3

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Ranze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Ranze (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

16:15 on 4 April 2015 per Special:Diff/654927319:

• I am imposing for an indefinite period the standard Gamergate topic ban, which prohibits you from editing "All edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed."

Related:

• January 29: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary_sanctions
• April 26: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ranze

Administrator imposing the sanction

Gamaliel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

I would like the sanctions to be modified to allow me to edit a wider variety of articles without worrying about it possibly being interpreted as stepping over the bounds of the blockade. They are unnecessarily vague and broad, applying to all kinds of articles where I have never experienced problems or objections.

Although I do desire for an eventual complete lift, I realize that that is a harder request to fulfill until issues have been clarified and concerns abated. I would certainly like to "demonstrate an ability to deal with sensitive issues regarding living individuals in other areas" however the thing about living individuals is they all have genders (and associate with others who have genders) and can all by interpreted as being associated with gender-related disputes.

I don't know how to go about demonstrating my ability to deal with the ability to demonstrate is chained down by such a broad restriction. If a ban broader than the BLP in question in the dispute is needed, something easy to understand like a category would be nice. I could easily understand avoiding Category:Women video game developers articles as an example, since it is a yes/no thing I can check at the bottom of an article.

In the time between I had been avoiding the BLP article I had been contacted about. The only edits I made in April was earlier in the day prior to getting the notification (as of 12:49) was listing the Twitter indicated on the official web site (already linked to from a birth date reference) and changing cite-web to the more efficient cite-tweet template for that reference.

I was happy avoiding it and was communicating about the issue with Gamaliel from April 20-23 but my April 26 replies didn't get responses yet even though they're presently contributing, so it feels like that dialogue sorta trailed off. That's why I'd like to have it with others who are willing to engage.

I am willing to put off appealing for access to the BLP until later, but in the interest of that, I would like further instructions on how to demonstrative sensitivity, and what that entails, and the type of edits I'm supposed to go and make to demonstrate that. I'm wondering if there are other ways to demonstrate this besides editing articles.

A great way for me to learn and demonstrate gained knowledge would be to recognize what the original problem in question is. But to do that, I need to be able to discuss it in some way. In approaching this issue I've tried to address the topic in neutral terms, like "past career" rather than specifying what the career was.

I guess the issue is, I don't fully understand why for some celebrities it is okay to talk about it (Wade Barrett's marine biologist science job) but because some people do not respect a career, we cannot talk about that career. Yet... we do have articles where we talk about people with this career some people do not seem to like, so I don't understand why it is considered non-damaging for some and damaging for others. Ranze (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.