User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2011/Oct

Just dropping by
Hello Brad, I just spotted your message from September. Thanks for dropping me a line; consider this a return of the favour. I hope all's well with you, and I'm glad at least one of us still finds the time to be active around here! Warm regards (pun possibly intended), — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 13:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Elective Governors Act
--Seablade (talk) 02:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

As former member of the arbitration comitee, I request your assistant to find a settlement:

The fact that the privileges and immunities clause was extended to Puerto Rico is significant in relation to the political status of Puerto Rico. --Seablade (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reminder here. I've now had a chance to look up the references we were discussing last month.
 * During the time in which the United States has controlled Puerto Rico, different provisions of the U.S. Constitution were extended to Puerto Rico, at different times. By today, almost all, if not all, of the Bill of Rights has been extended to Puerto Rico, as have the Fourteenth Amendment's privileges and immunities clause, due process clause, and equal protection clause.
 * I would say that the fact that the privileges and immunities clause has been extended to Puerto Rico is significant, but not necessarily more significant than the fact that other constitutional provisions also apply to Puerto Rico. It would be best for the article to discuss the entire subject, either in the specific article you were editing, or perhaps in a reference to a broader one.
 * Incidentally, there was a U.S. General Accounting Office report a few years ago that reviewed the entire Constitution clause-by-clause and addressed its application to Puerto Rico and to each of the other insular areas, both by statute and by court decision. You might want to take a look for that, or let me know if you can't find the reference. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

because, because

 * Thanks very much! Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarification
NYB, in relation to the clarification request, do you know if those on the BASC are aware of the request, and when we could expect some comment from them. Cheers Russavia Let's dialogue 20:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All the arbitrators are aware of the request, and I believe some more arbs either have commented or will shortly. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Mail

 * Received and responded. (General note: I check my wikimail regularly, so "you've got mail" templates to me are not necessary, unless it seems that I've overlooked something.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You're invited! Wikimedia DC Annual Membership Meeting
Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

Sir, may i have your attention for a moment?
Please go to commons and have a look at the image Hmong-Kinder.jpg, then make an assessment about the legality of the image. Thanks for listening! Requiring Attention (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * responding primarily to remove last edit from people's watch list which might attract attention to the image... that being said... *I* don't know the legalities of the image. *I* have no problem with it because it is tasteful/cultural and in no ways sexual, BUT I suspect that it might be considered child porn.  America has become obsessed with nudity of children that it probably crosses the line.  (But I honestly don't know the legal boundaries... again, I post my response primarily to remove the comment from people's watch lists.)--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 20:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * After making the edit, I looked into it some more. Apparently, this image just went through an AFD.  During the AFD, there was mention of a problematic user creating socks... I suspect that this user might be the same.  The AFD also brought up the particulates that had me somewhat concerned and I'm glad to see that there appears to be some reason related to child nudity in the WP policy/law.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 20:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And a little more Child_pornography would rank this image as a 2 on the scale of 1-10. Nudist behavior in an appropriate manner without context for sexuality.  While that is a UK standard, I don't see anything that would say that the US views this harsher.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 20:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no role or participation on Commons. I have no special expertise about any legal issues involving this image, either under U.S. law or Laotian law. I have no background on any of the users on Commons who were involved in this discussion.

If my personal opinion is being requested, it is that it would be preferable if such images were not present, because they infringe in a very serious way on the privacy of the children who are pictured. Some of the comments in the Commons AfD cited by Balloonman strike me as exceedingly insensitive to this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * On that I think we both can agree... and I think NYB and I both acknowledge that this is not our area of expertise... I don't think there is anything intrinsically "wrong" with the images, but the use/presence needs to be cognizant that rules/laws in different areas may view this differently. But the experts/people familiar with the rules/laws surrounding the subject are over on the Commons not here.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 20:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia violations
Hi This user has called me a terrorist: in the Arbcomm page. Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm reviewing this now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * NewYorkBrad, I propose adding User:Kurdo777 to the AE restriction for edit warring, along with making WP:ATTACK comments on Azerbaijani American and Anti-Turkism. I also would like to repeat my request to investigate repeated WP:HARASSMENT violations by User:Khodabandeh14 - falsely attributing me to a real-life identity on Wikipedia pages based on spam sites. Repeated ignoring of my request by AE will result in the next request being made to ANI and the Arbitration Committee. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If your request isn't addressed on AE within the next few days, you can proceed to ANI or the Arbitration Committee as appropriate. If there are real-life identity issues are involved, the appropriate venue may be an e-mail directly to the Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The user has already reported me in arbitration enforcement. I am going to get 6 months at least it seems, but as I said, I will quit due to the fact that I cannot stand a lobbyist atmosphere.. It simply poisons the atmosphere.  And the mailing list  (which is widely searchable due to the Russian wikipedia) discusses Wikipedia articles and how to edit/manipulate them.  So I wanted to bring these mailing lists to the attention of admins so that they simply adopt the Russian mechanism.  If it is not adopted, as I said, I will leave.  So there is no need for a ban (even for 6 months).  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The charges on Kurdo777 is frivolous and Atabey is trying to drag other users whom he disagrees with after violating WP:NOTBATTLE. AdilBagirov is a username in wikipedia, an ArbCom sanctioned user who according to WP:Sock] urles on scrutiny, could not just vanish and reappear under a new name. So saying Saygi1  is a sockpuppet of [[User:AdilBaguirov which he is (and reading carefully his statement confirms it), can not be compared with making liablous statements he has made.   I decided to change my username a long time ago so that my name is not there throughout this mess (after realizing the mess wikipedia is).  But if someone points out Doostzadeh is a username and XYZ is a sock, then that is at most a guess. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 05:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, NewYorkBrad. I already did email to the ArbCom yesterday, but haven't heard back yet. Also, please, note the ArbCom statement of one of the contributors targeted by Khodabandeh14. It seems as though Khodabadeh14's attempts to open ArbCom case, to get contributors sanctioned in AE, along with repeated violations of WP:HARASSMENT may have some political connotation. If these allegations are true, this may necessitate revisiting ArbCom to look into the editing activity of Khodabandeh14 aka Ali Doostzadeh/Nepaheshgar, User:Kurdo777, User:Xashaiar and couple of other Wikipedia users, such as User:Hajji Piruz involved in Persian/Turkic/Turkish/Iran/Turkey/Azerbaijan/Armenia related articles. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL.  On a serious note,  I also hope Arbcomm remembers the evidence I sent them prior with regards to the user above...They did receive it after all. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The allegation that I am a person appearing in emails of some Azerbaijani blogger, whose email inbox was cracked by hackers from Armenia and publicized online on some Armenia-based malicious site is ridiculous. Using such trumped up politically-motivated evidence to claim some "advantage" in Wikipedia edit conflicts, is even more disruptive, not to mention that repeating such claims on-wiki is a flagrant violation of WP:HARASSMENT. I already informed WP:Requests for oversight to remove the edits. Similar attacks by Khodabandeh14/Ali doostzadeh/Nepaheshgar against User:AdilBaguirov are nothing less. So even if AE admins continue to ignore Khodabandeh14's disruptive behavior and regardless of him walking away himself or getting restricted, every other step in the administrative trail will be pursued until User:Khodabandeh14 is held fully accountable for this violation of the fundamental Wikipedia policy. Specifically, per WP:HARASSMENT:
 * Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia.

I hope the administrators keep in mind that ignoring Khodabandeh14's repeated harassment of other contributors on-wiki, they assume at least partial responsibility for any consequence or harm that can be brought upon the harassed contributor or any other person off-wiki.Atabəy (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

To New York Brad, the wikipedia lists got 30 users banned/sanctioned. So they were not hacked. And those lists are not private domain, they were used in Russian wikipedia as proof of lobbying. Be that it may, I am getting a ban in Octobter 16 for 6 months. I am just asking new york brad to simply make the ban from October 14 (as soon as he sees this message) with the 6 months (and 2 days if he wishes as it doesn't matter). As I said, I am not going to be an atmosphere with racist ethnic lobbyist. Please keep my userpage/talkpage locked (the way it is) as I am not interested in responding to inquiries. Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC) In addition to my current userpage (both page and discussion), please also lock my previous username (both page and discussion page) as well [] as I do not want to be disturbed.. I can always unlock them if I decide to comeback after the 6 months. Thank You. Khodabandeh14 (talk) 06:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi (a very small request), even if I am not sanctioned..I would like to have my userpage/talkpage as well as previous [] username/talkpage permanently locked. I will comeback if I feel like it (and ask for unlock), but for now there is no reason as I am disappointed by the total lack of care for my suggestion to stop lobbyist groups in AA (broadly construed) in wikipedia.  Thank you--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:HARASSMENT is a Wikipedia policy which requires enforcement against a violator, upon repeated offenses, including but not limited to blocks, arbitration and community bans. His attempts to link real life identity to myself is nothing more than attempts to intimidate myself and to open way for threatening a person in real life. Who is going to assume responsibility for such flagrant disrespect of privacy policy? Thus, Khodabadeh14's attempts to fend off this severe violation by claiming to leave Wikipedia or asking for blanking his page, and other "humble" proposals, is absolutely unacceptable. His remaining outside of WP:AA2, while being actively involved on one of the conflicting sides for years, is unacceptable and a result of why we are here, with the community resources being wasted on frivolous reporting, canvassing, pushing of one-sided WP:POV. Atabəy (talk) 05:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope that the actions that have recently been taken on AE, as well as an action that I have just taken, will reduce the tensions in this area by removing some of the more sharp-edged combatants from it. Wikipedia needs knowledgeable, good-faith editors of all backgrounds to edit articles concerning Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, and all other areas; we do not need any more feuding, fighting, or importing of battles from elsewhere. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Me and BLP
I don't want to make a thing of this - so if you think it is more likely to disrupt the current moderately orderly process (even if you happen to agree with it), say so and don't take the idea up - but looking over the BLP finding, the text is has focused a substantial portion of his editing in the Climate change topic area on biographical articles about living persons who hold views opposed to his own with respect to the reality and significance of anthropogenic global warming, in a fashion suggesting that he does not always approach such articles with an appropriately neutral and disinterested point of view. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I do note that the finding is all about the BLPs of "skeptics" (though carefully phrased in such a way as to avoid using the word). Since most scientists in the GW arena aren't "skeptics" (in that sense, of course) it would be possible to avoid a great deal of wiki-lawyering opportunites by removing the BLP ban in the case of edits to BLP-related material for non-skeptics William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, part of the problem is that very labelling itself (skeptics vs. non-). I think it would be much wiser if you concentrated on the science rather than the scientists (or pundits, or whichever); whether it makes sense or not from a rational point of view, the entire area surrounding climate change is a political quagmire where science more often than not takes a backseat to economic and societal concerns &mdash; and playing it that way in an encyclopedia is a recipe for disaster. You've stumbled in that minefield in the past, and I for one would rather you didn't again.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Per my response to NYB below, I'm not going to pursue this. But the arbcomm finding implicitly uses the same language; it merely uses a long string of words to avoid doing so explicitly. I could, if you like, instead of saying "skeptics" say "living persons who hold views opposed to [mine] with respect to the reality and significance of anthropogenic global warming", though that would be rather long-winded for everyday use. I had intended my putting "skeptics" in quotes above to indicate this William M. Connolley (talk) 08:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (to William M. Connolley) I understand your point, but my sense is that it would be best to leave the motion as it is, at least at this stage. (I will add that I would have preferred to have a few carve-outs to the narrowed topic-ban, including one for reverting obvious vandalism, which used to be automatically included in this sort of remedy, but I was actually outvoted on the point the last time it came up in a decision, much to my surprise.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm content with that for the moment.

Blocks and punishment
Hello. I hope I'm not intruding any deliberations. Being a lawyer and ArbCom member, thus well versed in real and wiki justice, perhaps you could comment on whether blocks are punishment at WT:BLOCK. Thank you. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I had already been meaning to comment on that thread. Thanks for the reminder. I have now posted my views, though perhaps in a fashion that will satisfy no one. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22
You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here !--Pharos (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser request for all Keith Raniere and NXIVM editors
If you would, could you please checkuser everyone who edits the articles Keith Raniere and NXIVM, across the board? We've done this there once before, but since then we've reason to suspect that some sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry continues. Thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 04:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Newyorkbrad, I don't think this is necessary--it seems we just have a disagreement as to what should be on the page of Keith Raniere and NXIVM--but have at it, if you wish. I think it would be far better if you weighed in on what seems to be some dangerously mean POV-laden edits by User:Chrisrus who has admitted to being a "hater" of both NXIVM and Keith Raniere. I think that alone should qualify him for a banning on the pages, but that's just me. I'll defer to your expertise, good sir.GoCubs88 (talk) 07:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Chrisrus, at present I don't see a basis for checkusering anyone (much less "everyone"). If there is significant evidence of sockpuppetry that I have overlooked, please let me know.
 * GoCubs88, please provide a link or diff for the "hater" comment so I can look at the full context.
 * The best venue to ask that an administrator take a look over the history here is probably the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The specific evidence is a continuity of editing between a progression of editors who are active for a while and then disappear, only to be replaced with another who behaves in the same way. These include U2180, Scholar, and now GoCubs, as well as possibly others.  Like Clark Kent and Superman, you will notice that they never seem to be in the room at the same time, yet each username behaves in the same way.  Please notice such patterns when you are checking the history.  Chrisrus (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Newyorkbrad,

I have no idea who those people are. I didn't even know they were editors until I looked it up on the talk page. Run a CheckUser request, if you want, but it seems to me that it's a waste of time. Here's the example of User:Chrisrus saying he is a "hater" of NXIVM. As you can see from his edits, it doesn't look like he's capable of following the required neutrality provisions. It seems we have already tried the biographies of living persons noticeboard, only to have people relative uninterested.GoCubs88 (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you will be interested in the chronology and behavior of the following editors, perhaps more:


 * 1) User:U21980
 * 2) User:Scholar999
 * 3) User:Verdell2010
 * 4) User:GoCubs88
 * 5) User:Tomohawkmama
 * 6) User:Churchillaroo
 * 7) User:24.177.124.12


 * If you feel you must run a CheckUser, run a CheckUser. You'll find that I have nothing to do with any of those users and will have wasted User:Newyorkbrad's time as well as the time of those of us who want to have a fair, accurate portrayal of NXIVM. --GoCubs88 (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The bit about me being a "hater", as New York Brad will have seen, was clearly a word chosen by me to mean the opposite of "fan." What word means the opposite of "fan"?  I don't "hate" Espians, but I don't think they should come between an article and the information contained in the sources.  On a personal level, I see them as victims because that's the impression the sources have given me.  So if any Espian can read this, please understand that I'm not out to harm anyone and believe you'd be better off without him an it.  My personal feelings about him and it are not well described so much by "hate" as rather "concern" or actually "alarm".  I want the article to accurately reflect the sources, and belive that if it does so, it will allow anyone dealing with him or it access to the knowledge contained in the WP:RSes collected on Talk:Keith Raniere.  I believe that this is important.  The reader should learn what the sources say.  The article can say that some accusations were printed in, for example, forbes, that blah blah blah, and that these were denied in the article on the occations that that is true.
 * I'm just a guy who lives in the area and reads the local paper. I have no personal involvment with them and neither does anyone close to me.  But none of that really matters anyway because the thing that you need to understand is that there is no rule against fans or anti-fans editing articles.  Fans are the heroes of Wikipedia because they've written just about everything on it.  Anti-fans come in second, and those with no feelings whatsoever about a topic produce hardly any of our articles because they don't care about the topic one way or the other, and Wikipedia is just a hobby, not a job.  Come out of the closet as fans, defenders of him and it, there's no need for all this.  You seem to believe that by proving that I'm the opposite of a fan, or if an administrator finds out that you are fans, NYBrad will have grounds to topic-ban; that's never going to happen.  Instead, you have to establish a case of disruptive editing.  In your case, you're probably going to have to make the case that I should not be allowed to transfer information of one type or another from the sources to the article on some other grounds, probably WP:BLP, and that will be grounds to ban me.
 * Oh, and I also wanted to say that if we could find someone who doesn't care one way or another about him and it to transfer the info from the sources to the article, I will retire from editing them. Chrisrus (talk) 04:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The link to the "hater" comment does not seem to be working; please repost it. In any event, in the interests of WP:AGF, it may well be the case that Chrisrus was using this colloquialism to mean "the opposite of a fan of" or some such, rather than "filled with animus and malice." Nonetheless, I have to agree that this wording can easily be misunderstood and therefore, particularly in the context of an editing dispute such as this, should not be used.

I still do not perceive sufficient grounds for a checkuser, but I will take a further look into the editing history of these two articles in the next couple of days when I have a bit more time. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The link you requested be reposted is this: Talk:Keith_Raniere. I look forward to the results of your inquiry. Chrisrus (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Question re: email to ArbCom list
Hi Brad. Since you're one of the softer touches more responsive members on the Committee, I thought I'd ask you this. On 10/15, I sent an email to the ArbCom mailing list about what I think is an extremely serious issue relating to the ongoing abortion case. I haven't received a response from the Committee. Of course, my email didn't necessarily invite a response, and I know you guys are busy, but given the seriousness of the concern I would just feel better knowing that the email had been received and read by at least one member of the Committee. Sorry to bother you, and thanks. MastCell Talk 03:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I did see the e-mail, and I am sorry if you didn't receive at least an acknowledgement. I will follow up internally. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Brad - much appreciated. MastCell Talk 16:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you please...
informally arbitrate this dispute. I trust you have access to the law dictionary in question. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Does the duration of a topic ban increase by a block?
If a person a blocked while having a topic ban, does this increase the length of the topic ban by the amount of time blocked? Or is the original end time still correct?  Miradre  (Talk E-mail) 04:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I followed the discussion from WT:RfArb to here. I think the block runs concurrently with the topic ban (ie. No), although if the block resulted directly from the editor violating the topic ban, there may be other clauses in the arbitration decision that allows the topic ban duration to be reset (but not prolonged by the length of the block). Anyway I'll leave Brad to say the rest. Deryck C. 23:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In this particular case, WP:ARBR&I, ArbCom was fairly explicit: Should any user subject to a topic ban in this case violate that ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of each block. Mathsci (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Mass removal of information and edit warring
Please, take a look at this edit, here, here by the same user. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

"Your user page is more disruptive than mine"-type statements
I'm curious, has there been any arbitration case about user boxes? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it was before my time, and hopefully dealt with circumstances that won't be repeated. See Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war. With request to userpages more generally, see also Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein. Response, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow
 I never thought I'd see you lose your temper. I had to check the edit history to make sure it wasn't some other arbitrator (there are a number more known for straightforward language). --GRuban (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You think that amounts to loss of temper? Ha. I have some very fine diffs where Brad actually loses his temper, would you like to see them, GRuban? (Brad, as long as you keep up the usual to that Cayman Islands National Bank account, no one will see them, don't worry. And don't forget the 20% raise for inflation that kicks in on 1 Jan.) Bishonen | talk 18:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC).
 * I see frankness, not loss of temper in that diff. (Unless GRuban considers the typo itself as evidence for the latter.) Uʔ (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For Brad, yes, I thought that was a loss of temper. Where some people are known for calling a spade a spade, Newyorkbrad is known for calling a spade a pointed manually operated soil excavation implement... --GRuban (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Bah. That's all exaggerated. If you must perpetuate those myths, do it here, where it belongs. Bishonen | talk 00:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC).

A kitten for you!
Somewhere, the grass is green and the sun is shining.

GRuban (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

→ And ducks are swimming on the lake. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC) 

Interesting template
Thought you might be interested to see the recently created NYB. Jenks24 (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I was away for the weekend, so I missed the whole discussion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I-bans
In my opinion, directly reverting someone's changes twice, as Marek did at Controversies and criticisms of RT, is pretty clearly a violation of an interaction ban, where merely editing the same article might not be. It will be interesting to see what the clarification discussion comes up with... -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You're invited! Wikipedia Loves Libraries DC
Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC), on behalf of User:Aude