shows her defending a BLP's correct pronouns 5 times.
  • [15][16][17][18] Tirelessly defends correct pronouns.
  • [19] Discussion where user who pushed anti-gay viewpoints (see my comment) was topic-banned from sexuality and religion and indeffed (and is today globally locked). Flyer22 contributes crucially by supplying numerous diffs.
  • [20]: Defends inclusion of "or gender" in definition of sexual orientation, to include transgender people, against someone who wanted to define strictly based on sex. Also: [21]

WanderingWanda harasses Flyer22, and the community recognized this

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 [22] Snide reply.
  • [23] Misrepresents her behavioral caution as a threat.
  • 5-19 [24] Misrepresents her; puts bigoted words in her mouth.
  • [25] Snide comment.
  • [26] Mocks and exaggerates Flyer22's criticism [27] of an image. Also was soapboxing.
  • [28] Behavior called harassment by uninvolved editor; [29] warned about WP:POLEMIC by admin; [30] told not to edit Flyer22's words by another admin.
  • [31][32][33] Admin Swarm strongly criticizes WanderingWanda's claim that Flyer22 canvassed, and their attempt to change the guideline as a result.
  • 7-19 [34] Harasses her on her talk page again on false [35] grounds.
  • [36] Baselessly attacks Flyer22 for supposedly being "trans-exclusionary".
  • 8-19 [37] 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.
  • [38] Snide reply.
  • 9-19 [39] Mocks Flyer22 and her brother, casts aspersions they are the same person.
  • 11-19 [40][41] Attacks, puts words in her mouth, lies about what she said on "erasure".
  • [42][43][44][45] Tampers with Flyer22's posts at ANI and ARCA, for which they were warned [46] by a clerk.
  • 1-20 [47] Quotes her out of context to act like she is heartless.
  • [48] Says: Flyer, who likes to go on wearying five-hundred-billion-word-long off-topic rants...
  • [49] 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.

WanderingWanda engages in advocacy editing

WP:NOTADVOCACY is policy. Flyer22 has often rebutted WanderingWanda's advocacy, and this appears to be the root of their hostility toward her.

  • 2-19 [50] Argues for picture that is "ambiguous gender-wise" at Woman.
  • 4-19 [51][52] Edit wars over image for explicitly activistic reasons; [53][54] argues activistically on talk page.
  • 5-19 [55] Argues to get rid of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
  • [56] Chastised by 3 other editors for WP:PUSH edits during their own move request.
  • 7-19 [57][58] Argues to stop defining women as female; [59] casts aspersions on that definition and editors arguing for it.
  • [60] Edit wars and argues to replace "women" with "people with vaginas" (this sort of thing was later overwhelmingly rejected at the Village Pump: [61]). Tendentiously argues against multiple editors on talk page for it with cherry-picked sources: [62][63]
  • 8-19 [64][65][66] Edit wars over rewording a sentence.
  • [67] Chilling effect by describing a source as anti-trans.
  • [68] Snide comment about removal of poorly-sourced material.
  • 11-19 [69] Casts aspersions on content.
  • [70] Argues to represent "human male sexuality" with image of gay sex.

Responses

LokiTheLiar: None of the three ANIs' official closures [71][72][73] contain any such warning. This [74] closure is not phrased as a "warning", and also states, Flyer22_Reborn's tireless and level-headed contributions to an especially contentious subject matter is acknowledged by many in this report. The quote from here [75] is a secondary closure; the first comes down harder on WanderingWanda. The context of this [76] can be seen in the other numerous debates on that page (especially here [77]). [78] Anyone involved in that conversation would have known exactly who was meant, so it's still an attack. [79] This was not deleted at all; merely reworded but casting the same aspersions.

FeydHuxtable: She did not threaten WW with a permaban, but noted that other editors who continue with that behavior pattern get reprimanded. [80] User page warning templates work on the same principle - it's okay to warn against bad behavior. Flyer22's follow-up was very good: [81]

Nardog: This matter was already dismissed by admins. [82]

MJL: Seems to cast WP:ASPERSIONS or suggest a presumption of guilt. Women also face a great deal of harassment on Wikipedia. [83][84]

Rab V: She addressed your arguments, not you.

Kolya Butternut: Edit summaries have been taken out of context. For example, for the Nathan Larson one, there was no BLP violation, and an admin/CheckUser questioned the need for oversighting the material. [85]

SandyGeorgia: When Rollback is used as part of WP:Huggle, Huggle allows for sending the editor being reverted an explanation message, which is what she does. Explained here: [86] Crossroads -talk- 23:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Revised Crossroads -talk- 23:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Evidence presented by Feyd Huxtable

A tragic feud between outstanding editors

Flyer has been recently and repeatedly hailed as one of our very best editors who easily falls into the top three leading editors when it comes to women. These are bold claims, yet seem accurate. To review Flyer's oeuvre is to be awe struck by a level of courage, generosity and equity comparable to the likes of Aeschylus , Cervantes or Racine. Flyer may be chiefly concerned with women and children, but her broad compassion, adherence to our content policies and command of the mainstream science results in her work greatly benefiting various LGBT+ identities, asexuals and even cis hetro males.

Wanda hasnt yet made even 0.1% of Flyer's substantive contributions, yet some of their skills easily outshine her. Unfortunately for Flyer, this includes tactical awareness and ability to read the room. Excepting her interactions with Flyer, Wanda is pretty much a model of collegiality. Clearly passionate about gender issues, Wanda still posts with moderation and fairness to opposing perspectives. Only a couple of months after becoming active, Wanda was rightly hailed as a potential future community leader.

So how did two deeply caring, gifted, mainstream & progressive editors get to feuding? The answer's not clear from Wanda's own diffs, which (to the seasoned Wikipedian) may suggest Flyer is largely in the right. Editor interaction tools show considerable overlap starting almost immediately after Wanda became active, but initially little that's problematic. Wanda took Flyers early criticisms in good grace, partly accepting Flyer was correct, and making genuine apologies. Things went south on 9 April 2019 when Flyer decided to waltz onto Wanda's talk page and suggest they might be a lying sock, which Wanda didn't appreciate at all. Only two days later, in response to Wanda's (admittedly ill judged) attempt to change the lead pic on a sexuality article , Flyer needlessly threatened Wanda with a permaban. From this point on, despite Flyer later raising her game and making much better WP:FOC posts, Wanda no longer engaged with her in a collegial way. And considering the unwarranted aggression they received from Flyer, which also seems to have directed at other promising (relative) newbies like Kolya and Loki, it's hard to blame them. You bite enough newbies, eventually you'll provoke someone who can bite back a lot harder.

What makes this so tragic is that in many ways Flyer would have been a perfect & peerless teacher for someone like Wanda. No matter how good your intuitions and intentions, POV pushing can be self-defeating and harmful (Which is not to say Wanda's a POV pusher, but with their editing apparently far less grounded in WP:RS than Flyer's, they risk having similar effects. ). Until 9 April, all the indications were that Wanda would have slowly but surely learnt from Flyer about the benefits of being guided by our editing policy and a broad understanding of the mainstream scientific sources. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Anatashala

Flyer’s comments have been misrepresented

Regarding the allegation that Flyer implied LGBT status is a “handicap” or an inclination toward WP:Activism an editor must overcome,[87] this diff is used as support. However, in the diff, Flyer makes no blanket statement about all LGBT editors. She states “a lot of our LGBT editors engage in activism editing”. Based on Flyer’s extensive experience editing in LGBT areas, this appears to be an experience-based observation about multiple LGBT editors she interacted with rather than a prejudicial statement about LGBT editors as a whole.

Regarding the allegation that Flyer has misgendered another editor.[88] Flyer did not do so deliberately and was not aware of the editor's preference stated on the editor's talk page.[89] [90] [91] She also mentioned being otherwise occupied. She states she had intended to fix the error, not being aware of the user’s preference until another editor's comment. Her second issue was with her comment being edited.[92] Flyer did not revert the editing of her comment due to insistence on misgendering, but rather because she was intent on correcting her comment herself per WP:Talk.

Regarding the allegation that Flyer was trying to prevent more LGBT editors from participating because they’re LGBT.[93] Flyer’s concerns were over a lack of diversity of opinions from a variety of areas. In her post, Flyer advised that retitling the article should rely on Wikipedia's title policy rather than the LGBT status of editors.[94]

Regarding the allegation that Flyer accused LGBT editors of hypocrisy.[95] In the diff used as support[96] during a discussion objecting to the wording "identifies as”, Flyer points out this wording is used by a source that is cited by some LGBT editors but said source appears not to be acceptable in this instance. Flyer’s concerns appear to be over inconsistent use of accepted sources.

Regarding the allegation that Flyer has broached WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX wrt TERF.[97] Flyer’s concern appears to be that it’s a controversial term many (including academics) disagree on, as supported by a source cited[98] in the TERF article (which Crossroads points to here) and here. It explains, “‘TERF’ is widely used across online platforms as a way to denigrate and dismiss the women (and some men) who disagree with the dominant narrative on trans issues. [...] Although its usage is becoming ever broader, one of the groups it targets are lesbians who merely maintain that same-sex attraction is not equivalent to transphobia, another is women who believe that women’s oppression is sex-based, and are concerned about erasing the political importance of female bodies.”

Flyer’s support for the transgender community

Flyer has defended the genders of transgender individuals, such as here, here, and here. She supported that the word “transvestite” is generally considered an offensive and outdated word here while she has a long history of working on these articles and collaborated with transgender editors such as here and here. Flyer’s issues and concerns with WanderingWanda don’t appear to come from a place of transphobia or anti-LGBT sentiments but over WP:NPOV, WP:Advocacy, and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in particular.[99]

Evidence presented by Nardog

Circumstances of the misgendering

Flyer used "he" to refer to a user who had just corrected other editors who used "they" and stated she preferred feminine pronouns, in a section Flyer created herself and said she would be check[ing] back. The account of the misgendered user bears a feminine name.

When creating a section at User talk:MacySinrich on 3 May 2020, Flyer said, No need for anyone to ping me to this section. I'll check back. On 6 May, in the same section, I and Paul August used "their" and "they", respectively, to refer to MacySinrich, and Macy stated "my preferred pronouns are She/Her". On her user page, MacySinrich stated that her preferred pronouns were "She/her/herself They/them/themself" until 13 April 2020, when she removed "They/them/themself" from the list (though leaving {{User:UBX/pronoun:they}} under a collapsed section), which is why I said "I didn't see you had updated your preference" when I apologized and corrected my reference. Later that day I also said, "Macy, if you don't want people to misgender you anymore, you may express your preferred pronouns in the Preferences...", which reveals Macy had not set her stated preference in Special:Preferences and {{they|MacySinrich}} would have yielded "they" at the time. A few hours later, Flyer used "he" and "him" to refer to MacySinrich. I found this concerning, so I suggested on Flyer's talk that she correct it . She removed my message three minutes later, with just the default undo summary. Then I asked what her intention of the removal was, and Flyer again removed my message, this time saying, I read your comment the first time! I am busy and was planning on getting around to striking out out "he. I did not checked this editor's user page until after your first post. I care not about you and the other one wanting to protect this problematic editor. Keep pushing me, and I will type up a thorough WP:ANI thread on this editor, and they will be blocked. Go away. I then replaced Flyer's misgendering sentence with {{redacted}} and left a reply. She then reverted the redaction and the reply, with the summary Don't change my comments, replaced he and him with he she (<del>he</del> she) and him her (<del>him</del> her), respectively, in total of three edits ([100][101][102]), and created a section on my user talk titled "WP:Harassment" which just said You must really want to be blocked today. I then brought the matter to ANI and left a notice on Flyer's talk, which she promptly removed saying, Like I stated before, go away. Flyer did not rescind her striking out, in lieu of simply correcting, the pronouns (which Flyer defended on ANI on the grounds that striking out was done when people have unintentionally misgendered me), or restore my comment which she removed while saying "Don't change my comments", until Macy and I did them here and here.

Evidence presented by MJL

I just have some background topics I would like to discuss.

Background: LGBT+ users

According to a recent WMF statement from Maggie Dennis, many LGBTQIA+ users have been targeted, harassed, and attacked on Wikipedia.[103][104]

WanderingWanda started in good faith

Wander started actively editing Wikipedia in order to launch an RFC about crediting the Wachowskis as such for the articles on the Matrix. Their stated goal was to "...[focus] on improving Wikipedia's coverage of LGBT topics."[105]

notes
That's all I got. –MJL ‐Talk‐🤶 19:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How improving our coverage of LGBT topics was spun into activism is beyond the scope of my evidence. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer given favourable treatment

When you have been around for a long time, and your tenure has mostly been positive; then it stands to reason admins will be less likely to consider sanctions against you.

For example, take this AN/I thread. It started when Ivanvector moved a discussion from his talk page to AN/I.[106][107][108] Despite JzG's initial close that both sides were at fault,[109] and Wander's comments intending to refrain from further dispute with Flyer,[110][111] community consensus ended up being in favour of admonishing Wander.[112]

Halo_Jerk1 some battleground mentality

In Wander's opening statement, they provided a pretty telling diff about Halo_Jerk1 that has not received a lot of attention.[113]

In it, Halo makes a clear divide between transgender editors and seemingly everyone else who doesn't agree with them. He also ended up pinging roughly 23 different users in the opening WP:BLP/N post. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wander has previously been attacked for their identity before

It's important to note; only a few days before set of discussions in May below, Wander was offensively attacked as a "transtrender" by another user.[114]

Dispute resolution history

  • (2019-04-09) Flyer22 inquires about Wander's potential sockpuppet status.[115]
  • (2019-04-11) That conversation had devolved into allegations of WP:ADVOCACY.[116]
  • (2019-05-19) Wander started at least two threads on Flyer22's talk page in order to settle the controversy between the two.[117][118] Both seemed less than helpful honestly.
  • (2019-05-19) Flyer22 posts to Wander's talk page accusing them of WP:HOUNDING. Says an AN/I report is forthcoming.[119]
  • (2019-08-22) AN/I thread is filed against Flyer22.[120] Flyer22 counters with claims against Wander.[121]
  • (2019-08-23) AN/I thread closed with no action against either party.[122]
  • (2020-01) See above.

Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Halo_Jerk1 is Flyer22's brother

While Halo_Jerk1 is his own man,[123] he does have some history worth discussing.

Banking_honesty

After this edit, Flyer22 was blocked. She revealed her brother.[124]

An IP claimed to be her brother.[125][126][127] This IP user and Flyer's brother both used proxies.[128][129]

Brother uses Flyer22's account.[130][131] Intentionally mimics her phrasing.[132]

Halo_Jerk1: Forward Unto Dawn

December 2012, Flyer22 blocked again for brother reasons.[133][134] Brother proxy edits.[135][136][137][138]

For unblock restrictions: Halo_jerk1 is to:[139][140]

Pass a Method harassment

Flyer22 suspected WP:SOCK.[141] Harassment happens as Proxy IP;[142][143] Halo_Jerk1.[144][145]

Proxying for sister

Halo_Jerk1 edits sister talk page.[146]

Gets warned not to.[147]

Submitted. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Rab V

I bowed out of the last couple interactions I had involving Flyer due to Flyer making personal accusations.

Examples

In this edit Flyer accuses me of only taking a position due to 'personal feelings' though my arguments were only based on reliable sources and wiki policy.

Again here Flyer accuses me of activist editing and claims debating with me is pointless. Here she doubles down on this accusation after being asked not to make personal attacks.

Evidence presented by Kolya Butternut

Flyer22 has a history of making inappropriate edit summaries, violating WP:ESDONTS

She has been warned or asked to stop:

Nov 11, 2020 by The Rambling Man regarding aggressive edit summaries the same day: [148], [149], [150]

July, 2019 by Mcfnord, please no "sweeping adverse claims about my competence" in ES.

January, 2019 by oversighter HJ Mitchell, "You used the edit summary to make a snarky remark...and the only purpose it's likely to serve is to goad Larson…." [151]

2018 by CapnZapp, please no "snide remarks" in ES.

2016 by Sangdeboeuf, please no "taunts or other personal comments—WP:ESDONTS".

A selection of edit summaries showing persistent violations of ESDONTS:

Dec 4 "Laying it on thick, huh? ... And we will dismiss people based on their political beliefs if those political beliefs are, for example, Trump nonsense."

04:45, Nov 28 "This is a damn BLP!"

01:54, Nov 28 Accusations and threats.

Nov 23 Snide remarks.

Nov 20 "The sources are right there! Where are yours?" [152], "So tired of editors going by their personal opinions. Ugh." [153]

Nov 12, 2020, Flyer22 wrote "Off to report you, I go" in a dummy edit, [154] and her WP:3RR report resulted in a warning for her as well. [155]

Oct 11 "You care nothing about discussion or consensus. Only what you want to do. Didn't you state that you were done editing these types of articles? Move on."

Oct 8 Criticism and threats.

Sept 18 Snide remarks, threats to canvass.

Sept 11 "The only one acting like a newbie and childish is you."

Sept 7 Aggressive criticism.

Sept 4 "I'd rather not revisit that and the asnine 'it's porn' arguments."

Aug 22 Aggression.

July 21 Aggressive criticism and using an RfC as a threat.

July 21 "What are you thinking????"

July 8 Severe aggression.

July 7 "You are really re-adding 'fool' to a damn guideline?" Threatening an RfC.

June 25 Aggression, threatening an RfC.

Flyer22 has a history of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior

Flyer22 does not WP:AVOIDYOU; she engages in WP:EGO battles

  • Nov 28-29, 2020, "...Is this something to do with wanting to 'win' or be right?"... [156] Bataromatic ...
"More of the issue I find here is that you are rude, and this is an ongoing issue for you based on what I've read from your talk page and edit history. Yes, this is a problem. This is a community, not a battlefield. I truly don't give a shit where you put my addition or who you tattle to--just don't be nasty about your edits and passive aggression is the definition of being nasty. Also, I don't care whether you care or not that I find you rude or about your patience. Just be nice to others from now on, and I won't care what you do." [157] Bataromatic
"Long sigh...I do not need a lesson from some newbie who can't be bothered to follow our policies and guidelines and then cries 'you're being mean'..." [158] Flyer22

Notice the persistent EGO BATTLEGROUND rhetoric with "you" vs "I"

  • Nov 24, 2020 "You don't get it", "You are the one who...", vs "I don't state anything...unless it's true", "I'm known to...support my arguments", "I know what I'm talking about." Flyer22
August 25, 2020, Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi "...I find it humorous and silly that you are pushing me on this, given that things never go your way when I propose something and bring in various other editors. And per my recent posts above, bringing in various others is what I would be doing. I would not be wasting time crafting a proposal to your skewed liking. It tickles me that you came back here days later just to make that snide remark. Did it take you days to think it over? Must have..." Flyer22
  • Aug 23, 2020 "I have not waffled on anything. You have things backwards. As usual, I know what I'm talking about." Flyer22
  • July-Aug, 2020 hatted discussion "It's not about winning, I don't understand why do you see this as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and resort to WP:BLUD...calling my response rambling & going off at the mouth was uncalled for." Bi-on-ic

Following a representative example of an WP:EGO WP:BATTLE (with partial apology):

"You were WAY more patient than I would have been. That was incredibly rude." Red Slash 23:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
"Concur with User:Red Slash's assessment. ... User:Flyer22 Frozen's conduct was clearly disruptive and rude, yet User:Keizers responded with great patience. We need more editors willing to go the extra mile like that." --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
"Coolcaesar, um, no. And don't ping me to this page again." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • 17 July 2020 "...And we both know you would consider this article a POV issue no matter what." Flyer22

Older examples further demonstrating long-term pattern:

  • July 16, 2019 "...Talking about yourself again, I see. I also see that you are desperate for the the last word. .... But when an actual authoritative source is put in front of you, you ignore what it states because it doesn't fit your POV. ...And, like me, Crossroads1 was clear about some of the absurdity of your philosophizing. ... Move on. Do stop taking the time to try to debate me; you are out of your element." Flyer22
  • July 7, 2019 "You are that desperate for the last word? Really? You came back with more irrational commentary, I see..." Flyer22

Flyer22 engages in WP:BAITING

  • June 29, 2019 Flyer22 says "Okay." in response to "This is an obvious setup so that if I respond Flyer can make it look like I needed to get the last word, and if I don't respond Flyer can create unchallenged false narratives." Kolya Butternut
  • 2017 "Flyer, almost everyone has been in heated disagreement with you at some point. Getting people to disagree with you seems to be your super power." WhatamIdoing
  • 2015 Comment containing some of Flyer22's common antagonistic rhetoric:
"...I have that effect on people (some of them become obsessed with me; just ask some of my talk page stalkers)...that pesky need of yours to assert your wannabe superiority and get the last word is likely what keeps driving you on. As for me? 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." Flyer22

Flyer22 violates WP:POLEMIC

  • Dec 10, 2020 Regarding Arbitration, "certain editors go all out to prove false narratives, ... this 'must take down Flyer' thing." Flyer22
  • Dec 1, 2020 Previously cited polemic against myself.

Rebuttal to Valereee's evidence

Per xtools,[159] in 2020 Flyer22 made 16,276 mainspace edits of which:

(Semi-)automated edits: 13,707 (84.2%)

Non-automated edits: 2,569 (15.8%)

Per xtools,[160] in 2020 Flyer22 made 8,912 user talk edits of which:

(Semi-)automated edits 8,069 (90.5%)

Non-automated edits 843 (9.5%)

From Nov 11, 2020 to Dec 10, 2020, Flyer22 made 2740 edits, 1400 of which were minor.[161]

Evidence presented by Girth Summit

Flyer22 is not homophobic or transphobic

I think the diffs that Crossroads has already presented show that Flyer22 is not a homophobe or a transphobe. I'd like to present a few more: I don't want to add to your workload, I don't believe that any of these are duplicates but apologies if they've already been posted.

In my view, these show Flyer22 editing constructively in this area, defending the application of our MOS:GENDERID guidelines, discussing which terms ought to be used in articles in light of sourcing and policy. I simply cannot accept that this is an editor who can fairly be described as a homophobe or a transphobe. With regards to the case mentioned above where she misgendered a Wikipedia editor during a discussion, and didn't immediately correct her comments, I do interpret as an honest mistake - I don't accept that someone who invests so much time in getting our articles right in this regard would intentionally do it to another editor. Mistakes happen, and sometimes people don't appreciate others fixing it for them when they intend to go and fix it themselves.

Flyer22 and canvassing

I see comments above about Flyer22 pinging people in discussions - indeed, one in particular has been pointed out in which I was pinged. On that particular case, I'll note that she pinged me on a matter of conduct rather than content. I consider myself to have a good relationship with both Flyer22 and with SandyGeorgia (one of her interlocutors in that discussion): I don't believe that was a case of Flyer22 trying to get me to take sides, rather her asking an uninvolved administrator to comment on whether there was a conduct issue that needed to be addressed.

On the more general question on whether she has inappropriately canvassed people in defending herself here, I think this case has involved quite a lot of that in mustering people to comment against her as well. Protonk in particular, who was pinged to the discussion, appears to have logged in for the first time in months to leave their comment (and immediately afterwards left this on their talk - make of that what you can). I encourage people to read the whole discussion from September that Protonk refers to: I don't think it shows Flyer22 (or anyone else involved) in a bad light.

Flyer22 being generally aggressive

Yeah, she can be blunt. And yeah, if you selectively stack up the bluntest comments she's made, it might look like that's her default mode. If you just look at her contribs, set to 500, and start scrolling down, you see that her edit summaries are generally fine, often very helpful - she is not routinely aggressive, and lots of people have the occasional slip. I know a few admins, including a couple of former arbs, who would have significantly more 'fuck off' type edit summaries and talk page comments if anyone cared to trawl through their contribs. I truly believe in our civility policy, and do my best to set a good example in that area, but I also believe in fairness, and I don't see Flyer22 as being anywhere near the top of the list in terms of incivility with their edit summaries or talk page comments. I have encouraged her in the past to try to adopt a less confrontational tone, but as I said at the case request she edits in areas where she frequently encounters POV pushers, socks of LTAs, as well as miscellaneous trolls and vandals, and has had to put up with a ton of abuse in the past - if that has worn her down, I'd like to see us making efforts to help her rather than giving her the boot. GirthSummit (blether) 11:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence presented by Equivamp

About Flyer22's comments on Talk:Genderqueer

My comment describing Flyer22's objection to notifying Talk:Transgender of the move request on Talk:Genderqueer as "offensive" has been mentioned a few times. I want to say that when I made the comment, I did so because I found it out of character for Flyer22. I can't speak to her thoughts with any authority, but my guess is that Flyer thought Wanda was ascribing (or at least hoping for) LGBT editors to be of a single mind, and ended up ironically being the one who did so to accuse Wanda of canvassing. Make of that what you will. --Equivamp - talk 14:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Valereee

Background: Proportionality

Flyer22 has made 360K edits, including over 100K to various talk pages. I think it’s very tempting to look at someone who has had a greater sheer number of problematic interactions than the average user and conclude that must mean they’re a problematic editor. I think this is important background evidence for the committee to consider. —valereee (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence presented by Aircorn

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Previous Account?

While I agree with Feyd that the relationship between these two editors appears to have gone south following Flyer posting this at Wandas talk page I disagree with the waltz onto Wanda's talk page and suggest they might be a lying sock part. Asking if an editor has previous accounts is acceptable and Flyer is skilled at recognising non-new editors[162]. It wasn’t unreasonable considering Wanda first edits were creating their talk and user pages before soon starting a RFC [163], while they were editing at guideline[164] policy [165] and MOS[166] [167] within two months. Flyer herself gave a very good reason why she was suspicious [168]. Although these edits[169] [170] are indicative of a new editor.

Advocacy

Advocacy for any view is prohibited, [171] even if those are views that most editors here support. There has been suggestions of trans activism at articles.[172] A lot of WanderingWandas editing could be construed as advocacy. Their early edits all involved changing the Wachowskis’ credits because Somewhere out there there's a transgender kid who found out the filmmakers behind some of their favorite movies are trans. When that person browses articles about the Wachowskis I want them to see that the Wachowskis are respected and I want that person to know that they are worthy of respect.[173] The vast majority of their edits are gender related and have a specific thrust[174] In addition to Crossroads diffs one I noticed was the deliberate addition of a poor quality lead image to Transgender[175] because they wanted to present the group a certain way.[176]

Evidence presented by Pyxis Solitary

WanderingWanda does harass Flyer22

"...Incidentally, your view that those two articles are "atrocious" seems to be shared by many on that subreddit." (i.e. r/GenderCritical) – WanderingWanda to Flyer22, 23:51, 7 November 2019. I strongly objected to WW's implication that editor Flyer22 was someone from an anti-trans Reddit, and in the "WanderingWanda and their interaction with me" complaint on User/admin El C's talk page I described it as a "mud-slinging comment", and added that "the editor that goaded and shit-stirred is the editor that should take a break from gender-related articles" -- and I was definitely referring to WW.

One hour before WanderingWanda's hostile comment to Flyer22 (@22:39, 7 November 2019), WW deleted a bulk -- A and B -- of Flyer22's statement in an ArbCom request, falsely describing it as violating WP:NPA.

In a January 2020 ANI, WanderingWanda was warned to stop hounding Flyer22 and casting aspersions on her: "WanderingWanda, you are hereby warned that further egregious behaviour (including hounding or casting aspersions on Flyer22 Reborn) may result in strict sanctions."

[ As simply another example of an ill-disposed attitude that creates antagonism and increases the escalation of conflict: WanderingWanda mocked another editor's comment in an article discussion (06:19, 15 October 2019). ]

Rebuttal

Sock

Regarding the claim that Flyer22 called WanderingWanda a sock: she did not. Asking an editor if he/she/they is a newbie does not mean you're accusing them of being a sock. If you read that 9 April 2019 thread ("Previous account?") you can see that based on WanderingWanda being a supposed newbie (first article edit since 30 May 2016 was made on 27 January 2019), Flyer was concerned about WW's editing. All editors are allowed to ask another editor if they have another Wikipedia account. As a matter of fact, in the 2019 WP:SOCK discussion "Guidance about whether to simply ask them", it was determined that editors are allowed to ask a User if he/she/they have more than one account. And it was another editor that created a suspected sockpuppet investigation on 6 May 2019 regarding WanderingWanda.

Anti-LGBT

Regarding the claim that Flyer22 is anti-LGBT or dismissive of LGBT editors: she is not. Flyer22 has accumulated hundreds of edits (more like thousands, really, if we did an actual count), throughout many years, on LGBT-related articles and has collaborated with many "LGBT" editors (such as I) in building and improving many LGBT-related subjects. Suffice it to say that if Flyer22 were to be anti-LGBT, it would have been an obvious problem detected a long time ago by a lot of us lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender editors.


Evidence presented by Aquillion

Flyer22 has cast aspersions and engaged in battleground conduct

  • [177][178]: Since we have a certain group trying to make it so that the notable birth name doesn't go in the led... ... Arguing with Aquillon, Rab V, and Newimpartial on this will get editors' nowhere. Best to start an RfC and see just how many uninvolved editors weigh in and how the strength of arguments like Crossroads's hold up against activist arguments.
  • [179]: After an editor points out that her characterization of the motives behind the people she was in a dispute with as activism was a personal attack, she doubles down, saying When I see any kind of activist arguments, like I'm seeing now,I will state so.
  • [180]: When another editor objects to her repeatedly characterizing people she's in a dispute with as activists (with no evidence or argument to back it up), she doubles down once more, saying Just like you are free to have your opinion about whether arguments are activist arguments and what the intentions of others are, I am free to have mine. While she tries to couch her aspersions as a comment on their arguments by repeatedly using the term "activist arguments", she indicates here that her intent is to question their intentions.
  • Here, not only does Flyer22 cast more aspersions (Yes, let's call a spade a spade: You are, as usual, letting your political views affect how you go about editing these articles), she makes it clear she's doing so as part of her own WP:ADVOCACY by passionately arguing that the opinion piece she is pushing for is correct on the facts.

Note that per Loki's evidence this type of presumption of activism is part of what brought her into conflict with WanderingWanda; but this shows it was not limited to her interactions with WanderingWanda.

Evidence presented by SMcCandlish

Preliminary notes

WanderingWanda said it best: "There should...be some sort of policy for this kind of unproductive old-married-couple behavior" [181]. Neither editor is "the problem"; the topic area (much more complex than a dichotomy) is mired in PoV factionalism. Some parties are more problematic than either of these two (broader case is needed). But one here is more problematic than the other.

Summary

  • Diffs show Flyer22 very wrongly smeared as transphobic/homophobic/TERF (mostly through "clever" WP:CIVILPOV insinuations). "Failing" to agree with every advocacy viewpoint of one camp about TG-NB-GQ and other queer-related topics is not anti-LGBTQ+ hostility.
    • The most positive thing that can come from this case: a FoF and remedy, that accusations of transphobia or homophobia without sufficient evidence are actionable as personal attacks and won't be tolerated. Several participants in this discussion should be admonished for this already.
    • Most accusations against Flyer are straw man, guilt by association, and false dichotomy fallacies. Many don't show what is purported, aren't illustrative of a problem, or have nothing to do with this topic and/or this two-editor feud ("laundrylisting").
  • Comparing Flyer's policy-grounded position to WW's sometimes extreme viewpoint-pushing is a false equivalence.
    • Another is likening concerns about advocacy (governed by policy at WP:NOT and WP:NPOV), to aspersions of transphobia/homophobia/TERFism. These aren't similar; one is behavior observation/criticism, one is a personal attack/smear tactic. "Activism" is a viewpoint-neutral term.
  • WW has unclean hands; there's ample evidence that most behavioral accusations against Flyer apply also to WW, not so much vice versa.

Additional evidence

  • Two admins back-to-back gave WanderingWanda clear and essentially final warnings about behavior in relation to Flyer22: [182] [183]; at least one opposes WW getting just another admonition [184].
  • Smear-campaigning
    • WW insists on branding source/author "conservative" (US sense) despite left/right politics not clearly relevant [185]. Doesn't get consensus for this.
      • WW switches to discrediting the gay-male-authored (Andrew Sullivan) source as "a pro-TERF and anti-trans piece" [186], mischaracterizing contents, relying on personal anecdote. No sources for this, and it doesn't agree with sources in our article on author. Disingenuously poses as not actually very interested in such labeling [187], despite that being WW's continual focus. Other problems in here like misidentifying Mumsnet as "anti-trans internet hangout".
      • 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.
    • WW tries to paint our article (and neutrality-seeking editors like Flyer22) as "gender crit", with UNDUE claims, anecdote of seeing it mentioned at Reddit, also implying meatpuppetry [188]. Flyer22 rebuts [189].
      • WW doubled down: "So you share r/GenderCritical's general views on these articles, is what you're saying?"; false accusation: "repeated the extreme position" that trans rights = lesbian erasure [190] (reality: Flyer22 noted the view's existence, that certain proposals can play into it, lend it credence [191] [192]).
      • WW "tripled down", rewrote last post to be worse: even clearer insinuation of being in cahoots with a subreddit, direct accusation of canvassing it [193]. WW's "secret evidence" revealed 2021-01-06 to be from "gender critical site", and WW can't identify better than "person very similar to Flyer"; WW has difficulty distinguishing viewpoints in this area at all. E.g. in that post, equates "gender-critical" and "transphobic" [194]. In other diffs here equates both with "anti-trans", "TERF", etc., ignoring all nuance/variation. Not "credible witness".
    • WW on conservative-leaning lesbian activist group GtLO: "hate speech" [195] and "extremist anti-trans" [196], in effort to suppress citation as a WP:POVSOURCE; baiting Flyer22 as not "anyone with a heart".
    • Established pattern: 1) Smear source/author (with innuendo not evidence); 2) if didn't work outright, bait editors into refuting bogus claims about source; 3) use diffs of that to accuse them of supporting, defending, and pushing PoV of source; 4) tie source and editors to evidence-free claims about web forums (which WW mischaracterizes anyway). Works if editors sharing WW's PoV repeat key messages from this often enough to cast doubt on source and on targeted editors.
  • WW intent to "lobby" against established site-wide consensus on treatment of TG/NB/GQ names and pronouns: [197] [198].
  • Image fiascos (February to April 2019); key WP:P&G pages here are MOS:LEADIMAGE, MOS:SHOCKVALUE, WP:GRATUITOUS, MOS:PERTINENCE:
    • WW seeks androgynous lead image at Woman [199]; criticized [200] [201] [202]; prevaricates about it to make Flyer look unreasonable [203].
    • WW tries to censor lead image of And Then There Were None (notable in part for decades of publication under racist original title), twisting P&G to suit socio-political view [204] [205]; WP:IDHT, proof by assertion act [206] after refutations ([207] [208] [209]); nonsense claims about other article [210]; weird false analogy [211]; weirder handwaving, argument to emotion, turning WP:UNDUE on its ear [212].
      • MichaelMaggs's summary: "What you've [WanderingWanda] called 'compromise' seems to consist of ignoring consensus so far and accepting your preferred answer" [213].
    • WW unilaterally changes Human sexual activity lead image to fantasy drawing of man-man-woman bisexual threesome [214]; gets reverted for clear reasons (WW transgressing all the P&G they mis-cited at And Then There Were None) [215]; WW revert-wars, ignores LEADIMAGE, says Wikipedia shouldn't "be afraid of reader narrow mindedness" and should "combat" heteronormativity [216].
      • Flyer takes it to talk [217]; WW overreacts ("absurdly hostile escalation"), lectures, mis-describes image, circular-argument misdirection to avoid all the P&G concerns raised [218]. Flyer explains again, likens WW behavior to that in Woman case, summarizes: "Your issue is that you keep trying to 'enlighten' readers or broaden readers' expectations. That is not what Wikipedia is about. We follow the majority or mainstream; we do not lead." [219].
      • WW proposes multiple lead images [220]; after told why that won't get consensus [221] [222], WW goes IDHT again, with baiting and homophobia smear: "with 3/4 of the images not being gay this should hopefully satisfy the handwringing about gay representation" (plus OR about gay male sex preferences) [223]. Basically BATTLEGROUND / FORUM antics about WW's pet issues. After WP:SNOWBALL forms against, WW only concedes with more baiting [224].
      • NB: Twice in one of these diffs, and once again in another, WW engages in a bisexual erasure pattern, describing acts in threesome image as "gay [male] sex/penetration". Cf. WW's overt hostility to recognition of lesbian erasure as a thing.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC); revised: 23:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Ozzie10aaaa

There is more to say about Flyer22 than there is to say about WanderingWanda

I echo Girth Summit and Valereee's arguments. This case was brought against Flyer, and she has many more edits than WanderingWanda. So there's more focus on Flyer. 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. There are admins who say far worse.

Beeblebrox said "Arbcom is not a court, it's purpose is to stop current and sustained disruption of the project, not to punish users for things they may have done in the past" and "the focus of the case would basically have been interactions between Flyer and Wanda."[225] So why does this page include all these diffs of Flyer in disputes with others? They don't show a pattern of misbehavior. They show the occasional, hot dispute.

Flyer22 and WanderingWanda shouldn't be treated the same in this. One (WanderingWanda) harassed the other and engaged in activism. A two-way interaction ban would be unfair to Flyer. If WanderingWanda edits a topic and engages in activism, it means Flyer can't challenge it.

Accusations of WanderingWanda's advocacy are well-supported/Wikipedians are not to engage in it

It's all there.

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

WP:POVFIGHTER. Supplement added in 2018 with little support.[226] Not a policy or guideline. Opposing POV-pushing, advocacy, and reporting sockpuppetry is the Wikipedia approach. WP:POVFIGHTER says "If you see it as your mission to protect article content from any edits that are against Wikipedia policy, you are a good Wikipedia editor." Flyer does that. Many at the request page[227] and above agree. Flyer doesn't seek these things out. She rebuts/challenges them.

WP:NOTADVOCACY is policy. Saying "activist arguments" is fine.[228]

MOS:LEADIMAGE says, "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image [...] to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page." So "ambiguous gender-wise"[229] is not what people will expect to see as the lead image at Woman. A threesome is not what readers will expect to see as the lead image at Human sexual activity.[230] And it's not Wikipedia's job to challenge readers' expectations. WP:Due weight and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS guide us.

"People" replacing "women" harms accuracy.[231]

WanderingWanda has terribly harassed Flyer22

It's all there.

WanderingWanda mocks those with differing opinions and belittles experts to further own advocacy

  • WanderingWanda mocks an editor for having a difference of opinion.[232]
  • WanderingWanda belittles psychology/sexology expert James Cantor.[233] Mocks him by winking. Flyer and Crossroads challenge them on this.[234][235]
  • WanderingWanda says that "autogynephilia theory isn't in the scientific mainstream."[238] Cantor rebuts them.[239]

Kolya Butternut's evidence takes things out of context

For example:

Bataromatic. Editor engaged in WP:Synthesis. Flyer tried to guide them. Was attacked.[240]

You vs. I?[241] We all say "you" or "I." We usually can't avoid it.

The Last Jedi. The editor cast aspersions on her. She didn't threaten an RfC.[242][243][244]

Bi-on-ic was being disruptive, [245] as found by AN.[246]

I find almost all of Kolya Butternut's evidence takes things out of context, thank you --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal to (SandyGeorgia's evidence below)

Word count for extension is under 500 without diffs.

Sandy's evidence takes things out of context (like point 3 stringing together unrelated events spanning 2014-2020).

Flyer presents evidence she and Sandy got along for years until the WP:ARBMED.[247]. As recently as July 15, 2020,[248] Sandy told a newbie that "you would be well served to work with Flyer22." This comment was after the Arb case, but things were never the same between them after that case. Sandy seems to agree,[249] but her analysis is wrong.

I went to Flyer about the case. She was surprised Sandy tried to list her as a problem there.[250]. Sandy felt Flyer aided Doc James in misconduct. Others there said Sandy should remove Flyer from the listing.[251] She did.

Still, this carried over to WP:Med and MED:MOS. Sandy points to this[252] MOS discussion as evidence of Flyer's bad behavior. But it shows that after Flyer's salient point of discussing big changes first, Sandy says that Flyer was "mucking up" the talk page with "excess markup"[253] and condescends to her.[254]. There wasn't any need for that, and so Flyer notes her markup isn't anything different than what others are doing.[255][256].

Flyer rebuts Sandy on WP:Talk and WP:Lead issues.[257] Sandy mocks her.[258]

Sandy and another say things in MEDMOS should align with wider Wikipedia consensus and should be removed if they don't.[259][260] Another editor and Flyer say MEDMOS is a community-wide guideline.[261] [262] The guidance was developed by multiple editors.

In discussion[263] arguing against removing WP:Lead guidance, Flyer seeks opinions in compliance with WP:APPNOTE.[264] Two editors thank her,[265][266] and three agree with her.[267][268][269] But Sandy accuses her of canvassing, claims discussion will lead to voting rather than discussing, threatens Flyer with an Arb case.[270]

So in subsequent discussion, Crossroads says Sandy was intimidating/attacking Flyer.[271][272] Says Sandy misrepresented findings in the med Arb case.[273]

Sandy took both discussions in a rude/unhelpful direction, accusing Flyer of canvassing/attacking people while she attacked Flyer/personalized things.

The other stuff:

[274][275] Sandy casting aspersions on admins who agree Flyer uses rollback responsibly. Uses Girth Summit's response[276] as confirmation that she's right. Not so fast, says Girth.[277]

[278]. Ancient dispute. Other editor being ruder.

[279] [280]. All just Flyer arguing Sandy after Sandy's condescension/attacks. Says "take me to ANI" after Sandy's aspersions/threat.[281]

[282]. Just Flyer responding after being banned from Kolya's talk.

[283].

No misuse of rollback.[284][285][286] STIK/Huggle not just for vandalism.[287][288] Permits option to not use edit summaries. Standard among those who use the tools.[289][290][291][292][293] Permits leaving messages on editor talk pages, which Flyer does and which is better than newbies missing edit summaries.[294] She might leave a personalized message[295][296] or revert self.[297][298]

[299]. Hot dispute with disruptive editor, who was later topic-banned again,

[300] like Flyer predicted.[301]

[302] [303]. Ancient canvassing history. Hasn't done anything like that since.

[304] Unnecessary advice about gravedancing Flyer had not engaged in.

Med talk with newbie was not personalizing.[305]


Flyer's goodbye not POLEMIC.[306]

Newbies appreciating Flyer:[307][308][309][310][311][312][313][314][315]

Rebuttal (to Newimpartial's evidence below)

It's here.[316]. Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by SandyGeorgia

Others have been subjected to worse than has WPMED, so my diffs aren’t that useful. My evidence has two points: Flyer's behaviors extend beyond the editors/topics so-far mentioned, and are enabled by "friendly" admin/ANI supporters.[317] Interaction with Flyer (diffed in others' evidence) includes disparaging "newbies" with reminders of Flyer's own superiority and expertise; bitey personalization; battleground; threats and taunts to see lessers sanctioned; and an unwillingness to dialogue towards dispute resolution, best expressed in Flyer’s own words.[318]

  1. Defensive with attitude about "newbies": "condescension",[319] "do you think I am, some newbie"?[320], disparaging edit summaries.[321]
  2. Conflicts extend to Mark Worthen and WhatamIdoing, two WPMED editors I've never seen anyone else have a problem with,[322]
    a) and even to editors in agreement with Flyer,[323]
    b) and to noticeboards, in this example of heaping battleground intimidation, threats, and abuse on another:[324] taunts "go report me at ANI and see what happens".[325]
  3. Pings for support,[326][327] instead of aiming to resolve differences,[328] after acknowledging RFC was closed no consensus [329] and while repeatedly misstating other views as only "one or two editors"; intransigence in accepting advice from even those pinged: [330]
  4. General reluctance to heed advice: [331][332]
  5. Threats, taunts and boasting of ability to gain support from admins: "take me to ANI",[333] "I will never be sanctioned".[334]
  6. Extends battleground to edit summaries, which serves to broadcast for follower support: [335][336][337] even via null edits.[338]
  7. Inappropriate WP:ROLLBACKUSE: [339][340] [341][342][343] [344]; [345] [346]
    a) indifference to effect on new editors, enabled by "friendly" feedback.[347] [348] [349] [350]
  8. Personalizes discussions: see [351] and "passive aggressive" personal attack[352] because I request conformance with WP:TALK per old eyes.[353][354]
    a) Casting aspersions: implies collusion with Colin's "editing partner",[355] because Flyer was dissatisfied with Arb outcome.[356] (Note POLEMIC: I somehow became the focus although minor in this case.)
    b) Misinterpretation, defensiveness fueled by others,[357] projecting "agree with me or else you will end up sanctioned".
  9. Attempts at positive reinforcement,[358] reminding Flyer that approaches like excessive pinging[359] have led to past impasses,[360] or apology/clarification[361] have no effect.
  10. Bitey and battleground behaviors are supported by others here (conclusion: "If there are further specific 'incidents' the issue can always be raised a second time") and again when they are raised a second time,[362] indicating Flyer can deliver on promises to retaliate.
  11. In discussion with a promising newly registered former IPeditor about redesigning the WP:MED templates to be more welcoming,[363] WP:ROLLBACKUSE is raised.[364][365][366] Having just re-watchlisted 50–100 articles as things turned around post-Medicine Arbcase, I simultaneously saw the problem when my watchlist was hit by Flyer's inappropriate rollback.[367][368] Investigating who gave Flyer rollback rights led me to email Protonk to ask if thinking on Rollback had changed, and my take was outdated. A week later, I saw Protonk make a friendly inquiry to Flyer's talk, his motives impugned, and two admins state he had an undue focus on Flyer.[369] Flyer’s ability to deliver on retaliatory threats forced me to silence then.
  12. Effect on new and established editors alike.[370][371][372]

Evidence presented by Newimpartial

  • Halo as SPA

June, 2019 Halo account re-activated after 5 years, then posted on a page where Flyer and A145GI15I95 had both been active [373] (10 days after the latter went dark[374]). Until January, 2020 [375] Halo continued as an SPA.

  • POV-pushing

Halo was remarkably successful in shifting discussion on the term TERF, defending Flyer at a Talk page [376] and promoting his POV [377] [378].

  • Questionable behaviour

On Talk:Mermaids (charity)[379] Halo left Flyer-like argument.

Edits "Protecting" Flyer included these exchanges: [380] [381] [382] [383] [384] [385] [386] [387]

Flyer seems unable to distinguish between her own POV and NPOV on these issues, and has gone to great lengths to demonstrate that she is “right”. This WALLOFTEXT [388] and subsequent discussion show Flyer seemingly refusing to read the sources she herself had cited and repeatedly restating her initial position (ending [389]).

Flyer similarly offered a WALLOFTEXT to another editor (ending [390]). My unsuccessful attempt to convey the complexities of gender identity issues for lesbian communities produced this sustained IDONTHEARTHAT response (ending [391]).

Finally, in an edit war in November 2020 Flyer reinstated [392] guideline text, alongside Crossroads [393] and [394] SMcCandlish, modifying the guideline and encouraging the inclusion of "deadnames" in the lead of articles beyond the status quo. Flyer followed with IDONTHEARTHAT interventions on Talk (beginning: [395]).

Additional Flyer example: POV editing re: name changes [396] [397]

Halo and Flyer accounts show problematic family resemblances

  • Statements showing a specific shared POV

"Transgender Ideology"

Both accounts claim that "transgender ideology" is a real thing , rather than a term used to discredit LGBT proponents.

Flyer22 [398] Halo: [399], [400]

"Lesbians dating trans people"

Both accounts argue that the conflict over "lesbians dating trans people" is an argument pitting "lesbians" against "trans people", while reliable sources depict a set of arguments among lesbians and among trans people instead.

Halo: [401] Flyer: [402]

  • Shared rhetorical moves

"Is Yaniv transgender"?

Both accounts argue that "some trans people" question whether this specific trans person is "actually"/"truly" transgender.

Halo: [403]

Flyer (after citing a source that does not refer to the case in question): [404]

"I have LGBTQ friends"

Flyer at Talk: Woman: [405]:

Halo at ANI: [406]

Disparaging Canadian sources

Flyer at Talk:Woman: [407]

Halo at ANI: [408]

‘’Reliance on Andrew Sullivan’s op-ed pieces’’

Flyer at Talk: Attraction to Transgender people: [409]

Halo at ANI: [410]

  • Shared tendentious strategies

Insisting on the last word

Halo pushing labels he prefers to use while arguing that other labels are inappropriate: [411].

Flyer22 saying [412] Best to speak for yourself rather than try to get me to believe what others' intentions are. Regardless of whatever your points are, I disagree, followed by a pure last word comment.[413]

CU threats

Halo [414] resembles Flyer22's (edit summary) comment.[415]

Selective notification

The Halo account pinged participants on one side of a dispute to a noticeboard discussion [416] and then defended this action with a multi-pronged, Flyer-style rant [417]. See also this explanation of email canvassing activity RfC.[418]

As has been noted by others, the Flyer22 account similarly pinged "their side" in her response to the request for this Arbcom case. [419]

Evidence presented by Johnuniq

Flyer has sometimes asked new editors if they have edited previously. That is a reaction to the fact that she has been on the receiving end of a lot of sock attention. It's too hard to find all of that, but just the history of User talk:Flyer22 Frozen shows that 302 users who posted on Flyer's talk are now indefinitely blocked. The block reason for 138 of those suggest the user was socking, and a further 6 are noted as "long-term abuse". See my sandbox (permalink) for details. The large number of indeffed users is because the topic of sexuality has attracted a lot of non-encyclopedic attention which Flyer has opposed.

The reason I and others have supported Flyer is that we have observed that she has worked to ensure that articles use appropriate sources and present what is verified about topics in a neutral manner. For example, many new editors have tried to rework Macrophilia to say (without sources) that lots of women have fantasies about giant men, or to add fan images such as this. Flyer has reasonably opposed attempts like that over a very long period, for example: September 2015 and June 2016. For an idea of the breadth of topics covered, see Flyer's November 2013 revert of an interesting suggestion at Virginity and a November 2010 revert at Anal sex.

Consider this edit where Flyer restored "the prostate in males" rather than "the prostate in those who have it". Is that evidence of Flyer's advocacy or of her opposing advocacy? That might be an in-the-eye-of-the-beholder thing, but Flyer's edit is in line with standard procedure in anatomy articles, and was supported in this VPR discussion.

Evidence presented by WanderingWanda

The Flyer household framed an editor

In 2011, a member of the Flyer family (allegedly Flyer's brother) framed a community member named "DDiaz" that Flyer had been arguing with.[420][421][422][423]

The Flyer household broke an agreement with a CheckUser

In 2011, Flyer and her brother were blocked for an extensive dirty tricks campaign which was allegedly waged by Flyer's brother.[424] In order to be unblocked, Flyer and Halo had to jointly agree to certain terms, including: Your brother gets his own WP account - just one - and sticks to that without logging out.[425]

In 2019, Halo openly said he engaged in logged-out editing, and seemed to imply it was unjust for one of his IPs to be blocked.[426]

Flyer engaged in factional organizing

When Flyer lost her battle to prevent the Genderqueer article from being moved to Non-binary gender, a move which Flyer incorrectly said represented "activism" winning out,[427] three things happened:

1. Right before the RM close, Flyer (or a person very similar to Flyer) attempted to recruit transphobic editors at a gender critical site (see email).

2. Within days of the RM close, Flyer's brother, who hadn't been spotted for years, suddenly appeared and became embroiled in a disputes related to transgender people, first in the form of an IP sock (see email), and then, once that IP was blocked, the old Halo Jerk1 account.[428][429]

3. Within about a month of the RM close, Flyer started an email correspondence with then-newbie editor Crossroads,[430] and afterwards Crossroads started to become involved in discussions about transgender people[431] and a close ally of Flyer.

Flyer and Crossroads are an unusually close-knit tag-team

Crossroads, who only became active in 2019, has edited 652 of the same pages as Flyer.[432] The two editors extensively show up to the same articles together and back each other up. Sometimes they offer an explanation for their shared presence (I came here via looking at Crossroads's contributions[433]), but most of the time they do not.[434], [435]. [436], [437]. [438], [439].

Flyer harassed, bullied, and hounded me

Loki's diffs above provide a good overview of Flyer's persistent bullying and harassment.[440]

Flyer once followed me to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 5, a page unlikely to be on anyone's watchlist.[441][442] (Note that my edit was days after previous edit, and Flyer's was about an hour after mine).

Flyer once attempted to make me feel followed and intimidated with a statement on my user page: from those watching your contributions after your posts on my talk page.[443]

I didn't always respond to Flyer's bullying campaign against me in the best way, as others have already outlined. But in January 2020, I made a unilateral de-escalation pledge,[444] which I have rigidly stood by. Since that pledge, I have been nothing but professional towards Flyer, and Flyer seems to have mostly backed off me, with one or two exceptions.[445]

Flyer is uncivil, personalizes disputes, casts aspersions, and bites newbies

  • 7 December 2020: Flyer WP:BITEs a newbie who was making good faith but questionable LGBT-related edits, by falsely accusing them of Edit warring.[446] (You can see from the article histories that this editor never edit warred.[447][448][449][450])
  • 4 December: Laying it on thick, huh? This is excessive. And we will dismiss people based on their political beliefs if those political beliefs are, for example, Trump nonsense.[451]
  • 4 December: LOL...the above editor coming back several days later to get the last word while pointing to a section I'm obviously already [aware] of partly proves my point...I am laughing hard right now.[452]
  • 3 December: Isaacl, you and I never agree. So I'm not surprised that you are making a bigger issue out of this than it is.[453]
  • 2 December: I can point to different instances of you making it seem like the DSM is the be-all and end-all. [454]
  • 2 December: As usual, the above editor is misrepresenting... [455]
  • 2 December: If we took this to Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, your arguments would stand no chance, just like your MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES argument stands no chance with the way that MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES is currently written. Your odd interpretations of our policies and guidelines are tiring. [456]
  • 1 December: I can't image why you have suddenly forgotten to sign your post, like actual newbies forget to do.[457]
  • 28 November: From my point of view, stuff like this is more so about you countering "white as the default." That was pretty clear from arguments you made at Talk:Woman, Talk:Woman/sandbox and Talk:Man/sandbox.[458]
  • 20 November‎: WP:BITING newbie ThaliaHolmesMtF: Back...So tired of editors going by their personal opinions. Ugh.[459]
  • 11 November: Tag teaming won't work...Arguing with Aquillon, Rab V, and Newimpartial on this will get editors nowhere. Best to start an RfC and see just how many uninvolved editors weigh in and how the strength of arguments like Crossroads's hold up against activist arguments....I knew you would be the one to revert me by the way. So predictable.[460][461][462][463]

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22_and_WanderingWanda/Evidence&oldid=998787048"