User talk:Ranze: Difference between revisions

This user is a member of
WikiProject Tokusatsu

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

Articles: apex fallacy (talk and AfD) & CGM (talk and AfD) & VAP

I think CCBT and CEBT show promise.

Useful template for article construction: Template:Find sources (do not actually save, just preview for links)

Useful tool for showing diffs: Special:Diff/1

Useful for checking sources Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#List and WP:RS and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Useful citation guideline for AMAs/Reddit https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/02/

Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal for later

Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources aka WP:PW/RS is something I would like to remember to consult

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.

High standards for BLP content on People v. Turner

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please read WP:BLP carefully, including the following:

• "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses."
• "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:
  1. it is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;"
• "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems – even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

--Carwil (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Per your request on my talk page for diffs of concern:

• [1] [2] — Debate over an unverified sexual detail not referenced in secondary sources and explicitly denied by a BLP-protected crime victim (Emily Doe).
• [3] [4] Proposed OR/BLPPRIMARY violation regarding blood alcohol content.

I have separate concerns about your repeated speculation about the victim's consciousness in the absence of any RS making that claim, although I wouldn't claim this a BLP violation.

While Wikipedia policy is important, what is of greater concern to me is the process of re-investigating a rape case that has now been settled, seemingly with no external impetus (i.e., no RS are impelling you to do this). I would encourage you to reflect on these comments from Emily Doe's victim impact statement:

I thought there’s no way this is going to trial; there were witnesses, there was dirt in my body, he ran but was caught. He’s going to settle, formally apologize, and we will both move on. Instead, I was told he hired a powerful attorney, expert witnesses, private investigators who were going to try and find details about my personal life to use against me, find loopholes in my story to invalidate me and my sister, in order to show that this sexual assault was in fact a misunderstanding. That he was going to go to any length to convince the world he had simply been confused.

I was not only told that I was assaulted, I was told that because I couldn’t remember, I technically could not prove it was unwanted. And that distorted me, damaged me, almost broke me. It is the saddest type of confusion to be told I was assaulted and nearly raped, blatantly out in the open, but we don’t know if it counts as assault yet. I had to fight for an entire year to make it clear that there was something wrong with this situation.

I hope this brief text clarifies the part of WP:BLP subtitled "Avoid victimization," which I quoted to you above. It is not Wikipedia editors' role to mount a second defense, to re-inquire into the victim's personal life, to seek out loopholes in her story, to demonstrate to the world that this assault was a misunderstanding. The trial is over. We report on it, and other things found relevant by reliable sources. And then we move on.

Finally, I didn't post the warning because I'm ready to report a BLP violation, but to make sure that you had been duly warned should your investigatory impulse lead to further violations of policy.--Carwil (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

A friendly reminder to keep BLP policies in mind should you return to editing People v. Turner.--Carwil (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 Jonathunder (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban

Per this edit, you were topic banned from "any gender-related dispute or controversy" which was to be "broadly construed." This was for "an indefinite period" and I do not see where this was lifted. Unless it was, it would be best if you consider People v. Turner and its talk page as off limits. Jonathunder (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how this is a gender-related dispute, it's a dispute about sexual assault. Am I only allowed to edit criminal cases where both the plaintiff and alleged victim are of the same sex or something? I do not see how this is in any way related to Gamergate.

@Gamaliel: since you instated this would it be possible for you to offer some input here? Just how broad is this? The controversy surrounding this case seems class-based (people thinking wealthy jocks get light sentences) rather than gender. Ranze (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Addison Holley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cold Blood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Request

I've submitted a request for enforcement related to you here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:AE

You're supposed to keep your comments at WP:AE in your own section (not reply in other people's sections) and limit your total comments to 500 words. Please go in and fix what you did. --Laser brain (talk) 04:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Laser brain: than you for informing me of this, I have here consolidated my comments to one section and I think ~239 words. I don't have a lot of experience with this and didn't notice the warning, I hope to remember it if I want to comment thoroughly on any others in the future. Ranze (talk) 04:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Lower limb muscles listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lower limb muscles. Since you had some involvement with the Lower limb muscles redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked

As you have continued to edit People v. Turner in violation of your topic ban, you are blocked indefinitely. This is not necessarily a permanent block, but before being unblocked, you need to realize that the topic ban cannot be ignored. Jonathunder (talk) 05:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jonathunder: regarding your comment at special:diff/729244804 I think it would be appropriate for you to move it out of the 'result concerning section' and into a 'statement by (username)' one above, as you are an involved administrator, not an uninvolved one. You've been involved in this page since June 14th.

Yes, I do not realize my editing of this article to be a problem, and I don't think it's right for you to decide that is the case and prematurely block me indefinitely before the request for arbitration finished. Aren't those generally closed and enforced by uninvolved admins anyway?

This simply is not a gender-related dispute. The case is not about either Brock or Emily's gender, it is about assault, the same as it would be if male had put his finger inside a male, or if a woman had put her finger inside a female.

A gender-related dispute is something like bathroom bill which is focused on gender. A person in the case having a gender isn't enough to make it a gender-related dispute. Hulk Hogan has a male gender but Bollea v. Gawker is not a gender-related dispute. Nor does the involvement of sexuality. The aforementioned case is a lawsuit about a sex tape depicting a male and a female, but that still doesn't make it a gender-related dispute.

Basically you're synthesizing the characterization of PvT as gender-related when it being a gender dispute isn't even mentioned in the article.

I think for me to be punished for editing an article about a gender dispute the article should actually specify that. In fact, just to be utterly clear and reach a consensus (instead of your private judgement) about what is and is not a gender-related dispute, you should create Category:Gender-related disputes under Category:Gender and Category:Conflicts by type.

If you can actually defend the characterization of this or other articles as being GRDs you would reliably source that characterization and add this category to it. This would serve as a clear warning sign to anyone afflicted with this vague terminology as to what is meant by it.

It is one thing for you to have the power to enforce sanctions, but you should not get the ability to interpret whatever article you like as fulfilling the criteria, that should be a community decision. Ranze (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Unblock request

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:

The above admin JonaThunder claims I violated a restriction against editing gender-related disputes by editing People v. Turner. I contend that this is not a gender-related dispute because the dispute was not about anyone's gender, the case about whether or not assault occurred. Since the justification for blocking me is a mischaracterization of my behavior I believe it should be lifted and would like input from uninvolved admins about whether JT's interpretation of this article is supported by reliable sources. Presently the PvT article makes no mention of it being a gender-related dispute so I think JT is engaging in synthesis rather than on anything supported by reliable scholarly works. Ranze (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Quoting your original topic ban wording: any gender-related dispute or controversy, [...] broadly construed. "Broadly construed" covers the article in question perfectly, and you've been warned that it does - why did you continue editing it? In any case, your request is now being discussed at WP:AE which, unlike freeform talk page requests, is the proper venue to appeal your block due to its arbitration enforcement origin. Max Semenik (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

@MaxSem: I continued editing it because I felt the warning was abusive bullying by an administrator already involved in the page trying to game the system to prevent my involvement, misinterpreting the words of the sanction to make it seem like I didn't belong there. As an administrator involved in the article in question I did not think JT was in a position of neutrality needed to interpret or enforce a sanction.

How am I supposed to discuss things at WP:AE when I am unable to edit outside my talk page? Is it possible yet on Wikipedia to simply generate a list which creates edit inability for them and doesn't interfere with editing elsewhere?

I think you are wrong that the sanction "covers the article in question perfectly". This is WP:SYNTHESIS by you guys. The article is not classified as a gender-related dispute. Where's the category? Where's any mention of gender? A dispute about sexual assault is not a dispute about gender.

If you think you are right about this, you should introduce a category Category:gender-related disputes or category:gender-related controversies and put it on the page.

I think the reason you won't do that is because you know it won't stand up to the requirement of reliable sourcing. Instead you want to reserve the privilege of making private calls, classifying articles however you wish.

You guys should be making calls like "A is banned and this article says it is A" not "A is banned and this article is secretly A even though it doesn't say it and I'm not going to bother opening up its possibility of being A to discussion by the community".

The warning of keeping away from gender-related disputes/controversies should only have teeth if it is 100% clear to EVERYONE (not just private admin opinions not open to challenging) what GRDs/GRCs are. If what you guys are doing is on the level there should be absolutely no problem at all with introducing this category as a clear warning system to anyone with such sanctions. Until you do, you're going to look like bullies using this as a broad brush to paint a 'no entry' sign on any article of your choosing.

In terms of "gender-related" dispute, editing something like Zoicite would conform to the restrictions because there is a gender dispute about the character, who is presented as male in the original Japanese-language anime and changed to female pronouns in the English-dubbed version.

Even in that case though: it's completely unrelated to Gamergate and exactly why the sanctions should be narrowed only to Zoe Quinn and the Gamergate article. Regarding guys like Milo I should only be restricted from editing what he says about Gamergate, NOT what he says about any topic under the sun. What if I wanted to discuss the notability of this article in Islam in the United Kingdom for example? Or what if I wanted to edit the many aspect of Chris Kluwe's life which are utterly unrelated to GG ?

MS did you even check the edit which spawned these sanctions? I only linked a tweet form the BLP's verified Twitter about a past career which she still blogs about and which reliable secondary sources have reported on. I didn't violate BLP at all. The sanctions were never justified to begin and they were put in place in violation of Wikipedia policy because GamerGate sanctions were retired the year prior to my edit. Ranze (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Laser brain

@Laser brain: need to reply here due to the block. special:diff/729244804 seems wrong, when sanctions are so vague they can theoretically cover any edit (ie LB has a gender therefore I must be involved in a gender-related dispute talking to you about math) they should be reviewed regardless or whether admins exercise their privilege of pigeon-holing the vaguest matter into a block.

special:diff/729320696 rape can be done by either gender and done to either gender, it is not a gendered issue. Rape culture is not established fact, it is feminist theory. Just because feminists say a case is about rape culture doesn't actually make the case a gender-related dispute. Reporters can certainly mention this reaction to criminal cases but that doesn't mean the reaction is justified.

You asked why I didn't ask for clarification. I did ask for clarification on July 6: special:diff/728652037.

As I received no reply on my talk page I assumed I was being ignored. I can see now that JT replied 6 minutes after on his own page... without pinging me, leaving me no way of knowing I had been replied to. All he did was tell me to read up on OR, he was being vague and unhelpful.

Additionally: I don't think any of my edits on the PvT article even touched the claims about rape culture, so if the 'gender-related dispute' portion of the article is the rape culture claims as you suggest, I did not get involved in that dispute at all. As @Kyohyi: point out at special:diff/729321982 I didn't touch the parts of the article which you allege are gender disputes. Ranze (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Sfarney

@Sfarney: I apologize if my focus on detail was wearisome, I can't fault the feeling you express at special:diff/729357674 as going over the details of the case was wearisome for me too. I guess I just figured where we could add detail it is a good thing. Once the fact of the case being hand penetration is established, which hand/fingers seems like a minor detail that would not inconvenience either party.

Now I'm trying to remember if I edited David Bowie... and David Bowie provided voice acting for a video game... and Gamergate is slightly related to video gaming!

Verb-based noun I would go with is 'assaulter', and yeah since we've had so-called 'murderers' exonerated I think in terms of BLP concern it would be good to wait until the person dies before calling them a murderer since at that point they could not be exonerated.

Regarding unconsciousness, yes we should remain neutral about that because we have stuff like this March 17 article saying "She remained unresponsive the entire time, save some snoring sounds"

I would have absolutely no objection to 'unresponsive' since that is actually what sources agree on. Snoring could happen from sleep though, which is distinctly different from unconsciousness.

I find it plausible that she did at least sleep at some point, the issue is whether sleep happened at specific points in time. Neutrality demands we only present statements in their original contexts, not engage in WP:SYNTHESIS like "the cop said she was unconscious, the cyclist said she was unconscious, therefore she was" when neither were able to do any thorough testing to verify this. The impression is given that she was unconscious from 12:55 to responding at 4:30 which is obviously misleading since the report mentions her vomiting without assistance in the ambulance. You can't vomit without assistance if you are asleep or unconscious so there was clearly a break in the supposedly uninterrupted unconsciousness that everyone is painting.

Drinking is a major point of the case, since there 2 were 2 'intoxicated' charges and the alleged unconscious is implied to have happened because of alcohol. Not absorbing the objection to this.

The end product of the article would be great if rather than reverting, other editors co-operated and only changed the details they disagree with. I'm all for rephrasing, my initial instinct on how to present a source is not going to be perfect. The problem with the reverts is they didn't just change that part, they removed sources altogether (what harm were they doing?) rather than making an attempt to better interpret those sources. Ranze (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Technically, alcoholic stupor is not sleep, though it resembles sleep in many respects. "Conscious" is determined by responsiveness to environmental stimulus. There is no other measure, and it is not restricted to medical diagnosis. The policeman's shout-and-shake test is designed to make the determination, and the evidence is fully admissible in court -- i.e., the result of the test is truth in the view of this society. My view of the case shifted considerably when I read Carwil's recent edit to include a nurse's testimony that the victim had suffered genital trauma, including "penetration trauma". This evidence does not embrace a consensual activity. Since the only disagreement between prosecution and defense is whether the woman was conscious and consented, these are critical details. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 20:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sfarney: the nurse's exam is something I became aware of early in reading up on this case. Although anything that creates trauma wouldn't be something I'd interested in, I can't assume those preferences extend to all, and since consensual rough sex can also result in physical trauma that leads to reasonable doubts and continued neutrality on the matter, seeing either consented or non-consented as possible. Shout-and-shake may have been entered into gradually giving more preparation to avoid response if that is intended, the eyes opening to the paramedic's pinch test earlier in the night is more proximal to the actual encounter (and one assumes paramedic have slightly more medical knowledge than what police have) so I'm inclined to give it more weight too. Both the nurse and paramedic exams are critical details to retain though, agreed. Ranze (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Although anything that creates trauma wouldn't be something I'd interested in, I can't assume those preferences extend to all, and since consensual rough sex can also result in physical trauma that leads to reasonable doubts and continued neutrality on the matter, ... "Rough sex" is an exceptional circumstance, and it does not comport with Turner's story of events. A contradiction between the physical evidence and the defense will (usually) go against the defendant. We needn't take it any further. Since you hold that NPOV requires "reasonable doubt" even after the jury has dismissed all reasonable doubt, why wouldn't this set of facts hold your "interest"? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 22:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sfarney: there appears to be a miscommunication, I meant that I wouldn't personally be interested in doing rough sex, not that I am not interested in evidence related to it being introduced into a criminal case. From what I've read about Turner's testimony, his wording doesn't seem to specify what he did as particularly gentle or rough, so there isn't necessarily a conflict. It is possible that either or both parties might not have at the time been aware of any internal abrasions which were occurring. Juries do not necessarily dismiss reasonable doubts, they can't dismiss doubts which are not presented to them. Which ones were or were not presented is not entirely clear due to the sealed testimony, we've only had small views at the arguments Brock's lawyer gave. Even presented ones which they dismiss are still okay for everyone else to have. Anyway, much as I like casual discussion about our opinions on the case I don't want to give the impression that I consider our opinions of impact to what should be on the article, which should really just strive for neutrality. Ranze (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Wordsmith seems involved

@The Wordsmith: in special:diff/729126726 on July 10 you posted in a section specifically described as "to be edited only by uninvolved administrators".

I notice in special:diff/728470691 on July 5 that @Discuss-Dubious: mentions this at Talk:Gamergate_controversy/Meta:

"Gamaliel and Wordsmith have attempted to interact with both WiA and Ghazi, for some reason, under accounts intended to be identified with their wiki accounts."

Are you indeed not only involved in prior conversation about Gamergate but also in teaming up with Gamaliel, the one who put these sanctions in place April 2015 even though the Gamergate sanctions were retired December 2014? Ranze (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. This was already discussed, please see the result. I'm not involved, and I certainly never teamed up with Gamaliel. Continuing to force this meme isn't going to make it any more true. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Ranze: as one who supported your unblocking and watched the Gamergate space closely in recent months I have the utmost confidence in The Wordsmith's impartiality. His investigations and judgements have been thorough and reasonable. I understand your hesitancy to assume unbiased enforcement here but it's unwarranted in this instance. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: thank you for clarifying the matter and directing me to that review. I didn't mean to force a meme, I was just alarmed in reading that page to see what the nominator was up to and recognizing a name from my case coincidentally mentioned alongside G's like that. Particularly when it was a voice asking for closure (even if temporary) I've been avoiding following GG discussions (frustrating when you unjustly aren't allowed to participate in any capacity over false accusations of violating BLP protections) so my sense of how involved everyone is isn't as refined as those who follow discussions like the one you linked. @James J. Lambden: appreciate you lending a voice to calm me down a bit and look at this in a more balanced way. Ranze (talk) 05:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I can understand your alarm at reading some things on the periphery. The basic issue is that when my own administrative actions were called into question on Reddit, I was notified and came over to explain my actions there. Hopefully you can also understand my own aggressive rebuffing of your claim; several editors have been repeating the same declaration that I am involved, apparently hoping that if they repeat it enough times people (like you) will believe it. After reading your statement I recognize that you were unaware of all of this, so you have my apology on that. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 08:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ranze. I never actually believed the claim that the Wordsmith was genuinely involved; you seem to have misread my post. It was more or less inspired by the discussion he linked. I was alarmed at the idea of a thing where people just depose admins and have to wait for new ones, instead of creating a system that prevents admins from what he was accused of doing (supposedly protecting an editor from sanction, which he was not doing). Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 18:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

In the context I intended it, the Reddit thing was not intended to imply he (@The Wordsmith:) and Gam worked together, or even in the same thread(s). I had planned to have a guide to explain what to do if one's actions came into question, but thought it would not work due to internal conflicts over how to describe how subs work (i.e. "some subs ban you for [description of something like "tone policing" or one of those things like that]" or "the mods will get upset if they think you are trying to [description]) and ideas or whatever. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 18:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Unblock

You are unblocked in order to be able to edit Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Jonathunder (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ranze. This edit is a reminder that your unblocking was so you could edit the above page, not so you could continue editing as you were before. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: got your message, isn't 'as you were before' the PvT article? Didn't edit that just some disambig stuff for names. In special:diff/729386512 the admin @Laser brain: told me "If you are unblocked, I expect you to refrain from editing the article in question until this is settled." so I figured that was the current say. JT didn't say "in order to be able to edit only Enforcement" after all. What harm is there in these? Ranze (talk) 07:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You already weren't supposed to be editing the PvT article, by the terms of your topic ban. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's still being debated, I still don't think the entire article falls under the topic ban. I am beginning to see some weight behind, since rape culture talks about gender, that I shouldn't edit any sentences which mention rape culture in People v. Turner, which I don't think I have. But that shouldn't restrict me from editing the other parts which don't mention it. To give an example, I don't think I would be banned from editing Template:Culture even though rape culture is linked from it, just so long as I didn't alter the rape culture part in any way. Ranze (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You're right, it really doesn't matter at this point. As you were. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Bondage hood

Hi Ranze,

I reverted your latest edit to Bondage hood. If you want to make this an article, I'd recommend looking at this revision and adding reliable sources to it so that it doesn't just get reverted to a redirect again because of original research issues. --Slashme (talk) 09:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

AE requests closed

I have closed two arbitration enforcement requests concerning you. The result is that during investigation of the requests, we found that the topic ban expired as of 4 April 2016. This also means that the enforcement request against you has been closed with no action as you were not topic banned at the time the edit in question was made. Please do keep in mind that it is still necessary to edit appropriately and carefully in sensitive areas. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)