Projection: Vicious Leftist Smears About Milo Yiannopoulos Hide Their Own Dark Secrets

Readers can tell recent allegations that Milo Yiannopoulos defended paedophilia are false for a simple reason – leftists are not lining up to laud him. Matthew Hopkins News puts Milo in his proper context.

SamAndMilo

Milo Yiannopoulos is a thoughtful and kindly man, not a defender of paedophiles, which is why hard left wingers hate him. Milo pictured with Matthew Hopkins News editor Sam Smith.

For years, the left has attacked Conservatives with intimidation, innuendo and smears. At the same time, a variety of left-wingers in a variety of guises have sought to defend, mitigate and humanise the vilest of sex offenders. Noted activist Peter Tatchell in the UK contributed to the book ‘Betrayal of Youth’ in which he wrote, “What purpose does it [the age of majority] serve other than reinforcing a set of increasingly quaint, minority moral values left over from the Victorian era?” Some on the left literally want to abolish the age of consent entirely.

During the #GamerGate scandal about ethics in gaming journalism, Milo Yiannopoulos exposed several particularly sinister individuals, including the infamous ‘Sarah’ Nyberg (archive here), a transsexual who claimed to be a white nationalist paedophile and to be attracted to the white half of a mixed-race preteen girl. Yiannopoulos also exposed the creepy leftists defending ‘her’ (archive here).

Continue reading

Share Button

Rational Wiki #2 – Wikimedia UK CEO Distances Herself from Rational Wiki and Sinister Paedophile Enabler David Gerard

Since the dramatic events of earlier this year, the UK branch of the Wikipedia movement, charity Wikimedia UK (WMUK) has a new Chief Executive, Lucy Crompton-Reid (archive here). Your author decided to ask her about David Gerard and some of his more … colourful history.

LucyCromptonReidAndDavidGerard

Apparently wholesome new Chief Executive of Wikimedia UK, Lucy Crompton-Reid, confirms that David Gerard does not speak for Wikimedia UK. Photograph of Crompton-Reid used with permission. Photograph of David Gerard is an edited parody pursuant to s30A Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. Strangely, replacing Gerard’s cold, dead, eyes with googly cartoon ones makes him *less* creepy. Incidentally, adding the cartoon eyes was the *only* change. The rest is all David. Click for full size.

In my previous article, “David Gerard and the Paedophiles of Wikipedia”, I began the task of exposing Rational Wiki, a site that has become controversial because of its habit of making serious allegations based on utterly inadequate, irrelevant or simply non-existent evidence. Examples I referred to included allegations against respected Breitbart Editor Milo Yiannopoulos based on a Tumblr post and smears against me based on (literally) a deleted user comment on /r/GamerGhazi.

Continue reading

Share Button

Victim of Racist SJW Murder – Is the Tragedy of Allison Parker, Victim of WDBJ Shooter, America’s Wake Up Call?

Anita Sarkeesian says that "reverse racism" is a "myth". Amy Palamountain calls it, "erasure". Tell that to the family of Ross Andrew Parker, whose life was subject to "erasure" in a killing which even the Guardian called, "racist".

The Ross Andrew Parker murder forced even the British left, such as the BBC and Guardian, to accept the problem of anti-white racism. In an eerie coincidence, today’s racist shooting victim is also called Parker.

A few weeks ago I wrote an article condemning GitHub’s Amy Palamountain for authoring a code of conduct policy that appeared to state complaints of ‘reverse’ racist harassment would not be acted upon. When challenged by numerous complainants GitHub backed down. The code of conduct project has been paused and Palamountain (@ammeep) has been keeping a low profile. The tragic murder earlier today of American journalist Allison Parker and a cameraman underlines my point.

I wrote a follow-up article explaining why expressing such views can be career ending in Britain. Whilst Britain is a pro-equalities nation, even our most left-wing institutions like the Guardian and BBC have long accepted that minority on majority discrimination (e.g. anti-white, anti-straight, anti-male) is real.

The catalyst for this view was the brutal murder of Ross Andrew Parker by an Asian gang in 2001, which led the BBC to say this (archive here) –

“Racism was once defined as ‘prejudice plus power’ – […] However, the ‘racist murders’ of Kriss Donald in Glasgow in 2004 and Ross Parker in Peterborough in 2001, young white men killed by Asians, demonstrate how society has been forced to redefine racism”.

Last year the issue was reinforced by a scandal centred on a town called Rotherham in the UK, where 1,400 underage girls were revealed as having been subject to paedophile rape over a 20 year period. The perpetrators? I quoted feminist Suzanne Moore in the Guardian newspaper (archive here), “men of Pakistani and Kashmiri descent, working in gangs to rape and torture girls”, who “called the girls ‘white trash'”.

Continue reading

Share Button

Wikimedia UK Response to Shapps – Claims to Have Destroyed the Evidence

In a recent article I revealed that after being wrongly accused of sock-puppetry and backstabbing colleagues by Richard Symonds, a staffer at Wikimedia UK, British MP Grant Shapps had served a disclosure request under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). Shapps has had a response, of sorts. It makes grim reading.

The great thing about data protection requests? They are not litigation correspondence, they are not subject to the implied undertaking / CPR 31.22 and they do not usually engage a duty of confidentiality. Other parties may not ordinarily impose a duty of confidence on documents disclosed under a statutory duty. So we can start by sharing this little gem –

WikimediaDPAResponse

What sort of organisation fails to retain legally sensitive materials like allegations against Cabinet ministers?

According to Wikimedia UK Symonds has deleted his email to the Guardian ‘in the normal course of business’. This is a very concerning statement. Most organisations have clear data retention policies. Does Wikimedia have no such policy or does it not follow it? Does it really manage personal data so poorly? Another concern is that most organisations have email backups. Does Wikimedia or its provider not back up its email server? That is a serious governance concern.

Continue reading

Share Button

Shoulda Listened, Nick! Here is Some More Advice: Time to Fire Sam Biddle

Gawker’s response to its scandalous outing of a corporate executive has been chaotic. It is unclear what strategy the leadership has in place to stop the ongoing haemorrhaging of advertisers. The Witchfinder says that if Gawker wants to clean up its act it is time for  Nick Denton to put Gawker’s house in order. That means reaching out to #GamerGate in a serious and sustained way, covering some socially useful stories and cutting out the cancer at the heart of Gawker Media – it is time for that epitomé of morally bankrupt journalist, Sam Biddle, to go.

In February this year I emailed Nick Denton and Max Read to complain about an article on Gawker.com. By Sam F Biddle, it had two major flaws. Firstly, the headling was wildly untrue, far from being a rump of psychopaths GamerGate has continued to grow in size and power. At the time of writing the major forum KotakuInAction now has over 47 thousand members.

Key figures in GamerGate have continued to grow in power, with the fair Shoe0nHead for example now at 77 thousand subscribers, despite her infrequent videos. If June produced say 1-2 videos a week she could monetise and live comfortably – perhaps wealthily – on the advertising revenues.

Secondly the article essentially amounted to picking an … eccentric … from the internet (who later turned out to be a hoaxer) and singling them out, bedlam style, for mockery. The article, like many before it from Sam Biddle, was a disgrace.

PsychopathsAllThatIsLeft

Sam F Biddle makes use of stigmatising mental health tropes, singling out a vulnerable individual for ridicule.

Continue reading

Share Button

Paedophiles of Wikipedia

The Witchfinder reveals how Wikipedia’s lax policies and laxer enforcement, from the project’s beginning to the present day, create opportunities for paedophiles, their apologists and other sinister denizens of the internet. Questionable characters, even one admitted contact offender, have been allowed to hold administrator roles. Matthew Hopkins News calls on Jimmy Wales to show leadership on the issue or risk being tarnished himself.

LaptopTentaclesOminous

Do parents know what sinister forces may be reaching for their children when they visit Wikipedia? Laptop and tentacles image via Dreamstime. Wikipedia logo via CC BY-SA 3.0 and Policy

Modern users of Wikipedia may be unfamiliar with its murky history, for example the appalling and enlightening 2006 ArbCom case entitled, “Pedophilia userbox wheel war” (Archive here). What is a ‘wheel war’?

Continue reading

Share Button

Vindicator – BBC in Humiliating Apology to Grant Shapps MP as Clouds Gather Around Wikipedia

Following recent ArbCom findings exonerating Grant Shapps the BBC has apologised over its lacklustre coverage. Furthermore, the Witchfinder can exclusively reveal that Shapps has now written to Wikipedia’s UK chapter, the charity Wikimedia United Kingdom (WMUK), formally demanding disclosure of documents and expressing concerns about the charity’s political involvement. At the same time, a number of other powerful institutions are expressing frustration over legitimate concerns about bias, harassment and ineptitude at the encylopaedia.

WikipediaClouds

Ominous clouds are gathering around the embattled online encyclopaedia as powerful and aggrieved individuals and institutions queue up to vent their frustrations. Clouds picture via Dreamstime. Wikipedia logo via CC BY-SA 3.0 and Wikipedia Trademark Policy

The BBC, which spent a whole day on Grant Shapps’ alleged editing of Wikipedia, was curiously less forthcoming on apologising – leaving Shapps with legitimate complaint. It is a foolish move for an institution whose very existence is under threat to alienate its few allies. Shapps, now the Minister of State for International Development, is one of the minority of Conservatives who does not favour the BBC’s abolition.

Mr Shapps is also not the only public figure with grievances about the online encyclopaedia, Wikipedia. He finds himself in company with left-wing journalist David Auerbach, right-wing media organisation Breitbart and the enormous consumer movement known as #GamerGate – one of whose forums KotakuInAction alone now boasts over 40,000 members and whose key figures like SargonOfAkkad have hundreds of thousands of followers.

Continue reading

Share Button

Improper

How vicious GamerGate Wikipedia opponent and Guardian source Mark Bernstein, who caused outrage when he tried to gratuitously link GamerGate to the Charleston shootings, used the encylopaedia to edit his own company article, as well as those of products and business associates in flagrant violation of Wikipedia rules.

SelfInterest

Wikipedia must not be used to promote personal commercial interests. Picture via Dreamstime.

Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia open to everyone. Amongst the few rules those of greatest importance are the Conflict of Interest rules. Wikipedia must not be used to advance personal commercial interests. As the policy says –

“COI editing is strongly discouraged. It undermines the public’s confidence in Wikipedia as an independent resource, and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and groups being promoted […] If it causes disruption to the encyclopedia, accounts may be blocked.”

It goes on –

Continue reading

Share Button

Sinister

The Witchfinder exposes the way in which shoddy left-wing journalism has lent credibility to and empowered troublesome Wikipedia users such as Mark Bernstein, as well as a suggestion as to what ethics campaigners can do about it.

Title music – The Escape – (c) – Machinimasound (Commercial license purchased)

Wikipedia sign up here. The Great Work Subreddit is now open here.

Share Button

Guardian Responds … Inadequately

The Witchfinder has received an unedifying response from the Guardian, and comments –

(preamble removed for brevity and to remove non-public information – my quotes in Green)

“[…] However, I believe at the heart of your complaints are two substantial allegations:
1) You say Ramesh only spoke to Richard Symonds and not other Wikipedia administrators
2) You believe the Guardian story may have been technically untrue when it went up because it went up 15 minutes before the Wikipedia page confirming the story.
You are mistaken on both counts. Ramesh has followed the career of Grant Shapps for some time and has written many stories about him. He noticed that many of these stories – examining Shapp’s business career for instance – were never to be found on his Wikipedia page. He thought that was unusual and noted that there many comments to that effect. He made his own study of the editing pattern on Shapp’s Wikipedia page and his suspicions grew. He legitimately took those suspicions to a Wikipedia administrator and a press officer for Wikimedia on April 2.
That Wikipedia administrator was too busy to investigate and Richard Symonds, a senior investigator, contacted him and said he would take a look. Ramesh gave his analysis with supporting evidence to Symonds.
The Guardian asserts there were multiple administrators but does not say who they were or provide any verifiable evidence. For the sake of argument, I will accept this – although on the Guardian’s account Symonds is the main, figure and the others seem peripheral. However it does not answer the central question about timing.
In addition Symonds was able to access CheckUser data. There was none for the earlier edits because, as you know it expires within 90 days, but as I understand it there was for later edits. Symonds could not release that CheckUser information because it would have been a breach of privacy. However, by April 17 Symonds had completed his investigation and was able to confirm in an email reproduced below that he believed this was a case of sock puppetry by Shapps or someone on his behalf. The Guardian story was correct when it went up and the use of the words “Wikipidia’s  administrators” came from the email confirming the results of the Symonds investigation.
This does not address the central point. The 21/04/2015 story that stated Contribsx had been blocked, opening with the phrase “Wikipedia has blocked a user account […] was factually incorrect because Contribsx, per ArbCom had not in fact been blocked and was not blocked until 17 minutes later.
Furthermore the Wikipedia process for investigating Sockpuppetry requires on-wiki posting and deliberation which had not happened until Richard Symonds opened his 1 minute investigation. The private investigation by Mr Symonds does not by itself follow Wikipedia process.
Whatever happened subsequently the Guardian’s 21 April story was absolutely correct and legitimately gathered therefore there has been no breach of the Guardian’s editorial code. I have gone a great deal further than I would normally have done in giving you the background to this story but your allegations were very serious. I can go no further.
Best wishes
Chris Elliott
Readers’ editor […]”
Partial emails provided by the Guardian
The next two paragraphs are what the volunteer administrators believe and are their words:

Wikipedia’s administrators believe that the account Contribsx is a “sockpuppet” of Grant Shapps’ previous accounts on Wikipedia. A sockpuppet is a second user account created for an improper purpose, such as to mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus or avoid sanctions. The administrators believe, based on the evidence they have, that the account is either run by Shapps directly or being run by someone else – an assistant or a PR agency – but under his clear direction.

The administrators believe that Shapps has used alternative accounts that were not fully and openly disclosed in order to split his editing history, so that other editors were not able to easily detect patterns in his contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances, it was not in this case: it is clear that the account was created in order to confuse or deceive editors. Further, the website’s Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation. As the account has misrepresented its affiliation, and the account is clearly controlled by Shapps, this is a violation of the Terms of Use.

This final section is Wikimedia UK’s quote:
 

A spokesperson from Wikimedia UK, the UK charity which supports Wikipedia, said “We would welcome any MPs who choose to become editors, and are happy to provide training sessions to anyone who wants to learn. However, the Wikipedia project is founded on trust, and anyone who tries to deceive our volunteers and readers in order to further their own ends should think very carefully about the morality of what they’re doing. Eventually, the public will find out.”

Share Button