Laser Brain blocked Ranze for three months for these three edits on the 12th:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ranze&diff=prev&oldid=765033312
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People_v._Turner&diff=prev&oldid=765034831
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zo%C3%AB_Quinn&diff=prev&oldid=765035837
Kyohyi copied Ranze's appeal to AE and questioned the grounds for the block, as did a few other editors concurred.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AE#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Ranze
> First, I think it is important to point out that three out of four of Laser brain's diff's are basically a content dispute. His comments here, his block rationale on Ranze's talk page [30], and his "warning's" [31],[32] demonstrate that his motivation for blocking Ranze was due to him disagreeing on content with Ranze's contributions. This is pretty clearly WP: INVOLVED behavior for an admin. Further, Ranze is not subject to any gender based topic ban at this time, the last topic ban expired April of 2016. [33] –Kyohyi (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
> The diffs provided by LB show no violation. Some of the edits were removing Wiki voice, such as the one where the sentence was referred to as light, is that Wiki's opinion or some people? And I do fail to see how that article should be subject to sanctions. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
> I don't see justification for any sanction here. Whether the topic is covered by DS or not, the only disruptive behavior is one (debatably bad) revert. If that standard were applied consistently we'd have no editors left in edit American Politics or any other DS topic. The rest is down to content choices which is not a subject for AE or administrative action. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Most of the debate ignored whether the block was justified and instead quibbled over whether or not the rape case People v. Turner falls under "gender based controversies." Then Slimvirgin got involved.
> Looking at just one of Ranze's edits, on 4 February he removed that the victim was unconscious. That she was unconscious, and therefore could not have consented, was the key factor in the case, so that was a highly provocative edit. SarahSV (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Looking at that edit, Ranze had said:
> Consciousness at time of penetration isn't known as no M.E.s were present when Brock stopped.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_v._Turner&diff=prev&oldid=763624125
Normally this would be a time to look to the sources and see what they say. However, because SlimVirgin spoke, everyone quickly agreed that Ranze is a horrible person so they upheld the block and added a topic ban from anyone remotely related to gamergate or any gender-related dispute or controversy.
Also, SlimVirgin may have violated Wikipedia's sourcing rules by citing a court case in a content dispute.
> WP:RS expresses a strong preference for secondary sources; court documents are primary sources. And WP:BLP says, "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Some editors take this very literally. –Weazie (talk) 06:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama_presidential_eligibility_litigation
> I just want to remind people that wikipedia, as a tertiary source, should generally be relying on secondary sources, per WP:RS, not primary sources, such as trial transcripts, court rulings, etc. for the article, which via cherry-picking leads quickly to something very akin to WP:OR. Some leeway is OK, but resist the urge to go overboard, especially where WP:BLP concerns may come into play. – Kendrick7talk 17:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Troy_Davis/Archive_1
It's another case of "rules for thee, but not for me."