After the case of misconduct by Wikipedia Arbitrator Gamaliel went to ArbCom (archive here), leading to his admonishment and resignation, the Witchfinder parked this article out of pity. Gamaliel was nothing more than a ruined librarian with no success in his life other than his now ended time in office on Wikipedia. Then Gamaliel contacted journalist David Auerbach’s employer in an effort to silence him.
Now, in light of this fresh wrongdoing the Witchfinder reveals the sickening truth about paedophile sadists, Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales’ company Wikia.com – along with ArbCom and the Wikimedia Foundations’ inaction when warned of paedophile activity and images of nude children on the Wiki. The most serious allegation is that, after removing a community that was being used for paedophile sadism, in a case Jimmy Wales was personally seized of, Wikia handed back their database including over a hundred depraved images of children.
[Note – this article does not link to any illegal material and no illegal material was downloaded in its preparation. You can follow any link here safely. However, please be careful with related pages especially on Wikipedia.]
Jimmy Wales and some boy scouts. The left image is used throughout Wikimedia and caused controversy when it was used on sadistic fetish erotica site, ‘The Spanking Wiki’ hosted by Wales’ company Wikia. This image was one of the milder images, insofar as the children are clothed and not in tears and / or screaming. Images of Jimmy Wales and Boy Scouts separately by CC-BY-SA.
A Gallery of Underage Boys
Wikipedia has an article entitled, ‘Boy’. I cannot link from here. I cannot even visit the page. Why? Because a whistle-blower tells me that it contains a nude image of young boys and so viewing the page without reasonable excuse could constitute an offence in the UK or US. It is said that those with an unhealthy interest in children have slipped an image of naked (with visible genitals), roughly 8 year old boys skinny dipping into the middle of the page.
We can safely visit the article talk page archive (a mostly text discussion of the article contents) (external archive here). The talk page, as opposed to the main article page, contains only adult nudity (NSFW but 40 and 34 years old so not at risk of being illegal). It also contains extensive documentation of complaints about paedophile material being inserted.
At one point, according to the text log, there was an entire gallery of nude boys although even the Wikipedians thought that too far. One user complained as follows, “the gallery is plainly pedophilically prurient”. It appears from the talk page complaints that there is presently still some child nudity on the main article page and users based in other jurisdictions have tried, and failed, to have it removed.