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)

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.

Indefinite block

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 WP:CBAN. It needs to run for at least 3 days before it can reach a formal conclusion. El_C 03:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Twassman—sorry I couldn't continue right there, but my account was blocked

Twassman—I was open to several possible wordings such as, Einstein was Jewish, Einstein was a nonobservant Jew, Einstein was a secular Jew—it did not matter. The only acceptable language to my fellow editors was born into a Jewish family. Bus stop (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your email

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]

You are banned from Wikipedia

At WP:ANI, the community decided to make you subject to a site ban. See WP:SITEBAN. You are therefore forbidden to contribute to Wikipedia under any account or IP address. Sandstein 09:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Time dilation and Talk:Homosexuality on "All RFCs" request for comments. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is wrong on so many levels it went back to feeling strangely fine again. 05:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

unblock request

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://wiki.riteme.site/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://wiki.riteme.site/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]

unblock request, yet again

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://wiki.riteme.site/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.

@Yamla: are you aware that you are not giving any reason for your "decline"? This is an encyclopedia, and we are not required to speak in acronyms. We speak for clarity. Why are you referring to WP:SNOWBALL? Please expend the energy to express yourself in your own words with clarity. In the absence of any reason for a "decline" your reference to WP:SNOWBALL merely constitutes obfuscation. You can do better than that. Please engage in genuine dialogue. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 "directly; bluntly; without pretense or caution", and yet one of the arguments I contended with in this discussion was that my suggested wording was too blunt. I am accepting that I was wrong for refusing to accept 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 Einstein family article is different from the perspective of the Albert Einstein article. In reference to the Albert Einstein article you say in the very next paragraph it says The Einsteins were non-observant Ashkenazi Jews.[3] That perspective would be apropos in the Einstein family article but it is not ideal in the Albert Einstein article. When addressing the identity of an individual, as distinct from an entire family, we can explicitly say what that identity is, provided reliable sources unanimously or overwhelmingly support that identity, and the individual self-identifies with that identity—which is clearly the case concerning Albert Einstein. He never veered from saying he was a Jew and all reliably sourced commentary supports that he was a Jew. Why wouldn't the Albert Einstein article simply say that Albert Einstein was Jewish? There is no reason. No reason has been presented in this discussion and it is the discussion for which I'm banned. WP:CONSENSUS determined that the Albert Einstein article should not articulate the entirely unsurprising assertion that Einstein was a Jew. Such an assertion would be unsurprising in Wikipedia or anywhere else because all sources support that conclusion. I WP:BLUDGEONED the discussion about this in this section of the Albert Einstein discussion page. I am banned for being overly argumentative. That is what is meant by BLUDGEONING. It should be noted that I brought many good quality sources to support the entirely straightforward assertion that Albert Einstein was a Jew. At this point I have been blocked for a full year. Yet I have conceded wrongdoing in being overly argumentative. And I reiterate a promise not to be 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]

Just to note, again, that this is a community ban and cannot be overturned by a single administrator, but must be discussed at WP:AN (or by appeal to ArbCom). Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't just say the same thing over and over again forever

Bus stop, if you continue to discuss Einstein's Jewishness and how we should describe it in our article, I am going to remove talk page access again. When User:Bradv restored talk page access per, evidently, an email request you sent ArbCom, I cannot imagine ArbCom had in mind enabling repeated rants about how Einstein is Jewish. User:Yamla's refusal to take the earlier unban request to WP:AN was completely correct. In deference to ArbCom's decision, and against my better judgement, I'm leaving talk page access open for now, to give you one more chance to come up with a reasonable unban request that someone can put to the community at WP:AN. Necessary - but not sufficient - conditions for being considered "reasonable" include: it doesn't mention Einstein, it doesn't mention Judaism, and it shows some indication that you've read and understood WP:GAB. If, instead, we get more bludgeoning, or it does mention one of those two subjects, or if it is 100% obviously a non-starter, I will remove talk page access, to prevent further wasting of other people's time. I think you'll find if you lose access to your talk page again, you're probably not going to be able to get it back for a year or two (and possibly longer). Make it count. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I think you'll find if you lose access to your talk page again, you're probably not going to be able to get it back for a year or two (and possibly longer)." You are illustrating the very definition of the word "indefinite". My account has been indefinitely blocked, and that is why I am requesting that my account be unblocked. Please reread my unblock request. This is not rocket science. Another administrator has said the following:

"Isn't erasure of Jews a concern? Einstein very clearly self-identified as Jewish and so surely we should respect that, instead of apparently trying to minimize that aspect of his life. Here's a very detailed analysis of his identity: https://aeon.co/essays/einstein-on-the-practical-matters-of-being-german-and-jewish (there's much more controversy about whether he was German than whether he was Jewish). Bus stop could certainly comment less, but the constant reverting by others, their lack of engagement with sources, and the repeated derailing sarcastic comments by Martinevans123 ([4][5][6]) are concerning." Fences&Windows 16:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Where did they say this you might ask? They said it in the discussion that led to the current block. What was the response to their above post? Nothing. Their words were totally ignored. Why don't you reread the WP:ANI discussion which can be found here under the heading "Bludgeoning (Bus stop)". Are African-Americans identified as African-American? Or are African-Americans said to be born into African-American families? What do we find for Eric Adams, Alvin Bragg, George Floyd, Rayshard Brooks? Of course they are identified as African-American as of course they should. Identities are either supported by reliable sources or they are not. Wikipedia isn't a game for the creation of truth or the omission of relevant information. Wikipedia is a collaborative project in which the opinions of well-meaning editors should be respected. Wikipedia is best when it adheres to the findings of reliable sources. Wikipedia is at its worst when editors engage in original research. But you are an administrator so you know this. User:Fences and windows is also an administrator. Their quote begins with "Isn't erasure of Jews a concern?" Bus stop (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, I have removed talk page access and the ability to email thru Wikipedia. See previous block message for your options. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a surprising outcome. Bus stop, you can't invoke my comments in that AN/I discussion as some kind of trump card. The consensus was for a community ban, so my opinion as a lone admin is moot. Any unblock request, which I believe you may send by email to Arbcom, will be considered by the community and if successful will be bound to come with conditions. You were banned and then unbanned once before in 2007 for similar behaviour (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive98#Community ban on Bus stop), and you were on the cusp of a topic ban in 2014 (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive827#Topic ban for Bus stop), so any unban would almost certainly involve one or more topic bans including Judaism. I think you need to let go of expressing your views on how Wikipedia describes people's Jewishness to have any hope of editing again. Fences&Windows 16:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Baroness Joanna Shields page

My name is Laura and I work for Joanna Shields, Baroness Shields, a baron, businessperson, and former British politician. The page about her was recently tagged for COI and advert issues due to some poor edits made years ago. I posted here regarding my desire to address the substance of the tags with a re-write or heavy trims, to remove the promotional content. I was hoping you might be willing to chime in on the proposed trims and/or the suggestion for a rewrite. Let me know. Best regards.~~~~ LauTad89 (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]