The Devil's Advocate was mentioned in BuzzFeed

Specific discussion about Wikimedia editors and editing of Wikimedia project pages.
User avatar
Flip Flopped
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:55 pm

The Devil's Advocate was mentioned in BuzzFeed

Post by Flip Flopped » Thu Oct 05, 2017 10:14 pm

Auerbach was championing The Devil's Advocate back during the GamerGate ArbCom case. It resulted in a Breitbart story being written by Yiannopoulos/Bohari. This was mentioned in a screenshot of an email from Auerbach to Yiannopoulos in this BuzzFeed exposé.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 286
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: The Devil's Advocate was mentioned in BuzzFeed

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:09 am

Auerbach has tweeted quite a bit about this smear job. I tweeted a bit about this BuzzFeed piece myself and the author's past copying off Wikipedia for one of his articles. BuzzFeed badly misrepresented Auerbach's response stating he said the claim the e-mails were written by him was "untrue" when the fact is they never showed him the e-mails.

In fact, they did misrepresent the contents of a lot of his e-mails. The claim of Anita and McIntosh having "broken up" is apparently a reference to their professional relationship not their love life in any respect. The "allegedly racist friend" is Requires Hate, who was a notorious serial harasser among progressives in the literary world that reputedly drove one of her targets to attempt suicide. Even if he wrote the e-mails, which is not a given due to the article's demonstrated unreliability, their contents is being badly twisted into something more nefarious and his response is being similarly twisted.

Not surprisingly, already attempts have been made to add this falsely distorted version of events into Auerbach's article. One of his haters on Wikipedia, who formerly worked for the Wikimedia Foundation, tried to restore it. Given Auerbach only got involved with Wikipedia because Wikipedians were smearing him on Wikipedia, the fact he is now being smeared for apparently having helped someone who defended him from those smears is classic.

User avatar
Flip Flopped
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:55 pm

Re: The Devil's Advocate was mentioned in BuzzFeed

Post by Flip Flopped » Fri Oct 06, 2017 1:46 pm

KingsIndian is now involved in the Auerbach WP article, as he was in the past. The IP who objected to a paragraph about the BuzzFeed article being added to Auerbach's BLP looks like it might be Auerbach himself. (To be fair the paragraph didn't look carefully constructed. PetertheFourth accused the IP of having written something on Peter's talk page that needed revdeletion. The IP is now blocked.) Auerbach also took to Twitter to issue a number of unconvincing denials about the emails BuzzFeed reported.

User avatar
Flip Flopped
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:55 pm

Re: The Devil's Advocate was mentioned in BuzzFeed

Post by Flip Flopped » Fri Oct 06, 2017 1:59 pm

Here's a precious WP edit by Auerbach:
NeilN and Johnuniq, you are both clearly hounding me. Please cut it out. Auerbachkeller (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I found it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... n_me_above. He doesn't come across as very mature.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 286
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: The Devil's Advocate was mentioned in BuzzFeed

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:10 pm

If you're gonna use this thread to slag on Auerbach, especially with baseless allegations, then we are gonna have a serious problem here real quick.

Anyway, Volunteer Marek has seized on this story to maliciously edit the page for Yiannopoulos. Probably the most egregious offense, was the addition to the lede of the article material saying Yiannopoulos had said child sexual abuse "really is not that big of a deal." The quote is taken from a single source, the now-defunct Heatstreet, which says:
He also says that the abuse “really is not that big of a deal” and that victims “can’t let it ruin [their lives].”
You can watch the video linked in the article and see that those two statements are connected. Presented, without that context, it makes it seem like he is trivializing child sexual abuse as an issue in general, when what he is really saying is that for victims it isn't the end of the world or anything worth being consumed with for life. Not to mention that it doesn't belong anywhere near the lede given that it is literally one defunct source and I can't find any other source mentioning it. Maybe I misremembered, but I am also pretty sure Marek has previously rejected using Heatstreet as a source. Of course, he couldn't use it to smear someone he doesn't like before so I guess this is an exception.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 286
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: The Devil's Advocate was mentioned in BuzzFeed

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Fri Oct 06, 2017 9:42 pm

Bumping this mostly to comment on the speculation about the source. People on Wikipediocracy seem to be jumping to Bokhari because of some past dispute mentioned in the piece, but aside from Milo's spirited defense of Bokhari on Facebook and the fact that Bokhari showed no signs on social media of having any conflict with Milo at all, there are other reasons to doubt the claim. A big part of the reason to doubt it is the e-mails don't continue into 2017. No indication has been given that there are more e-mails or articles coming up and the length of the piece is such that I would be curious as to why there would not be some mention of it. The most recent incident mentioned is from December of last year.

Incidentally, that is also the month when there was a big falling out between Milo and Baked Alaska over the Delporaball event. Those two were at one point thick as thieves and as the BuzzFeed article itself mentions, Baked Alaska once worked at BuzzFeed. I don't know if that means he is the source, but one aspect of that falling out was the more extreme factions of the alt-right being excluded from the Deploraball and a fissure being created. Stands to reason that if the e-mails really end in 2016 then the source is more likely someone who got cut off as a result.

User avatar
Flip Flopped
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:55 pm

Re: The Devil's Advocate was mentioned in BuzzFeed

Post by Flip Flopped » Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:06 pm

What I posted was a direct quote of Auerbach's own WP edit. He has claimed the WP account as his own.

User avatar
Flip Flopped
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:55 pm

Re: The Devil's Advocate was mentioned in BuzzFeed

Post by Flip Flopped » Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:08 pm

Murphy returned to WO, but says he won't post again as long as TDAdvocate remains unbanned there.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 286
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: The Devil's Advocate was mentioned in BuzzFeed

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Sat Oct 07, 2017 1:11 am

Flip Flopped wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:06 pm
What I posted was a direct quote of Auerbach's own WP edit. He has claimed the WP account as his own.
The comments about his "maturity", characterizing his statements as "unconvincing" even after my post refuting BuzzFeed's slipshod reporting, and suggestions of him being an IP whose edits on another user page were deleted are what I am talking about. I think anyone who tries to tear him down over this article or his reaction to attacks from Wikipedians is missing the point. I mean, he recently published a quite excellent article in The Daily Beast all about Sci-fi fascism and far-right ties to Newt Gingrich and, by extension, Trump. Yet somehow because Auerbach talked to Milo a few times over a year ago he is now an unforgivable alt-right Nazi. Kind of illustrates how deep into hysterics the establishment left has descended. Unfortunately, a lot of the prominent critics at WO and WS demonstrate the same hysterics.
Flip Flopped wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:08 pm
Murphy returned to WO, but says he won't post again as long as TDAdvocate remains unbanned there.
Not sure what they'd be losing out on, honestly. Murphy is one of those figures who, like Marek, everyone in the critic circuit seems to greatly respect yet can never identify exactly what he has achieved. I will say, anyone who makes their participation on a site contingent on someone who doesn't even post there anymore being banned is probably not a contributor one can rely on either way. After all, he has been extremely flaky in a very Wikipedian way in the past.

User avatar
Flip Flopped
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:55 pm

Re: The Devil's Advocate was mentioned in BuzzFeed

Post by Flip Flopped » Sat Oct 07, 2017 12:46 pm

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 1:11 am
Flip Flopped wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:06 pm
What I posted was a direct quote of Auerbach's own WP edit. He has claimed the WP account as his own.
The comments about his "maturity", characterizing his statements as "unconvincing" even after my post refuting BuzzFeed's slipshod reporting, and suggestions of him being an IP whose edits on another user page were deleted are what I am talking about. I think anyone who tries to tear him down over this article or his reaction to attacks from Wikipedians is missing the point. I mean, he recently published a quite excellent article in The Daily Beast all about Sci-fi fascism and far-right ties to Newt Gingrich and, by extension, Trump. Yet somehow because Auerbach talked to Milo a few times over a year ago he is now an unforgivable alt-right Nazi. Kind of illustrates how deep into hysterics the establishment left has descended. Unfortunately, a lot of the prominent critics at WO and WS demonstrate the same hysterics.
Flip Flopped wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:08 pm
Murphy returned to WO, but says he won't post again as long as TDAdvocate remains unbanned there.
Not sure what they'd be losing out on, honestly. Murphy is one of those figures who, like Marek, everyone in the critic circuit seems to greatly respect yet can never identify exactly what he has achieved. I will say, anyone who makes their participation on a site contingent on someone who doesn't even post there anymore being banned is probably not a contributor one can rely on either way. After all, he has been extremely flaky in a very Wikipedian way in the past.
I've never liked Auerbach though I concede his writing is worth reading. In my opinion he has behaved immaturely on Wikipedia. I find his denials over the BuzzFeed piece unconvincing. That IP looks like it might have been him, but I have no idea who it was. I don't think most of those critical of Auerbach think he's a Nazi or alt-right. I think the impression is that he has closer ties to GamerGate supporters than the impression he had given. The major objection seems to be that he was on friendly terms with Yiannopoulos and fed him stories that seem to fit in with GamerGate objectives.

Murphy took issue with someone, maybe GW, accusing him of WP harassment because he said it might easily be misconstrued as an accusation of real world harassment. I thought that was a bit precious of him, same as I think that edit of Auerbach's was him being precious.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest