There's plenty of stories – and evidence – old and new circulating everywhere on ways Milo has treated those who've worked for, with, or rivaled in the past. These will, inevitably, surface. But why dredge up anything when a public profile works just so easily?

Below are some choice examples of tweets Milo (@nero) has made about Guardian tech editor Charles Arthur – who's been seeking comment from him – over the course of today. They're all open tweets.

 Arthur had asked Yiannopoulos to donate £60 to a deaf children's charity after a copyright dispute. Instead, he sent an intern with £60 in pennies (withdrawn from her own bank account, as it happened) to the Guardian offices, filming the whole shebang here: http://www.kernelmag.com/editors-blog/2750/when-the-kernel-met-charles-arthur/

As far as we're aware, the charity never got the cash, incidentally:

Earlier, he'd hectored another Guardian staffer on whether she'd keep her job. Lovely.

This exec is cited again later, amidst messages about Arthur:

Some of the surrounding messages:

Yiannopoulos' ire appears to have been drawn from a series of questions asked ahead of a potential story from Arthur, relating to the non-payment of former Kernel writers (background here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/sep/12/the-kernel-sued-former-contributors). He quotes a question from an email sent yesterday, now posted in public, about the source of funding for Kernel:

Another day of media dickishness? Yes. (That's why this is a storify, and not an article). But in a day we've had vitriol thrown, private emails quoted, taunts for merely being pregnant, and public hints people are on their way out – a pretty nasty way to try to discredit working professionals.

People in both the tech and the media are frightened of Milo: he's a man they discuss in DMs, not open Twitter (or open anything) because they don't want to go 18 rounds in public, in exactly this manner.

Those who challenge him publicly – like Charles Arthur – receive waves of vitriol.

It goes further. Numerous people working across tech and the tech press have heard about (in my view) appalling rudeness and nastiness to former associates – even leaving aside the payment disputes themselves.

Why, in such a climate, even try to stake out the moral high ground? Why, in a glasshouse packed with explosives, start throwing grenades?

Sheer obliviousness? Possible, but seems unlikely. Attention-seeking? Maybe – and if so, well done: you got me. But the lack of obvious motive just makes the whole thing unsettling, and saddening.

Surely, surely, it's time to stop.