User talk:Bus stop

This user has been banned indefinitely from editing the English Wikipedia by the community. Administrators, please review the banning policy before unblocking. (block log · contributions · discussion at ANI)

Archives

1 (June '07-July '07) 2 (July '07-Nov '08) 3 (Nov '08-July '11) 4 (July '11-May '17) 5 (May '17-Sept '18) 6 (Nov '18-Feb '21)

Please don't mess up my recently archived Talk page by posting anything that fails to meet my standards, which will be explained at a later time.

Since you seem to be unwilling or unable to cease from badgering one respondent after another in your own siteban discussion (bludgeoning par excellence), I have blocked you indefinitely. Note that this is not the

El C—"Thank you for all that you've done for the project, not least of which for your humanity and grace." Bus stop (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are not him and have not earned anything remotely resembling such praise. Any further provocations will see your talk page access revoked. El_C 03:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you need to do, El C. You are an administrator. Bus stop (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, no frivolous pings, either, please. El_C 03:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't say "please" if you don't mean it, El C. I don't reason with someone who holds a threat over my head. Bus stop (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, pardon the pun, but I will say please as I please. Talk page access revoked. El_C 03:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not contact me by email again. I have zero interest in communicating with or debating with you off-Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let it be noted to anyone who watches this page that Bus stop ignored my request to not contact me again by email, and sent another unwanted email. You are shameless, Bus stop, and I am forced to block emails from you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Bus stop's ability to use the "Email this user" facility. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:ANI, the community decided to make you subject to a site ban. See

A ban appeal was [1] at WP:AN. starship.paint (exalt) 14:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were a good editor, this parting part partially aside, best of luck in your future endeavours! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is most distressing. I hope you'll be able to come back after an obligatory wait time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

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).

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

---

Request reason:

From a sourcing point of view there can be no doubt that Einstein was Jewish. But it was determined, based on such policies as WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS, that the Albert Einstein article should not pointedly state "Einstein was Jewish". The other editors preferred the language "was born into a Jewish family". WP:ONUS tells us: "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article...consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted". This information was clearly verifiable but consensus determined that its inclusion would not improve the article. I WP:BLUDGEONED at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Albert_Einstein/Archive_19#Einstein_and_Jewishness. I should not have argued against a longstanding WP:CONSENSUS which did not want to pointedly state that Einstein was Jewish. The other editors weighing in to that discussion disagreed with the edit I was suggesting and I should have respected their opinion when it became obvious that consensus was against me. While I cannot undo the past I can vow never to do that again. I bludgeoned (WP:BLUDGEONED) the article Talk page and I offer this sincere commitment to not be overly argumentative at article Talk pages again. I am asking that my account be un-blocked so that I may continue to constructively edit Wikipedia. This was requested at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive330#Ban_removal_request_of_Bus_stop but my request was denied with the expectation that I wait 6 months before requesting again. Hence this appeal now. Thank you.

Decline reason:

This is a community ban and as such an unblock request will need to be discussed at AN. I will copy this unblock request to there. Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

What topics do you want to edit? PhilKnight (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The record shows he's bludgeoned numerous discussions on topics far and wide in which the word "Jewish" comes up. I don't see anything in the request that indicates he understands or would be able to modify this behavior. SPECIFICO talk 19:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about an unblock with an indefinite "Jewish" topic ban? Then after a year or two the topic ban could perhaps also be revisited, contingent upon edit history. He appears to need a set of training wheels, but it's been six months so he should be given his bicycle back. - JGabbard (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

From a sourcing point of view there can be no doubt that Einstein was Jewish. But it was determined, based on such policies as WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS, that the Albert Einstein article should not pointedly state "Einstein was Jewish". The other editors preferred the language "was born into a Jewish family". WP:ONUS tells us: "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article...consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted". This information was clearly verifiable but consensus determined that its inclusion would not improve the article. I WP:BLUDGEONED at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Albert_Einstein/Archive_19#Einstein_and_Jewishness I should not have argued against a longstanding WP:CONSENSUS which did not want to pointedly state that Einstein was Jewish. The other editors weighing in to that discussion disagreed with the edit I was suggesting and I should have respected their opinion when it became obvious that consensus was against me. While I cannot undo the past I can vow never to do that again. I bludgeoned (WP:BLUDGEONED) the article Talk page and I offer this sincere commitment to not be overly argumentative at article Talk pages again. I am asking that my account be un-blocked so that I may continue to constructively edit Wikipedia. It should be very obvious that some people (editors) are very sensitive about Jewishness. I understand that and appreciate the need for caution in the assertion that the subject of an article is Jewish. This subject has been discussed truly ad infinitum at this project. As a non-editor, for over a year now, I have come across numerous discussions, often heated, as to whether a subject can be identified as Jewish or not. These would include current as well as older discussions. I think my above unblock request touches on some of the factors involved in these decision-making processes. I'm not sure what more I can say. I thank the community for their consideration. User:Bus stop

Decline reason:

WP:SNOWBALL. You are free to make another request, even using the same wording if you wish (though I don't advise it); maybe another admin will view your request more favourably. But, I simply don't see a path forward here. Yamla (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

---

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.

@

I don't believe, to quote

WP:SNOWBALL, there's a "snowball's chance in hell" that the community would lift your ban. Indeed, I believe if I copied this request across, I may be sanctioned by the community for deliberately wasting their time. I'm not interested in engaging in dialogue with you, so this will be my last response (and, while your ping here was entirely appropriate, please don't ping me again). Again, I note you are free to make the exact same request again (though I advise against it) or you are free to make a different request. In either case, another admin will consider taking your appeal to the community. Please understand, I don't harbour a grudge against you and I sincerely wish you well with your future request, I just don't think this even remotely approaches anything that would lead to your ban being lifted. --Yamla (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

So Yamla, you are weighing in to tell me that there is no path forward here? That is what you are saying: "I simply don't see a path forward here". If you are going to say something, why not say something constructive? I say this with respect for you as an administrator and for the good that Wikipedia does. Wikipedia is unavoidable. I reference Wikipedia virtually daily. It is funny that someone (myself) who is cognizant of the importance of Wikipedia is blocked from participation at Wikipedia over my participation at a simple discussion called Einstein and Jewishness. That could have been an edifying discussion. Instead it is leading to my permanent block from participation at Wikipedia. "Edifying" in the sense that I brought many good quality

sources to bear on the subject under discussion. Bus stop (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Bus stop, I'll comment, although I'm not sure it will actually be helpful. Quite honestly to me it looks like the only possibility for you getting editing privileges back would be to suggest a very strict set of editing restrictions for yourself, and I suspect you need a lot longer time off than this. Anything in less than a year is likely to actually hurt you. I'd actually suggest maybe waiting two, and again suggesting editing restrictions that address all of the issues. Off the top of my head I'd suggest a self-imposed tban from Jewishness and a limit of one response per discussion. (Also, w/re pinging: you no longer need to ping anyone except the first time you mention them in a section. People can now subscribe to any section they want notifications for. I don't mind pings, but anyone else you should probably assume that if they wanted notification, they'd have subscribed.) valereee (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I'll comment, although I'm not sure it will actually be helpful". You know that it will be unhelpful because you know it is disproportionate to what transpired. This is what transpired. Bus stop (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But this response is a perfect example of why you’re currently banned, Bus stop. You were not community banned just for the Einstein discussion. You were banned because the Einstein discussion was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Please look over your block log. This is a long standing problem. It is really, really hard for anyone to believe that you still don’t get this. Eventually, people think that when you apologize for bludgeoning, you don’t actually mean it, and you’re simply going to do it again. If you do not understand why this has frustrated so many people over the years, you are unlikely to ever, ever get unbanned. —Floquenbeam (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's insane that Wikipedia can't speak plain English. Einstein is Jewish, therefore it follows that Wikipedia should say "Einstein was Jewish" or "Einstein was a Jew". These assertions are totally supported by sources. And no source detracts from these assertions. This Guardian article points out the problem with the representation of Jews on the Internet. Wikipedia is of course not a search engine. Editors have the capacity to order information in a way that is most straightforward. A search engine, by contrast, is more bound to its algorithm. You can pick any sentence out of The Guardian article to illustrate this point: "And ordering of search results does influence people, says Martin Moore, director of the Centre for the Study of Media, Communication and Power at King’s College, London, who has written at length on the impact of the big tech companies on our civic and political spheres."[2] This is hardly rocket science. Wikipedia should aim to err on the side of point blank information in the sense of

consensus. But as an encyclopedia we can strive to be better. I am therefore asking that my account be unblocked. It has been a year that I have not been able to edit Wikipedia. Isn't that long enough? Bus stop (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

You are literally bludgeoning your own unblock request. That Guardian article is talking about Google and other search engines predicting "are jews evil" when someone types in "are jews". How in the world are you offering that as a justification for inserting "He was Jewish" as the second sentence in Einstein's bio when, just two sentences later, the very next paragraph already started with "The Einsteins were non-observant Ashkenazi Jews". I'm sorry, Bus stop, I do believe you are well-intentioned, but if you can't see that you are showing us right here in your unblock request that you do not understand why you were blocked, then this unfortunately also has become a competence issue. valereee (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you are a capable content creator and you have a refined understanding of some aspects of policy. I think there's a number of policy arguments you got into where I think you were right and the WP mainstream was wrong. There is, however, one virtue, necessary to be a wholly constructive editor, that you lack: you're unwilling to accept that in certain situations, the consensus is against you and you have to accept it. The right thing to do in this situation is to take a break, look for compromises and find allies. Instead you go about saying you are right and your interlocutors are wrong. When this situation keeps repeating itself, it is disrespectful and uncivil. Please reflect on
  WP:5P4. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Valereee—the perspective of the

overly argumentative in future discussions. I am requesting that my account be unblocked so that I can edit constructively going forward. (For reference, this is your full quote: How in the world are you offering that as a justification for inserting "He was Jewish" as the second sentence in Einstein's bio when, just two sentences later, the very next paragraph already started with "The Einsteins were non-observant Ashkenazi Jews") Bus stop (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Ditto my last post. To the community the above post is clear bludgeoning. If you can't see that, the chances the community would !vote to unblock are pretty much nil, IMO. I'm sorry, Bus stop. I wish you well. valereee (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]