They Came for My Name: Exposing Wikipedia’s Apex Predator Role in the Global Censorship Complex
A Personal Stand Against Digital Defamation, Weaponized Narratives, and the Fight for Truth
They didn't just come for my work. They came for my name. My identity. My ability to exist in the digital age without a scarlet letter permanently etched beside it.
I am writing this not as a complaint, but as evidence. Evidence that Wikipedia—the world's supposedly neutral encyclopedia—has been weaponized against me through deliberate violations of its own policies. The proof isn't hidden in conspiracy theories or speculation. It's right there in Wikipedia's own archives, in the editors' own words, in their own admissions of what they've done.
This is my testimony, backed by their confessions.
The Creation: Born from a Campaign
In a striking display of coordinated insider activity, a Wikipedia article was created on May 20, 2021 — just four days before the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) released their "Disinformation Dozen" report naming me as one of twelve people allegedly responsible for the majority of "anti-vaccine" content online, a Wikipedia article about me suddenly appeared.1
The timing was anything but accidental. The Wikipedia editor who created my page, "Robincantin," even acknowledged the connection on the talk page: "There are of course hundreds of news media articles naming him as one of the 'Disinformation Dozen'. I chose to reference only the original research report and one news article."2
Let that sink in. My Wikipedia biography was created specifically to document accusations against me. Not to neutrally chronicle my life or work, but to cement a narrative originating from a transatlantic deep state group's report.
The Sources: Wikipedia's Own Spam Filters Blocked Them
Here's where it gets surreal. The primary source used to attack my reputation on Wikipedia—the CCDH report—was hosted on such a dubious website that Wikipedia's own spam filters blacklisted it.
A Wikipedia administrator reviewing my page in January 2024 wrote: "Not one but two PDFs hosted on 'filesusr.com' written by a political advocacy group... note that I literally can't even link these URLs in [the deletion forum] despite being an admin because they are on the global spam blacklist."3
Think about that. Wikipedia editors had to circumvent their own platform's spam protections to cite the very document used to defame me. They bent their own rules to include a source so questionable that their own systems flagged it as spam.
The Violations: In Their Own Words
Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy is crystal clear: contentious material about living people must be rigorously sourced, neutrally written, and removed immediately if it fails these standards.4 Yet my Wikipedia page has been a monument to policy violations from day one.
In May 2025, an editor named "Dakotacoda" attempted to clean up my page, writing: "This article contains multiple, egregious violations of core policy... editorial language, pejorative labeling, unsourced claims... all of which violate WP:BLP and WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View)."5
The result? Other editors immediately reverted Dakotacoda's changes, accusing him of "whitewashing," and reinstated every violation, pejorative label, and poorly sourced claim. They even suspended him for a week—punishment for his principled insistence that Wikipedia adhere to its own BLP policies.
The Agenda: Admitted in Black and White
Perhaps most damning is what Wikipedia editors openly admitted about why they wanted to keep my page despite its violations. During a deletion discussion in January 2024, when an administrator pointed out the lack of reliable sources and policy violations, here's what other editors said:
One editor argued: "Ji is a major player in the antivax disinformation world, and having an article (properly-sourced and in line with WP:FRINGE) on him would help fill the vacuum where such disinformation thrives."6
Another stated that even though I might not meet Wikipedia's notability standards, the page should stay because I'm on the "Disinformation Dozen" list.
In other words, they explicitly stated that my Wikipedia page exists not to inform, but to counter my influence. It's not an encyclopedia entry—it's a weapon in an information war, and they admitted it.
The Coatrack: Using My Name to Hang Their Narrative
A Wikipedia administrator reviewing my page called it a "WP:COATRACK"—Wikipedia's term for an article that exists primarily to advance a particular point of view rather than neutrally cover its subject.7 They noted: "This isn't significant coverage and the guy is not notable."
Yet the page remains. Why? Because, as one editor candidly admitted, Wikipedia's standards have changed: "The consensus has changed in that articles that shame a living person who is otherwise notable can remain... this is a change from the usual outcome in 2007-2009."8
They're saying the quiet part out loud: Wikipedia now allows pages that exist to "shame" people, even when those pages violate the platform's own policies.
The McGill Hit Piece: Conflicts Hidden
My Wikipedia page heavily cites a blog post by Jonathan Jarry from McGill University's Office for Science and Society, using it to claim I "cherry-pick" studies and lack scientific credibility.9 What Wikipedia doesn't mention? McGill University has received substantial funding from pharmaceutical companies including Merck and Pfizer—companies with obvious interests in silencing critics of their products.10
This isn't disclosed. The conflict of interest isn't mentioned. A blog post from a pharma-funded institution is presented as objective scientific criticism.
The Circular Trap: From Wikipedia to AI
The damage doesn't stop at Wikipedia. By 2023, AI systems like ChatGPT and Perplexity.ai were scraping Wikipedia to generate summaries about me, spreading these violations across the entire digital ecosystem.11 When someone asks an AI about me, it regurgitates Wikipedia's defamatory content as fact.
This creates what researchers at MIT have called a "vicious cycle"—biased information on Wikipedia gets canonized by AI, which then influences more sources, which then get cited on Wikipedia.12 It's a reputation-destruction machine that feeds itself.
The Legal Reality: Shadow Defendants
If someone publishes lies about you in a newspaper, you can sue the newspaper. But when Wikipedia publishes defamatory content, whom do you sue? The Wikimedia Foundation hides behind Section 230 immunity. The editors use pseudonyms. The sources are advocacy groups based overseas. Or sock puppet accounts within intelligence agencies, foreign and domestic.
This is why I've joined a federal lawsuit against CCDH and others—because Wikipedia has become what we call a "digital proxy" in a new form of warfare against dissent.13 As I wrote when announcing the suit: "This isn't just about me. It's about the weaponization of reputation."14
The Proof: It's All There
I'm not asking you to take my word for any of this. Every quote I've shared comes from Wikipedia's own records:
Editors admitting they created my page specifically because of the CCDH report
Administrators acknowledging the sources were blacklisted as spam
Editors stating the page should exist to counter my influence, not inform readers
Veterans admitting Wikipedia now allows "shaming" articles that wouldn't have been permitted before
This isn't conspiracy theory. It's conspiracy fact, documented in their own words.
The Call: Stand With Truth
Facebook/Meta eventually investigated CCDH's claims about the "Disinformation Dozen" and found we accounted for only 0.05% of vaccine-related content views—not the 65% CCDH claimed.15 But you won't find that fact prominently displayed on my Wikipedia page.
Because Wikipedia isn't interested in truth. It's interested in narrative control.
That's why I'm fighting back. Not just for my name, but because truth matters. Policies must be respected, and reputations should never become weapons wielded by anonymous editors serving hidden agendas.
This is bigger than me. It’s about protecting the integrity of information and the basic rights we all have to challenge powerful interests without fear of defamation or retaliation. As I detailed recently on my Substack—"For My Daughters, For My Work, For the Right to Speak"—what’s at stake here goes far beyond one person. It’s about standing up against a transnational censorship complex involving foreign NGOs, Big Tech, and yes, Wikipedia itself.
If you believe in these principles, please consider supporting our Sovereignty Protection and Truth Defense Fund. Your contribution will directly help us confront these coordinated attacks, fund active legal responses, restore suppressed digital platforms, and ensure that no one else will face such targeted injustice alone.
Because if we don't stand together now—if we don't demand accountability when they weaponize trusted platforms against individuals—we surrender the entire information commons to those who seek to control it.
They came for my name, but with your help, I’m taking it back.
Stand with me today by contributing to our legal defense fund, sharing our story, or becoming a subscriber. Together, we will draw a line in light.
Footnotes
"Sayer Ji," Wikipedia article creation date, May 19-20, 2021. The article appeared just weeks after the CCDH "Disinformation Dozen" report was released and widely publicized. ↩
Wikipedia Talk Page – Talk:Sayer Ji, comment by user Robincantin on 20 May 2021. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sayer_Ji&oldid=1024028974#Page_creation ↩
Wikipedia: Articles for Deletion discussion, "Sayer Ji", 22–30 Jan 2024. Comment by administrator JPxG. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sayer_Ji ↩
Wikipedia Policy: "Biographies of living persons" (WP:BLP). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons ↩
Wikipedia Talk Page – Talk:Sayer Ji, section "Major BLP Cleanup Underway. Serious WP Policy Violations," May 17–18, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sayer_Ji&oldid=1155337199↩
Wikipedia AfD discussion Jan 2024 – comment by user WeirdNAnnoyed, 23 Jan 2024. ↩
Wikipedia AfD discussion Jan 2024 – comment by nominating administrator JPxG citing WP:COATRACK. ↩
Wikipedia AfD discussion Jan 2024 – comment regarding changed consensus on "shaming" articles. ↩
Jonathan Jarry, "Popular Health Guru Sayer Ji Curates the Scientific Literature with His Bachelor's Degree in Philosophy," McGill Office for Science and Society, 11 July 2020. https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/pseudoscience/popular-health-guru-sayer-ji-curates-scientific-literature-his-bachelors-degree-philosophy ↩
GreenMedInfo, "Cherry Picking or Crucial Counterbalance? The Heated Debate Over Medical Misinfo between McGill Univ. & GreenMedInfo.com," 3 April 2024. https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/cherry-picking-or-crucial-counterbalance-heated-debate-over-medical-misinfo-betw ↩
Sayer Ji, "Confronting Perplexity.AI's Distorted Narrative on Sayer Ji and GreenMedInfo," Medium.com, 1 Nov 2023. https://medium.com/@sayerji/confronting-perplexity-ais-distorted-narrative-on-sayer-ji-and-greenmedinfo-c6f833ed2f10 ↩
MIT Technology Review, "The vicious cycle of misinformation: AI, web results, and Wikipedia," 23 March 2024. ↩
Federal civil rights lawsuit filed June 2025 in the Middle District of Florida against CCDH, government officials, and tech companies. ↩
Sayer Ji, "Reputation as a Weapon: Breaking—Federal Civil Rights Suit Filed Against CCDH, U.S. Officials, and Tech Giants," Sayer Ji's Substack, 5 June 2025. https://greenmedinfo.substack.com/p/reputation-as-a-weapon
GreenMedInfo Report, "Why Wikipedia's Attack on Sayer Ji is Wrong," 10 April 2024, citing Meta's refutation of CCDH statistics. https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/why-wikipedias-attack-sayer-ji-wrong↩
Wikipedia is completely communist. Avoid it.
So much needs to be revealed about the true intensions of censorship. Thank you for holding strong.