User talk:Auerbachkeller

Hi

I'm sorry you felt you were paraphrased wrong via my paraphrasing of Elias Isquith's piece but do not make this request of me again. I have no agenda no matter what the assholes trying to discredit me on Reddit say about me. You wrote a divisive piece. Someone criticized you. I wrote about that criticism and may have been inaccurate. Get over it or make a correction that can be cited and used as a counterpoint. I am not going to abide by your ridiculous demands that I never write about you again. For a journalist you're certainly very adamant that people who you think are against you be censored.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ryulong, I would like you to explain how I "threatened" and "demanded" anything. I made a polite request (the title used "Please", even) that seemed quite reasonable in light of what had happened. And now I politely ask that you rescind your statement that I "threatened" and "demanded" things of you. Thank you. Auerbachkeller (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Auerbachkeller, I appreciate the note you left. Ryulong removed it, which means (to us Wikipedia editors) that he read it. That he chose not to answer it on his talk page, ah well. At any rate, I suggest you don't bring this up again on his talk page: he's not going to change his mind and, as odd as it may seem, he may claim you're harassing him.

  Ryulong, I'm beginning to have serious questions about your judgment; calling Auerbach's piece "divisive" is nonsensical since every single article on this topic seems to be divisive, and his is certainly more nuanced than some others (you may disagree with the contents, of course). Besides, your invocation of the c-word makes little sense either. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Drmies, Thank you for the tips, I will not comment on his page. On the other hand, I'm not thrilled with Ryulong's statement that I "threatened" him (nor with his bizarre appeal to Wales, but that much is his right). I've made this known to him above. This reinforces my belief that he is out to get me for some incomprehensible reason, and that this may continue to be a problem for me. I would also like to ask how I can make a statement on the Gamergate page arbitration request concerning this matter, since, as you say, it seems likely Ryulong is not going to change his mind. I seem to be unable to add a new section (not being "confirmed"?) Auerbachkeller (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry to hear that he is troubling you, sir. Ryulong has definitely violated normal Wikipedia's civility tenants by repeatedly announcing your post as a "threat", but few editors want to get involved with Ryulong. This Gamergate controversy is fast becoming one of the biggest messes in our histor and rather than trying to be a pillar of stability, Ryulong seems to be fueling the conflict with such behavior. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• My recommendation would be that editors get involved. This is not good. Auerbachkeller (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• And when I countered his abuses, I was almost removed from the site because it was viewed as "noise". It is a complete insult to our policy that Ryulong go beyond our "3 Revert Rule" with "15 reverts" and get off scot-free. Here is the report. @Tutelary: has watched numerous times Ryulong persist in edit warring beyond 3RR and @Nick: has previously blocked Ryulong for several of the most egregious acts I've ever seen. The fact Ryulong was a former Administrator makes it all the worse. If I was able to, I'd have indefinitely blocked Ryulong for violating the General Sanctions under numerous policies including WP:CONDUCT. It just boggles the mind that someone with Ryulong's background and history can so violate a core policy, repeatedly, and do so with impunity. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Chris I am appalled that you are actively trying to get a prominent person to have me banned from Wikipedia because he is upset with me citing someone else's criticism of his writing. There is no reason for you to have gotten involved in this other than our prior personal disputes and that is frankly disgusting.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I have to stay off your Talk page but you can still comment on mine? That hardly seems fair. Auerbachkeller (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know--yes, it's semi-protected but I thought the "confirmed" bit would take care of that. Tell you what, I'll ping the MacDaddy Of All Things Technical And So Much More, Writ Keeper. What you could also do is make some article edits and improve the project! Surely you know more than just gamer thingies...?

  Now, if you do decide to leave a note there, go to the "Statement by {other user}" section (I just added it) and click "edit" there, and follow the instructions. Don't make it personal, keep it brief and to the point: TLDNR is a favorite response here. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you, I have made a short statement. If you happen to see any problems with it, please do let me know. I tried to place the relevant edits in with a minimum of elaboration. And apologies, but my enthusiasm for making edits to Wikipedia is somewhat low at the moment.

General Advice

Regarding this. That arbitration request is probably the wrong place for that, the arbitration case hasn't even been accepted yet and won't move that fast. You probably want Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Alternatively, if you'd like some advice from more experienced editors Wikipedia:Editor assistance is a good place to start. — Strongjam (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

That's assuming you want an admin to look at it and take action. If you just want the arbitrators to take it into consideration in the case then just ignore me. — Strongjam (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I have posted a new section to the ANI reflecting this incident. Auerbachkeller (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Going to go reread The Trial now because it's less complicated. If you all can agree on what I'm supposed to do, please post it here, since I can't promise to check every other place reliably for feedback. Thank you.

Sorry. I should have just sent you to WP:EA for advice on how to resolve the dispute. On a personal note, Ryulong has been attacked quite a bit off-site, so I'm inclined to have sympathy for him. I'd suggest Ryulong just agree to retract the 'threatening' comment and you both go your separate ways. I won't inject myself into this anymore then that. — Strongjam (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Drmies advised me not to confront Ryulong further, and I am inclined to take this advice. It has already been told to me that what happens off-site doesn't matter with regard to actions on Wikipedia, so your statement of sympathy seems odd. In light of the contradictory, Kafkaesque advice I'm getting from all corners despite the now repeated slanders leveled in my direction, my patience is frankly wearing thin. I have followed your advice, I have made my serious concerns known, it should be very clear this reflects poorly on Wikipedia as a whole, and in my opinion the onus is on Wikipedia as a whole to deal with it at this point and ensure that nothing further happens. Auerbachkeller (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

If you happen to see him retract it, do let me know. Auerbachkeller (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps 'threatening' is an incorrect description of your 'demand' of Ryulong not to mention or cite you on Wikipedia. You can point out that you were paraphrased incorrectly, or that the source is incorrect, but you don't get to dictate who can or cannot cite or mention you on Wikipedia. Saying that, Ryulong should now let others handle David's complaints or issues. Dave Dial (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Who was dictating? I made a polite request which, in light of the circumstances, was utterly reasonable. Instead of agreeing or declining civilly (or, god forbid, even apologizing), he chose to say, falsely, that I was threatening him. Please don't attempt to turn this around on me. Auerbachkeller (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

What do you want me to retract? No one is allowed to edit Gamergate controversy for another week and the questioned piece has been better written.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Since this is my Talk page, I will answer and say that what you're being asked to retract is the false accusation you twice made that I "threatened" you. Auerbachkeller (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Retractions made.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

An apology for those false accusations you have now retracted would also be greatly appreciated. Auerbachkeller (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry that I overreacted to the events of the past 12 hours. I cannot really excuse my actions, but I hope that you will understand that I have been subject to harassment due to my actions on Wikipedia regarding this event that at least one person who had contacted you here has been fomenting.

I would also like to say I certainly did not mean any harm with my original contribution regarding Elias Isquith's piece on Salon. I am not a professional writer by any means. I have also spent the past two years immersed in a language that is as far from English as possible and I constantly find myself second guessing things I've written.

Emotions and my shoddy writing should not have resulted in all of this and for that I am sorry.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This is appreciated, but unfortunately, some apologies can come too late. You also still do not appear to grasp the sheer seriousness here, which does not merely concern you but Wikipedia in toto. Long after it was clear to everyone that I had done no such thing as "threaten" you, you continued to pile on unsupported criticisms of me on ANI, Jimmy Wales' page, and elsewhere. You resisted making even the slightest concession, instead excusing your behavior on personal grounds. I too have been suffering harassment and yet somehow I have been able to avoid slinging baseless accusations around. It was only after multiple senior editors/admins repeatedly spoke firmly to you and told you that there would be severe consequences that you turned and apologized. Apologies made under such duress are worth very little, I have learned, and I regret to say I cannot accept yours. Auerbachkeller (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You asked for an apology and I gave you a sincere apology and now you say it's pointless?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not say it was pointless. After considering your apology and the matter for some time, I found myself unable to accept your apology. Apologies are not a guaranteed panacea. That's not to say I do not appreciate the apology, only that I cannot accept it. I in fact wish that I could, as it would make this matter easier for me, but I cannot very well lie and pretend to have accepted it.

As you have now quickly returned to criticizing me harshly, I find it that much more difficult to AGF and have faith in your sincerity. I'm sorry. Auerbachkeller (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Routine procedural notice

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Gamaliel (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello Auerbachkeller, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of contents

• Department directory

Need help?

• Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
• Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
• Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
• The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

• Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
• The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
• Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

• Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Auerbachkeller, good luck, and have fun. – Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Civility Barnstar

		The Civility Barnstar
		For dealing with uncivil people in civil and calm manners! Loganmac (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo talk

Hello Auerbachkeller, several questions for you have been posted at User talk:Jimbo Wales. If you would respond on that page, it would be appreciated. Thank you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alanscottwalker thanks for letting me know. Those questions seem to concern a matter that is now closed (the offending text has been removed). If you're really curious, please email me via my website and I'll answer there. Since other matters remain open at ANI, I don't want to get into more disputes until the current ones are resolved, lest the issue explode that much further. After the toxic dosage of WP drama I've inhaled over the last couple days, I'm trying to keep as low a profile as possible on WP. (Being repeatedly attacked by Ryulong and Tarc took its toll on me, and I know when to withdraw.) Posting to Wales' page is pretty much the opposite of keeping a low profile. Ryulong is still angry at me and continued to criticize me after I was unable to AGF and accept his apology, so unless ANI needs more info from me...I'm out. Again, sorry. Auerbachkeller (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks, as others have said there, your use of the term "slander" seems problematic. See generally, WP:NLT, as it is likely to chill debate. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"Slander" is spoken. It's use would not constitute a legal threat any more than calling someone a "liar" is a legal threat. Rather it's a misunderstanding of how to say "false" in written word. Our WP:LIBEL BLP policy certainly trumps NLT with a giant sledgehammer of policy, foundation policy and and specifically says that even "false light libel" is not okay. Raising the issue is not actionable especially with WP:BITE. In fact, libel in any form should be raised every single time it is encountered and use whatever language is appropriate to highlight it. --DHeyward (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

At this point I feel certain editors are trying to criticize me and my case from any possible angle with the ulterior motive of protecting Ryulong. Maybe not the case, but that's the feeling I get. Doesn't feel even-handed. Auerbachkeller (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Apologies on Wikipedia

Hello, I am not particularly familiar with the content about which all these disputes are.

However, the was some effort to inform you (on the WP:ANI) that editors are not required to make apologies on Wikipedia.

That is true up to a point. At the point of punishment, for anything more than a minor issue, it is standard to require of an editor that they acknowledge their wrong doings, and, make it appear as though they understand and would avoid any more issues. You know, reality.

You are likely to take what you have been given on good faith, as nobody has bothered to put you straight, and that's when people question why each other are here, and that's when it is no longer about encyclopaediac content. ~ R.T.G 19:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay...I'm aware of all of that. In my opinion, Ryulong pretty clearly does not understand and is not going to avoid more issues. But that's just my opinion. Auerbachkeller (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I call it "par for the course". For those who do not understand why it was problematic, Devil's Advocate actually pointed out why on Jimbo's page. I've known Ryulong for almost two years and the sum of the interactions comes to a matter of mindset. Ryulong genuinely wants to improve and defend Wikipedia, but his methods are counterproductive and grow the problem. The cases are all pretty simple: In a conflict a reasonable editor will walk away early on, sensing that it is not worth the time on trivial issues. An idealist or a well-meaning individual can discuss at extreme length to Ryulong and still not make progress, leading to the first case. A stubborn editor will entrench push back - making Ryulong dig in even more. A novice editor or a bad faith troll will make Ryulong flip out, likely get blocked and return to pester him and only make Ryulong more embattled and bitter over any issue. For Ryulong, Gamergate veered into this area and now the entire topic and all the opposition is validating his "they are all against me, they all have an agenda". Ryulong doesn't have an agenda, but he never backs down from confrontation and does not accept responsibility. He blew off Jimbo Wales, repeatedly, and you do not need to be a psychiatrist to figure out why your interactions didn't go any better. I'm sorry Auerbachkeller, but I am sure you are able to confirm my words with simple research into the matter. Also, this post will almost certainly be noticed and responded to by Ryulong - twisting it into some perverse personal grudge or whatever as validation of my presence here. I have colleagues wrapped up in this, and given my history - my few comments on the situation are warranted - like your own. Sorry you came to Wikipedia under such conditions - it is really a nice place in the less controversial areas. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I'm gonna get a big spite and a horrible amount of vitriol, but the fact that you came to this hostile, antagonist environment (which you've now personally experienced) just shows how much courage you have. Some things could've done better, especially nipping this in the bud, but I'm glad you've given it its chance. Tutelary (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it's been interesting. And this is about the funniest thing I've read all week:

You shouldn't worry about this at all; if anyone misrepresents your writings on Wikipedia, someone else will correct them. It’s precisely the same situation as you would face if your book were reviewed in, say, TLS, by someone whom you think dislikes you and who, in any case, doesn't adore your book. As you doubtless know, attempting to address this directly is known as an Author’s Big Mistake. That's why people are urging you to drop the stick and back away. You've received more than you could reasonably have expected here; let it go. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm still smiling. Auerbachkeller (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I'm sorry you had to bear witness to the cronyism going on at Wikipedia lately, one person quipped "Its all CSPAN up in there". That doesn't even begin to capture the amount of insanity here. But that ANI thing was akin to a kangaroo court. I hope you return to edit some say in the future, when there's less bs going on. -- DSA510 Pls No H8 04:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Frown

David, I'm reading your piece on the GGTF dispute and I am very saddened by this very one-sided presentation, esp. after I was quite impressed by your sensible piece on Gamergate. I doubt that Carolmoore is "the only woman in the argument", and Corbett's has a "milelong track record of incivility" only if you listen to his detractors, not to his many defenders. In sketching the situation like this you're just reinforcing the idea that some in this debate presented, that Wikipedia is just a bunch of penisbearers (men who are dicks) who use foul language to keep the girls out of their playground. It's nonsense, and you would have seen that had you compared Corbett's track record of actual encyclopedic contributions (in terms of article writing and improving, and in terms of helping others make their articles better), it contrasts starkly with that of Carolmoore's contributions to article space, which are negligible. Sitush's comment about her is harsh, but have you considered that it might be true, and that this now-banned editor was to be found not in some kind of middle but all the way at the extreme end of a scale? (And did you know that few people have done more than Sitush, and at considerable personal risk, to ensure that our coverage of Indian topics is not dominated by racist scholarship from the colonial era?)

If Carolmoore hadn't successfully manipulated a real issue on Wikipedia, she would have been blocked a long time ago for WP:NOTHERE. One of a few things you fail to realize is that editors like her are also unblockable, and that it took ArbCom to put an end to an endless litany of false accusations, incivility, and disruption. Did you miss the part where she accused various editors (women) of being married to others (men--specifically Corbett) in order to discredit their arguments? Speaking of silencing women... I think what you also missed, in linking this, is that the one editor there who said they'd quit is still active, a week after posting a "retired" banner on their user page. Dramah. (That editor used to be an admin, and was roundly criticized for a "civility block" on Corbett in 2011, which was lifted immediately--Corbett, in a tit for tat with another editor, called that editor an "arse"--blockable? Hardly.) And before you make me out to be some uninformed and dogmatic defender of this Manchester crowd, I never agreed with Corbett's choice of words and I think Sitush's comments about feminism are not well-informed, and I have shared my opinion with them.

But we should be here to write articles, and if you stack them up you will see who's actually contributed to the project. Without those contributions, there is no Wikipedia to speak of. I really hate it when folks here say, in response to bad PR, "Oh, they don't understand". I think you do understand, hence my puzzlement at your hit piece which casts two longtime editors, who have produced and improved more articles than I can read in a month, in such a negative light, in order--apparently--to come to the chivalrous defense of a lone female character. But she wasn't "alone", and the two weren't out to get her, and we're not in a romance: it's much more complicated than that. I'm sorry to come here with a rant, but in a way I am just returning a favor since you came to my talk page for the same purpose, and I'm just really saddened: your readership, which is infinitely wider than mine, deserves much better. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• I do in fact appreciate this feedback. I'd ask you to look at LtPowers' comments here for one response to your concerns. I put it this way: "If Wikipedians have to appeal to material outside an ArbCom decision to justify it, then the decision is a failure." Auerbachkeller (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't get it. What does "outside an ArbCom decision" mean"? The presented "evidence" was "outside" of the decision. At any rate, if you read all the material, all the evidence (including the stuff that was struck out), you will see that almost all the Corbett-related material had nothing to do with the GGTF, and that Carolmoore had very few edits outside of the GGTF. I was not the only one to point out that much of the "evidence" against Corbett came from all over the place--when ostensibly the case was about disruption in that Task Force, and more than one editor struck a whole bunch of their evidence after I and others pointed that out. That for many this ArbCom case was nothing more than a Corbett civility case was made abundantly clear, with Sitush thrown in for good measure, because he had made a remark or two about feminism (remarks I don't agree with, showing a lack of theoretical sophistication, but that's beside the point). Powers's comment also fails to note the scope of the ArbCom case and says nothing about behavior within the confines of the GGTF--in Corbett's case, there's hardly any. It was a ruse, an attempt to get a foul-mouthed person they didn't care for to shut up, and the real miracle is that it was unsuccessful. Now, I'd appreciate it if, just for the hell of it, you looked through Corbett's talk page to see the many, many editors, boys and girls, who come and seek his help or thank him for it. Make a list of editors he's worked with without acrimony or dissent. You might be surprised. And again, I urge you to reconsider your statement that Carolmoore was the only woman in the argument--you might want to ask that one editor who got "accused" of being married to Corbett what she has to say on the topic. And imagine if the participants had been forced to acknowledge that not everyone is a boy or a girl (even my school recognizes transgender students now), and what that would have done to the simplistic "boys use bad words to keep the girls out" argument. Finally, imagine, if you will, incivility without the use of bad words, but in all the other ways people can hurt others. Drmies (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Your comments seem chiefly addressed to the ArbCom rather than to me. I agree with you that their collective judgment seems to be lacking. Personally, I'm just not a big fan of koalas. Auerbachkeller (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Excellent article, Auerbachkeller. Senior editors should be held to higher standards of behavior, not given a blind eye for good edits. Your article is a substantial piece of investigative journalism in which you personally became involved and took some hits and should be commended. I hope you can continue following these developments because the future of the site depends on people willing to work collaboratively together. -- GreenC 20:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you. I think you hit upon the key dispute, which in Wales' words is: "it's a shame that some in the community think that it's worthwhile putting up with nasty people if they make good contributions." Perhaps the principle that contributions mitigate poor behavior should either be explicitly renounced or codified. Auerbachkeller (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. --04:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Two way interaction ban proposal

Hey, I'm not exactly sure how I was meant to do this, given that the last IBAN request in this case was done through a clerk's talk page. But I guess I should probably notify you that I brought it up as a topic for discussion here. Bosstopher (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments on GamerGate Workshop page

Your comments in the "Users involved in off-site disruption banned" section devolved into mud slinging and tit for tat, and it was a good idea to step away. However I will warn you that continuing to engage in conduct which is not help for the arbitrators arriving at decision will result in your participation in the case being restricted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Sentiment Analysis and You

Hey! We're having a discussion here about what weight your opinion should be given with regards to the Brandwatch survey on Gamergate. The issue revolves around whether or not your opinion can be considered an expert opinion. Do you have any evidence that it's an area in which you have expertise, or should we be treating this like a lay opinion. Bosstopher (talk) 07:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I have a degree in computer science and worked in big data at Google for 5 years, have worked on IETF RFCs, and have a bunch of software patents to my name. I've worked with sentiment analysis design and code--which is how I know it's mostly garbage. Bernstein's claims about me are incorrect and he has criticized me in the past. (I in turn have criticized his company Eastgate's work in the past, though I was not aware of him at the time.) What I wrote is patently true--not that that counts, I suppose. If you say the study showed something about sentiment, Wikipedia is reporting a falsehood. Have fun arguing. Auerbachkeller (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Bosstopher (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

How to bureaucracy

Per your recent complaints:

• "Unless stated otherwise, article, page, topic, or interaction bans do not apply to the following:Reverting ... obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. The key word is "obvious", that is, cases in which no reasonable person could possibly disagree."
• Alternatively: " ...users in good standing are permitted to restore content from banned users by taking ownership of that content..."
• There's WP:BLPN but you've already heard of that.
• As a final, heavily backlogged last resort you can also turn to WP:OTRS

Best of luck.Bosstopher (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Your recent WP:BLPN discussion

Hello Auerbachkeller, I see you started this BLPN discussion; I notified the editors at the article Talk page about the discussion. The relevant policy would be WP:BLPTALK. Starting a BLPN discussion without pinging anybody is a good way to air a concern that isn't particularly urgent. If it would happen that you feel there is an urgent need to address something written there, your best option would be to email WP:OVERSIGHT. Zad68 19:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Some dude wrote an article on you

Hey, I keep the non existent articles of a lot of people involved in the Gamergate controversy on watchlist, in case someone decides to write a dodgy smear article on them and no one notices. I've noticed that someone decided to write an article on you, though it thankfully isn't smeary. I'm thinking of bringing it to AfD, because I did a quick search and couldn't find much secondary coverage on you. The award (correct me if wrong) doesn't seem to be primarily awarded to you, so I don't think that alone would qualify you for notability. Is there any significant coverage/awards that would make you notable, or should I just AfD the article? Keep in mind that in borderline cases of BLP notability, the tradition is to respect the wishes of the person in question. Brustopher (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Please email me. I'm not doing this in public because I'm not a masochist.

• Email sent. Brustopher (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion

Thank you for your comments there, that was a very classy move. I have thus far stayed out of the debate regarding your article for fear you would take my opinion as an attack on you, but out of respect for your comments at MFD I will submit my opinion to your AFD. Gamaliel (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing AfD discussion

Hi Auerbachkeller, as you are probably aware there is a deletion discussion currently under way regarding an article where your person is the article's topic. First of all I want to commend you for steering clear of the AfD which I have to imagine is due to your appreciation for the obvious conflict of interest. I am not sure of the background since I just learned about this discussion, but it seems that you have expressed concerns that it may be motivated by vendetta rather than by policy. If there are people !voting against the article due to personal animus then you have my sympathy. It's a very ugly side of the encyclopedia that undermines the character of those who !vote that way, and that most of us general-population editors find repulsive.

It's also a difficult knot to unwind in many cases because tainted !votes are usually couched in the language of our notability policies. It's hard to know who is improperly motivated and who is motivated simply by application of the site rules. I happen to think well of your writing and if this were nothing more than a popularity contest then I would happily vote to keep your article. The fact of the matter, however, is that the article is very short and undeniably shy of sources directly on the topic of the subject (you). In cases like this I find it is often helpful to ask the subject directly whether she or he (you in this case) is aware of any high quality sources that are written primarily about the subject (you). Such sources would satisfy the "significant coverage" clause of the General Notability Guidelines which is one of two guidelines that apply directly to the article in question (the other guideline is found at WP:AUTHOR).

So do you know of any good third-party sources that cover you directly and in detail? Significant coverage could be in written, film, or audio format, and it could be in online/digital form or in offline/hardcopy form. I consider myself neutral in this matter and I would be happy to bring to the deletion discussion any sources you could provide. You can also contact me by email if you would prefer. -Thibbs (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Twitter!

Hey, don't make me too famous: I might get too big for my britches. I hope it makes you feel good to criticize others in your Trumpy 140-character format, half-truths and all--I believe this is what you refer to as off-wiki harassment. But hey, this is America and your feelings are important. Now, your comments on that IBM/Holocaust page (did you borrow these points from Wikipediocracy?) show that you may need a refresher on how Wikipedia works. One hint: secondary sources. Reliably sourced criticism is acceptable, excessive detail based on primary sources is not. It's all there in our policies and guidelines, and just to make sure I'll leave a welcome template with some useful links below. Oh, I see now that I made a comment on this very talk page a few years ago, a very friendly one, I think--does that jive with what you think of me? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

You are an ArbCom member and an administrator. Either haul me up on charges or please quit the bluster. Auerbachkeller (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm a Wikipedia editor before I'm any of that. If you want to discuss Wikipedia content, do it on-wiki. If you can't or won't, then it's pretty transparent what your comments are for--harassment, not article improvement. BTW, answer the question, please: didn't I at one time give you some solid advice and, in the same message, warn a user who was bothering you? Drmies (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The one I see doing the harassing, is you. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:8983:55CD:D694:3DCC (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I don't go around calling people bad names--what was it, "capo"? Mafia boss? And off-wiki, to an automatically sympathetic audience? No, you don't get to claim "harassment" because I left a note on your talk page. You can ask me to not respond here--that's legitimate, and I'll honor that. But if you go around talking behind people's backs you should expect that at some point someone is going to respond, to your face. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see Drmies dredging up edits from 2013 and posting them on Twitter. clpo13_(talk) 17:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

For supposed altruists you're surprisingly bad-tempered. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The above comment, "The one I see doing the harassing, is you." was not made by me. It was not signed and came from an IPv6 address beginning ‪2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:8, which has since been mysteriously oversighted. This is an example of why discussing these issues on Wikipedia is pointless. Wikipedia impedes discourse and resolution. Auerbachkeller (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

You accidentally edited without logging in a few minutes before that IP commented, then edited again logged in to replace the signature. I removed your IP address from that first edit in an attempt to protect your privacy, per OS criterion #1 (This includes hiding the IP data of editors who accidentally logged out and thus inadvertently revealed their own IP addresses).

I assumed that the other edit was also you and that your IP address had simply changed, since you had just edited logged out shortly before. Since you've clarified this is not the case, I've unsuppressed that edit and restored the IP that Drmies removed, presumably thinking the same thing I did. I have left your original logged-out edit suppressed, though if you'd rather it not be, I can remove that suppression also. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

That is fine. I appreciate the clarification, but as can be seen there was no subsequent edit linking me to the "The one I see doing the harassing, is you." comment, so I do not understand why it was suppressed by Drmies. It is good to know that it was Drmies that did the improper removal, so I thank you for that clarification. Auerbachkeller (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see my clarification to my meaning above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The man says "I'm a Wikipedia editor before I'm any of that." as he secretly oversights the page while arguing with me and putting the words of others in my mouth. I'm outta here. Auerbachkeller (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Once again, I was the person who suppressed the edits. Bye! GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)