***Actually what is happening is Wikipedia editors are doing what they should not be doing - trying to apply their own opinions and what is essentially original research. Watkins is referred to as a pedophile by multiple highly reliable sources. All of these sources are referring to him as a pedophile per the clinical sense: one who is sexually attracted to children.  It is not "our place" to accept or reject this information. Are there reliable sources anywhere that are arguing the man is not a pedophile? If that were the case, I can see why this would be up for debate. But it's not - nobody is claiming the man is not a pedophile. Additionally, before you argue that "we don't know whether Watkins is sexually attracted to children," I highly suggest you actually take a look at the facts of the case and all the activities he has been involved. If you can't be bothered to do that because it sickens you, then fine, but don't claim that there's just no way for anyone to know. YO 😜