Arise! (Flyer22, sockpuppetry & more)

[Vigilant]

A Flyer deploying flares when threatened.

[Midsize Jake]

Well, I'd at least put money on Flyer still being alive. Like, seriously. $1000.

Haven't we already determined that she's still alive? We're just not posting the evidence because that would be doxxing, and she's not quite evil enough to pass our "evil-Wikipedian threshold." Or have I been misunderstanding the issue the entire time? Maybe I'm just getting too old for this stuff.

(I actually have no idea why this infuriated Flyer so much: it's not something I would expect a TERF to care about one way or the other, and the move was well-supported by sources. But nevertheless she saw it as emblematic of insidious transgender "activism".)

Ahh. I don't know how old you are, but being too old myself apparently, I'm old enough to remember when "queer" was a serious insult, at least in straight white middle-class USA where I grew up. "Non-binary" sounds more like a compliment, at least in comparison... especially for IT people, who know what the word "binary" actually means and who make up about half of Wikipedia's active user base. (I was an IT person myself for a while too, y'know. Still am, to some extent or other...)

If Flyer22 is who we think she is, she too is old enough (though just barely) to remember when "queer" was an insult, so I'm not at all surprised that she'd object to such a move, being a "TERF" and all that. Got to hold that line, dammit. We're Wikipedians! Never give an inch!

[Katie]

Well, I'd at least put money on Flyer still being alive. Like, seriously. $1000.

Haven't we already determined that she's still alive? We're just not posting the evidence because that would be doxxing, and she's not quite evil enough to pass our "evil-Wikipedian threshold." Or have I been misunderstanding the issue the entire time? Maybe I'm just getting too old for this stuff.

(I actually have no idea why this infuriated Flyer so much: it's not something I would expect a TERF to care about one way or the other, and the move was well-supported by sources. But nevertheless she saw it as emblematic of insidious transgender "activism".)

Ahh. I don't know how old you are, but being too old myself apparently, I'm old enough to remember when "queer" was a serious insult, at least in straight white middle-class USA where I grew up. "Non-binary" sounds more like a compliment, at least in comparison... especially for IT people, who know what the word "binary" actually means and who make up about half of Wikipedia's active user base. (I was an IT person myself for a while too, y'know. Still am, to some extent or other...)

If Flyer22 is who we think she is, she too is old enough (though just barely) to remember when "queer" was an insult, so I'm not at all surprised that she'd object to such a move, being a "TERF" and all that. Got to hold that line, dammit. We're Wikipedians! Never give an inch!

There's off-Wiki non-WPO related evidence that points to her still being alive: unfortunately we'd have to dox Flyer at least (which would end up risking her, and her family's safety) to show it. And that's not something we want: I don't want some psycho to go after Flyer or her family IRL. I know of some horrible human beings she dealt with.

I would say, however, that socking after your supposed death shows you're still alive. She's socked here, on WPO, and on Wikipedia.

Flyer wanted the article name to remain the same as it previously was - namely "Genderqueer". She considered the current "non-binary gender" title to be wrong.

[Charliebware]

Haven't we already determined that she's still alive?
...
If Flyer22 is who we think she is....

Yes, this is well established. She's even been scrubbing herself from the internet, including taking photos down.

[Vigilant]

All of this over en.wp...

Sad.

[ScotFinnRadish]

All of this over en.wp...

Sad.

While I agree that en.wp certainly isn't worth it, on the scale of crazy things crazy people are crazy about, it's almost reasonable. Back in the day, I ran a couple MUDs, with a player base in the low hundreds, certainly not huge, and I had players fake their own deaths, as well as enormous amounts of crazy drama. At least a Wikipedia article is viewed by members of the public, and could feasibly change someone's opinion on something.

[WanderingWanda]

Haven't we already determined that she's still alive?
...
If Flyer22 is who we think she is....

Yes, this is well established. She's even been scrubbing herself from the internet, including taking photos down.

Ah, but you forget, her brother announced that he'd be doing that on Flyer's behalf. (Of course, since he's such a selfless and loving brother, I'm sure it never even crossed his mind to do the same for himself.)

But yeah, it's pretty damn certain she's still alive. Is it proven beyond-all-doubt? I mean, apparently ArbCom saw the off-Wiki stuff and apparently some members still think she's dead so

Anway, if SMcCandlish wants to lose $1000 he's free to email me

(Would that be unfair to a guy who's been as badly manipulated as he's been? I dunno. Probably. I do, as I've said, have a certain amount of sympathy for the guy. Anyone who's been on the receiving end of this kind of scam knows how much it sucks, when you eventually figure out what's going on. Flyer is being pretty fucking cruel to her friends.)

Flyer wanted the article name to remain the same as it previously was - namely "Genderqueer". She considered the current "non-binary gender" title to be wrong.

She probably did actually think "Genderqueer" was simply the correct title on the basis of sources and guidelines. She's not a completely two dimensional villain. But one of those complex villains. When I make Wikipedia: the Musical I'm sure she'll be the most popular character.

[FelinaLavandula]

This saga is completely baffling to me. I can’t imagine faking my death and then repeatedly posting on the same place where I made my death announcement. But then, I’m not addicted to Wikipedia, and I’m also not an obsessive weirdo.

[ArmasRebane]

All of this over en.wp...

Sad.

While I agree that en.wp certainly isn't worth it, on the scale of crazy things crazy people are crazy about, it's almost reasonable. Back in the day, I ran a couple MUDs, with a player base in the low hundreds, certainly not huge, and I had players fake their own deaths, as well as enormous amounts of crazy drama. At least a Wikipedia article is viewed by members of the public, and could feasibly change someone's opinion on something.

Yeah Wikipedia at least has some potential for "real" stakes, but I kind of feel like that's irrelevant. The behavior often seems magnified in direct opposition to how "important" something actually is. These kinds of people are probably doing the same drama llama stuff on other fora. Doesn't seem like Wikipedia is really that much of a magnet versus it's just been around so long with relatively persistent dramatis personae.

Also, I have to admit it's amusing you're posting here, because there were considerable questions whether you were a sock of Flyer as well.

[owl be it]

Yeah, uh, I heard that Flyer was actually a famous pianist? And very tall. Or maybe I misheard.

[WanderingWanda]

I like how Flyer's friends are like "Flyer faking her own death wouldn't be rational!"

Like, yeah

No shit

Also, I have to admit it's amusing you're posting here, because there were considerable questions whether you were a sock of Flyer as well.

That's the No True ScottishFinnishRadish Fallacy

[Arishok]

SFR = Flyer is, IMO, a bad theory, and whoever came up with it should feel bad.

[ScotFinnRadish]

Also, I have to admit it's amusing you're posting here, because there were considerable questions whether you were a sock of Flyer as well.

Considerable questions where? It's there a thread here I missed, or is there a super secret flyer zombie sock tracking forum?

[WanderingWanda]

Also, I have to admit it's amusing you're posting here, because there were considerable questions whether you were a sock of Flyer as well.

Considerable questions where? It's there a thread here I missed, or is there a super secret flyer zombie sock tracking forum?

I think ArmasRebane is referring to Behind the Scenes conversations. The speculation might have been due to your recent join date and your interest in TERF and LGBT related stuff.

But it's pretty obvious you aren't her just by looking at your talk page history and noting the lack of multi-paragraph long rants,* angry reversions of good faith editors, or aspersion casting.



*not, uh, that there's anything wrong with going on long-winded rants sometimes

[ScotFinnRadish]

I didn't think I was really involved in LGBT/terf discussions, moreso than anything else.

[WanderingWanda]

I think some people have trouble grasping that Flyer is very, very, very, very bad at disguising herself. If you've looked at a decent sized sample of an editor's writing, and it has not become blindingly obvious that it's her, it's not her

[Vigilant]

SFR builds things with lumber.

I wound Flyer could change the oil in her car.

[Beeblebrox]

Also, I have to admit it's amusing you're posting here, because there were considerable questions whether you were a sock of Flyer as well.

Considerable questions where? It's there a thread here I missed, or is there a super secret flyer zombie sock tracking forum?

Well this is awkward.

Since you asked...

I don't know where these other knuckleheads got their suspicions from, but ...uh.... you were kinda sorta in an arbcom case you didn't know you were in. Nothing was said publicly when we finally took action because the behavioral evidence was not conclusive, and the CU evidence suggested the exact opposite conclusion.

It seems laughably wrong now, but your edit history was very brief at the time and the timing was right.

Please accept this song of apology from the late, great Wesley Willis. It's not exactly on point but it's pretty great.

[ScotFinnRadish]

Well ain't that something. Was this when I emailed arbcom from my real email address, and not the one I made for Wikipedia usage to say I want a sock after having been accused on my talk page, or when one of the IPs I edit from was blocked and people were being super cagey about it, and I had to disclose my employer?

Wikipedia makes it very difficult for intelligent people to constructively contribute. If I gave a shit about disclosing my actual email address, that probably would have been the end of my editing. Meanwhile, we assume as much good faith as possible with people adding spam links.

ETA: Getting checkusered for not editing like a moron is really whooping on the llama's ass.

[WanderingWanda]

Flyer is very, very, very, very bad at disguising herself.

Well, I should amend this somewhat. She is a very sophisticated socker...on a technical level. But she's very unsophisticated on a behavioral level. And I guess that's the crux of the issue? The DUCK test is all well and good for the rando newbie. But when they're one of Wikipedia's top editors (in terms of edit count), with a circle of rabid supporters? Oh, and dearly departed, to boot?

Who wants to be the one to stand up and say the emperor is quacking and waddling an awful lot?

ETA: Getting checkusered for not editing like a moron is really whooping on the llama's ass.

I've faced endless (and, needless to say, false) accusations from Flyer and her lackeys that I'm a sock. When they even bother with evidence, one thing they point to is that I was supposedly too sophisticated at the start of my editing career. One of the first things I did, for example, was start an RfC. For me, though, the behind-the-scenes stuff – babbling away on talk pages (or on here, or on Discord) – is the easy part. Actually editing articles is much harder (and much more valuable).

[Emptyeye]

ETA: Getting checkusered for not editing like a moron is really whooping on the llama's ass.

Just gonna link this post of mine here. In particular, I think the last two paragraphs are relevant. Yes, it sucks that you went through that....it's also entirely predictable. As I said, even though Wikipedia has been around for 20 years, and in the news in various forms for most of that (Most of it flattering, some of it, such as The Register's reporting, not so much), its regulars think it's somehow impossible for anyone to have researched its inner structure and/or look before they leap in all that time. I can see that from the outside looking in, and it's one factor in why I stay (Mostly, all 2 edits from my account and one IP edit from when I was in college aside) on the outside looking in.

[ScotFinnRadish]

I've said much the same in discussions on my talk page, and was also expecting some pushback or accusations. That's why I used my real email address when I started. If arbcom had concerns, I wish they would have just asked me, so I could have sent them a video of me playing Weeping, sad and lonely on my concertina. At least that way there's some entertainment in the whole situation.

[The Blue Newt]

AntherAnother point that the average Wikipediot forgets is that the very same software, or close simulacra, are used by other nerdpiles, so the learning curve for some aspects of it is much lower than it used to be.

Yer basic collapse of scholarly standards is also lowering the threshold for entry, since there are now more theoretically educated people who don’t have to unlearn stuff before joining the cult.

PS: If called by a panther, don’t anther.

[WanderingWanda]

ETA: Getting checkusered for not editing like a moron is really whooping on the llama's ass.

Just gonna link this post of mine here. In particular, I think the last two paragraphs are relevant. Yes, it sucks that you went through that....it's also entirely predictable. As I said, even though Wikipedia has been around for 20 years, and in the news in various forms for most of that (Most of it flattering, some of it, such as The Register's reporting, not so much), its regulars think it's somehow impossible for anyone to have researched its inner structure and/or look before they leap in all that time. I can see that from the outside looking in, and it's one factor in why I stay (Mostly, all 2 edits from my account and one IP edit from when I was in college aside) on the outside looking in.

I've said much the same in discussions on my talk page, and was also expecting some pushback or accusations. That's why I used my real email address when I started. If arbcom had concerns, I wish they would have just asked me, so I could have sent them a video of me playing Weeping, sad and lonely on my concertina. At least that way there's some entertainment in the whole situation.

Well, there was that one sockpuppetry incident a few years ago....

[Arishok]

I'll give Beeblebrox some kudos for at least copping to it and offering an apology. It would have been much easier to just sit on that information indefinitely; too often such things are kept a secret forever nominally for "privacy" or "confidentiality" reasons but actually purely out of sheer embarrassment. Thumbs up for avoiding that.

Though I do rather wonder what the "case" in question is (especially since some manner of "action" was apparently taken...), but that's probably veering a bit off-topic for this thread.

[WanderingWanda]

(Someone PM'd me asking what I meant by the last post. I didn't mean anything by it. It's a bad joke about Get Out.)

(Because the movie involves 'puppeting', you see? And Stephen Root is in it. Eh?)

(I'll be here all week, be sure and tip your waiter.)

[ScotFinnRadish]

If I were socking, I'd be undetectable.

[WanderingWanda]

especially since some manner of "action" was apparently taken...

The "action" was, I'm guessing, that one statement where ArbCom was like "some people have said Flyer is socking. Here are a bunch of socks that were blocked. Were they Flyer? Hahaha, who can say really. OK bye."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... r22_Frozen

[ScotFinnRadish]

I'll give Beeblebrox some kudos for at least copping to it and offering an apology. It would have been much easier to just sit on that information indefinitely; too often such things are kept a secret forever nominally for "privacy" or "confidentiality" reasons but actually purely out of sheer embarrassment. Thumbs up for avoiding that.

Yeah, I reread my post and it probably seems angrier in tone than it would have if it was spoken. I assumed something was going on, and it's nice to know for sure, but there's no hard feelings. If I was terribly bothered by it, I would have just stopped editing then.
Beeblebrox if you're ever down in New England, you're welcome to swing by for a glass of two of my homemade mead. I got a few bottles nearing up on four years aging.

[Beeblebrox]

I'll give Beeblebrox some kudos for at least copping to it and offering an apology. It would have been much easier to just sit on that information indefinitely; too often such things are kept a secret forever nominally for "privacy" or "confidentiality" reasons but actually purely out of sheer embarrassment. Thumbs up for avoiding that.

Though I do rather wonder what the "case" in question is (especially since some manner of "action" was apparently taken...), but that's probably veering a bit off-topic for this thread.

I try to be transparent, and the case isn't actually top secret or anything, (although a good portion of the actual evidence is) see the very first post in this thread for the full text of the public announcement we made, and a list of accounts that had already been blocked. SFR was not on that list because the evidence did not support it.

I was rather intrigued when some comments here voiced the same suspicions that were communicated to the committee privately. I know I hadn't said anything public about it until just now.

[WanderingWanda]

I was rather intrigued when some comments here voiced the same suspicions that were communicated to the committee privately. I know I hadn't said anything public about it until just now.

Eh? You're concerned that people gossiped about SFR maybe being a sock? That's hardly sensitive information, and I doubt anyone on the committee leaked anything, if that's what you're worried about.

[Beeblebrox]

I was rather intrigued when some comments here voiced the same suspicions that were communicated to the committee privately. I know I hadn't said anything public about it until just now.

Eh? You're concerned that people gossiped about SFR maybe being a sock? That's hardly sensitive information, and I doubt anyone on the committee leaked anything, if that's what you're worried about.

No, I don't think there was a leak on our end. That's exactly what had me curious, but I think there's a probable explanation: they all used the same publicly available editor interaction tools, which show areas of shared interest, but that's all they show, and ran with the conclusion suggested by that. A conclusion I think we can all now agree was incorrect, even without the CU data.

[Arishok]

I try to be transparent, and the case isn't actually top secret or anything, (although a good portion of the actual evidence is) see the very first post in this thread for the full text of the public announcement we made, and a list of accounts that had already been blocked. SFR was not on that list because the evidence did not support it.

I was rather intrigued when some comments here voiced the same suspicions that were communicated to the committee privately. I know I hadn't said anything public about it until just now.

Ah, so it was this case after all; thank you for the confirmation (and again for the transparency).

I do think it's...interesting...how just about every recognizable, clueful-seeming WP community-participant I can think of with a join date within the last 5 years, has at some point been seriously accused of socking, usually somewhere around the first time they advocated for something a longer-term community-participant felt was disagreeable.

I'd thought for a while that SFR might be an exception to this pattern, but evidently there's actually no such thing.

EDIT: as to a "leak", it seems to me most plausible that whoever (or one of the whoevers) sent in the tip to Arbcom in the first place may well have additionally gossipped about their suspicions to others in offwiki conversations, and that this was the pathway the accusation took to get here.

[Charliebware]

I think some people have trouble grasping that Flyer is very, very, very, very bad at disguising herself. If you've looked at a decent sized sample of an editor's writing, and it has not become blindingly obvious that it's her, it's not her

This.

[ScotFinnRadish]

I'd just like to express that I'm honored that I was the subject of on and off-wiki speculation.

[Beeblebrox]

I'd just like to express that I'm honored that I was the subject of on and off-wiki speculation.

Welcome to the club. You got there pretty quick so... congratulations?

[Charliebware]

Here goes Flyer (GBFEE) with her trademark DARVO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sex_ ... 2_language

And she's pinged her meatpuppet Crossroads of course.

[ScotFinnRadish]

I'd just like to express that I'm honored that I was the subject of on and off-wiki speculation.

Welcome to the club. You got there pretty quick so... congratulations?

I don't have any slash fanfic about me yet, so I still have a ways to go.

[Vigilant]

I'd just like to express that I'm honored that I was the subject of on and off-wiki speculation.

Welcome to the club. You got there pretty quick so... congratulations?

I don't have any slash fanfic about me yet, so I still have a ways to go.

Oh, honey.

There’s plenty … oops, I’ve said too much…

[Alison]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1091128751

Someone with a sense of humour ...

[Charliebware]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1091128751

Someone with a sense of humour ...

Luckily the definitely-Polish-not-Flyer-sock GBFEE will protect Flyer from harassment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... se_than...

[WanderingWanda]

I will indefinitely block anyone who continues poking this pile of manure.

An awfully vague and broad threat from Flyer's buddy Johnuniq. Nevertheless, as long as Flyer continues to abuse Wikipedia, I will do what I can to stand up to her abuse. If I'm ever blocked for doing the right thing, so be it.

[Arishok]

I doubt that what amounts to a BADSITES block would withstand scrutiny in this case, though it might not deter them from trying.

[WanderingWanda]

• From a behavioral point of view, I see a shared interest in a general topic, but nothing that screams "socking" to me. In any case, they haven't edited in over a month, so there's no rush to do anything here. Closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• Note added post-archiving: I received an off-wiki request to take another look at this, which I did. CUs working this case should see my notes in cuwiki. All I will state publicly is that, as noted above, WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE argues against taking any further action at this time. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

[another_voice]

Do these edits look familiar to anyone? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1092837667 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1092967739

[FelinaLavandula]

[another_voice]

Perhaps even more familiar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?di ... d=18254055

[Anroth]

Haven't we already determined that she's still alive? We're just not posting the evidence because that would be doxxing, and she's not quite evil enough to pass our "evil-Wikipedian threshold." Or have I been misunderstanding the issue the entire time? Maybe I'm just getting too old for this stuff.

To answer your first question, yes.

But can I put forward the suggestion that the threshold has been passed now? Its not so much the continuous socking, its the behaviour and impact on others. And in additional, at this point Flyer22 is pretending to be from Wikipediocracy, which like it or not has a reputational impact on those of us who contribute both here and on ENWP. And since, contrary to some of ENWP's editors misguided opinion, most of us actually are not banned or in poor standing on ENWP, being associated with that emotional and morally empty manipulative muppet is quite vexing. Its not quite rape justice-evading levels of Arthur Knight, but few things are.

All Flyer22 had to do to avoid scrutiny was to stay away. Or at a minimum change their problematic behaviour. Continuing it *after* pretending to be dead needs to have some consequences or it they will just keep going, which in line with the usual problems of correcting behaviour on ENWP, shows a disregard for everyone who encounters them.

-edit- Treat the above with the amount of bias you would expect from someone who thought we should have exposed this fraudypants very shortly after they started.

[Charliebware]

Haven't we already determined that she's still alive? We're just not posting the evidence because that would be doxxing, and she's not quite evil enough to pass our "evil-Wikipedian threshold." Or have I been misunderstanding the issue the entire time? Maybe I'm just getting too old for this stuff.

To answer your first question, yes.

But can I put forward the suggestion that the threshold has been passed now? Its not so much the continuous socking, its the behaviour and impact on others. And in additional, at this point Flyer22 is pretending to be from Wikipediocracy, which like it or not has a reputational impact on those of us who contribute both here and on ENWP. And since, contrary to some of ENWP's editors misguided opinion, most of us actually are not banned or in poor standing on ENWP, being associated with that emotional and morally empty manipulative muppet is quite vexing. Its not quite rape justice-evading levels of Arthur Knight, but few things are.

All Flyer22 had to do to avoid scrutiny was to stay away. Or at a minimum change their problematic behaviour. Continuing it *after* pretending to be dead needs to have some consequences or it they will just keep going, which in line with the usual problems of correcting behaviour on ENWP, shows a disregard for everyone who encounters them.

Beeblebrox for one has seen all of the evidence and continues to believe she's dead, so outing her wouldn't accomplish anything but give her the opportunity to further play the victim.

[Arishok]

My impression was that Beebs had rather strenuously avoided publicly expressing his personal view on whether Flyer was really dead or not, and had merely informed us that the 2021 Arbcom had been divided on this. But I may have missed something.