User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof

I don't think we know each other, but I just want you to know that you have my sympathy for how the case went down, and my hope is that the vast majority of Wikipedians understand that there is a right side to the dispute, which is the side you were on. ArbCom has been making examples of out of people for years and it seems to often be a stretch, although I haven't reviewed all the diffs on behavior that they cited yet. I hope you continue as your efforts are appreciated. II | (t - c) 09:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Brianna Wu#Operation: Wu-Pocalypse

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Brianna Wu#Operation: Wu-Pocalypse. Hi, I put Brianna Wu on my watchlist to see if I could help bring a more civil process to it's editing, which I am sure is the intent of most of the editors. I see that you reverted some edits, & thought you should join in a discussion. There is an editor who would like to include some links & I am seeking your (pl.) guidance. Thanks. Peaceray (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48

Invitation

Hey, since we're both banned from a certain topic, why don't we join together in editing a topic of mutual interest? What say you? Cla68 (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I have absolutely no interest in contributing to a project which is actively punishing me for defending living people from a vicious, coordinated campaign of harassment and libel by anonymous trolls using the encyclopedia as a weapon of character assassination. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration rsult

Having stumbled on this whole GamerGate thing when the media began covering it, I read the decision relating to you, and I think you did right by the encyclopedia. Thanks for your work. No Matter How Dark (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Request

An Arbitration Enforcement Request has been filed on you at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

On your topic ban

FYI, your edits to the GamerGate talk page didn't violate your topic ban because you were removing BLP violations and explaining your rationale for doing so. That said, you really should take it off your watchlist and avoid the topic area entirely. That page is very well-watched, including by a lot of sensible people who won't hesitate to remove BLP violations—and then usually bring them to my attention or that of another admin. Your edits to Jimmy Wales' talk page, however, very much were in violation of your topic ban, and had they been reported while they were fresh, you almost certainly would have been blocked. I strongly recommend you avoid the topic area like the plague—for your own sake as much as anyone else's. A block is the inevitable result if you continue to involve yourself in the topic area beyond necessary BLP enforcement, and even then it would be much better to get somebody to remove it than to do it yourself—I'm sure you're aware that a topic-banned editor removing BLP violations is only likely to draw more attention to the material, which is of course contrary to the stated purpose of the removal. Feel free to bring this sort of thing to my attention by email, or to alert any of the active editors in the topic area if you don' want to talk to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

No, Harry. I will not be silenced and intimidated. Either this project respects living people and deals with the issues staring it in the face, or it doesn't. If the project wants to punish me for removing libelous and inappropriate attacks on Gamergate's targets, that's its right. The topic ban is manifestly a shameful, bullshit pander to a group of Internet thugs and if my actions here served to make that even more obvious, well, gee, I'm not sorry. I'm here to write an Internet encyclopedia that respects people and basic human decency. I've been punished for doing that, and I won't stop speaking out about it in all ways available to me within those parameters, until the topic ban is lifted and I'm exonerated for having done nothing more than the dirty work of standing up to an off-wiki-coordinated character-assassination campaign. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Sorry for butting in, but I feel you've failed to take the whole Streisand Effect aspect he brought up into account. Pretty much every day BLP reversions are made on the talk page by people who are not you, and nobody really notices or cares. It's become mundane. "NorthBySouthBaranof violates topic ban to remove Pro-GG super-ethical journalism from Talk page" on the other hand is the sort of stuff that hits the frontpage of /r/KotakuInAction, and draws tonnes of attention to whatever it is you were reverting. It also means that KotakuInAction's PreserverBot will autoarchive the diff of whatever it is you reverted, serving to partially counteract rev deletion. The most pragmatic way to acheive your goals here would be to stop doing anything GG related on wiki (or at least stop until enough time for a ban appeal has passed). Bosstopher (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You are essentially saying that Wikipedia should give in to off-wiki attacks for convenience's sake (and yes, I see you posting over there, which doesn't speak well for you at all). I'm sorry, but fuck that, no, I won't be silenced and I won't be a sacrificial lamb. You really want a "Streisand effect"? Ban me from the project for reverting BLP violations against Gamergate's targets. One of us is here to build an Internet encyclopedia that respects people and basic human decency, the others are here to further an internationally-noted campaign of harassment and character assassination against living people that doesn't even pretend to be about anything else at this point. That divide is only growing more obvious by the day and the project's unwillingness to address it is unbecoming. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Firstly I find that "I see you posting there" comment a bit mean given that the only post I've made on Kotaku in Action is telling GamerGate they're stupid. Meanwhile half the posts I've made on /r/WikiInAction have been defending the decision to not ban you. [I've also made a post on GamerGhazi where I get confused about being labelled your protegee, and another one on alternate reddit account which they gilded me for but i'm not sure if that's really related]. My actions off site have been mostly for the purpose of quelling outrage amongst GGers, and I in no way regret any of them. Also I'm not saying that Wikipedia should give in to offwiki attacks. I'm saying you should leave it to one of the other 10-gazillion editors who arent currently topic banned to revert BLP violations on the talk page, because if you do it, it will have completely the opposite goal to what you intend and only server to further publicise the information.Bosstopher (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Which only serves to illustrate both a certain group's unhealthy obsession with character assassination, and the manifest injustice of the topic ban. If my actions to protect living people happen to have those two side effects, sorry, not sorry. ArbCom decided to give my scalp to trolls in a hopeless effort at quelling them and there's nothing on this planet that's going to make that acceptable. As should be obvious at this point, Bosstopher, you can't make them go away by banning the people they're attacking. They'll just find another group of people to attack — as JzG already found out. Anyone who opposes them is targeted. I won't be surprised if Harry is next. Going forward, I'll just e-mail any violations to him and it won't be long before he becomes the Sixth Horseman of WikiBias. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It just hit me we've been having two different conversations here. I'd like to clarify that I'm in no way trying to justify your topic-ban, which actually took me by complete surprise (ArbCom really seem to hate it when people don't grovel before them). I'm just saying that being active in the topic-area post-TBAN is likely to be counterproductive. Thank you for taking the emailing route instead. To quote GG I encourage you to "Keep sending those emails!" Bosstopher (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For placing the values of the Encyclopedia first and foremost! While good counsel may advise you to be more selective about which battles are worth fighting, your willingness to stand up against trolls and the injustice meted out to you is inspiring. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Well deserved. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Civility

Honor and pride demand I be it. Though I am disheartened to see you removed my comment, that is your own prerogative and talk page. Anyway, I need to apologize to you. I had misunderstood the stipulations of BANEX, and thus I apologize for bringing the Enforcement Request against you. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

ARBCOM Clarification Request Party Notice

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#Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons 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, EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request archived

Hi NorthBySouthBaranof, I've closed and archived this arbitration clarification request that you are listed as a party to to the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons case talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice

Your edit to Lena Dunham concerns a gender-related dispute or controversy within the scope of your topic ban. A single incident seems unworthy of sanction but please avoid similar future edits. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)