User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof/Archives/2015/March

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 [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#NorthBySouthBaranof 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 Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Arbitration guide may be of use.

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

Arbitration amendment request archived
Hi NorthBySouthBaranof, this is to let you know that an Arbitration amendment request listing you as a party has been archived to the GamerGate case talk page, because there was no consensus for amendment among arbitrators. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 17:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

On American Sniper
The link recounts two stories that were proven false: (i.e. Kyle never made the claims and can be sourced to single person that never talked to Kyle). The critic repeats these claims. The talk page has discussed this issue extensively and consensus is that it's a BLP violation. Please undo your BLP violation. --DHeyward (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to be less cryptic and more specific. If you are referring to the three claimed falsehoods, those you apparently refer to are well-documented in reliable sources, such as The Washington Post, which repeats them all. If they are published in The Washington Post, it can hardly be said to be a BLP violation. What was less sure, however, were some of the anecdotes he told after he left the SEALs in 2009 and returned to Texas, in an article entitled The ‘unverifiable’ legacy of Chris Kyle, the deadliest sniper in American history. If this has been "proven false," please discuss on the talk page and provide sources to that effect. Otherwise, it appears to be fair comment on the director's artistic depiction of the legacy of an imperfect human being. The critic is arguing that, as with many biographical films, the director chose to blur the lines between truth and fiction, and that this choice was compounded by the omission of what a significant number of sources depict as Kyle's penchant for self-mythologizing — in the critic's view, the film depicts Kyle more as an idealized hero than as a human with human flaws, and that this choice lessens the picture in their opinion. You may disagree with this critic's viewpoint, but that doesn't really give you the right to remove it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here it's been hashed out . They all trace to Schmidle/New Yorker and SOFREP which don't support the claims.  Your late to the party and those items don't exist in his bio article either precisely because it's settled.  It's one thing to be critical of a pic that that glosses over real events.  it's rather incredulous to compare it to events that never happened.  --DHeyward (talk) 09:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything "hashed out" there that applies to a movie review. There is no BLP issue with reporting statements about a dead person which have been widely reported in reliable sources. The fact that you disagree with those conclusions is immaterial, and does not permit you to remove a reliable source which makes opinionated statements about an artistic work based on that artistic work's conflicts with reality, as discussed in a wide array of reliable sources. What you believe to be "incredulous" is of no consequence. The LA Weekly review stands on its own, and we'll allow our readers to draw their own conclusions as they wish. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You revert one more time, especially without talk page contributions and you'll be blocked as mentioned below.--MONGO 09:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Er, yeah, hi, I previously started a talk page thread that you have not engaged in — instead, you engaged in a stale revert war. So either engage in the talk page or you're the one who's edit-warring. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

A Simple Question
Sir, why are you chasting me - continually? Marcos12 (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? NBSB made a single edit to your talk space. — Strongjam (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * When you post something on a public noticeboard, you are asking for other opinions and ideas from various users. That you posted a request for comments as to a source and a piece of information on Violet Blue is self-evident. The fact that you apparently disagree with my opinion as to that request is also self-evident. The fact that you have responded to that disagreement not with reasoned discussion but with various personal attacks is also self-evident. Have a nice day. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)