Jump to content

User talk:Ranze

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ranze (talk | contribs) at 08:01, 19 February 2017 (→Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 (TALKCONT) 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's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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]

Decline reason:

After further review, your appeal has been declined. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.


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]

If you have to go all the way back to last year to find a single edit which doesn't advance a particular POV, you're not doing a good job defending yourself. Furthermore, this edit still advances the POV you've been pushing. Higher ratings on the Glasgow scale indicate greater consciousness, contrary to the implications you attached it. A score of 11 means symptoms similar to being woken from a nap. In that same edit, you also started discussing the victim's intoxication levels by throwing out a lowball before throwing in enough variants on the more accurate, higher numbers, which has the obvious effect of bringing all of the numbers into doubt. This edit only serves to demonstrate my point further. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:28, 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. As for your proposal that it was suffused with "class privilege", maybe, considering he was a school athlete, but that's not gender-based. If you are alleging that a light sentence resulted from being male, can you prove that by showing that women are receiving heavier sentences for charges like these? Ranze (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ZQ for Pt4th

@PeterTheFourth: re special:diff/765037648 the clear problem is a minor one, one of omission. Present reading:

an American video game developer, programmer, writer, and artist

about page:

an award-winning writer, comedian, game developer, and activist

I just noticed "comedian" is present there too, but not on the article yet. Presently it reflects the writer/game developer ones. We also list artist/programmer even though the about page lacks it (possibly because those were jobs done during game development and included under the umbrella?)

To supplement that I found some sources which append labels to activist. First you have supportive/neutral ones...

  • Mascarenhas, Hyacinth (26 March 2016). "Microsoft apologises for teen AI Tay's behaviour and talks about what went wrong". Game developer and internet activist Zoe Quinn, who was at the receiving end of Tay's abuse, tweeted that Microsoft developers should have
  • Kulwin, Noah (29 March 2016). "Genius responds to Congresswoman Katherine Clark's letter on preventing abuse". recode.net. Clark called on the FBI to make the misogynistic Gamergate movement a "priority," and she brought Gamergate target and anti-abuse activist Zoe Quinn to speak at a Congressional briefing.
  • Baker-Whitelaw, Gavia (21 August 2016). "2016 Hugo Awards honor N.K. Jemisin, 'Sandman,' 'The Martian'". Daily Dot. Tingle sent game developer and anti-harassment activist Zoe Quinn to represent him at the Hugo ceremony.

Then some from conservative sites for balance

While there doesn't appear to be any clear consensus on the best way to describe the activism, numerous sources agree with calling her one, supporting her calling herself one on the website. It seems notable to include that label and 'activist' categories for that reason.

Come to think of it... this could probably be a section apart from "Harassment and Gamergate". Being called upon to speak to congress / the united nations is much more than simply passively being harassed, it's taking an active prominent speaking role to major groups and seems like it would be a followup section. Ranze (talk) 10:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not restore blatant promotional material on the article Dalton Castle

Please do not restore blatant promotional material on the article Dalton Castle as you did with this edit last year. It is ridiculously unencyclopedic to include on a biographical article a list of individual merchandise items which is sold by the article's subject. The fact that sources can be found to prove that the merchandise items exist is irrelevent and it's pretty damn obvious that the list of merchandise was only added to the article in order to advertise it.

And please take care when reverting the edits of IP editors. The fact that a user is not logged into Wikipedia does not automatically indicate lack of knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 79.65.127.77 (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@79.65.127.77: I have no intention of reverting you, but must protest that I did not make that edit with any intent to advertise sales, it was simply the easiest way to confirm a specific gimmick aspect. Ranze (talk) 07:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are hereby indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this (declined) arbitration enforcement action appeal (requested by yourself).

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffee: appealing directly to your talk page isn't something I can do for ~3months. I found this argument pretty one-sided because people were able to make statements about me and while I rebutted them above on the talk page, those were not conveyed to be easily read by the other commentators.

Why is it okay to impose an indefinite topic ban when it's not even clear I was violating the policy on gender-based articles in the first place?

Peacemaker proposed the idea on the 14th, boing and Ed back it on the 15th, and you carry it through on the 16th? That seems pretty rushed.

I feel like I'm being punished simply for questioning the actions of an administrator. Why isn't a 3 month block enough so that afterward I can make more reserved edits in articles which fall under this uber-wide scope since it's so unspecific?

Laser brain said the question of whether it is a "gender-based controversy" isn't really as important as the question of whether Ranze is behaving poorly which I agree with LB about.

More than voting should be involved with supporting the notion that a person is agenda-pushing. Actual proof should be given, and that should be done without stating falsehoods.

LB and others like MjolnirPants (example special:diff/765622390 calls my presenting the factual data of the 11/15 GCS rating as being agenda-pushing) in this discussion cherry-picked edits and ignored neutral edits I made (like the Glascow Coma Scale which I mention above)

Valid concerns from editors like @Kyohyi: and @James J. Lambden: and @Sir Joseph: and @The Wordsmith: seemed to have been overlooked in the consensus process. I get the sense you ignored these in favor of focusing on the objections made nearer to the bottom of the discussion.

@Sandstein: regardless of what articles fall under discretionary sanctions (which weren't well explained to me prior to the block, and I'm still having trouble understanding now) the gist of it seems to be that the policies apply when you're making bad edits, and I still don't think I was doing that. When editors disagree about content it isn't fair to arbitrarily declare one side of it to be agenda-pushing to shut down the discussion.

Why should sanctions be enforced, a topic ban applied, for something like mentioning both were intoxicated in the intro when this is elaborated upon later in the article already?

I can take apart every objection that was made. Laser and others jump all over the place to make it seem like they have a multifaceted argument to distract how each is a strawman. Ranze (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The it girl

A tag has been placed on The it girl requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
  • disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Coderzombie (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ranze&oldid=766274695"