Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:47, 20 August 2021

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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

Statement regarding Flyer22 Frozen

Original announcement

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

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

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

  Honestly, I don't think that is the something the committee can reach a conclusion on regardless, as a matter of remit, if I understand the announcement correctly. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 06:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  Basically, yes. Additionally, I don't think it falls under our remit to determine whether an editor was correctly listed at Misplaced Pages:Deceased Wikipedians or whether an account was correctly tagged as deceased since neither influenced the Committee's decision nor were obligatory reactions to said decision. Regards SoWhy 10:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  I'm sure that language is to prevent hasty pronouncements ("So-and-so hasn't edited in a while! They're probably dead."), and not to authorize investigations into real-world identities. --BDD (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

For the simple reason that, despite the statement by the Committee and the encouragement from editors below, I just can't see this going away without something more definitive. I wish it would, I think it would be the best for everyone in these circumstances, but that isn't how things seem to go around here when ambiguous issues remain, for want of a better word, 'unresolved'. Daniel (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

IMO it seems clear that the committee has either already rejected the idea of contact T&S implicitly or explicitly, or (unlikely IMO) done it but felt there was no need to announce part. In the IMO extremely unlikely event it's not something that occurred to them but they'll consider it now that it's been mentioned and for some reason they wish community feedback, that's up to them to ask. It also seems clear there is no chance the community will come to consensus to make a community referral to T&S. Indeed many editors feel it isn't something worth discussing. Given all that, there's no point in public discussion on the matter. If an editor wishes to contact T&S by themselves, that's up to them. Nil Einne (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

As Beeblebrox notes below ArbCom has been in contact with T&S about this topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like Barkeep beat me to it, but as Beeblebrox said below, T&S were contacted, albeit not likely for the reasons Daniel would like, and per policy they will not be revealing the results of anything they do find. That's not what T&S is for. My question to Daniel is, "Why is it any of our business?" The answer is: it's not. I have my own reasons both on and off wiki not to even question it. I take great pains to keep both worlds separate at all times, but for some reason I don't fully understand, Flyer considered me a friend. She wasn't perfect by any means and had this compulsive need to take the bait, and in the few times I offered her advice I was very blunt with her, but I've known people with similar personalities. At the end of the day, however, she was one of the most brilliant people I've come across and at heart had the best interests of the project in mind. I have no doubt in my mind that she... she's gone. But at the end of the day, that's absolutely nobody's business but hers and her family's. It doesn't affect the sockpuppet case one iota. For all the purposes of Misplaced Pages, the account known as Flyer22 is gone for good. It's time to put the shovels down and let the dead rest. This just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Zaereth (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to both. I was thinking in light of these comments arbcom may mention something but missed it. Zaereth, I understand and mostly agree with you. But can also see even if I don't agree with, why others feel what's alleged here is troubling enough to warrant investigation noting that while the investigation being called for is based on real life identities, the stated concern relates only to on-Misplaced Pages behaviour. I guess my ultimate point is by this stage with both the ANI thread and this discussion, I think it's getting to the point where people have sufficiently mentioned their POV on whether further investigation is warranted and given it's an extremely emotive issue connected to a specific named deceased editor, it's not really worth anyone trying to convince anyone else on what, if anything, should happen next especially outside any suggestions something different should happen on Misplaced Pages. If an editor wants to contact T&S, they should just do so. Unless T&C actually make some public statement or question, it's not worth us discussing, nor trying to convince anyone they shouldn't whatever people's generally misgivings about T&S. Nil Einne (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Understood, and as always, your opinions are much appreciated. Zaereth (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes I mentioned to Johnuniq before that I think we have to be careful about not pouring more oil on the fire by being too heavy handed given the risk it would make things worse. But I'd fully support an indef, even one by Johnuniq, or cban of you if you post about this again. Nil Einne (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I have no dog in this fight whatsoever, but I was close to warning Kolya Butternut myself after the ANI thread, and I fully endorse the warning here. KB needs to drop this and move on. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

+1. This has long since become disruptive to the project. —valereee (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll just say this: if anyone is using "psychological violence", then I would say it's the person dredging all of this up making a public spectacle out of it. I shed real tears when I found out Flyer22 had passed, and to bring this back up in such a way is just ... horrible. Absolutely horrible. We bury the dead for a reason, and it's time I think to let this rest in peace. Zaereth (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

  @Crossroads, as reiterated in the statement, there is a real person behind every account, and even investigations into wrongdoing need to take that simple fact into account. Those who persist in inappropriate speculation in order to defame another editor (or the memory of an editor) are in violation of our anti-harassment policies and should be dealt with accordingly. This applies everywhere, but especially when these accusations are posted at inappropriate venues such as article talk pages, as they can have the effect of intimidating unrelated editors based solely on their points of view, and thereby compromising NPOV. – bradv 04:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  • So what are editors supposed to do when there are strong behavioural similarities between "new" WP:SPAs or other focused accounts and former Flyer-family accounts? I am not talking about similarity based solely on their point of view, but reflecting whole range of (potentially involuntary and voluntary) behaviours editors bring to their editing. Are we supposed to "turn off" our involuntary recognition when a new account shows the wiki knowledge and habits of specific, much more experienced editors? My understanding is that, in the case of banned former wikipedians, behavioural WP:DUCK evidence is normally considered and evaluated by admins on a case by case basis. When editors run into (what appear to be) the same issues here - whether joe-jobbing, copy-catting or actual sock behaviour, what are we supposed to do in this instance? Newimpartial (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

    @Newimpartial, legitimate investigations into sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry can and should happen at SPI, or, for more private matters, by email to ArbCom. Even among the accounts listed in this announcement there exists a variety of editing styles and checkuser results, and there is equally a variety of possible explanations for that evidence. – bradv 04:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

    • Your comment about the variety of styles and results is undoubtedly true, and I certainly agree that the correct place to make these decisions is SPI. But when is the SPI page to be set up, then? Have I missed something? Newimpartial (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

      Right, we're still working on setting up an SPI page for this. But there will be one shortly. – bradv 04:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Crossroads – Of this I am very sure of: Flyer22 is gone from this earth. What I am not sure of is what ArbCom is going to do with the editors who have been obsessed over Flyer22's existence and have created a whirlwind of gossip and connivances involving her name. Because if the editor/s who have engaged in this wicked behavior is/are not dealt with strongly and with finality by ArbCom ... they will rear their ugly head again in the future over another editor they detest, be said editor alive or dead. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 14:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• Well, I'll be darned. That is a lot of socks. The only thing I am confused on is why this was brought up in the context of Flyer22? Has there been a confirmed connection that someone who has access to the Flyer22 Frozen account accessed one (or several) of these sock accounts? I don't mean to get all WP:BEANS here (so just tell me if this question probably shouldn't be answered), but how would a connection even be possible to prove if that account was locked? –MJL ‐Talk‐ 06:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  Most likely, the reason they brought up Flyer22 is that they found some editing similarities which they suspect some members of the community will notice. 93.172.226.66 (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• (Non-anything comment) I think this was a reasonable compromise by ArbCom. To those who wish the Committee had said something more definitive, I'm guessing that you've never been in the sickening position of seeing a loved one gratuitously insulted after their death. I've thought for several months now that something seriously weird was going on with certain accounts in the GENSEX topic area, and the conspiracy-theory-esque explanation discussed here did come to mind as a possibility (long before I was aware anyone felt similarly). Major SPIs often have a whiff of conspiracy theory to them, even when correct, so that wasn't itself an impediment; but every time I considered saying something on-wiki I was reminded of what it felt like to see a loved one's name dragged through the mud publicly without them being around to defend themself.In a case where the cost of being wrong is so high, and where socks can be blocked per usual without need for a definitive answer on the central allegation, I'd echo (maybe from a more sympathetic POV) those above suggesting that people move on from any attempt to discuss it publicly. There's still important work to be done catching the socks of this sockmaster, whomever they are; and no one can take away your right to privately feel whatever you feel. I think most of us who've been around a while have a few pet theories of "X is a sock of Y" that, for one reason or another, we will not or cannot repeat publicly. Usually the stakes there are much lower than potentially rubbing salt in the wounds of the bereaved. -- Tamzin (she/they) 08:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
• There's a Flyer22-shaped hole in our anti-paedophilia defences at the moment, and I would welcome anyone willing to step into her shoes. If they had very similar editing behaviours to her, I would not personally see any reason to dig into that.—S Marshall T/C 09:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Well yes, but this statement has been intentionally crafted to be deliberately ambiguous (and not actually answer the questions that need answering) so as to avoid ARBCOM having to justify positions it would rather not take: Is there a reasonable suspicion that the person behind the Flyer22 (and by extension the sockpuppets listed above) is still active? Are the associated 'family' accounts (no mention of Halo Jerk1 I see above) linked in any way? Given that Flyer22 clearly and obviously retired (prior to the deceased notice) specifically to avoid an arbcom case regarding their behaviour, you are being a bit too generous by concentrating on *only* any good work they may have done. The problem with editors who sock on this scale is that the 'editing behaviours' are often not ones that we should encourage. There is also the basic problem which should be clear from the muzzling of Kolya above: how do you enforce an interaction ban of one editor with someone who may/may not be deceased? We hold that bans in general apply to the person behind the account, not the account itself. Schrödinger's Ban is not a policy situation that lends itself to fair application. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Those questions don't need answering though. The arbcom case was needless: it could have been handled at a much lower level but for political reasons, wasn't. I know F22 found it really stressful, but in fact the only outcome was going to be a two-way iban with an editor whose own behaviour wasn't above criticism. We do need volunteers doing the work that F22 did.—S Marshall T/C 11:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Only in death S Marshall is correct, those questions don't need answering, per Thryduulf above. There isn't a need to worry about an IBan with an anonymous trolling sockmaster - new accounts showing up to harass editors are blocked on the spot (and goodness knows that F22 had enough of those to contend with herself). Knowing the identity of the master behind these accounts does not change how we should deal with the situation going forward. I'll add that I'm disappointed with how you characterise the warning that was given to KB - what we don't need here is any more drama or inflammatory language. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem which you both seem to have missed is that any *new* editor who takes up editing in a manner similar to Flyer22, in the same areas, good or bad, is likely to be accused of being a sock, and without definitive statements regarding their accounts, that will continue. That some personally dont care who is behind an account is not the general situation amongst editors. The second issue is that Kolya has pointed to a relevant UCOC (which like it or not, applies to every editor) clause - by forcibly shutting down any discussion Kolya has no recourse except to the T&S team. Where they can now cite that the ENWP administration is deliberately preventing them from seeking recourse against psychological manipulation. Given the complete lack of any useful information in this statement that would have put the situation to rest (honestly ARBCOM, either say nothing, or disclose everything, but dont wishy-washy in the middle) does anyone actually want to give T&S a reason to start poking their noses in. There actually is a reasonable argument a competant T&S team should be brought on-board given the issues. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

(EC) "I don't see the relevance of any deceased editor to any of this." If a bunch of accounts are created clearly sharing behavioural patterns, then absence of a very good explanation, they will be blocked as socks. If future accounts appear matching these behavioural patterns, they will rightfully be blocked as a part of the earlier sock farm. In other words, as things stand, decease editors are irrelevant. If the allegations are correct that the User:Daner's Creek sock farm (using that name as it seems to be the oldest account linked above) is behaviourally indistinguishable from a deceased editor, then any new editor who appears with these behavioural traits is always going to be accused of being a sock of Daner's Creek anyway. There is zero reason to bring up any deceased editor. Since the sock is unwelcome, ibans are largely irrelevant. The sock is not welcome to interact with anyone here. And as long as the sock is not claiming any connection to any deceased editor, then there is no need for us to worry whether some editor with an iban is violating that by tracking the sock. Outside of ibans, if any editor here is only willing to track some sock if they can accuse them of being socks of some deceased editor and unwilling to do the work if they need to accuse them of being socks of Daner's Creek then it seems fine for us to tell them to bugger off. I guess theoretically you could get a situation where the behavioural similarities are close enough to some deceased editor but not close enough to the Daner's Creek sockfarm that we can't deal with it. But that doesn't seem something worth worrying about especially since if the claim is true, it's unlikely this is a situation which will last for long. Eventually the editor will connect themselves with the Daner's Creek sock farm. There are two situations I can think of where we may have to seriously consider what to do which I won't mention for WP:BEANs reasons. One of them cannot ever arisee anymore. The other I find very unlikely, and in any case IMO can only arise after 1-2 years at a minimum. Nil Einne (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

"I don't see the relevance of any deceased editor to any of this." Would the same be true if they were not allegedly deceased? Of course not. Which is rather the point isnt it, because then your last couple of sentences become even more problematic. And to address Aquillion below: Any SPI now is largely worthless given the sitting on this for nearly 4 months. Most of the socks above were blocked in April. Flyer's account was inactive before that, as was Halo. Had this notice and an SPI been posted at the time action was taken, it would be have been significantly easier to investigate at the time, with the restrictions on checkuser data retention (assuming they have been followed), a large amount of data will be stale. Which reeks of deliberate intent. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think it's likely to be that big of a problem; we have similar issues whenever there's a persistent sock in a controversial topic area. Based on what's been said a WP:SPI page will be created, under the name of the first confirmed sock, to operate under the presumption that this is or could be a joe-job; at that point it's just a standard SPI - behavioral and technical evidence are handled there as a matter of course. Nothing else needs to be done. It isn't as though making definitive statements regarding their accounts will stop the sock from socking; whoever they are, they're already blocked as a persistent sock-farm and new instances are blocked on sight, which is the worst we can do to them. --Aquillion (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• If they had very similar editing behaviours to her, I would not personally see any reason to dig into that. The problems are... first, there's a serious chance the socks are joe-jobs; that is, in fact, a much more serious problem than if Flyer22 were alive. And second, as I understand it (keeping in mind details of the case aren't public), the socks are violating WP:BADSOCK all on their own, independent of anything else. So they have to be blocked regardless of who the sockmaster is. --Aquillion (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Just as a footnote to that, it is somewhat relevant that we have a decade or more of Flyer family editing and less than a year of the new (joe-job?) socks, so it is certainly easier to detect behavioural patterns using the longer of those timelines. Of course, we are talking about BADSOCK activity regardless. Newimpartial (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I would assume that the SPI will mention that the sock-farm edits using the patterns of the deceased editor... or something to that effect without implying they're the same person (probably also with some wording about being cautious with how you word reports), since that is central to understanding what's happening, detecting them, and writing a reasonable report for them, and is part of the reason they're blocked in the first place. --Aquillion (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Since you know they’re socks but also can’t pin a master, what did the CU evidence find in this case? Were they on proxies (if so, were the proxies shared between accounts)? Were they from a location known to be the same as another editor? I guess basically, why did CU come to the conclusion that they’re socks? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  ProcrastinatingReader, information gleaned from CU about IP addresses can't be shared publicly, so I'd advise you not to hold your breath waiting for an answer to this question. If CU data could show links between the accounts listed above (and their behaviour was such as to indicate WP:BADSOCK editing), that would be enough to warrant sockblocks regardless of whether or not it was possible to link them to a particular master. I think that if there were any more information that the arbs felt able to provide, they would have already done so. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  Well put. Worm(talk) 13:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  Doesn't hurt to ask. I don't see why such details can't be provided (CheckUsers may state that different named accounts are operated from the same IP or range, so long as the actual IP address(es) are not specified, or if only non-specific details are given (such as the name of the country, region, or large ISP associated with the IP address). If the CheckUser's statement could not lead to another person divining the personal identity of the user accounts in question, such disclosure would be permissible), but of course it is up to the CUs/ArbCom if they want to answer it or not. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  ProcrastinatingReader, no offense intended (seriously, I mean that), but why do you want to know? Will the disclosure of information about what the CU data showed enhance your editing experience, or make community members safer? I know there is a natural urge to dig deeper and find out more, but satisfying a natural curiosity isn't really a good reason to disclose stuff like this. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  A CU can either choose to answer it or not. Either way I won't be particularly offended. It would certainly add context to the legitimacy of the allegations made above, or clarify if it's entirely possible (or even likely) that it's just joe jobbing, which itself isn't uncommon at all. Given that the CU who actually made these blocks seemed to find the now-deleted SPI appropriate, it seems worthwhile asking (to the extent policy allows disclosure) what led to that conclusion. That could also assist in dealing with future puppets, the same way information on WP:LTA subpages does. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  From the perspective of a non-checkuser raising an SPI about a suspicious new account, access to the IP data (in terms of ranges, proxies etc) doesn't help you - you have to go on behavioural similarities and request CU. A lot of checkusers have now looked at this and I expect there is now a wide body of highly trusted people who will be able to assist with future reports. Can I urge you to stick a finger in the air and see whether you think the wind is blowing in a 'there is nothing further to be said, and this is causing pain to the real people behind the usernames, so let's all collectively move on' direction? Girth Summit _(blether) 15:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  You asked me a question and I answered, hence this thread. An alternative short ending to this thread could've been a CU saying "We don't want to answer that, because it would cause real pain to the real people behind the usernames." and that would be the end of the matter. No response would also be the end of the matter. The blocks also seem to be of three separate masters (Daner's Creek, RandoBanks, RazTazz) which is also unexplained, and clarifying whether there is one master or three (for example) would probably also help with SPI efforts. Again, answering these questions seems to be a decision for the responding (or non-responding) CU/arb, and it's unclear to me why the thread had to be any longer than the question and potentially one answer. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

As I and others have said, Misplaced Pages has no need to explore this. There can't be edits by the Flyer22 Frozen account unless Flyer22 Frozen asserts that they are alive, in which case (only) then there would be many issues to deal. If not, there is nothing Flyer22 Frozen-specific that needs doing. Even the worst case scenario (regarding Misplaced Pages) of them being an anonymous sockmaster can be handled in the normal ways without dealing with an account that isn't editing and, absent a self-claim that they are alive, won't be editing. North8000 (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

If there is nothing Flyer22 Frozen-specific that needs doing, then why was this framed as a statement regarding Flyer 22 Frozen? What do RandoBanks, et al. have to do with Flyer22? These accounts were all blocked 118 days ago, so what was the point of this announcement in reality? –MJL ‐Talk‐ 17:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

MJL I believe this is response to this thread Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1075#Flyer22 Frozen SPI opened by Kolya Butternut. As to this talk of "behavioral evidence" more than once over the years I have seen editors use socks to edit in the manner of an editor they were in a dispute with (or that they disliked) to try and get said editor blocked or banned. Flyer 22 Frozen has a long editing history and it would be simple enough to copy her style. MarnetteD|Talk 17:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Now this makes a lot more sense! Thank you MarnetteD. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 17:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Just on it would be simple enough to copy her style - and anyone doing so in violation of WP:SOCK restrictions needs to be stopped, to avoid disruption on the project and distress to editors. Which is why the (forthcoming?) SPI page on this issue is needed, as was ArbCom's announcement. Newimpartial (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Looking through the histories and connecting the dots, it appears to me that this all started with an SPI and an ANI discussion that were both opened naming Flyer22 as the potential sockmaster, which (as it seems obvious was the intention) has stirred up a lot of emotional responses. Both were closed, since it seems the issue has already been brought privately to Arbcom (as it should have been), but that left a lot of people going, "WTF?" Thus, the announcement here. All of this could have been handled tactfully and gracefully from the start, without making a public scene out of it. But where I'm glad the announcement was made is that they revealed some very disturbing things going on behind the scenes, which is people actively searching out her real identity, and that's something I don't think the community should take lightly. Zaereth (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Total WTF, Zaereth. I don't understand why I/all of us had to endure (suffer through) this saga, but it was for naught. I think making it public was a discreditable act, which showed contempt to dispute opponents and neutrals alike (and was perceived as such by many dispute proponents, as well, I suspect). El_C 17:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

So we're all on the same page, the ANI was opened by a concerned editor with the title of "FYI" (IIRC). It was renamed later on, as has been discussed within the thread. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Let's be clear here: we never actually know for a fact who is behind sock accounts, that is why the policy is written as it is, to make meatpuppeting an equal offense. So it actually doesn't matter who operated those accounts, they were acting as sock/meat puppets and so were blocked. Anonymity is a right on this project Enough already. One of the blocked accounts did appeal to us, and alleged that they were part of a "memorial project" aimed at carrying on Flyer's work. We informed them that that is still considered socking and they dropped it. That fits with the established facts as well as any other explanation. It won't change the way anything works one way or the other, so we all just need to accept that we will never know for a certainty what happened here and move on. For the record, T&S were already brought up to speed on this issue, as much because of the attempted doxxing and suggestions that someone call Flyer's alleged family as for any other reason. What they will or will not do is another thing we all need to accept we won't really know, but I think it is safe to say they also will not get on the phone and start calling people based on doxxing information, that's kind of the opposite of what they are here for. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, although I already know most of that. To be clear myself, nothing I said was meant to reflect on Arbcom's nor Misplaced Pages's handling of this situation, which I think think is very well done on your parts. I think there are bigger issues underneath --issues which far transcend this board and this particular discussion-- thus that is something the community as a whole needs to address. For me, I don't know much about this computer stuff. Never had a smartphone. Never sent a text. Spend most of my time outdoors or working on whatever project or experiment I happen to be engaged with. For the few minutes a day that I do spend online, I spend them at Misplaced Pages, because it's the only worthwhile thing I've found to do on the internet. But I'm only here because I feel it's a relatively safe site. I had to go look up "doxxing", and I tend to avoid most sites where things like that go on.

Now, I've never had much interaction with Flyer22 over the years. But over the years you get to know people, whether you interact with them or not, and until this year I never knew how deeply I could be affected by the loss of not one, but two people I've never even met, and barely talked to. So please forgive me if I seem a little emotional myself, but this has brought back a lot of hard feelings. Zaereth (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

My comments were intended as a general response to a number of the above comments, not necessarily to you specifically, certainly not the part about doxxing. I need to get outside today myself, it's a glorious sunny summer day here, could be one of the last this nice. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• I have nothing of real value to add but I must express how distressing this all is. We lost two Wikipedians (Flyer and SlimVirgin) this year, both of whom I mourned in real life as they were part of my wiki-circle of friends. What is most distressing is that in all of the cases Thryduulf listed, the consequence is still very upsetting. That this is even happening is despicable. Regardless, I appreciate ARBCOM's handling of this and their announcement. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)