User talk:Brad Dyer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Brad Dyer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Kevin Curtis (coach). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Falcon8765 (TALK) 22:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Paul Broun. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Cwobeel (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


Information icon Hello, I'm Prof. Mc. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Beer rating without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!

Hi! Can you explain why you are removing working wikilinks from the Beer rating page. The links are to existing pages and fall under the WP:BTW guidelines. Is there some reason to remove links relevant to the topic of the article? Prof. Mc (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. I see it now. My apologies. I didn't see your edit summary on the revert. Prof. Mc (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, South China Sea, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Modi[edit]

No problem! If you could add its name in Greek and a couple good sources that would be a good thing. Best wishes, Eustachiusz (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Misuse of Template:Em[edit]

Please do not change Wikilinks into emphasized text. This misuse is specifically recommended against by the documentation for Template:Em. In general, do not overuse emphasis in Wikipedia articles, because it impedes readability. Look at how sparingly any emphasis is used in typical Good Articles as indexed in WP:GA, and edit accordingly. Cheers! Reify-tech (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I have not changed any wikilinks into emphasized text. I fixed a problem that was called out in a tag at the top of the article - usage of bold text for emphasis. Specifically, the tag you have now restored says "The specific problem is: MOS:BOLD: bold face font should not be used within the article for emphasis. Please help improve this article if you can." - MOS:BOLD says to replace such instances with the em template, which is what I have done, and you have undone. Could you explain why you did this? Brad Dyer (talk)
Now I think I see what you were trying to do, in good faith. The problem with the article Overhead line really is that there is an overuse of emphasis all over the place. Simply mechanically replacing bold over-emphasis with italic over-emphasis was no improvement at all. Most of the stuff in bold should be changed to ordinary text; only things that need special emphasis or which are specifically mentioned in MOS:ITALICS should be italicized. The first appearance of a new word or technical term does not need to be over-emphasized; usually, introducing it in "quotes" without special formatting is quite sufficient. The article has several other stylistic problems, such as the inappropriate use of "&", and needs to be cleaned up by an experienced editor.
If you read MOS:ITALICS, you should have a much better idea of the correct style, and are welcome to give it a try. If you find this all too overwhelming, leave the article alone, and some other more-experienced editor will fix it eventually. Please don't take this personally, since you seem to be genuinely interested in contributing constructively to Wikipedia. It take a while to learn the "house style"; reading through a few Good Articles will give you a flavor of how things are written here, and repeated reference to the MOS, plus occasional questions at the WP:HELPDESK will help get you up to speed. Best wishes in your future editing! 23:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok, i think I got it. So you think the best approach is to simply de-bold the existing bolded words in the main article? Brad Dyer (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, mostly, for this particular article. According to MOS:BOLD, bold is used primarily for words that are synonyms (alternatives or equivalents) of the topic of the article. Italics are used for emphasis, but should be used very sparingly, and not on a widespread basis. As you work through the article, you may also want to watch for WP:OVERLINKING and remove any that you find. The overall goal is good readability, with special formatting used only to highlight the first occurrence of words that are significant (mostly synonyms of the article topic, plus Wikilinks to related topics that might actually be useful or of interest to a reader).
In actual practice, I have noticed that bolding and italics are used in some articles more freely than the MOS recommends, while still while preserving readability. Ultimately, editing decisions (and the MOS itself) are based on a consensus of active editors, after an open discussion and compromise. It all sounds a bit complicated, but this is what has evolved over the past decade, and it (usually) works.
It may be easier to get a feel for the Wikipedia style by looking at a few representative Good Articles (GA), such as Mercury (element), Vannevar Bush, HDMI, USS Massachusetts (BB-59), Bay Area Rapid Transit, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. You may notice some detailed inconsistencies among various GAs and the MOS. This is because both the articles and the MOS continue to change and evolve over time, and Wikipedia never will be finished, as long as the world continues to change. But there definitely is a "house style" intended to convey information in as readable and as clear a format as possible. Reify-tech (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
many thanks for the tips and pointers. I'll start workign on implementing them - fee free to look over my shoulder (virtually) and fix things if I mess up. Brad Dyer (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AlanS (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nayef Hawatmeh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jordanian. 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) 09:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Category:antisemitism from various articles[edit]

The closing admin clearly understood that the RfC was talking about instructions, however much he might now be denying it after the fact.[1] To quote: "I therefore note that there is no consensus for changing the instructions."[2] As such, the current instructions do stand. -- Kendrick7talk 06:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's what the administrator explicitly told you , relevant parts being bolded: "No, I did not say that there is consensus for any "purge". The discussion was about whether to remove instructions from the category page, not about whether to remove pages from the category, and it did not result in consensus. You should obtain explicit consensus for any potentially controversial mass edits in advance, or you risk being blocked for disruptive editing". Proceed at your own risk, and I have very little patience for further disruption. Brad Dyer (talk)
Brad, I know you are sort of new here, but admins aren't prison guards, they are WP:Janitors like in high school. Shush, though, they get mad and vain if you point it out. And yes they can drive you off campus if you are totally disruptive to the project but what we are disputing here is content.
Encyclopedic content, given that what we are trying to do here is create an encyclopedia. What admins can otherwise do here is, for the most part, just lock us out of certain school rooms. And what they've done lately and repeatedly, with regards to this and similar categories is clownish. They've declared Hitler isn't an anti-Semite years ago.[3] Then they said recently, that's cool, and five minutes later that essentially I'm not taking that back, but that wasn't what I meant. So screw you if you put words in my mouth. If the rules the admins come up with can't be applied consistently, that's just an avenue for corruption (q.v. The Roosevelts, I'm practically quoting Teddy). Hey, the rules say no one is to be listed as an anti-Semite, but, Hitler is, and a few other unfortunates, so for $20 I can keep you off the list, wink, wink! Janitors, after all, do hold the keys.
FWIW, I argued in the RfC for presenting verifiable truth in this matter. I was shot down. -- Kendrick7talk 06:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Adolf Hitler. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Max Blumenthal article[edit]

I've copy the explanation of the problems with Keramiton's edit onto the Man Blumenthal article talkpage. Given that there are BLP issues involved, I think you should revert your reinstatement of it. That Blumenthal has been banned from the Bundestag is correct, but everything else in that edit was either incorrect, misleading, an inference or an opinion stated as a fact.     ←   ZScarpia   19:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I've responded on the talk page. The text currently in the article fairly represents the reliable source it is using. Brad Dyer (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Schneider Electric, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trianon. 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) 11:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ireland–Israel relations, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Murry1975 (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I gave a reason in all three edit summaries: it is original research, and some fo it not related to the relations between Israel and Ireland. Do exercise more care in the future before blindingly reverting my edits. Brad Dyer (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Corkythehornetfan. I noticed that you recently removed some content from University of Oklahoma without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 03:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I actually did give an explanation, but perhaps it was too brief. An editor later provided a lengthier explanation when he removed the same thing. If you still don't understand why it was removed, drop me a note and I'll explain in full detail. Brad Dyer (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
"Undue" is not actually an explanation as to why the info was removed. Did you mean there was undue weight or did you mean revert it for some reason? I think it was a tad confusing by just saying "undue". Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 05:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I meant WP:UNDUE, but the way I phrased it may have been unclear. hopefully that's been cleared up now. Brad Dyer (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Grid positions[edit]

Please feel free to use "ITMgrid" on Israeli locations (NB: "ITCgrid" was a typo), but please do not remove "palgrid". We have a serious purpose for showing the Palestine grid, namely that it is used by a very large number of reference texts for identifying locations. It is fine to have both. Zerotalk 08:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

sure. Brad Dyer (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I was just going to say the same: on Qalansawe: the Hütteroth and Abdulfattah, Denys Pringle and Andrew Petersen references all identify the place by giving the "pal grid"-numbers. Now, the name Qalansawe is pretty unique, but for, say, the Taybeh (disambiguation)-places, or the Tira-places: then the "pal grid"-numbers is the only thing they are differentiated by, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Boaz Moda'i[edit]

Hi Brad. What "Talk" did you mean? I couldn't find it, pls. help.

I do stick to my argument (See Infobox "title": "Israeli Ambassador to Ireland". He's in charge, he's responsible. That is how it works in every representative hierarchy. He can discipline or fire a deputy overstepping his rules.)

Mrs. Moda'i has no power of threatening demonstrators, starting shaming campaigns etc. OUTSIDE the embassy framework. She has no platform for denigrating the "Irish masses" other than that of her embassy job. And Mr. Mod'i IS the ambassador. The buck stops with him, that's that.

Why add her to his website: he does not represent anything to anyone on WP apart from his role as ambassador. Whatever happens within the embassy, is relevant - for him & his WP web page. It's not his LinkedIn page or private CV. And EMBASSY = EMBASSY TEAM. The fact that she is his wife MATTERS too, no need to go overboard trying to be "academic" about it. They discuss things at home as much as on the job.

Benjamin & Sara Netanyahu, M. & Raissa Gorbachev, Nicolae & Elena Ceausescu... That's how it works. Once the ladies choose to have a share in their husbands' political career, it becomes a team, ONE UNIT. She does smth. good or bad - he takes the credit or criticism, too. WP is not about denying the obvious, or is it?

Of course WP editors are motivated by political or private sympathies and inclinations (please excuse me for being blunt, but beating around the bush only wastes time), so I'd like to ask you: honestly, what makes you spend time on this - to me quite obvious issue - time & again? In German there's a negative legal term, "Sippenhaft", broadly meaning that one's family or clan is made responsible and liable for any member's mistake. Are you just trying to be extremely politically correct and avoid any shadow of "Sippenhaft", or do you want to remove whatever part of criticism one can somewhat claim doesn't belong here? Both reasons are legitimate, I'm just curious.

Personally, I think both Moda'is are acting in a shameful, undiplomatic way, actually you know what? forget the "PC-talk": wacky is the word for it. I see no way how one can split this whole issue into "him" & "her", quite objectively speaking. Whatever. Waiting to hear what moves you. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Arminden

I was referring to the article's Talk page: [4]. I'll respond briefly here, but we should really continue the discussion there. I disagree with the statement 'Whatever happens within the embassy, is relevant - for him & his WP web page.'. The article is his bio, and his work at the embassy is relevant - and even that, only to the extent that reliable sources have commented on it. Not everything that happens within the embassy is relevant to the ambassador's bio, just like not everything that happens at Google is relevant to Sergey Brin's bio, and just like not everything that happens in the US government is relevant to Obama's bio. Brad Dyer (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Ways to improve Antonella (TV series)[edit]

Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. Brad Dyer, thanks for creating Antonella (TV series)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. .

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I will follow up on this. Brad Dyer (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Brad Dyer. You have new messages at Template talk:Palestinian territory development.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

August 2015[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries article, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text—which means allowing other people to modify it—then you must include on the external site the statement: "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, and under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribute Share-Alike".

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question at the Help Desk. You can also leave a message on my talk page. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 04:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


Stop icon This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at B'Tselem, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

If you can't take the heat , get out of the kitchen. I did, action for action, word for word, what you did following my edit on Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries. You introduced a blatant copyright violation into a wikipedia article, I undid it in order to prevent legal trouble for the wiki foundation, and warned you not to do this again. There was absolutely no harassment involved here. Conversely , if that is harassment, then you did the same thing, and should be blocked as well, take your pick - What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Brad Dyer (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
No <Blatant personal attack removed>. You copied and pasted text from a newspaper's website into a Wikipedia article. I reverted the addition of scare quotes to an article. I undid your WP:COPYVIO at an article I've been editing since 2011. You followed me to an article you've never edited before. <Blatant personal attack removed>. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure you want to be going around calling other editors "Assholes"? Right after being forced to strike out a childish personal attack in an edit summary, per my request at WP:ANI? Your "admin" status will only go so far in protecting you, and I've seen admins being blocked for stuff like this. Just a friendly warning, I've been patient with you and your antics, but that patience ts wearing thin.
To the matter at hand : You copied and pasted text from an organization's web site into an article. That is copyright violation. You've now done it again, violating 1RR, I suggest you undo that, and be quick about it.. Brad Dyer (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Not acceptable[edit]

While Malik's behaviour was not acceptable and warranted a block do not think I am blind to the fact that you were not blameless in this encounter. My advice is to keep your nose clean and not engage in anything that even remotely resembles a personal attack, this includes making up nick names for people. Chillum 00:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

As you see below, I've blocked you reciprocally. You provoked Malik Shabazz, a usually-calm administrator, and started this whole mess. Calling someone who announces prominently that they are black "sonny boy" is blatant baiting. It quite sickens me that you can provoke a normally composed administrator to the point of being summarily desysoped, and get off with only a warning. --ceradon (talkedits) 02:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Throwing in my two cents: a "normally composed" editor? Really? Read my statement on the arbitration talk page about that- it's all the way at the bottom.JordanGero (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Previous accounts?[edit]

Slightly late, but may I ask you, Have you have a previous account on wikipedia? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Malik Shabazz[edit]

A request for arbitration has been filed relating to you. --ceradon (talkedits) 01:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ceradon (talkedits) 02:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't really solve much of anything now, but in retrospect, this is what should have been done a while ago: increased to an indef block. An explanation of how "sonny boy" was acceptable is better addressed in an unblock template, rather than just waiting 2 days. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Brad Dyer (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

"sonny boy" was of course unacceptable. That is why, realizing it was inappropriate upon some reflection, I quickly removed it, some 20-odd minutes after writing it. It was a needlessly disparaging comment, intended to insult an editor who had been calling me a liar, repeatedly, and harassing me with various inappropriate warnings. I should have not responded to him the same way he was addressing me, and the two-day block I received for it was appropriate.
It was not, however, a racially charged comment. This has been noted by numerous editors who have commented on this case (see for example [5], or [6]). There is no shortage of usage of 'Sonny boy' in completely non racial contexts (see for example [7], [8], [9]) Obviously , Malik took it differently, and that it unfortunate. With hindsight, I can understand how his personal situation might have led him to read into that comment something which isn't there. I would apologize to him personally, were it not for the fact that he used a vile antisemitic slur against me, repeatedly, and that slur is still up there in the evidence page of the ArbCom case, having been added by Malik after he was unblocked. Brad Dyer (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This might plausibly explain your use of "sonny boy" and is a textbook perfect request for unblock, but there are still many unanswered questions. Fortunately, Arbcom is about to ask those very questions, and I think waiting until they have answered them is a good idea and in the best interest of Wikipedia. Of course, you may directly submit any info directly to Arb via email or ask someone to copy/paste directly from your talk page. There is also the cast of being tied to NoCal100 as a sockpuppet in an SPI case, which itself is short of evidence in the archives but still exists and must be at least acknowledged one way or another. At this time, the totality of circumstances prevents me from unblocking you. Dennis Brown - 10:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

Good stuff. So an admin who used racial slurs gets blocked for two days, uses admin tools through the block, and once unblocked repeats the racial slurs is allowed to return to editing after less than a day, with serious discussion about giving him back his admin tools.

Whereas a user who made a remark that could be construed as a racial slur, once, gets blocked indefinitely.

This really doesn't give confidence that the same rules apply to everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.51.40 (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@149.254.51.40: For the record, "indefinite" does not mean "forever" - it means that the user has to apply for an unblock, explain himself, and give assurance that it won't happen again, rather than simply allowing a time-limited block to expire and having him return with no explanation or demonstration of understanding what got him blocked. The same would apply to the other party, should he choose to apply to get his bit back. So yes, the same rules apply to everyone. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 18:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
@DoctorJoeE: perhaps you missed that I did all that - applied for an unblock, explained myself, and provided an explanation and demonstration of understanding what got me blocked - it is right above the IP's post. Somewhat surprisingly, I haven't seen a similar unblock request from Malik, and he clearly remonstrated that he will repeat the behavior that got him blocked in the first case, yet he is unblocked at the moment. It does seem like there is a bit of double standards here, and that the the rules do not apply equally to everyone. Brad Dyer (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I did miss that -- my apologies. I was merely offering an explanation to an IP who did not appear (to me) to understand what had happened. But I don't see any demonstration from Malik that he would repeat a reaction that was so unlike him over the 8 preceding years. In fact, quite the opposite; he retired, and I haven't seen any indication that he intends to return anytime soon. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
@DoctorJoeE:The evidence is that right after he was unblocked, he repeated the vile antisemitic slur that was rev-del'ed from his talk page, and it is still up there, in the ArbCom evidence. He has not removed it, let alone apologize for it or acknowledge that it was inappropriate, has not assured us it will not happen again and had not asked to be unblocked - yet he was. And should he decide to return to editing - tomorrow, next week, next month - he will be free to do so. Does this not strike you as double standards? Brad Dyer (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
My declining of your block is not a final action, merely a "not now" as evidence is pouring through, and this is an unusual situation. I recommend talking to Floquenbeam, who raised the block to an indef (and is not exactly known as being "block happy") and allow him to review the action, now that a day or two has passed. As always, I'm willing to defer to any other admin who take action. Dennis Brown - 20:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown:The ArbCom case for which evidence will be submitted is not about Malik's actions or mine - ArbCom has explicitly declined to look at those aspects. It is, instead, about reviewing the general polices and editing practices in the I-P space. How will the outcome of that case effect my situation?
@Floquenbeam: - would you be willing to review the unblock request I gave above, per your request when you blocked me? Brad Dyer (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Note that they have you pegged as a sock of NoCall100, and the case was closed because you were already blocked, but blocked for a different reason. That is a bit muddy and a little sloppy. Vanjagenije, an SPI clerk, tagged you, but no one has made a clear case or finding for this fact. If it were true, then indef is the right block. If not, then I'm happy with whatever Floq decides. No admin has linked the accounts, only a non-admin clerk has acted in any way. Dennis Brown - 20:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to unblock myself, because I think we can do without another problematic I/P editor, and I'm too jaded to believe that this will change. But I am not opposed to another admin reviewing and unblocking; I don't have any additional top secret info preventing an unblock, just an exhaustion with all the endless I/P drama.

However, if another admin is considering this, then I recommend they review:

  1. The fake copyright accusation made against Malik Shabazz in retaliation for the copyright accusation MS made against Brad Dyer, which I don't think has been addressed (and which was clearly tit-for-tat pestering, which began the meltdown), and
  2. The "sonny boy" taunting, which has probably been addressed as well as it's going to be in the unblock request above (and I'm happy to defer to another admin whether that's sufficient)
  3. The accusation that this is another NoCal100 sock, which was made after my block, and which is more complicated. I didn't block based on a sock accusation, but now that the account has been tagged by an SPI clerk (see history of user page), it should be addressed. That SPI appears to have been kind of cut off at the knees, so I don't know if there's more to it than what we see. I see Dennis pinged the SPI clerk. I don't know if it's better to reopen the SPI now, and wait for the result, or (if BD is unblocked) then reopen the SPI.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: My accusation of copyright violation was not fake. Malik removed quotes from sentences that were copied, word for word, from a copyrighted source. Doing so, he created a copyright violation, as now Wikipedia includes sentences lifted, word for word , from a copyrighted source. While the use of quotes may have (barely) made such copying acceptable, by providing an indication that it is a direct quote, removing them is clearly not. In a discussion with @General Ization:, who pointed out that "All three of the phrases/words around which Dyer placed quotes appear in the cited source" (see [10]) he admitted he wasn't looking at the right source, and so may have mistakenly believed there was no copyright violation - but that was his mistake, not mine. Kindly retract your accusation, jaded with I/P or not. Brad Dyer (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Review and SPI[edit]

I have manually reopened the SPI case with CU request. I don't anticipate participating there, nor reviewing further here, although I will "clerk" this issue as best as I can and assist any other admin, just ping me. It is my opinion that Brad should not request an unblock, and if he does, no admin should act on that unblock request, until the SPI case has been resolved. I expect Brad to wait it out, as no sane admin would likely unblock him pending the case conclusion anyway. Times to resolution vary, sorry I can't be more specific than that. Dennis Brown - 20:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I originaly closed the SPI on procedural grunds, since the suspect was already indeffed. I missed the fact that he is being considered for unblock. I do agree with reopening the case. But the case filler did not offer any evidence, as he says it is private. We should wait for him to provide some evidence through appropriate channels. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Vanjagenije, and it looks like it is getting a few eyes on it, which is helpful. This doesn't speak to the other merits of the unblock request, but out of fairness I think clearing up (or confirming) this one roadblock is the proper thing to do. Dennis Brown - 23:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • If you haven't noticed, there is movement at SPI, albeit slow movement. This is normal. Not optimal, but normal. Just wanted to let you know you weren't forgotten and I've been monitoring this in good faith. This isn't a reflection on whether I think you should be unblocked or not, and I will allow another admin to review if that time comes. Dennis Brown - 00:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)