Sunday, February 12, 2017

Hunting Wikipedia's Pedophiles: Flyer22_Reborn

"And so shines a good deed in a weary world." - Willy Wonka, misquoting William Shakespeare

There are people - Wikipedians - who actually are disgusted with The Project's laissez-faire attitude toward pedophiles and Flyer22_Reborn is one of them. She was originally Flyer22, claimed to be a Wikipedian since 2007 (making her one of the Essjay-aftermath people) until she was blocked in March of 2012. The block cases went on to May of 2014, and involved (among many others) BWilkins, SarekofVulcan, Boing! said Zebedee, and Alison, who wrote the following:

Your account is blocked. Yes, again. You've been repeatedly using Singaporean proxy IPs to avoid detection and to set up sock accounts, all abusively. There are too many IPs to enumerate, but this, this and this are just three samples. Fireflies36 (talk · contribs) is you, Fireflies35 (talk · contribs) is you, as is MikeFromCanmore (talk · contribs), just for starters. There are plenty of others - lots of them. It's hard to even know where to start. But they're all you,  Confirmed by two checkusers now. This time, given the subject matter and how the edit times sync with your own, nobody is going to accept the "younger brother" excuse this time. You've gone to great effort to cover your tracks to avoid being detected in your interesting LGBT POV-pushing spree, but you're done now. Once I get the time, I'll likely to to AN/I and push for a site ban, something I rarely do - Alison 23:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 There were repeated blockings and un-blockings. In October Flyer22 dropped the old account to become Flyer22_Reborn. But from the previous account to now, Flyer22_Reborn has a real hatred for the pedophiles:

If you post anything on Wikipedia about your belief that sex with children is fine and dandy, similar to this guy's post, then watch out; unless you are discussing a complicated age of consent matter involving post-pubescents, then I will instantly have no respect for you and I will instantly want you off Wikipedia. You either follow the WP:Child protection policy, or I will very likely see to it that your presence is removed from this site. Create a new account and spread the same garbage, and I'll get rid of that account as well. Further detail is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology.

Regarding my edits to the Pedophilia article, I do not care about how you personally want to define pedophilia or that you want to go by the imprecise dictionary definitions as opposed to accurate medical definitions. I do not care if you think editors watching and editing the Pedophilia article are pedophiles and/or child sexual abusers because they do not subscribe to your lay (non-specialist) definition of pedophilia. People should put aside their ignorance and learn something; if that means learning what pedophilia actually is and using the terminology accurately, then good. This helps people not be so oblivious as to what type of perpetrators may be sexually abusing a child; in other words, child sexual abuse is far more common than people think. And so is child-on-child sexual abuse; it is not always, or even mostly, the man specifically interested in prepubescents. It is usually a relative or someone otherwise close to the family. Do I sometimes use the term pedophile broadly? Yes, I do (not too broadly). But on Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, I want to get it right; I should get it right.

As for the Wikipedia people who take care of "pedophile talk" and similar, it turns out that the WP:WMF have taken over for WP:ArbCom in handling all future WP:Child protection matters. So the WP:Child protection policy will need updating "once all the new arrangements are finali[z]ed" with regard to the WP:WMF handling WP:Child protection and other matters. From what the WP:WMF have told me of their potential to handle WP:Child protection cases, they are well-equipped and have significant experience in the area. Their investigations can take weeks or months, however, especially if gathering more evidence.
And, yes, I am of great interest to the pedophiles and child sexual abusers who infiltrate, or try to infiltrate, Wikipedia.....(Taken from here.)
So in order to expose these people she took to hunting Wikipedians with sockpuppets.

 Running the Pedos Out of Town (We Think?)

As the reader can tell, we know very little about who Flyer22, reborn or otherwise. She claims to know things about psychology, science, "social issues", and so on. In fact we have no idea if Flyer22_Reborn is actually a woman, which is why the first use of "she" and "her" in this post were in quotes [Alison Cassidy has confirmed that Flyer22_Reborn is what she claims to be]. One of her recent sockpuppet investigations was for Cali11298, the ringleader account for a sockfarm that included Jhamilton303, Cavalierman, 21 other confirmed accounts while around 15 others were accused.

....And We Lose the Thread

It's been a month and I've heard nothing from Flyer22_Reborn. Instead of deleting everything and rewriting this post from scratch, I'm just going to give you sections of the notes I worked from, which were provided by Flip Flopped, a member of the now-defunct ProBoards Wikipedia Sucks! messageboard and is involved with the Wikipedia Review ProBoards site and new Wikipedia Sucks board.

.....Read both sides of this diff: Apparently, Flyer has a connection to WO and they have been pedo hunting since they started and before that on WR.

Here's one of a couple of diffs in which she indicates that reporting to the WMF is not going well:

This diff says she found one but didn't have the evidence to prove it yet:

Here's a quote from here:, but I haven't inserted the on-wiki links:
I've been wondering when this would be addressed here at this talk page. Having talked the matter over with James Alexander via email, he knows that I was disappointed that no action was taken against an editor I recently reported as a pedophile (months ago)...with on- and off-Wikipedia evidence to support it. Then again, on Wikipedia, this editor (and he will soon read this post of mine, no doubt) rejected any implication that he is a pedophile and chalked up one of his pedophilic Wikipedia posts to being a misguided youth. I was clear with James Alexander that even if the editor was an underage teenager at the time he made the off-Wikipedia post, people do not simply grow out of pedophilia (in fact, pedophilia emerges in a person before or during puberty). Judging by what James Alexander told me, an editor simply being a pedophile is not enough to get the editor blocked by the WP:WMF. If that's the case, the current policy needs changing in that regard as well, and the editors at BoyWiki (especially Lysander, who is also no stranger to editing Wikipedia) can do their happy dance. Just look at how they keep tabs on me; so sweet (the LANCB aspect is utter fantasy, though). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Useful edit summary:

Edit summary indicates she's sick of finding, being wiki-hounded by, and reporting pedos:

The diff and the edit summary indicate a pedo who keeps coming back:

Recent evidence of returned pedo: Also note the talk page indicates that Flyer 22 Reborn is in poor health.

Bbb23 may have screwed up a recent sock of a pedo that was CUed: and Also, she repudiates her socking claim here:, but I'm not sure I believe she's being sincere in writing that. Here's a stalk-y sock on her talk page (possibly not a pedo): is this quote (which has links on that page that I didn't paste in the quote below, but I detail below the quote:
I also have views on pedophiles, child sexual abusers, etc. editing Wikipedia; see WP:Child protection, this section, and this discussion....

And that's all the rest that I got.