User talk:Ranze

This user is a participant in WikiProject Professional wrestling.

This user is a member of
WikiProject Tokusatsu

Archives: /2012, /2013, /2014, /2015, /2016

diffs: Special:Diff/1

Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal for later

AMAs/Reddit https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/02/

Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance also is interesting for avoiding premature speedy deletion nominations

Wikipedia:REFILL looks very useful for times when I can only post bare URLs due to editing via a crappy tablet.

Sourcing: Template:Find sources + WP:RS + Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard +Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#List ~~+Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources aka WP:PW/RS~~

old Teletoon air dates: ftp://support.crtc.gc.ca/logs/ or http://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/800106c1-0b08-401e-8be2-ac45d62e662e

redirects per special:diff/743903193 use Wikipedia:Article wizard/Redirect to post at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and log at user:ranze/redirects along with WP:RFD contributions. As clarified December 18 in special:diff/755529610 I can ping Thryduulf if there is a comment to add on RFD.

Rename media requests

{{Rename media}} requests should be placed at the top of file pages, rather than file talk pages. I went ahead and fixed the request you made in regard to File:Lucy of the Southern Rainbow.jpg. Best Regards and Happy New Year, — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gender-based editing

I see that you thought it was a good idea to return to editing at People v. Turner and related articles, despite your visit to WP:AE not long ago when you were editing there. This article falls under discretionary sanctions for gender-related disputes and controversies, and I consider your editing to be agenda-driven and unacceptable. Given the number of times and places we've had to deal with your behavior problems already, you can expect a lengthy block if you continue. --Laser brain (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: in special:diff/729932574 I was told restrictions on gender-based editing as a result of Gamergate (which the Turner case has nothing to do with) ended 10 months ago.

The only agenda I have is neutral truthful editing. Not reaching the same conclusions doesn't mean either of us has any malicious agenda. Ranze (talk) 09:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your topic ban expired. But discretionary sanctions are active for gender-based disputes and controversies and you can be sanctioned at any time for poor behavior in that topic area. You've had your warning. --Laser brain (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: you haven't explained why my behavior on this article poor, or how the People v. Turner case qualifies as a dispute. All criminals have genders and all victims have genders. You appear to be threatening to levy for a block if I continue editing the article in any way whatsoever, since you haven't specified what changes you want to see in my editing to the article. Telling someone their editing is unacceptable doesn't instruct them on the specifics of your objection. Ranze (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits reveal an obvious bias toward softening Turner's image and role in the crime and marginalizing the victim. If you honestly believe you are engaging in "neutral truthful editing", you are not. I would advise you to disengage from that article and select topics that have nothing to do with gender-based controversies. Deliberately or not, I don't believe you are capable of editing neutrally in that topic area. The matter is not up for debate. If you continue to make such edit there or at related articles, you will be blocked. You will be able to appeal to WP:AE in that case. --Laser brain (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: so you are threatening to make a unilateral choice to block me if I make any edit whatsoever there?

My edits to people v. Turner are not gender based. I would be making then same ones if Brock was Bailey or Emily was Elmer. Both sexes can be drunk. Both sexes have fingers. Both sexes can be penetrated without consent.

I don't see how you can twist this to be about gender. This is also a Male v. Males conflict in terms of the court case given that the first two witnesses for the prosecution were the male Swedish exchange doctorate students out cycling. Or female v female since Brock's girlfriend was used as a character witness.

Equally stating both were drunk in the opening is not softening his image any more than doing so later in the article does. If anything the omission of his drunkenness in the lede is suspicious in the other direction.

I am not interested in marginalizing Emily Doe, just stating known facts in their known context. It is not our job to engage in original research and synthesize conclusions. I want to verify that we are not doing that or giving undue weight to sources which do so over those that don't.

I don't think it is right for you to make personal attacks speculating I have dishonest motives about this article. You are interfering with the actual discussion of references and case details here.

Your objections to my edits should necessarily address specifics instead of broad generalizations you speculate just because impartiality doesn't seem adequately anti-Brock to you.

As an admin do you enjoy carte Blanche in launching ad hominem attacks like this? Why do you call me a softener for wanting to say they were both drunk instead of calling those who only want to say she was drunk hardeners?

What is the "marginalize" accusation based in? Wanting information about her conciousness in context is not doing that. Someone posited in thr tslk page that a medical professional made that conclusion so i will folloe up by asking who/when.

I wilk try harder to have more extensive talk page attempts to consolidate ideas prior to making more extensive edits there.

What I.ask is if you could simply clarify your objections to me. Assume I may be capable of improving if I am wrong. Assume you may also be capable of erring in judgment.

Are you not interested in proactive resolution? Are you biding up examples only to use against me if I appeal an action you take, but not willing to use them to educate me now?

I will deter direct editing (but not talk) long enough for you to make better explanations and observations about this article. If you have enough specifics to argue a case, you won't have much of one if it is clear you made minimal effort to communicate those specifics. Ranze (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

To enforce an arbitration decision and for continuing to push your POV and agenda in the gender-based controversy topic area after being advised not to, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Laser brain (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Ranze (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard.

Laser linked to a decision in gamergate. All I did related to that recently was inquiring on talk:Zoe Quinn asking input if it would make sense to describe her as an activist given her site does that. Other news clarifies this as being an "anti abuse activist" or "anti harassment activist". It seems notable given being called upon to speak by the united nations to recognize that.

Laser did not like the edits I made to people v. Turner and is wrongfully conflating that with gamerGate by deciding to consider it a "gender related dispute", as if sexual assault is limited to a single gender or something.

I was respecting a request to voice concerns on the talk page over a disputed edit. Laser would not even allow this. I simply wanted to clarify what we knew about which specific sources made claims and the context in which they were made.

This line of inquiry is called POV/agenda pushing by Laser. I do not believe those warnings or this punishment was justified. Laser is assuming bad faith simply for things like balancing an introduction by mentioning both parties were intoxicated and removing duplicated discussion about unconciousness since the witnees testimony about that followed right after. Ranze (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]].

Laser linked to a decision in gamergate. All I did related to that recently was inquiring on [[talk:Zoe Quinn]] asking input if it would make sense to describe her as an activist given her site does that. Other news clarifies this as being an "anti abuse activist" or "anti harassment activist". It seems notable given being called upon to speak by the united nations to recognize that.

Laser did not like the edits I made to [[people v. Turner]] and is wrongfully conflating that with gamerGate by deciding to consider it a "gender related dispute", as if sexual assault is limited to a single gender or something.

I was respecting a request to voice concerns on the talk page over a disputed edit. Laser would not even allow this. I simply wanted to clarify what we knew about which specific sources made claims and the context in which they were made.

This line of inquiry is called POV/agenda pushing by Laser. I do not believe those warnings or this punishment was justified. Laser is assuming bad faith simply for things like balancing an introduction by mentioning both parties were intoxicated and removing duplicated discussion about unconciousness since the witnees testimony about that followed right after. [[User:Ranze|Ranze]] ([[User talk:Ranze#top|talk]]) 03:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]].

Laser linked to a decision in gamergate. All I did related to that recently was inquiring on [[talk:Zoe Quinn]] asking input if it would make sense to describe her as an activist given her site does that. Other news clarifies this as being an "anti abuse activist" or "anti harassment activist". It seems notable given being called upon to speak by the united nations to recognize that.

Laser did not like the edits I made to [[people v. Turner]] and is wrongfully conflating that with gamerGate by deciding to consider it a "gender related dispute", as if sexual assault is limited to a single gender or something.

I was respecting a request to voice concerns on the talk page over a disputed edit. Laser would not even allow this. I simply wanted to clarify what we knew about which specific sources made claims and the context in which they were made.

This line of inquiry is called POV/agenda pushing by Laser. I do not believe those warnings or this punishment was justified. Laser is assuming bad faith simply for things like balancing an introduction by mentioning both parties were intoxicated and removing duplicated discussion about unconciousness since the witnees testimony about that followed right after. [[User:Ranze|Ranze]] ([[User talk:Ranze#top|talk]]) 03:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]].

Laser linked to a decision in gamergate. All I did related to that recently was inquiring on [[talk:Zoe Quinn]] asking input if it would make sense to describe her as an activist given her site does that. Other news clarifies this as being an "anti abuse activist" or "anti harassment activist". It seems notable given being called upon to speak by the united nations to recognize that.

Laser did not like the edits I made to [[people v. Turner]] and is wrongfully conflating that with gamerGate by deciding to consider it a "gender related dispute", as if sexual assault is limited to a single gender or something.

I was respecting a request to voice concerns on the talk page over a disputed edit. Laser would not even allow this. I simply wanted to clarify what we knew about which specific sources made claims and the context in which they were made.

This line of inquiry is called POV/agenda pushing by Laser. I do not believe those warnings or this punishment was justified. Laser is assuming bad faith simply for things like balancing an introduction by mentioning both parties were intoxicated and removing duplicated discussion about unconciousness since the witnees testimony about that followed right after. [[User:Ranze|Ranze]] ([[User talk:Ranze#top|talk]]) 03:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I have transcribed this unblock request to WP: AE --Kyohyi (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyohyi: thank you. I'm a bit rushed to respond to everything LM said, but will point out one very easy to spot dishonesty in special:diff/765296931

"Changes wording from "sexually penetrated ... with his fingers" to "digitally penetrated" which was wikilinked to fingering (sexual act), an article about a consensual sexual technique."

The article had nothing at all specifying that it was consensual only, LB is wrong. Also: when this concern was raised to me, I did special:diff/764094493 to clarify that fingering is assault when there is not consent given for it. Do we need disclaimers like this on every article about every different kind of sex act lest people make these unfounded arguments that they somehow imply ONLY consented-to activities? Ranze (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: / @MPants at work: re special:diff/765298663 claim "the editor has made no edits to this page which had any other effect" can be easily refuted if you dig back to last year's history, around June>September 2016. For example in July special:diff/728557737 you can see I introduced the information of the "11 out of 15" assessment on the Glascow Coma Scale made by the paramedic Shaohsuan Fanchiang (nicknamed Steven) how would this edit qualify as an edit minimizing Turner's culpability? Ranze (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: re special:diff/765357282 when you said I "removed that the victim was unconscious" in special:diff/763624125 that was because it was unnecessarily repetitive. "Turner was apprehended by two Stanford international students from Sweden, who testified that they intervened because the woman appeared to be unconscious" was already there, and actually specific to how that conclusion is reached. If it is reached from other factors, I believe we should state those factors and then say "several testified that she was unconscious" or something along those lines. It is more neutral to present evidence like that when speaking about things contested by the defendant. Ranze (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]