" 

 == AE == 

 ==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Protonk== 

 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   –    

 ; Sanction being appealed  24 hour block and 3 month topic ban pursuant to GG sanctions, logged here 

 ; Administrator imposing the sanction   

 ; 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. 

 ===Statement by Protonk=== 

 Please bear with me through a somewhat indirect appeal, as the justification for my block is so Kafkaesque I cannot diagram the single sentence which provoked it to defend my actions without inviting further sanction. 
    
 I was blocked under the GG discretionary sanctions for this edit (admins can review the diff). The justification was (near as I can tell) ""advocat[ing] ignoring policy"" and ""repeat[ing] an egregious BLP violation"" (diff) while doing so.  

 The statement that I made is unambiguously true, sourced to multiple reliable sources in the gamergate article, and central to the dispute at hand. Further, the only way to read defamation or denigration from that sentence is to rip words out from the incredibly limited context I provided. I'm not even making the half-assed claim that you have to read that sentence in light of my entire oeuvre or even a whole paragraph in order to gain contextyou just have to read the entire sentence. Like I said above, I can't diagram said sentence here, so forgive me an analogy. 

 We have on Wikipedia an entire article devoted to a scurrilous accusation, one which is obviously provably false. An accusation which not only violates BLP it caused the BLP policy to come into being. In it we state ""The article falsely stated that Seigenthaler had been a suspect in the assassinations of U.S. President John F. Kennedy and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy."" We recognize that the embedded statement ""...Seigenthaler had been a suspect in the assassinations..."" is a BLP violation. It's a false, unsourced claim about a living person. The encompassing sentence is not a BLP violation because it is a true, sourced claim. It cannot be one regardless of the awfulness of the original claim. There is no transitive property of BLP.  

 Further, the same basic idea is already present in our current article: ""Shortly after the release of Depression Quest on Steam in August 2014, Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post, described by The New York Times as a ""rambling online essay"", containing a series of allegations, among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson."" Snipping out the meandering clauses we get ""...Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post...[alleging]...Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson."" I'm really struggling here to see the substantive difference between that and what I wrote. If the distinction was that I didn't cite my source, a 3 month topic ban seems a bit harsh. 

 As for the charge of advocating ignoring policy: fuck that.  The interpretation of BLP which I decried in that edit is perverse and nonsensical (see this redaction for a good example, paying close attention to what was and wasn't retracted). If our policy is arbitrary enough that an admin (admittedly one who is pretty intemperate and not very smart) can get topic banned for three months over a single edit for content that is already in a wikipedia article then I have absolutely no regrets in advocating we ignore it.  [[User:Protonk|P