User talk:Bad Dryer

The Malik case

Hey Brad/Bad(?). No idea if you ever knew or not, but I was following your case in some detail over at Wikipediocracy. In their wisdom, I am now no longer able to participate there, but I thought I'd be remiss in not letting you know the thread exists. If you've not read it, it probably makes interesting reading, if only for your own amusement. Even though people here were both reading and taking an active part in posting, I'm not aware of any of them telling you they were. In retrospect, I guess I should have told you myself, so that's ultimately on me. The specific thread is in the member's only area (in the portion of the site they restrict from Google) and is clearly marked as Malik etc. I wouldn't advise you signing up as Brad, or indeed taking any active part on the site, it's just not worth it. But to read the thread, you have to become a member. It's bizarre, as in your case it gave certain Wikipedians who were gunning for you more leverage, and the ability to make themselves look better in the process of royally shafting you, without actually even participating in the forum (even though it could be deduced by others that their unfettered presence there, as named members, could be seen as an endorsement of their use of the site in that way). Oddly, as a group, the Wikipediocrats seemed to have no problem with that at all (I raised that in another thread as a specific issue, but was quickly shot down). So that decision is definitely on them. Let me know if you ever need any advice in future, assuming of course you see anything in the thread you deem useful. Who knows, you might think I was harming your case, and if so, I apologise! I'm curious as to why, after all that, you thanked Dennis, but hey, absolutely don't answer that if you don't want to - I'll understand, believe me. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice to meet you , Mighty Morphin Army Ranger . It seems I have some reading to do. I was just at your user page to see where you had mentioned me, and will be reading up on your contributions. Floquenbeam's behavior was of course despicable and violated numerous policies, but I am trying to put that behind me. Where can I read the Wikipediocracy stuff? Bad Dryer (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI: Floquenbeam has recently handed his tools in and retired over another issue. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Given the utterly despicable way he handled the Malik case, this is a very positive development - he was clearly unsuitable to handle administrative duties. Bad Dryer (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

AN

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Can't see me mentioned anywhere there.

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_tag_teaming Oncenawhile (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Nor here . Bad Dryer (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted

Hi Bad Dryer. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

Thanks for the notice, but I have no intention in participating in this farce. Bad Dryer (talk)

Martin Knutson

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Martin Knutson, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://roadrunnersinternationale.com/knutson.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This is material from NASA, which is not copyrighted.Bad Dryer (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Martin Knutson

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Martin Knutson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://roadrunnersinternationale.com/knutson.html. 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 or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wgolf (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I can understand the notice coming from a BOT, as above. You are presumably a human , and should pay attention to the explanations accompanying the article creation. Bad Dryer (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Martin Knutson, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Meritorious Service Medal, Distinguished Flying Cross and U-2. 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) 09:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Karameh

Both 6 Israeli armored vehicles and 40 Jordanians dead are mentioned in the source. Here's the exact location. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

ok, that's a different source (p.180) than the one given in the article (p. 570). Feel free to re-add it with the new page number, but note that your source gives a figure of "half a dozen armored vehicles" - which is inclusive of both tanks and half-trucks - so the info box can't list this in addition to the figure of 4 tanks and 2 half trucks - that would be double counting. Also the "40 Jordanians killed" seems to refer only to the operation at Safi, not Karameh. Bad Dryer (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The 40 Jordanians killed is added next to 28 Israelis killed, which is considered to be the Israeli casualties in the battle... So its a slight misunderstanding. --Makeandtoss (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's correct, as other sources give higher casualty figures for the Israeli side (the article gives a range of 28-33) Bad Dryer (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

We should continue this on the article's talk page - I will copy this discussion there. 23:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't stumbled upon any source giving a casualty number greater than 33 for Israel.--Makeandtoss (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

33> 28 :) Bad Dryer (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Carta (publisher)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Carta (publisher) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. KDS4444^Talk 09:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Carta (publisher) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carta (publisher) 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/Carta (publisher) 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. KDS4444^Talk 03:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Liberty consensus

re [1] Actually, there is no consensus for inclusion. Pls revert . -DePiep (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

There actually is consensus for inclusion , as that has been in the article for well over a year. If you think the consensus has changed, and no longer supports inclusion, you need to show the new consensus for removal on the Talk page. Bad Dryer (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

"The actual consensus is ..." -- by what are you concluding? And don't skip the BF aspect. -DePiep (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

By the fact that this is the longstanding version in the article, for well over a year, including numerous edits by yourself which did not challenge it. You can read WP:CONSENSUS for more info, I direct your attention to the line that reads "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus". Bad Dryer (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You might read it yourself. Consensus is about quality of the arguments, not your invention of "the longstanding version". And I note that you reverted without taking part in the duscussion (is why I thought you were an admin, you know: brutality). -DePiep (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Learn to read. ""Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus". Bad Dryer (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--Makeandtoss (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3 closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of Pending Changes, and appropriate edit filters.
2. Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in the original Palestine-Israel case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:

• Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy;
• Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
• There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;
• Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;
• Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 16:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Amin al-Husseini. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

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 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.

DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of thwarted Islamist terrorist attacks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamic Jihad. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Your opinions and presence is neither wanted nor requested on my page

Do not write on my talk page again or you will be reported for WP:Harassment. Trinacrialucente (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You have quite some nerve. But no matter, I figure it is a short time until you are blocked. Bad Dryer (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Siege of Tyre (1187), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crusader. 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) 09:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bad Dryer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't believe I have personally attacked any editor (and note the concurring opinion of an administrator on this matter here:[2]) , but will strike out or remove any offensive comment if unblocked (a courtesy not extended to me by people using vicious antisemitic slurs against me ([3]).
I noted that Nishidani takes a different view of consensual Man-boy sexual relations as evidenced by the fact that he repeatedly referred to these actions (which are a criminal offense in most countries) as "victimless", and going as far as putting the word "victim" , used by multiple reliable sources without quotes, in scare quotes in our article and then delivering a passionate defense of why such scare quotes are needed ([4]). He has also cited favorably the notion of Sotadic zone - the hypothesis that there exists a geographic zone in which pederasty is prevalent and celebrated among the indigenous inhabitants. This is common in NAMBLA literature, and I don't believe should be part of an encyclopedia, other than in an article about NAMBLA, of course. However, I will strike out those comments if editors believe they crossed the line. Bad Dryer (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Repeating the personal attack that caused you to be blocked in your unblock request is a guarantee that your request will not be granted. Saying you will strike comments upon request while continuing to repeat those comments is not a means of making amends or ensuring that you will not repeat this behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Further use of your talk page to repeat the personal attacks you were blocked for, or other disruptive behaviour, will result in the loss of your talk page access. If this happens you may appeal through WP:UTRS. HighInBC 01:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I just want to add that Nishidani has put victim in quotes because as he said, the sex was consensual. There is no such thing as consensual sex with a 15 year old. I don't know if NAMBLA literature was the way to go, but certainly putting victim in quotes and being called on it, and repeating the claim that at 15 you can have consensual sex with an adult is ludicrous. I would ask an admin to read the Ezra Nawi talk page. It's getting really hard to edit Wikipedia on the Israeli-Palestine side when any pro-Israeli editor is banned/blocked every couple of weeks. Either it's for being a sockpuppet, imagined or real. Yet we have on the other side people supporting organizations that support terror who get free passes. Shame on Wikipedia. As people told me last time I was blocked, that is why they stay away from the area, so no wonder the inherent bias. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. That's the way this place works. No admin will read the talk page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I expect this will be removed, but since you also, the third person here, keep asserting falsehoods in my regard I would note, as a European, that you are wrong in asserting:

There is no such thing as consensual sex with a 15 year old

repeating the claim that at 15 you can have consensual sex with an adult is ludicrous.

Ages of consent in Europe

Personally, I think sex before 18 is deeply misguided (which makes me wildly out of touch with contemporary attitudes), and that adults who sleep with anyone under that age are indulging in an exploitation of a power advantage that is detrimental to the teenager, totally unacceptable and worthy of sanction. You won't believe this, of course.Nishidani (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not what you said on the Ezra Nawi talk page, but kudos for feeling embarrassed enough to try to backpedal. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Another personal attack, duly registered.Nishidani (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Duly registered, meaning you won't report it because you're too embarrassed that what you said will get a wider audience. I dispute the above being a personal attack and encourage you to report me if you think it is. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I think an indefinite block is too harsh. The subject matter is a heated and emotional issue. The statement could indeed be read as a personal attack, but it is not inherently illegitimate or off-topic. One must carefully word their comments in this instance. Brad Dyer should be unblocked and he can strike his comments as he has offered to do. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you're forgetting the whole Malik brouhaha. I'd be very surprised if he were unblocked. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bad Dryer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I regret having made the personal comments about another editor. I easily could have made (and should have made) my point regarding the use of sources without the gratuitous reference to nambla, and without implying Nishidani supports it.
I recognize that implying such support is a personal attack, and will strike out those comments and not repeat similar statements in the future.

Decline reason:

This is the same sort of promise you made after your last indefinite block. I have every confidence that you will stir up another shit storm if you are unblocked. There may be an administrator foolish enough to unblock you, but it will not be me. Declined. HighInBC 17:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Block review discussion at WP:AN

Please see this. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bad Dryer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have now served more than 6 months of this block, and have had time to rethink my approach to editing Wikiepdia. I repeat and renew my apology, as in the previous unblock request, as well as the offer to strike out the offending remarks. If unblocked, I will also undertake a voluntary topic-ban from the Ezra Nawi article (and others , if the unblocking administrator sees fit), and an interaction ban with Nishdani. I do want to return to editing in a constructive manner.

Decline reason:

Declining on behalf of the discussion on WP:AN, not on my own behalf. Discussion on WP:AN closed with a "Clear consensus in opposition to unblocking". Yamla (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The fact that the previous block was upheld by the AN discussion linked by Kingsindian above suggests that this appeal should probably be reviewed at WP:AN, seems like.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

That is not correct. It wasn't an AN block, it was an admin block, which was endorsed at AN, after another user brought to AN for review. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Which is why I said "upheld by AN" rather than "enacted by AN". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't post such a request at AN, as I am blocked. If either of you are willing to point something there, point back to this page, I would appreciate it. Bad Dryer (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• unblock with the conditions stated I'll admit I've not looked closely, but A) it's been a while and B) it sounds like there is a good understanding of the issues and C) the interaction ban and topic ban should cover most of the problems. And of course, WP:ROPE... Hobit (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Hobit: It would probably be good to give your opinion on the WP:AN page instead of here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought the discussion was going to be here and just crossposted there. Reading, I should try it. Hobit (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bad Dryer. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)