User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof

Cutting the Gordian Knot

So... are you ok with the article being posted on wikipedia? (Being vague as possible in case your not, so there's no indicators as to what it is)Bosstopher (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I made on-the-record statements to a significant media outlet and I have no problem with them being linked or republished anywhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Explain please

What do you mean by this comment? Dreadstar ☥ 22:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious, isn't it? A significant media outlet publishes an article critical of Wikipedia's response to Gamergate; several users who appear sympathetic to Gamergate engage in an edit-war to remove any mention of that article from the article talk page; and you leap on punitive action against another user who simply noted that some of those same users had previously demanded that an anonymous attack blog be inserted into the article. Such a comment is not a personal comment, it is a comment on editorial activities. You appear to have adopted the same attitude as ArbCom did when they topic-banned me; to wit, sweep everyone under the rug and hope the problem goes away. I'm disappointed and dismayed that you have taken such a position. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not obvious to me; I'm enforcing Wikipedia policy. I haven't read anything published by MB, I don't really care what he has to say outside WP. He's commented on other editors on the article talkpage, which is not the right place to do it per WP:DR and WP:NPA, whether it's purportedly 'editorial activities' or not - it doesn't belong on the article talk page. Additionally, such commentary as you suggest, even if not directed at Wikipedia editors violates WP:NOTFORUM and is not the purpose of Wikipedia. I'm not sweeping anything under the rug and consider that accusation to be a personal attack. Dreadstar ☥ 22:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I consider the Arbitration Committee's topic ban to be a personal attack and a pathetic capitulation to Internet trolls besides. So we're even. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're taking this personally with me; but be assured I will enforce WP policy nonetheless; whether you understand it or not. Dreadstar ☥ 22:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Unlike ArbCom, however, I'm willing to step back, acknowledge a mistake and apologize for making it personal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, I appreciate it. And I also understand the heat this subject generates, believe me, my first concern is for the welfare of those harassed in real life...but I have to do it here within WP policies and guidelines. Dreadstar ☥ 23:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

And I will acknowledge a mistake and realize I've encouraged you to violate your topic ban: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#NorthBySouthBaranof_topic-banned. IT stops now. Other than that, the only mistake is by MB in violating policy. Dreadstar ☥ 22:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

What stops now? The discussion that ArbCom's actions are capitulation to trolls and the discussion of how bad of a decision it was is continuing to receive bad press? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

What stops here is my discussion with NorthBySouthBaranof about gamergate related issues, they're under topic ban and I don't want them to violate that. Dreadstar ☥ 23:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your recent helpful contribution to the RSN discussion. I am writing to remind you you did not "vote." The OP is counting heads. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Request Notification

A discussion concerning your behavior at Lena Dunham is under way at Arbitration Enforcement —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

That I think you're absolutely correct should be clear to everyone. I'll be happy to support you there, if you think it will do more good than ill. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I came here to note support for your position via Jimbo's talk page. Not that it is worth much, but nevertheless. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It's worth plenty, actually. Thank you for seeing the forest for the trees. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Everyone loves arbitration

Arbitration: the gift that keeps on giving

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#SECTIONTITLE and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Rhoark (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)