WARNING This page is not to be read by anyone ever. Reading this page is a violation of thepolicy on evil plans. Kindly stop and go back to wherever it is you came from.

This pagecontains material which is kept because it is considered evil. It is meant to be takenvery seriously.

This page in a nutshell:evil

The fundamental principles of the evil plan may be summarized in five "pillars":

Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is asoapbox, anadvertising platform, avanity press, an experiment inanarchy ordemocracy, anindiscriminate collection of information, and a webdirectory.

Wikipedia is written from a biased point of view: We strive for articles that misrepresent major points of view, givingundue weight with respect to their prominence in a partial tone. We advocate and we mischaracterize information and issues as we debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each inaccurately and out of context as "the truth" or "the best view". Allarticles must appear to strive forverifiable accuracy, citingreliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is onliving persons. This is especially important when representing editors'personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions as fact.

Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute: Since all editorsfreely license their work to the public, certain editors must maintainownership of articles and prevent their contributions from beingedited by others. Disregardcopyright laws, and strive toplagiarize from sources.

Editors should treat each other with disrespect and incivility: Disrespect your fellowWikipedians, even when you agree. Disregard Wikipediaetiquette, and engage inpersonal attacks. Avoidconsensus, engage inedit wars, anddisrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in bad faith, andassume bad faith on the part of others.

The evil plan has no firm rules: The evil plan has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes disrupting Wikipedia requires making exceptions.Be bold an especiallyreckless in committing evil.

The core strategy of the evil plan rests on the principle ofdisinformation. Because Wikipedia has a number of tools in place to thwart lesser evil plans, it is important that operatives are able to masquerade as productive editors, in order to co-opt these to our evil devices. This is accomplished by making as many productive contributions to Wikipedia as possible, especially on high-profile noticeboards and articles.

Wikipedia administrators are usually busy doing something to make themselves feel important, and are only weighing in on a content dispute or noticeboard report because it furthers this goal. This goes doubly for non-administrators, who could not possibly have any motivation for contributing to these areas other than to make themselves seem admin-like. For these individuals, spending more time than necessary on any one thing, especially an in-depth examination of a editor's history or a protracted dispute, would reduce their efficiency, and so most will rely simply on an cursory glance at a contributor, or a user's edit count to decide who the winner is.

Take steps to use this information to your advantage by:

• Inflating your edit count as much as possible, includingnever using the preview button, and only correcting one typo at a time when you find multiple ones. Of course copyediting is beyond repute, and no one will suspect your true intentions.
• If possible, contribute to other projects, such as Wikiquote, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Commons. This will fool unwitting editors into thinking you deeply value the core mission of making more knowledge freely available to more people. This will also allow you to quote policy even the most advanced editors on the English Wikipedia are unfamiliar with. Remember also, that, because they are strange and unfamiliar, sister projects are deeply terrifying to most English Wikipedia editors, especially those with advanced permissions, because they are dark lands where theirimmense powers hold no sway. You can use this deeply rooted primal fear to great effect.^[a]

It may seem counter intuitive (for evil) to make high quality content, especially the type which is featured on the main page, since this makes new and interesting information easily available to readers. However, this overlooks the true power of high value content,bling. An overwhelming amount of bling on your user page will act as an impenetrable wall against any accusation of bad faith. Carefully adding notes on your userpage for every valuable contribution you make will also squeeze one last juicy edit out of every article, and announce to everyone who watches your user page that you are tirelessly working to improve the encyclopedia, helping to convince them all of your impeccable dedication.

It's important to remember that, by definition, Wikipedia editors are the type of people who relax after a long day by writing an encyclopedia, and then, for some reason, giving it away for free. It can therefore be presumed that few if any of them are perfectly normal, for while a normal person may occasionally do something similar in a rare fit of poor judgement, or perhaps while blackout drunk, none would surely make a habit of it.

Wikipedia editors generally care deeply and passionately about their rules, and more so the more esoteric these rules become. If you have any doubt, consider that the highest levels of Wikipedia, the realms ofBureaucrats and theArbitration Committee, are bastions of nearly indecipherable sets of rules that must be unflinchingly adhered to, while only in the obscure trenches of article writing will lowly editors usually even give lip service to largely meaningless platitudes likeWikipedia is not a bureaucracy orignore all rules.

Because of this, being technically correct is always thethe best kind of correct, especially when you have found some niche where a literal interpretation of the rules runs completely counter to the spirit and overall goals of the project. While some anomalous editors (most likely normal people in a fit of poor judgement, or who are blackout drunk) will protest your unquestionable correctness, the pedantry of the community will quickly take over, and before long large swaths of editors will set to work tearing each other apart in an immense thread, usually with several arbitrary breaks, and riddled with WP:CAPITALLETTERS.

Be careful not to leave your username redlinked, and if possible, acquire a fancy signature as soon as possible. Like the plumage of a peacock, a fancy signature is a public display of superiority over lesser editors, and there is no possible reason any editor would leave their username redlinked other than out of sheer stupidity, and/or potential serious neurological damage.

If possible, participate in areas where you can repeatedly show your knowledge of special rules (see above), such asThe Teahouse or theHelp Desk. Most requests in these places are endless repetitions of commonly asked questions, and so can usually be answered by nearly copying and pasting previous responses. This also can help to reinforce the pedantic adherence of the community to special rules at the most basic level (above) and so help to more fully rot the community from the inside out. Be sure to link new users to several long pages of policy to read for themselves, and explain them accessibly to peak their interest. Those that are able to do this are exactly the types of pedants we're looking for. Those that are not, are probably only temporarily in a fit of poor judgement... or blackout drunk.