Evil-unveiled.com/Wikipedia Campaign

From Encyclopedia Dramatica
Jump to navigationJump to search
Wikipedia subversion
Purpose: To mainstream pedophile views and activism using Wikipedia.
Website Address:
A long-running campaign by pedophile activists in which they organize to create articles biased towards their views through any means necessary, using alter egos, proxies and scare attacks in order to silence opposition.

Pedophiles have long sought to use Wikipedia to justify and promote their agenda. They organize together in order to create Wikipedia accounts and then seek to use Wikipedia's all-inclusiveness to promote their point of view. When pointed out, Wikipedians themselves often don't believe that there is an organized campaign to subvert the user-edited encyclopedia in order to promote the pedophile agenda. With Wikipedia increasingly being allowed in usage by K-12 students, the subversion of the project by pedophiles is directed at promoting their viewpoints in school reports and to promote their point of view via Google and other websites which copy Wiki content in whole.

Mission Statement

A long-running campaign by pedophile activists in which they organize to create articles biased towards their views through any means necessary, using alter egos, proxies and scare attacks in order to silence opposition.

Calls to campaign by pedophiles

Often, pedophiles make public calls for other pedophiles to help them swing the balance against those who try to undercut their campaign to subvert Wikipedia. BoyChat sees the vast majority of these messages. One example can be read below from the following source here titled "Wikipedia needs your help"

Several sections of Child Sexuality need more data.

If you've got it, please add it.

Remember, No Original Research and keep a Neutral Point of View. This means use verified sources and don't be biased.

If you do wholesale changes or add new topics make doubly sure you are NPOV and NOR.

You can edit the file without logging in but it will put your IP address.

Use a proxy if you are going to do this.

Another example is titled "Idiot on wiki tries to merge ped activism..." found here.

...and history articles, with no admin authority or supportive discussion.

He has reverted the actions of another editor who re-separated the articles and called for a discussion.


All wikipedians get to work.

The examples are common and constitute a widespread practice. Wikipedian Dfpc wanted to create an article where he advances the idea of child nudity from a pedophile point of view. Where was the first place he turned? Boychat, of course. The following is a quote from here.

I am rewriting the Wikipedia article on Nudity and Children.

Why? I was wikifying the references and realized the article was basically unsupportable opinion.

I have a draft with instructions on how to suggest material here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dfpc#Special_topic:_sandbox_for_replacement_article_on_Nudity_and_children.2C_replacement

You can submit your ideas here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dfpc#Community_contributed_ideas or if you prefer not to reveal your IP address or Wikipedia user name, you can post in this boychat thread.

I need verified information from countries outside the USA and from historical cultures. If you can't cite it with a trusted source, I don't want it.

When asked why he's bothering, another pedophile explains the reason for wanting the Wikipedia article to stand.

The law in Santa Monica, CA allows ten year old to swim in the ocean nude.

Societies that allow nudity have not "sexualized" children. It is useful to know what societies these are.

In other words, using Wikipedia in order to create a directory of locations where pedophiles can hope to see children naked without consequence.

Why do those at Boychat work to undermine and subvert pedophile-related articles on Wikipedia and why do they make public calls for other pedophiles to join them in overtaking the work of legitimate editors? The answer is summed up by BLueRibbon here.

I did make a few edits to BoyWiki's Activism article recently, however the reason I spend so much time at Wikipedia is that their Paedophilia article is the top result for that term on Google, making it an important platform for us.

Additionally Student on Annabelleigh.net summed up the pedophile communities goals for Wikipedia subversion with the following [1].

Let's be pragmatic, here.

The most important function wikipedia serves is via the pedophilia articles themselves. It is important that they remain fair and unbiased. It is important that they continue to have external links to the support and activist community. The user pages are much less important.

It is of the utmost importance that pedophiles newly daring to google "pedophile" or "pedophilia," or look them up directly in wikipedia, in an effort to understand themselves better, are able to get unbiased information and are presented with links to a support forum like GC and/or sites like Lindsay's human face of pedophilia. Many of these men and women are in dire need of support.

Secondly, nonpedophiles who recognize the increasingly sensationalistic media treatment, etc., and turn to the web to find the facts or people who use the web as their primary source of information: If they turn to wikipedia, wikipedia should give a fair and balanced view. This community needs that to happen. Wikipedia provides the opportunity for a widely recognized channel to fairly present the story. This community must do what it can to keep that channel open. And again, we need to keep the links in that article as well.

That should be the primary focus of our wikipedia efforts. If you have to "lie and hide" to keep our influence balanced against the bigots, then by all means lie and hide to do it. By all means, do not give up the fight to self-identify on the user pages, but make sure you do not let it stop you from editing!

A classic example of how pedophiles work together to try to subvert Wikipedia can be viewed at the Boychat "article for deletion" page. Note that every single person who votes "keep" is a member and poster at Boychat, yet do not readily admit this until called out on it.[2] This is a ready example of how they work together in order to try to campaign for themselves via the project.

Use of alter egos and proxies

Pedophiles use alter egos (or "sockpuppets") in order to attempt to make their case on Wikipedia itself. The following is one such example - source.

Wiki is a private enterprise, and Jimbo has total legal control over its content.

Each subgroup in society is allowed to run their own wiki, banning whoever they wish (conservative, gay, asian).

I'd stick to the simple line: You're banning people for what they are.

The solution is simple, use an alter ego (as I do) to denounce the measures.

By using alter ego accounts to denounce attempts by Wikipedia to eliminate the subversion of their project, pedophiles attempt to use strength in numbers in order to influence Wikipedia administration and other users. Commonly when this issue is discussed on Wikipedia, random accounts come out of the woodwork in order to shout down legitimate Wikipedians who wish to see pedophile activists removed from their campaign of Wikipedia subversion. The above statement is a snapshot into how pedophiles work there to implement and protect their campaign against the integrity of the user-edited encyclopedia.

Additionally, they use proxy IP addresses in order to unbalance articles while putting forth their pedophile agenda. This is done in order to put forth their edits without reversion and to escape being blocked. Currently wikipedia has no policy restricting editing by anonymous users without accounts, meaning that anyone can get a proxy IP address and make whatever edit they wish. Because Wikipedians are required by Wikipedian rules to "assume good faith" on every edit, anonymous proxy IP editing or not, such edits are hard to undo.


The history of pedophiles using Wikipedia to promote their own agenda is long. Lindsay Ashford AKA Zanthalon was one of the more notable pedophiles using the project to serve his own ends. Sometimes, even blatantly breaking the rules of the project but yet, still protected by other pedophiles on Wikipedia and other non-pedophile Wikipedians. For example, he created his own article about himself in April 2004. He would become an avid and active editor on the encyclopedia afterwards. When Wikipedians abhorred by the fact that Ashford was allowed to spew his agenda on the project, Wikipedia as a community consistently ruled in his favor [3].

Yeah, this policy is going to sink and for good reason. There are pedophile-disruptive labels, done to tick others off and not to say 'I'm a pedophile!' in a true sense of the word, and those are generally not tolerated. (Old versions of User:SPUI's page spring to mind). And then others, like User:Zanthalon, do it in a way that in no way disrupts anything, and infact bring a great amount of interest and ability to developing encyclopedic content. This policy is just going to crash and burn.

-Mask 06:22, 21 February 2007

Yet Zanthalon's often-welcomed participation at Wikipedia did not end with creating an article about himself or his frequent edits on articles like "childlove movement." He also worked within the confines of the Wikipedia culture in order to try to stop those who opposed pedophiles from being administrators on the encyclopedia. As part of a widespread pedophile campaign to stop Wikipedia editor Lucky 6.9 from becoming an Wikipedia administrator, Zanthalon voted to oppose for the following reason [4].

Oppose. After an outburst like: "Unilateral censorship?!? Fuck this whole thing once and for all. Keep your precious article. Damn you. Sysops, please delete my pages just as soon as I'm through blanking them. - Lucky 6.9 06:33, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)" (retrieved from Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Childlove_movement), inviting this editor to admin amounts to nothing more than appeasement.

--Zanthalon 19:50, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On a page nominating the ridiculously-titled "childlove movement" page for deletion, Zanthalon practiced the age-old "They" technique pedophile activists use. Zanthalon is an admitted pedophile and the person who coined the term "childlove movement" to begin with, so read the following comment closely [5].

Keep Regardless of what individual editors think about the people about whom this article is, they continue to exist, their movement continues to exist and it should be documented. Deleting this article will not make them go away.

--Zanthalon 02:52, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

They, them, their. Pedophiles use this technique as part of their campaign to turn the Wikipedia project into a project which serves their own advocacy and ends. In the case of the campaign to delete the "childlove movement" article (Article largely created by Ashford who coined the term himself), the efforts of Lindsay Ashford and fellow pedophiles was successful.

Now this article, if the tally is correct, shows a plurality (21/8/18) to Keep the article. Even if we consider all the Merge votes to be Delete votes, we have a vote of 26-21 (55.32%) to delete, not even close to a rough consensus. So the question logically is: "do we prefer to keep this as a separate article, or delete it as a separate article and merge the content into Paedophilia?

Because of votes like Ashford's being counted, the article was kept and remains to this day mainly edited by pedophiles to advance their view of "childlove" and to promote their movement. Zanthalon continued to use his account on Wikipedia to harass those who tried to edit various articles the pedophile movement gave importance [6] Zanthalon continued his harassment by taking the issue to Wikipedia administration [7]. The following quote sums up his campaign, which was largely successful over the years.

Your persistent addition of links to the pedophilia and childlover pages that are not accepted by others who have been maintaining these pages for longer than you have is not appreciated. The links you are adding belong on the child sexual abuse page and are there. Please desist from your one-person campaign of putting these links where others do not support them.

--Zanthalon 22:13, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Zanthalon was recently blocked by Wikipedia administration, however his case has gone to arbitration. Unfortunately for those keeping track of the issue, Wikipedia has decided to make the arbitration hearing email-only and hence, hidden from the public [8].

Other pedophiles on Wikipedia

The following is a list of identified pedophiles who are part of this organized campaign on Wikipedia. Some of the following are banned, some of the following are fighting their ban as of this writing and others on this list are unbanned.

Currently blocked on Wikipedia

Currently unblocked on Wikipedia

Attacks by pedophiles on Wikipedians who oppose them

Recently Wikipedia, after years of allowing pedophiles to conduct an organized campaign to subvert their project, has started banning pedophile activists from their service. This campaign was initiated after several high-profile calls to action against them, our own beginning on Perverted-Justice.com and continued here being one of them. A Wikipedian administrator named Fred Bauder is currently leading the charge to block what they call "single-purpose users" (Pedophile activists) from continuing to subvert the project.

Due to this, pedophiles have gone after Bauder in various ways, mostly attempting to smear and insult him while trying to think of ways to dislodge Bauder from Wikipedia hierarchy. The attacks on Bauder are especially vitriolic. The below quote is taken from the following source.

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, they're under fire from schools and a lot of other groups about 'Pedos' running wild on their service mostly thanks to Perverted Justice and Xavier Von Cunt who have made sure to harass even a valuable resource like Wikipedia. Wikipedia is concerned about their funding as a result.

Fred Bauder is nothing but an egotistical, hypocritical cum-sponge who claims to be a lawyer yet consistently makes statements that leave me wondering where his law degree came from. Likely from the back of Rolling Stone or Swank. After the recent Phd scandal I certainly hope that Jimbo takes a deeper look into Freddie.

Following up on that is their attempt to dig up attacks on Bauder to use [9].

Meanwhile, pedophile BLueRibbon has called on the very same people to spam Bauder's talk page on Wikipedia with requests for the unblocking of Zanthalon and Silent War, as well as spamming both Wikipedia administrator HighinBC on both the Wikipedia talk page but also via phone.

You can contact the administrator who blocked me, HighInBC (maybe he's a closeted BL ;-)) on his Wikipedia talk page. You can also contact him at his own wiki, or via his organisation's phone (*removed*) - please ask to speak to Ryan Bushby.

You can also contact Fred Bauder on his talk page, regarding the removal of Zanthalon and Silent War's userpage, or Wikipedia owner Jimbo Wales, who blocked Clayboy.

Please do NOT harass them. A few things they need to know are

   Paedophile activism is protected free speech.
   Paedophile activism is not illegal.
   Their actions are a form of illegal discrimination.

Throughout their campaign, they have harassed users on Wikipedia itself who seek to block them from subverting their attempts to "pedo-speak" the encyclopedia's content on pedophile-related articles. One such example was their harassment of user Lucky_6.9 when he was nominated for an administrative position on Wikipedia. Pedophiles organized themselves via talk pages in order to oppose this and to harass him via Wikipedia. Eventually, Lucky 6.9 left the website in disgust, an example of how pedophiles use their numbers and alter egos in order to try to impose a status quo in their favor on the encyclopedia [10].

Recently, user DPeterson on Wikipedia had taken one of the lead positions in correcting Pedophile POV edits. DPeterson was then targeted by the pedophile community (thriving under the don't ask, don't tell policy) due to his edits. Eventually, their campaign of harassment and targeting of anyone who opposes them on pedophile articles led to DPeterson being banned from Wikipedia for one year.

Pedophiles then broke out into open celebration over this occurring.

Posted on BoyChat by the account "Underground Paedophile Cabal News Network":

The Wikipedia accounts 'DPeterson' and 'RalphLender' have been banned for a period of one year. These accounts, both operated by Arthur Becker-Weidman, an attachment therapist notorious for pushing his unsupported views on a range of subjects including paedophilia and child sexual abuse. His other sockpuppets (MarkWood, JonesRD, SamDavidson, and JohnsonRon) have been blocked indefinitely.

We don't know when it will be possible to broadcast again, but you can be sure we shall be back. Keep twiddling those dials: the next password will be "Mad-Eye". Goodnight.

Another pedophile, cognizant of Wikipedia's "Don't ask, don't tell" policies towards pedophiles, admonishes the above poster for "blowing the cover."

Your post is not supported by the references cited.

The arbitration case is still active.

Given BoyChat's previous history in Wikipedia, any post here disparaging DPeterson may be taken by any on-the-fence arbitrator as a reason to go easy on him.

Recently they've taken to complaining about and threatening Wikipedia user SqueakBox due to his work on Wikipedia helping to counter pro-pedophile propaganda.

Anyone visiting the Caribbean could do Wikipedia a favor: there's a Squeakbox there that needs fixing to ensure it no longer squeaks.


Pedophiles continue to pick off editors who take an interest in correcting their organized campaign to make Wikipedia their own personal propaganda tool.

Future of the campaign?

With Bauder, Jimmy Wales and other Wikipedia administrators banning their accounts, it would be reasonable to believe that the campaign to subvert Wikipedia is failing. However, the pedophiles themselves have openly spoke of the situation as being a "Don't ask, don't tell" wink-wink affair. From one of the more longer-running in this campaign, Clayboy [12].

I was a Wikipedia editor for over two years when I was permanently blocked without having made any controversial edits. Most of my edits were strictly about fixing typos, and some were even fixing bias in the BL direction.

I thought it was a good idea to disclose what I am, so other editors would be able to police my edits as thoroughly as they might want to. I believe that strongly in the "neutral point of view" policy of Wikipedia. However, one day, as I was making cosmetic improvements to an article not even BL-related, I found myself blocked indefinitely. I was pretty upset; I may not have been a big-time editor, but I know I've made my contribution into improving Wikipedia over the years. The thanks I got felt like "we don't take kindly to your type around here, even if you cannot change and you have done only good. Get outta here!" And from the founder of Wikipedia nonetheless, an internet celebrity for whom I have had great respect.

But here is the thing: saying you are a pedophile or a boylover is highly disruptive outside the BL community. Right and wrong don't matter; when you say those words, you stir up trouble. Even if you don't want to, you come off as a troll. In Wikipedia, that means you disrupt their focus on writing an encyclopedia. Time that could be spent improving the content is wasted on arguing whether or not this random guy has or would have sex with children, or whether pure thought can affect children adversely, and so on and so forth. It's disruptive, and that's why I was permanently blocked. No other "solution" would be as effective as that.

Wikipedia really frowns upon anything that could take focus away from the encyclopedic work. Everybody is discouraged from being opinionated on their user pages. Saying "I'm a pedophile" may not be an opinion, but in most people's minds it carries a bunch of opinion with it, and that makes it disruptive.

So what it comes down to is this: you can be a Wikipedia editor even if you are a boylover. You can help keep the BL-related articles bias-free. You can do great work. But you cannot say that you are a boylover. You won't be asked, either. They don't ask, you don't tell.

Frustrated? Well you shouldn't be. If it is that important to you to say what you are when you edit Wikipedia, you should ask yourself why you are doing it in the first place. No part of Wikipedia is a platform for political statement. You may join the rest of the editors in single-mindedly bringing free information to the world, but as soon as you take away from that focus, you get in trouble.

I hope boylovers who want to be Wikipedia editors take this to heart.

It remains to be seen if this "Don't ask, don't tell" policy is from the administration of Wikipedia itself or if the above account was purely fantasy. However, with much of the decisions regarding the pedophile issue being taken care of behind closed doors, it remains to be seen if people like Zanthalon are truly not welcome, or just not welcome under a name everyone knows.

Wikipedia bans Pol64 to protect pedophile editors

This matter, while convoluted, confirms "Don't ask, don't tell" as official Wikipedia policy. User Pol64 was one of the few Wikipedians keeping an eye on the various pedophile articles while trying to deal with the pedophile activist editors. Pol64 is reputed to be either an active duty police officer or a retired law enforcement agent. Pol64 was very hated by the pedophile trolls which attempt to keep the pedophilia-related articles under their sway. This individual posted the following to her userpage...

Ex-copper, female. Lots of contacts. Very interesting the people who edit here and will investigate more. [13]

This, of course, sent the usual suspects into a flared-up tizzy. Immediately, pedophile editors vigilanceprime and grooming victim went to the administrator's noticeboard in order to get this individual banned for "making a legal threat." This person merely noted that they were affiliated with law enforcement and wanted to investigate more the biases and motivations of people who edit on Wikipedia. No direct threat, just a general interest to find out what's really going on with the so-called "People's encyclopedia."

Immediately, Wikipedians sprang to defend the pedophile editing cohorts against this "threat." AN/I archived discussion. The merest indication that there is a problem with Wikipedia being overrun by pedophiles is enough to get you blocked at Wikipedia. The rush to protect the pedophile activist editors has never been quicker and as we found, just noting an editor to be a pedophile while working on the project will result in an immediate ban.

Holokittynx leaked correspondence

In March 2008, someone got into the email account of Holokittynx. We randomly received an email from that account that featured a few dozen random emails that she had been sending with other pedophiles. Included in these random emails was correspondence from a mailing list that pedophiles have set up to talk shop about how to edit and control Wikipedia articles about pedophilia. Two emails relating to their collusion on Wikipedia editing were sent to Holokittynx. Both are very important and for different reasons.

First E-mail:

Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 5:12 PM
From: [email protected]
Subject: Shit coming down on Wikipedia
Bcc: 8 contacts:


If you do not have access:

Obv oppose...


and on his talkpage.

- Daniel Lièvre ([email protected])
Webmaster, Newgon.com.

The email above is from Daniel Lievre, a pedophile activist notorious for pushing pedophile POV on Wikipedia. The email above is him directing eight of his cohorts to oppose the banning of pedophile account "Barry Jameson." If you view the actual dispute over Jameson being banned, it was immediately contested by AnotherSolipsist and GroomingVictim on Jameson's talk page. While GroomingVictim is banned, AnotherSolipsist is still editing Wikipedia regularly. Elsewhere, VigilancePrime and Homologeo started taking up the cause for Jameson, as directed, here. Both of those editors are still very active on Wikipedia.

You may notice the link "newgon.com" in the above email. Newgon.com is a pedophile website with many "hidden" forums run by Lievre. When he speaks of those who "do not have access", he is speaking of those in his email list that he has not cleared to view his hidden forums where he directs much of the pedophile campaign to undermine Wikipedia.

The next email will further show in greater detail how the pedophile editors work together to try to keep their agenda alive.

Second email:

Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 1:27 AM
From: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: My perma-ban on Wikipedia
Fwd to 9 Wikipedia contacts.

-- Forwarded message from Tlato SMD <[email protected]> --

After coming back from a few days of wiki-break to cool off and forgive some people, I find that my modest step back has been thanked by perma-banning me. With you as my only accessible Wikipedia contact right now, it would be great if VigilancePrime, Homologeo, and Bikasuishin could be notified that I've left another comment on my talkpage now that I've come back.

It would also be great if users SSBohio, Holokittynx, Allstarecho, PeaceNT, and maybe others could be notified of my current unwarranted, humiliating situation.


- Daniel Lièvre ([email protected])
Webmaster, Newgon.com.

Some Wikipedians have been amazed at how reactive certain accounts have been on Wikipedia, how fast they can react to the bannings of others who share their viewpoints. You see, it is against Wikipedia rules to "lobby" on Wikipedia for support on various blocks, deletion decisions, etc. So the pedophiles have set-up a system off-Wiki in order to make sure they have enough support to try to gang up and push their way through on any given decision. The above was pedophile editor TlatoSMD reaching out to Lievre and his contacts.

If you view the talk-page for TlatoSMD and the AN/I where Homologeo and VigilancePrime answer the call to try to fight for TlatoSMD, you can see clearly how this system works. Fortunately in the TlatoSMD case, enough legitimate Wikipedians paid attention and were able to keep TlatoSMD blocked. However, those listed above in the message from TlatoSMD are still active on Wikipedia, single purpose POV warriors who work together in order to try to push their pedophile agenda on Wikipedia.


January 2008:

  • The Pedophilia Article Watch project continues to be undermined by pedophiles themselves. Currently Wikipedia pedophile editors Holokittynx and VigilancePrime are working together to try to hold sway. the Pedophilia Article Watch project was established by a few regular members and a few pedophiles to try to have a committee to hammer out issues with the Wikipedia pedophile articles. Most of the founding members of the PAW who are pedophiles have been banned. They have been replaced by other pedophiles, however, and currently the vast majority of discussion and decision making by the Pedophilia Article Watch project is being done by pedophile editors.
  • Interestingly as well, pedophiles have gone on the offensive anew trying to get people with anti-pedophile viewpoints banned from Wikipedia. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GroomingVictim
  • Fascinating read of a pedophile activist editor warning another one to keep a lower profile and to spread out his edits. Two links. The pedophile activist didn't listen to his warning. The advice in these two links is identical to advice we've seen pedophile activists on Annabelleigh.net and BoyChat.org give to those inquiring about Wikipedia editing. The user doesn't heed these warnings and ends up blocked anyways.
  • Another deletion attempt of the BoyChat-created and edited Adult-Child Sex article. Created as a point of view branch of the child sexual abuse article with the idea that the pedophiles would sit there and edit the thing to fit their viewpoints. They have brutally and aggressively defended this article since they created it. The deletion discussion page is interesting as it appears there may finally be enough attention paid by legitimate Wikipedia editors to get the article deleted.
  • Pedophile editors are putting up a fight, per usual, with pedophile editor VigilancePrime trying to paint the deletion attempt as abusive. It will be interesting to see what the final result of the AfD is.
  • Shockingly, the vote for deletion on the Adult-Child Sex article went through and it was deleted. Despite some pedophile activist editors seeking to sway legitimate Wikipedians with every argument they could muster, the article still received enough deletion votes to actually be deleted. A good day for Wikipedia, indeed.
  • Spoke too soon, there's now already debate about whether the deletion should be "overturned." Wikipedia is often a madhouse full of mental cases when it comes to procedures and policy, this AfD is turning into a stunning example of why pedophiles often have an unchecked hand on the site to propagandize. Link: ACS AfD Overturn discussion.
  • Surprisingly, enough Wikipedians endorsed the deletion to have it stand. A surprising result, considering how boisterous pedophile activists were in defending the article. A rare loss for them and a rare victory for Wikipedia standards.

February 2008:

  • Many new blocks and bans lately. Pedophile editors Barry Jameson, GroomingVictim, and TlatoSMD aka Tlatosmd have all eaten the banstick from Wikipedia lately. Each had been "lawyering" for one another in various disputes and finally had gone too far. Now all that remains is for VigilancePrime, the last of the most egregious offenders. His pedophile POV pushing campaigns have seemingly been neutralized with the recent wave of banned pedophile SPA's. Hopefully Wikipedian editors take a strong look at this user as he has been in collusion with the others on- and off-Wiki for quite some time.
  • Pretty quiet so far this month, though a call recently went up on Annabelleigh.net to vandalize the Wikipedia Jack McClellan article in favor of him. So far this has gone unimpeded.

March 2008:

  • Pedophile Wikipedia editor VigilancePrime, lead defender of Wikipedia pedophiles everywhere, is dumb and tried to call us out, saying that we're liars regarding the call to edit the McClellan article on Wikipedia. Of course, the first person to respond to him? Pedophile editor Roman619 who made the call on Annabelleigh.net to begin with.
  • For the hardy sort that can stand visiting pedophile websites, here's the link to the post calling for pedophiles to rush to the McClellan article's aid and for those who don't wish to visit a pedophile website, here's the screen shot. Thanks for the link to this article, however. The more Wikipedians educated regarding how pedophiles like VigilancePrime work on Wikipedia, the better.
  • Added a section centering around Holokittynx and her leaked emails. It is a must-read.

April 2008:

  • Pedophile Wikipedia editor VigilancePrime has been indefinitely blocked for being a pedophile. That only took a few months too many, but at least he is blocked now. Hopefully when he returns under yet another nickname, Wikipedia admin will act a little quicker to block him over his pedophile advocacy.

May 2008:

  • The Website Valleywag is reporting that Deputy Director of Wikipedia Erik Möller ArchiveToday-favicon.pngis, well, a pedophile and believes that ArchiveToday-favicon.png"children are pornography". We have no idea regarding the veracity of the claims of these reports, however if true, they would explain much regarding Wikipedia's on/off policies regarding child rape activists. One of their leads seems to be one.

Contact Us

If you have any information regarding this site or the identities of any of the members, contact us at [email protected].

Evil unveiled.png Evil-unveiled.com/Wikipedia Campaign
is part of a series on evil-unveiled.com.