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,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: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)
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.
....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: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flyer22_Reborn&diff=746671139&oldid=745632837. 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: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Child_protection&diff=694522820&oldid=694522163
This diff says she found one but didn't have the evidence to prove it yet: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flyer22_Reborn&diff=717343461&oldid=717016698
Here's a quote from here: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Child_protection&diff=694522820&oldid=694522163, 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: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Child_protection&diff=669429992&oldid=668426793
Edit summary indicates she's sick of finding, being wiki-hounded by, and reporting pedos: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flyer22_Reborn&diff=717348492&oldid=717348414
The diff and the edit summary indicate a pedo who keeps coming back: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flyer22_Reborn&diff=726722002&oldid=726437565
Recent evidence of returned pedo: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flyer22_Reborn&oldid=742431069#User:Tisane_as_User:Markshale. 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: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&diff=prev&oldid=742650038 and en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_ed17&diff=prev&oldid=745392482. Also, she repudiates her socking claim here: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Markshale&diff=prev&oldid=745394319, 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): en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flyer22_Reborn&oldid=745395302#Just_watch_him.2C_Flyer22.
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flyer22_Reborn&diff=716318383&oldid=715323270 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.
The forum currently says "In accordance with Section 25(a) of the ProBoards Terms of Service, this forum has been taken offline." What happened?
ReplyDelete-The Joy
I wonder if some snowflake from the wiki world of hell bitched to proboard with Gator tears
DeleteThe Joy, we are dealing with it....if you wish, email abuse@proboards.com.
Delete....actually, don't do that, the "abuse" people will only talk to the creator of the board, i.e. Mutineer. I've emailed him. If we are in the clear we will find out in 48 hours, after Mutineer emails them.
Delete...And Mutineer has emailed them. They have until sometime Thursday to contact him.
DeleteKeep us posted.
DeleteMutineer says the forum will not be recovered. He said he received what appears to be a form response email from ProBoards. He does not believe ProBoards will engage with him.
DeleteNobody knows what happened. It is unclear if the Board can be regained.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone wants to PM or discuss Wikipedia, I'm over at the most recent Wikipedia Review incarnation at http://wikipediareview.proboards.com/.
Both Flyer22 and I are 'targets' of interest at the so-called "BoyWiki" community. Both she and I have a low tolerance threshold for pedophiles and their apologists/enablers. I've spoken with her in person more than once after the "kid brother" unblock, some years back. She's a real person and largely who she says she is. Anyways, just my word so YMMV and all that.
ReplyDeleteI would like to interview Flyer22 by email if she would accept. Thanks to tarantino you probably have my email anyway. If not contact Mr. Barbour.
DeleteThanks.
I'll reach out and see if she'll agree.
DeleteSad to hear the forum is barred. Hope you can recover it.
ReplyDeleteSincerely, Satan
Same. Not cool with this at all :/
DeleteThank you. Much appreciated.
DeleteCheers Satan. We always knew you were a good guy. That's why a shit load of people who felt so pissed off at your chosen way of administrating Wikipediocracy, which is so spineless you can't even stand up to Greg when he's pulling shit like this http://archive.is/88ek8, that they felt the need to put time and effort into establishing and growing a whole new forum. Despite there being no goddam sense in having two critic forums. We did it because that shower of shit you run now, isn't a critic forum at all anymore, it's a combination of a Wikipedian club house, a retirement home for jaded fucks who think they know it all and don't mind shitting on people with new ideas or who are just behind the curve, and of course Greg's own personal platform to do all the shit he does. Oh, and now Rogol. And you can keep that turncoat bastard, if he is the future of Wikipedia criticism, we are all fucked. You know he thinks your forum was set up by the WMF as part of a black ops program right? Good job ours is offline, so he can now deny ever saying that, and feed you some bullshit lines about what he really meant instead. And you'll take it, because you are that hard up for posters you'll take any old shit now. Which is ironic, as being picky about who can play in your sandpit is what got you into this mess in the first place. You're a big part of all this misery Zoloft, so you take that Satan moniker and you wear it with pride. TDK.
ReplyDeleteThe Wikipediocracy is a simulation of the William Golding Novel... Lord of the Flies
ReplyDeleteJoe Hazelton
Oh, and Satan.....
ReplyDelete"Hmmm. Greg? Did your crack team of briefcase-wielding ninja lawyers file something?"
As if he would tell you, in a public forum. As you well know. So pick who you want to be seen as Zoloft, the guy who is genuinely sorry WS is gone, or the guy who wants to fool people into thinking you would or could EVER throw Greg under the bus if he finally proved to you, after all the other prior evidence, that it is all about him. That he is so uninterested in Wikipedia criticism as a principled cause, he would tank an entire forum just because it said things about him he didn't want to hear. He sure scared Sparkzilla out of drawing the only logical conclusions from his public statements, didn't he? You gonna let him back on Wikipediocracy so he can continue to talk about how people are being fleeced by someone claiming to exploit a legal loophole in the WMF that patently does not exist? No, of course not. That's not your idea of valid Wikipedia criticism. Gotta stick to the approved messages, and go after the approved targets, for the approved reasons. Big tent my ass. Fuck you.
It's ironic that 'Would you let your child read Wikipedia?' was a thread I was planning for the forum in the near future (got a bit distracted by the Mail ban). While the risk of encountering 'pedos' was going to be mentioned, of course, since our mission is (was?) to give honest criticism from an outsiders perspective, it was going to largely focus on how Wikipedia presents a much greater risk in terms of exposing your child to made up 'knowledge', skewed 'knowledge', extremely inappropriate 'knowledge' for children, and an all round toxic environment inhabited by viscous people with totally warped ideas of what it means to protect people from Wikipedia harm (who I have no doubt Flyer is one). Risk of course being properly measured as an equation of the likelihood of harm as well as the nature of it. The post would have surely compelled any right thinking parent to add any WMF site to their parental lock blacklists. Alison would have hated it, as given our other mission is (was?) to expose why previous so called critics have failed in their task, it would have had to have touched on the reasons why she failed to block a user who should have been blocked under the child protection policy, simply because she thought it politically expedient for Wikipediocracy (and the anti-Commons faction of Wikipedians) to look the other way. Never is the need for an alternative forum to Wikipediocracy laid so stark than when it becomes clear they have taken to their heart the very people who believe the right way to protect people from Wikipedia, is to try to 'fix' it and be a willing part of their own broken systems falsely marketed to users as a child protection procedure, among other things. You want to protect children? Make sure every parent has to confirm they have read the Wikipedia disclaimer before they unblock access for children (another idea recently floated on the forum). You don't find these ideas being actively promoted on Wikipediocracy anymore, if they were ever really there at all, because they're not really interested in genuine criticism which has to be said, even if the only conclusion is that Wikipedia must die. No real angle to bash Jimbo in either of these topics, and no relation to paid editing, and most certainly not an issue active Wikipediots want to discuss, so in all likelihood just another topic doomed to roll down their board into oblivion, out of a lack of interest. Which is quite an achievement when there is little to no current activity to push such threads out of view. But somehow it happens. Continuously updating/resurrecting of the anti-Jimbo/pro-MyWikiaBiz threads probably helps. Approved topics, approved posters, approved thoughts. Result: not many dark corners being exposed anymore, save the ones already well over-exposed and proven to be of no further interest even to the most friendly of potential partners. I am told by Strelinkov that Alison knows things and would have been a good asset to the forum. Well, as soon as I made the above observations, she high tailed it out of there, claiming to no longer have any interest in the whole Wikipedia/Wikipediocracy/ANOther circus. I proved that false in a heartbeat, and boy was she mad! Wanted to know where I got the nerve or the knowledge to be challenging her statements. Wouldn't she like to know. Kohs would too. Maybe they do know, but maybe they have collectively screwed over so many people who should have been their natural allies in the past, they just can't remember, or narrow down the likely suspects. Well, we remember. TDK, on behalf of all victims of Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy everywhere.
ReplyDeleteMutineer emailed ProBoards, so we have a 48 hour window to see if WS can be saved. If we can, then we need to make an archive of all threads, at the same time finding a new platform to work with. What we do is too dangerous for a normal board.
DeleteProBoards staff are available during weekday business hours, so they won't get Mutineer's email until the morning.
DeleteI hope the board can be recovered. There isn't a damn thing I can do to help in that effort.
DeleteTDK, I refuse to hate you.
Wikipediocracy inside baseball is stunningly boring, even to its players.
Proudly, Satan (Zoloft)
Mutineer says the forum will not be recovered. He said he received what appears to be a form response email from ProBoards. He does not believe ProBoards will engage with him.
DeleteI'm very sad that all of this hard work seems for the moment to have been lost. Does it really say in their TOS that you transfer ownership of your written words to Proboards?! Maybe a few archived threads would establish a copyright claim? Should we all email during this period? I remember being user 66. ^^
ReplyDeleteI'm using this setback to get to work growing Creoliste Biblioshare.
There's the beginnings of a pitch here, and the beginnings of a manual here. It's a Swiss server. But Schweizer-Creolistas would have to have shiny over-polished teeth and would never write %#€@ you very much.
I really hope that some of the more prolific posters backed up their work. I unfortunately only did so sporadically.
Where did you get the idea that the TOS says ownership of what's written goes to ProBoard?
DeleteI'm not sure if emailing now would be helpful. I believe they may be willing to communicate with the forum owner.
I am unaware of back-ups of work and suspect it does not exist. I'm glad you have some of your work backed-up.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIt's sewn up so well. (you grant them irrevocable use rights in 15) and you waive rights to pursue them for property damages in 7.
DeleteUse rights are different than ownership in a helpful way. I won't say more at the moment.
DeleteCan't stand Flyer22_Reborn! Someone took her to ANI for harassment. All she did is whine about how much she is stalked and how important she is to Wikipedia. I was horrified at the people that agreed with her. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment_by_User:Flyer22_Reborn
ReplyDeleteYou sound like the editor who took her to ANI, and it makes me wonder how you even found this thread.
DeleteI am not the editor that took her to ANI. I was reading ANI and when I read how annoying Flyer22_Reborn was, I googled "Flyer22_Reborn, and I found this page. I also read RFA's today, does that mean I'm seeking to be an Administrator?
DeleteYou said "Can't stand Flyer22_Reborn!" Unless you've been involved with her, how is it that you can't stand her? And who Googles an editor they just became aware of at ANI? As a test, I just Googled her and I don't see this thread in the search results at this point in time. You said she was whining about how important she is. If we look at the ANI thread, I see a guy (or woman?) belittling her importance and Flyer22 challenging him by saying others find her important. The thread kinda speaks for itself on how others feel about her. The thread backfired on the guy big time. Rightfully so, if you ask me.
DeleteOk, I Googled her again. This thread shows up on page 3 of the search results. If you did find this thready via Google, you must been looking for everything you could on this one.
DeletePage 3 if you Google "Flyer22 Reborn."
DeleteFor the second time, I'm not the person that took her to ANI, so nothing "backfired big time". And I just googled flyer22_reborn again. I got here because it is the FOURTH result on page ONE of Google. I saw the ANI, flyer22_reborn's comments seemed ridiculous to me. She kept going on and on about how many times she's been stalked, how great she supposedly is at detecting sock puppets, etc. I thought it was ironic that she kept bring up being stalked, when the ANI was about her stalking another editor. I googled flyer22_reborn to see if she had been written about on another website, like Wikipediacracy. You come off as paranoid and delusional as flyer22_reborn. I thought by logging in to my Google account and not answering your questions anonymously would clue you in that I am not the man that filed the ANI, but you still don't get it. Maybe you will read this and finally get it.
DeleteWhat is there to get, "Becki"? Why would I think you are a woman because of your username? Why should I think that the editor who took Flyer to ANI is a man? You showed up on a thread like this, which is not on the first page of Google for me (and I tried different search terms), saying that you can't stand Flyer22. So I ask again: If you have not interacted with Flyer22, how is it that you can't stand her? How does is it logical that you would see a knee-jerk complaint about her on ANI, then decide you "can't stand Flyer22_Reborn!" because she said she's been stalked and that she is good at catching socks? How is that this would make you want look up Flyer on Google? Looking at that thread and past incidents involving her, she has been stalked. She is good at catching socks. Nothing wrong with her stating it. What's ironic is that the editor who said she is stalking "him" has no evidence of it while it does appear that "he" was talking her. Your posts here insinuate that Flyer22 and the editors supporting her are delusional. You even called me delusional. Pretty much. For all I know, you're the delusional one.
DeleteAh, I see... If you Google "Flyer22_Reborn" (with the dash there in between), then this page will show up on page 1 of Google. I still find your focus on Flyer odd. For example, this article says "One of her recent sockpuppet investigations was for Cali11298, the ringleader account for a sockfarm that included Jhamilton303...." I looked into it. She was stalked by this guy, and that's just one of the people she's been stalked by. The poster Alison above also says she's targeted by the pedos.
Delete"Why would I think you're a woman because of your username". Are you stupid? How many men do you know named Becki? It's a woman's name. When I said I could stand her, I meant her attitude/what she was writing at the ANI. I have never interacted with flyer22-reborn, nor do I care too. I don't give a Motherfuck that you find my "focus" on flyer22_reborn "odd". First, I'm not even focused on her. For the second time, I googled her goddamn name to see if she had been mentioned at Wikipediocracy. I find your "focus" on me "odd".
DeleteAm I stupid? No, but I find you very naive. It is not unheard of for people to have male and female names for different user accounts. I do. Some of the names are considered unisex. Depending on if the name is male or female, people develop an idea of who you are, which is why you thought I would automatically assume you are female. Truth is I don't know if you are female, and I don't care. What I do know is that your story for disliking Flyer is bullshit. What idiot finds fault with a person saying that she's been stalked and is good at catching socks in a bogus ANI thread? She has been stalked. She is good at catching socks. She defended herself in an ANI thread that is bogus as shit, with the exception of the proposed topic ban that looks like it come to fruition. You have focused on her in an oddball way. If you don't give a fuck about what I'm saying, then move the fuck on.
DeleteMy "story for not liking flyer_22 reborn is not "bullshit". Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? I explained how and why I googled flyer_22reborn. At first your dumb ass was hell bent that I had done a long, exhaustive search, because you found a result on page 4 of goggle or whatever. Then your dumbass finally googled it the way I wrote, and what do you know? It's exactly what I wrote. I googled flyer22_reborn and this website showed up on the fourth link. I also can't stand Mathsci, (I googled that name and found a story about him on Wikipediocracy. I don't care for user Beyond My Ken or George Ho. I guess you can shit and fall back in it since you refuse to believe how I came to this page and why. Actually, you can fuck right off because I'm not commenting on this anymore.
ReplyDeleteI'm looking at ANI right now, and out of all the editors there to focus on, you decided to focus on Flyer, who was taken to ANI over utter bullshit? You have never interacted with her and had heard of her before, but you decided that what she was saying in the bullshit thread was so abhorrent that you instantly disliked her? Her, out of all the editors at ANI? You decide to Google over the bullshit thread? You then come to this blog to say you can't sand her over said bullshit thread? Yeah, your story is bullshit.
Delete"You have never interacted with her and had never heard of her before."
DeleteAnd who the hell Googles someone with the dash there in between the name, which is the only way this thread appears on page 1? Sounds like a pretty convenient excuse.
Deleteit's Flyer22_Reborn not Flyer_22reborn FGT
DeleteOkay, I realize POV-pushing is an undesirable activity on Wikipedia, but this isn't Gamergate or politics or gun control, it's "ADULTS HAVING SEX WITH CHILDREN IS BAD." What exactly is Flyer22 supposed to have done wrong here?
ReplyDeleteCan you find any part of this blog post that indicates Flyer22 has done anything wrong? Isn't it more an issue that Wikipedia and the WMF actively encourage kids to edit even though they know pedophiles are returning to the site? Why do they leave this issue to be addressed by pseudonymous volunteers who don't have access to the information that law enforcement needs?
DeleteI agree that Flyer22 is a serious problem who needs to be dealt with.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSpam from same 'bot as bottom two comments.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSpam from the same 'bot as below.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSpam from a 'bot.
Delete