Tag: wikipedia

‘Gapazoid’ The Suicidal Pedo Who Rushed Wikipedia Conference Stage With Gun Was Ex-Editor

A gunman who rushed the stage at the Wikipedia WikiConference in New York City last week was a suicidal pedophile who was going to kill himself in protest of the propaganda website’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy when it comes to adults who fantasize about sex with children. 

Connor Weston, 27, allegedly rushed the stage, pointed a loaded revolver at his head, and declared “I’m a non-contact pedophile. I want to kill myself.” 

Of note, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales said in leaked e-mails that there would be a secret prohibition on self-identifying pedophiles that he made official policy in 2010. Under these rules, editors identifying as pedos are banned indefinitely. Weston posted under the name ‘Gapazoid,’ according to a statement. 

The gunman stepped on stage next to Maryanna Iskander, the Chief Executive Officer of the Wikimedia Foundation that owns Wikipedia, during her keynote address and announced that he was an “anti-contact no-offending” pedophile who was planning to kill himself in protest of the site’s child protection policy.

He described the child protection policy as a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, a term used by site co-founder Jimmy Wales in leaked e-mails to describe a secret prohibition on self-identifying pedophiles that Wales officially made public policy in 2010. Under current policy, editors identifying as pedophiles are banned indefinitely. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” references a policy previously in place in the U.S. military regarding homosexuality prior to allowing homosexual individuals to serve openly. –Breitbart

Weston was eventually subdued by two volunteer security members at the conference (wut?) – Richard Knipel and Andrew Lih, site admins who edit as “Pharos” and “Fuzheado” respectively. One day later, Arbitration Committee member “ScottishFinnishRadish” (SFR) published revealed that Weston was behind the Gapazoid account, and that they had implemented a global ban after SFR banned his account on the English Wikipedia site in February. 

Keep reading

Wikipedia Enforcement Committee: Site ‘Code of Conduct’ Should Ban Bible Verses Opposing Homosexuality

A Polish Wikipedia editor earlier this year complained about religious discrimination to a committee that enforces the “code of conduct” imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation that owns Wikipedia. The editor expressed opposition to LGBT ideology, citing Bible verses condemning it in his profile on a Discord Wikipedia chat group, prompting mockery and insults from others. Members of the committee rejected his claims and suggested instead the Bible verses were a violation.

Committee members further initiated discussions to delete Wikipedia pages the editor created expressing his Biblical views and opposition to policies and practices prohibiting the voicing of opposition to same-sex marriage. Months after the pages were deleted and his complaint rejected, the editor was banned from Wikipedia partly citing his complaint to the Committee.

The Universal Code of Conduct imposed by the Foundation applies to sites owned by the Foundation, including Wikipedia, along with related events and Foundation staff themselves. Plans for the code of conduct were first announced in 2020, prompting significant concern about intervention in the normally self-governing community. A year earlier, the Foundation’s unprecedented one-year ban of an administrator sparked an editor revolt leading to the ban being referred to a community body, which overturned the decision. While the community objected to the proposed code of conduct for these reasons, as well as perceived left-wing bias and free speech implications, it was ultimately approved by the Foundation.

Following approval of the code of conduct, further discussions followed on enforcement. While generally left to local communities, the Foundation sought to create a body that could handle complaints when it was determined local communities were failing to enforce the code’s provisions. Subsequent community votes regarding proposed enforcement guidelines and revisions based off comments provided during the process, were followed by a committee developing a charter for the proposed top-level enforcement body, which received voter approval early last year. The enforcement body, called the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) began its work following a community election for members last year. Foundation lawyers also serve on the Committee as non-voting members.

Code of Conduct Case

In June of this year, Polish Wikipedia editor “BZPN” posted a case request for the U4C regarding his ban from the Wikimedia Community Discord group where people from various sites owned by the Foundation can discuss Wikipedia and its affiliated sites. The request included a transcript of a conversation BZPN had with others after seeing an LGBT Pride flag being used for the Discord group’s logo during Pride Month. He questioned whether there had been a vote on the matter, but was told bluntly by a group moderator that there hadn’t and wouldn’t be one.

After someone pointed out his Discord profile included a Bible verse and other messages opposing homosexuality, another moderator banned him stating the Discord group was “an inclusive space and behaviour that causes others to feel unwelcome will not be tolerated.” He was told that his comments and profile were “incompatible” with remaining in the group and he was banned. BZPN stated that others in the Discord group had “posted mocking comments and memes, including references to LGBT militias (TQILA, IRPGF), anti-Christian sarcasm, and laughing emojis.” One referenced a “No Queerphobia” essay on Wikipedia, which some admins have invoked when banning editors expressing conservative views.

BZPN complained that prior to the ban he received no warning and was not told of any rule violation with his profile nor did any rule in the group mention profile requirements. He argued the actions violated the code of conduct as he was “mocked and publicly attacked for my religious expression” and “treated differently solely because I expressed a Christian viewpoint, which was equated with hate without any justification.” Further claiming moderators abused their power and acted without civility or collegiality, BZPN argued this warranted committee action as the Discord group was promoted on Wikipedia and functioned as a community space.

Committee member “Ghilt” declined taking the request, stating his citing of the Bible verse was a violation of the code of conduct’s rules on discrimination and complained: “There has been no reflection on that by the filer BZPN.” Another committee member declined stating there is no “right to religious expression on a private platform” where “that expression denies or otherwise objects to the rights of others.” Several more committee members similarly suggested BZPN had violated the code of conduct. One argued another part of BZPN’s profile including an “x” symbol next to gay and transgender flags was a concern.

Keep reading

NYC Wikipedia conference halted when ‘non-offending pedophile’ storms stage, points gun at own head

A Wikipedia conference in Manhattan descended into chaos Friday morning when an unhinged Ohio man jumped on stage and pointed a gun at his own head.

Connor Weston, 27, allegedly clutched the loaded revolver as he declared, “I’m a non-contact pedophile. I want to kill myself” — prompting WikiConference staff to quickly tackle and disarm him before cops took him into custody, sources said.

“It was just adrenaline,” said one of the staffers who stopped the gunman.  “Since you’re on the trust and safety team you’re expected to do this . . . we’re not used to loaded weapons in the same room . . . we’re used to more prank behavior.” 

Weston — who wore a multicolored banner draped over his shoulders and a sign around his neck with the words “ANTI-CONTACT NON-OFFENDING PEDOPHILE” — was detained at the conference, which was hosted at Union Square’s Civic Hall on East 14th Street near Irving Place, sources said. 

“I think we handled it pretty well considering this was not an expected thing,” the worker who helped stop the incident added. “We’re expected to do that for every event but in a place like NYC you’re going to have more people and more chance of it.”

Keep reading

Co-Founder of Far Left Wikipedia Shares Webpage that Ranks Conservative News Outlets as ‘Unreliable” and Green Lights the Fake News Far Left Outlets

This week Tucker Carlson interviewed Larry Sanger a internet project developer and co-founder of Wikipedia.

During their discussion, Tucker Carlson burst out laughing as Wikipedia’s Co-Founder Larry Sanger shows him the website’s BLACKLIST of banned sources.

“It’s so funny. This is amazing.”

Once you see which websites count as “reliable” and which are excluded, you’ll be laughing alongside Carlson.

Wikipedia has the list posted here at their reliable sources entry.

BLACKLISTED:

  •  Breitbart
  •  Daily Caller
  •  Epoch Times
  •  Fox News
  •  New York Post
  •  The Federalist
  • The Gateway Pundit

Green Lit:

  • New York Times
  • Washington Post
  • CNN
  • MSNBC
  • The Nation
  • Mother Jones
  • GLAAD
  • TV Guide

Vigilant Fox posted the segment from Tucker’s interview.

Keep reading

UK speech police could break Wikipedia, keep punishing Christian expression: critics

From crowdsourced Wikipedia entries to public religious expression, the United Kingdom’s speech regulation is drawing alarm on both sides of the pond for its potential and actual effects on shared knowledge and conscience rights at home and abroad.

The U.K. High Court knocked down a challenge to the Online Safety Act by the U.S.-based Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia, on the grounds that it must wait for the Office of Communications to actually subject Wikipedia to “Category 1,” which would strip the anonymity underlying its volunteer model for creating and editing entries.

While some observers warn the ruling Monday could lead Wikipedia to go dark in the U.K., the nonprofit looked for the silver lining, noting Justice Jeremy Johnson said Ofcom and the secretary of state for science, innovation and technology do not have “a green light to implement a regime that would significantly impede Wikipedia’s operations.”

Swiss-based Proton VPN promoted its “anti-censorship” virtual private network services to circumvent the law, given that the “government could soon be asking its citizens to provide ID to access Wikipedia … Created to ‘protect children online,’ the OSA is increasing censorship for everyone.”

Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales told BBC Newsnight that “forums for self-help” including a “stop-drinking app” now have to block U.K. users who refuse to identify themselves in line with the law, which he called a “human rights violation” that is not “reining in Big Tech.” He’s also promoting VPNs, or virtual private networks, to circumvent the law. 

His co-founder, Larry Sanger, has been a vocal critic of Wikipedia’s alleged capture by the “woke” left for years and has even called for some recourse for people it defames. American conservatives have aggressively targeted it for biased though decentralized editorial decisions such as trashing President Trump’s Cabinet nominees.

Keep reading

US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Ed Martin, Calls Out Wikimedia Foundation (Wikipedia) of Violating 501(c)(3) Status by Allowing Propagandists to Flood Platform – Gives Them Til May 15th to Turn Over Documents

It’s not a secret that The Gateway Pundit, the fifth-largest conservative news website in America today, has one of the most dishonest and vile entries on Wikipedia.

This works out well for the globalist left in the fact that we do not own our name on Wikipedia – the far-left editors do, we cannot comment or explain any entry under our name, we cannot edit our entry to include our award-winning journalism, we cannot rebut any of their lies about us.

It’s a great tool for the left and it has cost conservatives, including this website, millions of dollars in potential traffic and income.

The Gateway Pundit is not the only conservative website that Wikipedia smears and lies about.

In December 2019, T. D. Adler at Breitbart News reported that Wikipedia blacklists now included The Epoch Times and The Gateway Pundit for our truthful reporting on Russiagate.

Wikipedia highlighted The Gateway Pundit’s reporting that was true and factual and used it against us as an excuse to censor our website.

Keep reading

Federal DC prosecutor accuses Wikipedia of spreading propaganda and disinformation to Americans

Interim United States attorney for Washington, D.C., Ed Martin, on Thursday sent a letter to the parent company of Wikipedia, accusing it of possibly violating its nonprofit obligations by allowing editors to publish disinformation aimed at the American people. 

Martin, an ally of President Donald Trump, accused Wikimedia of engaging in activities that negatively impact the neutrality of the online project. 

The Wikipedia website was founded in 2000 to “create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language,” according to one of the company’s co-founders. 

“Masking propaganda that influences public opinion under the guise of providing informational material is antithetical to Wikimedia’s ‘educational’ mission,” Martin wrote in a four-page letter. He also accused it of “allowing foreign actors to manipulate information and spread propaganda to the American public.”

The letter did not specify what foreign actors were manipulating information on Wikipedia, and did not give examples of alleged propaganda, but Martin claimed Wikimedia is directed by a board “that is composed primarily of foreign nationals,” according to the Free Press. 

Keep reading

Wikipedia Ruined My Life

There’s all sorts of rubbish about me on the internet these days, some of it egregiously out of context, some of it just lies and most of it emanating from Wikipedia, Google and the other garbage distributors controlled by the conspirators. Even tradesmen look at Google and Wikipedia, recognise my name and sneer contemptuously when they see me. Bizarrely, some refuse to do essential repair work for anyone labelled “discredited.” If governments want to remove misinformation and disinformation from the internet, they should start by closing down Wikipedia.

Someone in Bangkok went through over 5,000 articles I’d written for the national press (around 10 million words altogether) to find something with which Wikipedia could berate me. All they could come up with was an article about AIDS which I wrote when I was The Sun doctor in the 1980s. Unfortunately for them, every word I wrote was absolutely accurate and based on medical journal papers. Everything the medical establishment said is provably wrong.

The big question is why would anyone in Bangkok bother to spend all that time reading through so many of my old newspaper cuttings?

The Wikipedia editors, some of whom are possibly linked to the CIA according to one of the site’s founders, were so miffed that they couldn’t find any errors that they decided to abandon facts and truth and just called me discredited and a conspiracy theorist. They added in the AIDS stuff because they wrongly thought it was a stick with which they could beat me. The really odd thing is that in the 1980s I was considered an expert on AIDS. I was invited to make a keynote speech at a major conference on AIDS. And I regularly broadcast about AIDS.

But Wikipedia and Google aren’t much interested in inconvenient truths.

The Wikipedia page in my name was altered after I described the coronavirus scare as a hoax in February and March 2020 and warned that compulsory vaccination would be introduced.

My books (many of them bestsellers) have sold over three million copies in the UK alone and are translated into 26 languages but the titles of my books were removed. Penguin, Pan, Corgi, Arrow and other paper-backers and major publishing houses around the world have published my books. All went. All the TV programmes I’d made were removed. I was the BBC’s agony uncle for two years. But that went. All the national newspaper columns I’d written were removed. The magazines I’d edited were gone. And so on and so on. The UK Government admitted it changed the law about benzodiazepine tranquillisers because of my articles. That’s in Hansard but was not on Wikipedia which is truly a weapon of mass distraction and destruction.

Larry Sanger the co-founder of Wikipedia, who has since denounced the site, reckons that at least one of those involved in removing the truth from my page, and replacing facts with garbage, is linked to the CIA.

That’s bad enough, but I have been approached by a Wikipedia editor offering to remove the lies and replace the truths which were removed if I hand over money. To my mind that rather suggests that Wikipedia is nothing but a protection racket. If I hand over the £500 required, another editor will simply put the garbage back. And then the protection racket will continue indefinitely.

What’s the difference between this racket and the one where a restaurant owner forks over so much a week for his restaurant not to be attacked?

Keep reading

Woke Wikipedia Spends a Fortune on DEI Policies – Elon Musk Urges People to Stop Giving Them Money

Wikipedia’s left-wing bias is well known. Conservatives have been pointing it out for years.

Now it has been revealed that as a company, Wikipedia spends a massive amount of cash on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies, which is no surprise at all.

This just confirms what conservatives have been saying about the online encyclopedia all along.

Keep reading

How the Regime Captured Wikipedia

In 2019, a scandal ripped through the Wikipedia community when a Wikipedia admin who goes by the handle Fram was handed a year-long ban from the site. While known to few outside the tight-knit but feverishly active collective of Wikipedia contributors, the affair was part of a far-reaching, partisan shift at the open encyclopedia with widespread implications for the future of media, technology, and politics around the world.

Although contributor bans are not uncommon on Wikipedia, this case was different. Instead of coming from the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee (Arbcom), the panel of editors empowered to make such decisions, the ban was handed down directly by Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), the NGO that owns the site.

Little more than 12 hours after the ban’s announcement, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales publicly intervened to help quell the storm by publicly assuring the community he was reviewing the situation, and later saying he’d “raised the issue with WMF.” A week later, two Wikipedia bureaucrats — high-ranking editors who can assign admin rights — and 18 admins — editors with enhanced rights — resigned in protest. Arbcom released a searing statement saying the top-down ban was “fundamentally misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness, consensus, and self-governance.”

At its lowest resolution, the controversy was born from the tension between the decentralized Wikipedia site and the highly centralized Wikimedia Foundation. In reality, the ban and subsequent backlash were tied to a massive culture shift at Wikipedia, precipitated by the rise of a new social-justice-minded power structure at Wikimedia Foundation.

Keep reading