I'm currently restoring pages from Wikisposure / Evil-Unveiled and posting them on ED. Wikisposure / Evil-Unveiled had an article on Davidwr. The article was entitled "d" at Wikisposure and Evil-Unveiled, which is awful for SEO (and probably why no one noticed it, even though the article existed since 2007), so I renamed it to "Davidwr" when I moved it onto Encyclopedia Dramatica (NSFW). The renaming is what helped kept the name fresh in my head.
Davidwr was a member of several pro-pedophilia forums, including BoyChat and GirlChat. He used "d" as a pseudonym at those forums in order to avoid detection, but the people at Wikisposure saw through it.
Kato and others at the Wikipedia Review suspected that there was something terrible wrong with Davidwr:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=21516&st=220&p=146022&mode=linear#entry146022
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=24588&st=60&p=176011&mode=linear#entry176011
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22779 **the main Davidwr thread**
Also, ArbCom knows about this:
From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:02:58 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Haiduc
I support siteban, but we need to work out what the rule is. We
tacitly endorsed the continued editing of Davidwr last year. He came
to our awareness when he asked permission for topic socks, fearful
that editing on local topics could out him. We denied this
arrangement, so he continued under his previous deal. He was unblocked
a couple of years ago when Fred and FloNight negotiated his return
with an unspoken topic ban. Lately, we're not allowing a topic ban
solutions at all. Given the risk of grooming, I think this makes
sense.
The only distinguishing feature of Davidwr is that his pedo advocacy
was done on an edit-segregated account, and the Davidwr account was
swept up by Checkuser. Therefore, there's no apparent evidence of
advocacy, but does it make sense to rely on this odd fact? We should
either revisit his account, or accept it as a historical accident.
Frank
