|Note this page is still under construction.|
A Wikipedian is a contributing user of Wikipedia.
Leucosticte improved five Wikipedia articles to Featured class: Skunks as pets (now rated as Former featured article), Removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (now rated as B-class), Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (now rated as C-class), Convention on Psychotropic Substances (now rated as C-class), and United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (still rated as Featured). He improved one article to Good article status: Threatening the President of the United States (still rated as Good class). He was SanFran banned on 17 January 2015.
Meco made over 50,000 edits to Wikipedia and was central in developing several of the chronological category structures on both the English and the Norwegian Wikipedias. He received recognition for work on Trial of Anders Behring Breivik and Houla massacre.
Meco was blocked on the Wikimedia Commons in March 2015. He allegedly uploaded blurred child porn images, and allegedly said that was what they were, and sourced them to a court case. The name on the case, the defendant, was the same as his real name given on his user page. When it was deleted, he allegedly made a big public fuss about it, and called attention to the case record with his name as defendant. He had over 50,000 edits on en.wiki when blocked there in 2013, started editing in 2006. There was no block log, no talk page warning, nothing beyond the single "refer to ArbCom" block. It was clarified, "User:Meco was not blocked by ArbCom or on behalf of ArbCom, although only ArbCom can hear appeals from that user." On Commons, the charge was led by Michaeldsuarez. Wikipediocracy stated:
|“||“Editors who display a positive opinion of pedophilia” are by definition not neutral. Editors who “advocate age of consent reform” are advocating rather than neutrally and dispassionately recording what people have said about the subject.||”|
One user asked rhetorically, "But editors who display a negative opinion of pedophilia are neutral? We are talking, here, about off-wiki advocacy. If editors advocate age-of-consent reform with their editing, that's a problem, but the idea expressed here is that such loonies would be unable to edit neutrally. Only people who hate pedophiles with a consuming passion can be neutral. He might have been 'right,' i.e., it may not have been illegal. Of course, we can't tell, and neither can most administrators, it was oversighted. Can't have people looking at blurry child porn, after all. Their imaginations might run wild, and they will be corrupted. Think of the children! (And that was actually said) And Michaeldsuarez removed an image of him, with his user name in the filename, on it.wikipedia, calling him a pedophile. Basically, policy enforcement is very spotty. Can't have a photo of a known pedophile in an article on nudity, because kids might, might, might what? See the pedophile, recognize him by his attractive butt, or what? And go crazy, their life ruined?"
Meco was SanFran banned on 23 March 2015.
Super secret special admirer
On 13 June 2016, a user named "Super secret special admirer" (a mysterious individual whose identity, to this day, remains an unsolved enigma whose answer even the greatest wiki-sleuths of the largest wiki in the world can only guess at) at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous:
Does the available evidence suggest that a suitable penalty for Flyer22 Reborn's persecution of Wikipedians who advocate legalization of adult-child sex would be to kidnap her at knifepoint in the parking lot after dusk at the close of Wikimania 2017; stuff her into the back of an unmarked, tinted-windowed van, where shackles and a ball gag would be waiting for her; and confine her for the rest of her life in a soundproofed dungeon hidden beneath an abandoned shack in the woods, behind a heavy steel door against which her screams would endlessly reverberate as all three of her holes would be daily plundered in the most savagely debaucherous ways conceivable to the human imagination, until she would be sore, bloody, and bruised and have been forcibly impregnated, like Elisabeth Fritzl, with her rapist's babies?
Or would it better for NAMBLA operatives to hire a private investigator to find out where she lives; and for a squad of assassins to then stake out her home so that, after her morning coffee, when she emerged from her front door in pajamas to take out the garbage or retrieve the mail, they would be ready to mow her down with submachine guns, and thereby also send an unmistakable message to Alison and others whose behavior is likewise similarly unacceptable?
Speaking of Wikimania, is there any reason not to treat that gathering like an Orlando nightclub? ALLAHU AKBAR!
Before anyone could reply with a substantive answer, Jalexander-WMF intervened with a global lock.
James Alexander is a WMF staff member who has made it his personal crusade to eradicate the presence of all returning globally banned users from the project.
Alison is a feminist-leaning English Wikipedia checkuser and oversighter who does many of the sockpuppet investigations concerning editors who are referred to her attention by Flyer22 or by Wikipediocracy threads for being suspiciously experienced users editing pedophilia-related articles in ways that are contrary to the party line. She also reverts edits to Wikipedia's child protection policy, dismissing concerns by saying that the policy is "just fine" as it is. Alison will sometimes call users "pedo-apologist" in edit summaries.
Flyer22 Reborn is a highly active user who has essentially made the Wikipedia pedophilia article her private fiefdom since at least the early 2010s. She aggressively investigates possible returning banned users editing under sockpuppets within her areas of interest, and reports them to checkusers (especially Alison) to get them unmasked and blocked. She is sometimes mistaken for a pro-pedo editor on the basis of her interest in topics pertaining to "sexual deviance", but although she commented concerning the Wikipedia child protection policy, she did not criticize it or advocate changing it. In fact, she wrote that "this policy has been working fine for several years; got a lot of pedophiles and other adult-child sex advocates off Wikipedia, and now there is barely a problem with pro-pedophilia and/or pro-child sexual abuse pushing at articles about or relating to pedophilia and child sexual abuse topics." She also writes, "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."
Flyer22 made the cogent point, "Alison, regarding this revert, how is the vague 'inappropriate' wording 'just fine,' given what has been stated above in this section? How does that get across the point of this policy? I don't see what 'inappropriate' can mean if it does not mean 'sexual' in this case, or why we should stick to 'inappropriate' to get across that we might mean something broader instead of specifying what that 'broader' context is." Alison did not respond.
In 2015, Flyer22 changed her username to "Flyer22 Reborn" when she announced she was LANCB and soon afterward came crawling back. To save face, she claimed she was a different person than the one who had stormed out; she had died and been reborn. BoyWiki will treat her analogously to a transgender person (whose pronoun depends on whether events described happened before or after the sex change), by calling her "Flyer22" when referring to events before 23 October 2015 and "Flyer22 Reborn" when referring to events after that date.
On 9 December 2015, Flyer22 Reborn made it evident that the child protection policy actually has more to do with suppressing dissident opinions than with actually protecting children: "For me to not want a pedophile editor blocked, the editor would have to be like Virtuous Pedophiles editors; I mean the Wikipedia editors who have been open about being pedophiles but note that they fight against their child sexual abuse urges and believe that child sexual abuse is wrong. Even if they are lying, it's not a problem for this site if they don't openly express pro-child sexual abuse views or engage in pro-child sexual abuse editing, and so on." In other words, it's not a problem if a pedophile actually isn't fighting his urges and doesn't believe child sexual abuse is wrong, as long as he outwardly pretends to be, while perhaps secretly trawling for kids when people aren't looking. In September 2016, an open letter to Flyer22 attracted considerable interest.
On 30 September 2016, Flyer22 Reborn made a false accusation of sockpuppetry against Markshale, writing, "Even if the checkuser data does not connect Markshale to these accounts, I assure you that Markshale is Tisane" and "Markshale is free to come to my talk page to deny being Tisane, but when I'm 100% sure of an editor being a sock, that's it." After this incident, Etenne declared, with regard to Flyer22, "I would never allow her to register on BoyWiki and would ban her if she did somehow manage to do so."
Jack-A-Roe is a veteran Wikipedia editor who imposes a victimological agenda on a range of articles related to child sexual abuse. It is possible that the person behind this account may be working on behalf of an organisation such as Perverted-Justice, or more plausibly an NGO or science-advocacy interest such as The Leadership Council. He claims that his interest in CSA is grounded in medical experience.
In not being banned for tendentious and somewhat abrasive early behaviour, Jack-A-Roe has achieved status as a credible editor. He is perhaps best decribed as a "civil POV pusher".
This user displays a range of behaviors that would appear to betray advanced agenda-pushing. For example, in managing citations he frequently removes convenience links to sites such as Ipce, using the WP:RS (Reliable Source) rationale, under which removal would be unnecessary where the primary source is listed.
MZMcBride created the first version of the Wikipedia policy on child protection as well as of the Meta-Wiki policy on child protection. He also censored remarks concerning censorship of the debate about censorship.
SqueakBox uses Wikipedia to promote an anti-paedophile agenda. He uses multiple accounts and even posts welcome messages to his sockpuppets . He has made edits relating to homosexuality, using the sockpuppet Skanking .
It is likely that SqueakBox uses software that allows him to log in with overseas internet service providers. Various checkuser requests on his other accounts have shown that most of his sockpuppets are operated from geographically unrelated ISPs - notably in the United Kingdom, where TV Genius is based. The sockpuppets' log-in times, stylistic betrayals and support of SqueakBox edits clearly show that they are operated by the same user. In many cases, strings of SqueakBox edits have been shown to be perfectly appended to strings of sock edits. Pol64 is a perfect example of this. Despite the case for massive abuse of the system, administrators continue to deny the blatant dishonesty of this already penalised sock-puppeteer, who is valued by both anti-pedophile editors and Perverted Justice - whom he cites as his inspiration.[Citation needed] On the other hand, his repeated accusations of pedophile-related activity towards other editors, blind, borderline-hysterical bias and general rudeness have been dealt with - albeit with an unusual level of lenience.
- Amateur Cyclone - Sock 3: IP Linked to Pol64.
- Pol64 - Sock 2: Clearly Weiss.
- Richard Weiss
- Skanking - Sock 1 - penalised for this.
- TV Genius
- Ztep - Sock 4 (used to evade block and further penalisation).
- "Undid revision 548894473 by The Devil's Advocate (talk) - it's a recipe for just fine, thanks. Talk page (I noticed you missed discussing this point)" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AChild_protection&diff=548906366&oldid=548894473
- "Actually, 'inappropriate' is just fine here." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AChild_protection&diff=620565768&oldid=620515714