Years ago the New Jersey police were criticized for disproportionately stopping African American drivers on the New Jersey Turnpike. The speed limit on the southern part of that road is 65mph but due to lax enforcement typical traffic flow is closer to 80mph. That discrepancy between law and custom created a situation in which the individual African American driver, though disproportionately targeted, had no defense: all drivers were guilty and African Americans as a subset of all drivers were also guilty. I see parallels when comparing the behaviors outlined in WP:TENDENTIOUS with that of editors in the Donald Trump article. I don't recall whether the problems in New Jersey were corrected but they did prompt in a Justice Department study.

I recently (though somewhat lazily) began aggregating sanction enforcement data for analysis. Whether my effort's justified or any useful patterns will emerge is to be seen but if it interests you I'd welcome the collaboration. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry about your appeal being declined. Please don't be disheartened. I've faced a similar 6 month topic ban myself. My advise to you is to familiarize yourself with WP:RULES in the interim period.
• These may also be of some interest: WP:GOAD, The unblockables. Soham321 (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Soham321, and thanks to all those who helped defend me, confirmed systemic bias on Wikipedia, and helped gain consensus that a 6-month ban was completely uncalled for, despite any minor policy violations I may have committed: @JFG, @TheTimesAreAChanging, SashiRolls, @Masem, TParis, James J. Lambden and anyone else I may have missed. Of course, not one to admit wrongdoing when I'm not guilty, even after being punished, I don't consider the appeal decline (a foregone conclusion at AE) to be the end. I am drafting a petition for an immediate nullification of my ban due to a wanton wielding of administrator privileges toward bans/blocks of those who are viewed as being supporters of a certain Presidential candidate, who I am not able to mention because of the aforementioned TBAN. It may also be necessary to propose a stripping of admin privileges, although I think this would be a tougher sell at ANI. I plan to base the petition primarily on this edit, in which I outline various alarming edits and actions from the administrator in question. If any (or preferably all) of you would like to contribute to the final version and/or contribute a statement of your own, it would be highly appreciated and could be the beginning of actually creating change on this project and bringing neutrality back to Wikipedia. If not, of course that's fine too, as I don't mind going it alone. The diff that I am using now is only from the first page of that sysop's talk page, and I didn't even try to dig through her archives. It's possible there are far more heinous revelations yet to be discovered lurking around in there somewhere, so if anyone knows of any, I would gladly accept any diffs to strengthen our case. Thank you again for all who provided me with assistance throughout that whole ordeal.Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications, if you are unhappy with the result of your ban appeal your only remaining option is to go directly to the Arbitration Committee per WP:ARCA. You are not entitled to appeal at ANI. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for the ping. Indeed your only recourse now would be to file an ArbCom case, but you won't get anywhere (and won't get any support from editors sympathetic to your situation) if you keep it aggressive. You were sanctioned for a bias problem, which can be disputed and argued to be a good-faith crusade against systemic bias, and for a courtesy problem, which is unfortunately still visible in your aspersions against Bishonen and others. It may be difficult to keep calm but it is absolutely necessary in everyday editing, in talk page discussions, in incident reports and even more so on appeal and at the "Supreme Court" of Wikipedia. Think long and hard before acting… All the best! — JFG ^talk 05:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to wish you a very merry Christmas and a very happy New Year. Soham321 (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!! Thanks again for all your help. Hidden Tempo (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I notice a conspicuous absence of the articles Tin-pot tyrant and/or Tin-pot dictator (a redirect.) Much of the relevant content would precede 1932, which is outside the scope of your topic ban if you're so inclined. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @James J. Lambden. Thanks for the heads up, although I find it hard to find the motivation to edit those pages, as my history is more than a little rough. Also it seems that only one area on Wikipedia (which I can't talk about without receiving an e-caning) is the primary target of the coordinated efforts to remove neutrality and insert the worldviews of the editors. I just can't use Wikipedia for that topic anymore, as it's become just so unreliable and egregiously dishonest. I really like the table you compiled on your page, though. It paints a very clear, albeit disturbing picture of the trend that these people deny exists. Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Structurally Wikipedia reminds me of Wall St in the sense that few at the top benefit disproportionately in a system contingent upon mass participation. To put the analogy concretely: if the average investor withdrew their funds financial speculation would become less lucrative. Wikipedia relies on immense, often tedious effort of IP and apolitical editors so that a small few may use it to advance an agenda. How one best corrects such a system is a difficult question but I suspect change must come from the many, not the few. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. jps (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've temporarily blocked this account for using a sockpuppet to evade your topic ban. Points for honesty in admitting it. Appeal options are detailed at this page if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the FYI Euryalus, and for the leniency. Also thank you to the eagle-eyed User #9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS for ratting me out to the ANI board, although @NorthBySouthBaranof actually caught my careless error within minutes and already ran to the Sockpuppet board to tell everybody about his discovery. You two successfully got rid of a dissenting view with my banishment, thereby bolstering your BLP-violating phrasing. I deserve to be punished. Of course, you both arguably should've been warned and possibly t-banned long ago for tendentious activist editing and User #9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS's egregiously uncivil behavior and failure to assume good faith, but that's another story. As long as you have a San Francisco-approved worldview and cite the "correct" sources, you are all but immune to any form of punishment on Wikipedia. Just another day in Silicon Valley, I suppose. I look forward to seeing you on the AE board in May. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. The enforced absence might be a useful time to do some sports drafts here in your userspace. Being from the South Pacific, I kind of admire the way you all care about your politics enough to engage so vigorously in these disputes. But the socking, and the POV-pushing, are kind of obvious from a review of your edit histories - please don't do these again when the block (and ultimately the topic ban) expire. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Doug Weller talk 08:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Hidden Tempo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Hidden Tempo". The reason given for Hidden Tempo's block is: "Wikipedia Checkuser.svg CheckUser evidence has determined that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely to prevent abuse. " Hi, I think there's been some kind of mistake? I'm already currently in the process of serving out a 1-month block by @Euryalus as punishment for discussing politics with another account. Many people share this IP address, so I'd prefer if we can just limit all these blocks to accounts rather than the entire IP address. No abuse prevention countermeasures required, here. Thanks.

• Blocking administrator: Doug Weller (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: There hasn't been anyone other than you using this particular IP address in almost three months. If anyone else is prevented from editing, we'll address the autoblock then. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, DoRD. I apologize, I'm still a bit confused. On 2/17, Euryalus informed me that I was blocked for 1 month for ban evasion[1], and woke up this morning to an indefinite block after not making any edits during that time period. Could I please have a clarification as to the reason for this new block and why it's been changed from 1 month to indefinite despite having committed no further infractions? Thank you in advance. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, your account, not the IP address, has been blocked indefinitely for ban evasion before your block. This is in addition to your one month block for The Patriot Way account. That created an autoblock on the IP address which is just temporary. And yes, I obviously know that the IP address is used by multiple users. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, I've removed the autoblock so that other users can use the IP address. Doug Weller talk 16:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, thanks @Doug Weller. Euryalus left a message on my (Hidden Tempo) page saying that he blocked me for one month on "this account," for leniency. I was under the impression that The Patriot Way was the account that got hit with the indefinite block, since it was used for the ban evasion. Is this not the case? I've contributed hundreds of productive edits with Hidden Tempo on non-political articles to help build the encyclopedia, and would like to continue doing so. Thanks again.

EDIT: Okay, definitely not "hundreds" on this account! I think I wasn't logged in for most of my edits on sports and film-related topics. But I'm done with Wikipedia political articles during my ban.Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not familiar with the specifics of checkuser or this particular case but if the blocked IP listed (127.0.0.1) is in fact linked to this user's edits that would indicate a problem with checkuser or the wiki software. It is not technically possible for this user to have edited from a localhost address without direct access to Wikipedia's servers. Maybe I have misunderstood the situation, but I suggest asking someone with technical experience to reevaluate. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • Evidently "127.0.0.1 is the loopback Internet protocol (IP) address also referred to as the localhost. The address is used to establish an IP connection to the same machine or computer being used by the end-user." It's obviously not the address linked to his edits.
  • Hidden Tempo, this was undisclosed ban evasion prior to the block. I'm sure if you think about it you'll recall it. Not of course by TPW. Doug Weller talk 20:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that blocks are not to be used punitively, but rather to prevent abuse. If there was an incident of abuse prior to the 2/17 1-month block, and none since (with the agreement not to commit further acts of ban evasion), wouldn't it be fair to say that a block is no longer necessary to prevent abuse? Especially as I've already agreed to comply with the terms of my ban for the remainder of its term? Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Essentially it's saying Hidden Tempo's web request came to wikipedia from wikipedia. Unless he/she is a wikipedia employee or gained access to their servers illicitly that is impossible.

If this is due to my lack of understanding I apologize, but I can tell you for certain it is not possible that the address listed in the block message (127.0.0.1) is the address this user edited from.

Perhaps the glitch is in the reporting and a different address should have been listed. Would you mind if I posted this on a noticeboard for review and if not, is there a checkuser-specific noticeboard? James J. Lambden (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@James J. Lambden: the appropriate place is probably the Village Pump (technical). It's nothing to do with CU. I've never seen that sort of address before using CU. Doug Weller talk 20:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you. Done. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You admitted socking through The Patriot Way account. You didn't disclose that you had evaded the ban before creating The Patriot Way. There's no reason to think that you won't evade the ban again. Maybe if you'd disclosed the other ban evasion, but you didn't. Doug Weller talk 21:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller Ah, I see. I thought that the 1-month block was for the infraction of ban evasion in general, and blocks weren't given for each individual instance of ban evasion. It still seems punitive in nature, but not much I can do about that. Since I made no attempt to sock/evade my ban since the 1-month block was imposed, I'd say that's a great reason to think that I wouldn't evade the ban again. But assuming you don't agree, where does that leave the remaining ~3 months of my post-1932 politics ban, if this account has been effectively permanently disabled? Am I free to edit political pages with The Patriot Way in 3 months? Just want to make sure I'm clear on this. Thanks. Pinging DoRD on this issue also, as he also helped deny the unblock request. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again @Doug Weller and @DoRD, just thought I would follow up on my clarification request when either of you get a minute, please. As Hidden Tempo is now effectively a defunct account and was banned from post-1932 politics articles (and subsequently indefinitely blocked), am I now permitted to use another account to re-enter political page discussion and article improvement? As an aside, I note that the Darrelle Revis article is now very out of date, as he was released by the Jets over a week ago. I'd like to update that article and those of a few other players as well. Thanks in advance. Pinging Euryalus in the case that he may be able to help resolve this issue. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No; you, the person, are indefinitely blocked. You will be engaging in block evasion if you ever edit any article, on any subject, using any account or IP address, unless you are unblocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the clarification, @Floquenbeam. It makes sense now. I went ahead and responded to Doug Weller below, in case you have any interest. Thank you again. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, another Admin beat me to it. I thought one of the ones you pinged might and was waiting to see if they did. Is this clear now? It doesn't matter how you edit. We have banned/blocked editors who use multiple accounts and IP addresses, and we just block them on sight, we don't need a new case. Behind every account or IP address editing Wikipedia is a real person. Let's pretend you are named HT. You, HT, at the moment are banned and blocked and any sock or IP you use can be blocked on sight. If you are unblocked you will still be topic banned, no matter what account or IP address you use. I find it very strange that you haven't understand the simple fact that you are you however you edit, and you were topic banned.

As I find this so strange, and as you don't seem to have recalled your other ban evasion, I need you to respond in your own words making it clear that you understand what we are saying. Maybe then I'll reconsider my actions. Doug Weller talk 17:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply, @Doug Weller. Yes, I absolutely understand that I as a person (Tyler, by the way) am indefinitely blocked and topic banned from modern politics (for a further 3 or 4 months, I believe), no matter the device, IP, or account that I use. That's exactly what I was trying to clarify, in an effort to ensure full compliance with the rules of Wikipedia. I really am here to try to build and improve the encyclopedia, although I realize that there are several editors that are dubious of that assertion. As a neophyte editor, I was warned not to make edits (including on the talk pages) that could be perceived as reflecting negatively on living persons without citing diffs. From that point forward, I began using diffs to accompany my edits. I was eventually topic banned for what Bishonen considered soapboxing/disrupting talk pages, and now have a much better understanding as to what constitutes a violation of WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TEND. However, I think my track of record of not engaging in edit wars, violating reversion policies, or reinstating contentious material speaks to my genuine respect for the integrity of Wikipedia’s voice and its reputation. Should I be unblocked and (eventually) unbanned, I guarantee that I no longer pose a threat of any type of evasion and/or abuse. Please let me know if you have any other questions or need any more information. Thanks again. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I've listened to you and here's what I've decided. I've reduced your block so that it expires 00:00, 17 March 2017, which is actually almost a day earlier than the original one, so a bonus! But - I'm still not happy with the situation, so I'm making sure that the 6 month ban is actually a 6 month editing ban, ie that it doesn't include the block. The topic ban given to you on December 2nd now expires July 2nd. One thing we hope editors actually gain from a topic ban is experience editing without problems in other areas of the encyclopedia, and of course you can't do that during your month's block. So use this time wisely. Start thinking about where you might want to edit. Take notes in a sandbox or your user page. There must be other topics you are interested in. I also hadn't noticed your earlier block. In light of that, I'm also issuing an alert on our sanctions covering BLP issues. Note that this doesn't imply that you haven't learned since your block. Note that these sanctions apply to behavior on non-article pages as well as article space. Doug Weller talk 13:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, @Doug Weller. I fully accept the consequences of my actions, and appreciate the reduction of the block term. In regards to the BLP sanctions alert, do you mind if I ask for clarification regarding citing sources when discussing living persons on their talk pages? I went through a pretty lengthy (and fruitless) appeal process over at AE and still am unsure about what constitutes a rule violation. The two examples I would be providing do concern the topic of which I am banned from discussing, so perhaps I could request temporary amnesty just for the sake of asking the question. Feel free to direct me to a different admin or resource if more appropriate. Hidden Tempo (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 that 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 Doug Weller talk 13:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People sometimes get confused about this. Take the BLP issue. An article might not be about a person, but if there is a section discussing a living or recently deceased person, sanctions and bans apply to that section. The same thing applies to the American politics ban. Doug Weller talk 13:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Tempo, you are topic banned from post-1932 American politics everywhere on Wikipedia until July 2nd. Your userpage is part of Wikipedia. Please keep all notes, to-do's, etc that relate to post-1932 American politics on your personal computer, not here. Bishonen | talk 17:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Just for the record, two of those notes had nothing to do with politics and I was keeping those notes at the direction of DougWeller. No special instructions were given to not use any words that involve the topic from which I was banned in those notes. Not expecting a reply - like I said, this edit is only for the record. Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will however get a reply. After I reminded you that you are topic banned on all of Wikipedia, you made this attempt to nevertheless make your ban-evading content, which I had been good-faith-assuming enough to merely blank, visible to other users. I've deleted your userpage (as opposed to merely blanking and leaving the history). One more evasion attempt and you'll be blocked. Or other admins may well think it's time now, I don't know. Bishonen | talk 12:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Well, I do know. The answer is no, it's not time to block me. Since when is making a note to myself to click "view history" a ban evasion? If you click "view history" on my talk page, you will see a wealth of edits related to <banned topic>, yet you didn't feel the need to delete my talk page. I'm not discussing or making edits related to <banned topic>. I was unaware that making notes (at Doug_Weller's suggestion) related to <banned topic> is a t-ban violation, so I can live with blanking my user page (although again, some of those edits had nothing to do with <banned topic>). Upon a careful review of WP:Banning, it seems the accusation of attempting to evade the t-ban doesn't have anything resembling merit.

To admins alerted to my page from Bishonen's posting on the private mod board who decided to come here and take a look: I strongly implore you to take a look at some of her edits and punitive action history, and watch for the emergence of a general pattern - are her punishments measured and fitting of the infraction? Or are they more in line with this threat/warning we see here - deleting user pages and threatening to block editors as retribution for leaving a note that says "view history" on their own user page? I of course understand the natural inclination to take the words of a t-banned editor's thoughts on the rules and how admins wield their powers with a grain of salt. Just want to have anyone who's weighing in on blocking me to have the full picture, here. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "taking notes" on banned material is a violation of that ban. I'm not sure how many times you've been warned for personal harassment, but if you make one more remark that harasses Bishonen (or anyone else), or invite others to hound her (that's also harassment), I will block you. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Drmies. Apologies, I don't believe we've ever formally met (although I see your name come up on Bishonen's talk page from time to time). I think there's been a series of misunderstandings here, which is probably at least in part my fault, as I'm not exactly the most articulate guy in the world! I took Bishonen at her word that taking notes on my user page (per Doug_Weller's suggestion) is a t-ban violation. What I was referring to in my last edit was her threat of blocking me for writing the phrase "view history" on my user page to remind my future self of issues that I would like to address; I believe I was only warned for the original note-taking itself.

Regarding the "harassment" and "hounding" of Bishonen, I really don't see any content (implied or otherwise) in my edits that could ever be characterized as such. And I would never invite others to harass Bishonen or anyone else. That would be disgraceful. In her previous edit, I think the implication was pretty clear: other admins would soon be arriving to evaluate the "view history" phrase to decide if I should be blocked from Wikipedia in retaliation for that phrase. My message to those admins was to simply evaluate Bishonen's record before deciding my fate, and decide for themselves if her punishments are in accordance with WP:Banning guidelines. If this should have been done through a more formal avenue such as an ANI posting, then I am embarrassed to say that I have apparently breached WP etiquette. Lastly, I have been accused and/or warned of harassment zero times (before your arrival). You are the very first Wikipedia contributor to level this charge my way. I have however been told that I'm nothing more than a "tendentious editor," my edits are simply "POV-pushing," and subjected to a variety of vicious insults that contain words that I am not permitted to utter under my topic-ban. Sorry for the lengthy reply, but hopefully this brings some clarity to my edits. Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm biting my tongue here. Inviting others to scrutinize an administrator's previous history, and already positing that said admin has a "punitive action history", that's harassment (and a lack of good faith) with an invitation to have said admin harassed some more. I hope this is enough of a warning. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed enough of a warning, and thank you for your reply. I again stress that my intention was not to harass/hound Bishonen, or have anyone else harass/hound Bishonen. As a gesture of good faith and moving forward, I've stricken my original comment and leave this here as a message to any would be harassers: Please do NOT harass and/or hound the administrator Bishonen in any way. I do not endorse, encourage, or tolerate harassment of any kind on Wikipedia. My apologies for any inconvenience or harm my original request may have caused. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. But you did misinterpret completely what I suggested. I'll repeat it here. "One thing we hope editors actually gain from a topic ban is experience editing without problems in other areas of the encyclopedia, and of course you can't do that during your month's block. So use this time wisely. Start thinking about where you might want to edit. Take notes in a sandbox or your user page. There must be other topics you are interested in." I still think I was clearly talking about taking notes on other topics that are not covered by your ban. Doug Weller talk 10:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]