User talk:Bus stop/Archive2

Indefinite community ban

Reposted from WP:CSN:

I've indefblocked Bus stop per the previous siteban thread for actions cited at the outset of this discussion plus repeated violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF at this thread. Throw in Godwin's law. Whatever this user might add to the field of visual arts is more than counteracted by disruption to other areas. Volunteer time is finite and this editor barely deigned to accept mentorship when a member of the arbitration committee extended an unsolicited offer. This person has had more chances than anyone deserves. Time to wrap up and move on. Durova^Charge! 02:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, be advised that I can edit protect this talk page if you appear to use it for deliberate provocation. Any appeal you may wish to try can be done via e-mail to another administrator or to an ArbCom clerk. Durova^Charge! 02:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to Wikipedia - Part One

Bus Stop.

With the approval of Durova and Fred Bauder. I am trying to put together a formula whereby you might return to Wikipedia.

I must caution you that the package will require you to modify your behaviour and agree to certain conditions that you will find restrictive.

If you are prepared in principle to accept conditions, and you further promise not to be abusive or soapbox, please send me an email through my user page stating as much.

A final word - there is significant opposition to the concept of your return. I also have my reservations. I am putting my neck out for you. Please do not let me down. It would be far better if you just declined to respond to this message. --Dweller 13:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dweller -- Thank you for taking up my case. Where and how does one proceed from here? Thank you in advance. Bus stop 17:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected this talk page

Bus stop, I've unprotected so you can work this out with Dweller. If this talk page needs to be reprotected then my offer of reinstatement will go back from three months to the usual six months. And if any further trouble ensues after that it'll double again to twelve. I hope you can work out something amicable. Durova^Charge! 16:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to Wikipedia

Hi Bus stop.

I am prepared to help you return to editing Wikipedia. But you need to understand two things:

The conditions that I'm about to lay out are not negotiable. I've already negotiated on your behalf and I'm not prepared to get into being the middle man in horse-trading.
At the first sign of really bad behaviour, I will drop this like a hot cake. Yes, that will be down to my subjective opinion. I'm counting on you.

I'm certain that you'll agree to number two, perhaps with some indignation, but nonetheless... As for number one, you'll see what the conditions are below. If you cannot agree to them as a whole, please decline graciously and seek a better advocate than me.

Before laying out the conditions, I wanted to explain why I'm trying to help. It's not because I think you've been egregiously wronged. I'm not too fussed about the detail of the dispute/s you've had in the past and I certainly won't be drawn into a discussion of the rights and wrongs. I see you as an indef-blocked user who needs help - regardless of how that came about.

I was trying to help you when you were blocked by Durova. You then appallingly (perhaps more reasonably unforgivably, in which case, sorry Durova) attacked her. Why I'm prepared to stick my neck out for you again is because I perceive you as being someone with a lot to offer. You are intelligent, have knowledge and a desire to build the Project. If only you could get past a certain unwillingness to play by the rules here, rules that are designed to foster a constructive environment. I can also imagine how distraught I'd be to be indefblocked. I want you back, as a constructive contributor. Please, please, please don't let me down. I'd rather you declined now.

So, the conditions.

I could lay out the easy ones first, with a view to trying to slip in the biggie when you're not looking, but that's not really going to work, so I'll just blurt it out.

You are blocked for 90 days from the date Durova indefblocked you. This is not punitive. For one thing, it'll give you some space to calm down. If you start editing again while remotely heated, this effort is doomed. And as you can see from all this dang typing, man, I'm making an effort.
You are further indefinitely prohibited from editing on Judaism-related issues. However, I'll place you on a probation of three calendar months starting from the date you return, on successful completion of which I will release you from this (although I will continue to monitor you). Again, transgression of the spirit of this prohibition will be subjectively assessed by myself.
You will accept three calendar months of my mentoring on your return, and, if in doubt will take the opportunity to ask for guidance.
You will immediately apologise on this page to Durova for the appalling abuse you gave her. She may consider it "water off a duck's back". I was horrified... I'm still not sure I should be helping you after you did that.

So there we have them. Four conditions that will probably make you squirm. Numbers three and four are entirely my own ideas. Number three is designed to help you stay out of trouble and successfully complete your probation. If you're any kind of decent person, you'd want to do number four anyway, even if you choose to decline this offer.

Take some time thinking this through. Except for number four. I don't think that should take more than a second of thinking time, except perhaps time spent considering the drafting.

I'll be watching this page, even if I don't respond immediately. Sometimes RL interferes... --Dweller 20:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller --

The 90 day block is fine. I will accept a 90 day block.

Let me see if I understand condition number two. Are you saying that in 6 months I may edit Judaism articles? If that is what you are saying, I will accept condition number two.

I will accept three calendar months of your mentoring upon my return. Condition number three is accepted by me too.

As for condition number four, I will apologize to Durova in exchange for an apology from Durova. She invited me to join in a discussion. She said, on my Talk page:

"Bus stop, I've started a discussion where you may wish to comment. Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Full_Judaism_community_topic_ban_for_Bus_stop"

And then she prevented me from participating in that discussion. These are the words with which she did that:

"I've indefblocked Bus stop per the previous siteban thread for actions cited at the outset of this discussion plus repeated violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF at this thread."

There were no violations of WP:CIVIL on my part up until that point. Nor were the any violations of WP:NPA on my part, up until that point. I don't see how there were any violations of WP:AGF on my part, up until that point.

If I were an administrator indefinitely blocking anyone at that point, in that context, I would be explaining each of those terms and how I saw them as applicable in the case at hand. I would not only be blocking a person, but I would be citing specific things in that person's text that I felt was in violation of each of those three policies. Instead, Bus stop was simply deprived of his ability to defend himself. No reason was given. This is just like the umbrella term: disruption. Why would it be so impossible for an administrator to point to the disruption, and to explain why it was disruption? And why the imbalanced application of these terms? Was there no one violating WP:CIVIL towards me in the Community sanction notice board discussion before I was indefinitely blocked? Why wasn't that person blocked? Why was no action taken against anyone other than Bus stop? Were there any personal attacks made against me before I was blocked? Why didn't the administrator have a word of caution to say to a person who made a personal attack on me? Did anybody else fail to assume good faith before I was indefinitely blocked in that Community sanction notice board discussion, or is only Bus stop in violation of these things? I did not notice the administrator, Durova, admonish any other participant. Is that the fair and proper way for such a procedure to take place? Banish me to my Talk page and carry on the discussion in my absence? Bus stop 21:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, if you pass your probation, I'll be happy to rescind the block on your editing Judaism articles.

I am unsure why you are unable to apologise for appalling behaviour without a guarantee of an apology from Durova. Regardless of whether she did wrong, you surely know that you were totally out of line. As stated, this condition (like the others) is not negotiable. It's actually the one I thought you'd have least problem with. And finally, Durova didn't know that I was going to require this of you. --Dweller 22:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I apologize to Durova for the comment that I made last, containing the profanity. I retract it, if that is possible. And I apologize for using such base terminology. Thanks for the chance, Dweller. Bus stop 22:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I will discuss with Durova and anticipate resetting your block status to a temp block tomorrow (my time). I'm going to sleep now. Good night. --Dweller 22:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just happened to drop by. Apology accepted. Durova^Charge! 04:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Durova fails to accept responsibility for even one iota of her wrongdoing. Bus stop 15:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've made your point. Drop it and move on... Tyrenius 15:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius -- A problematic culture develops when people with power have little or no checks on that power. Arrogance becomes established in the minds of people with power when no one challenges them. It would be entirely improper behavior on my part to not say what I've said up to this point. Bus stop 15:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People, can we stop this. I've drawn a line under what's gone before. I respectfully request all users to move forward from point zero or all my efforts will be in vain. --Dweller 15:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block reset from 3 months to indefinite

Bus stop, you may e-mail an arbitration clerk to request an appeal if you believe I have wronged you or abused administrative powers. I have reset your block to indefinite (had reduced it to three months last night) and I have reprotected this talk page. Anyone who doubts the justice of that protection is welcome to read the reverted edits in the recent history. My standard offer to banned users remains: I'll support your reinstatement in six months if you settle down. Be aware that you have gotten much more help and many more chances than most difficult editors receive. You are quite lucky that my standard offer is still on the table. Durova^Charge! 20:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this block. It's over-hasty and nothing on this page is so egregious to demand it. ~~As Bus stop has archived previous talk~~ As Bus stop's previous talk has been archived in order to make a fresh start, I believe there is a misunderstanding over his comment "not to say what I've said up to this point", which should not be taken to refer to that material, but only what is still on this page. Give things a little time to settle down. It would be proper for Dweller to deal with this, and I suggest it would be better if Durova backs off from this now. I propose to let Dweller unblock, if he sees fit. Tyrenius 20:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raise it on WP:AN if you disagree. We've had two consensus discussions that both agreed upon full sitebanning. I stepped back from that once on my own initiative, and tried to step back from it a second time. Nothing bound me to do so and - if anything - I went against consensus by extending so many chances. This editor has been fully informed about the options for appeal. Durova^Charge! 21:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But since then there has been an agreement for Dweller's mentoring. At the very least, out of respect to him, he should have been consulted prior to unilateral reinstatement of the ban. Tyrenius 21:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened this at WP:AN. If Bus stop wants the community to hear his or her side of this he or she can e-mail me for reposting to that thread. Durova^Charge! 22:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emails

Bus stop. If you haven't already blown your chances of full readmission to Wikipedia, sending emails that justify your prior actions and complain against others in a self-righteous tone is not going to help your chances.

Leave Wikipedia alone for a few months. Then come back with a fresh attitude, in a spirit of starting over. I look forward to hearing from you again in, say, December, at which point I'll be happy to discuss with you how you might rejoin the Project in 2008. --Dweller 14:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:

below

Decline reason:

Community's patience with you has clearly run out. I suggest you take Dweller's advice further up this page and take a long break. As things currently stand, you are not welcome here. ➔ REDVEЯS was here 08:41, 7 October 2007 (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.

The block is totally uncalled for. The User has resisted point of view pushing in religion articles. My minority position is not a reason to silence me. In point of fact, the changes I fought for were instituted, in part, after my account was blocked. It is ludicrous to call me a "troll," or "disruptive." Most of my contributions were to article Talk pages. I was generally polite. The fact that my points were instituted (in part) is indication enough of the constructive nature of my input. I assert that all of my input (mostly to Talk pages) were good faith edits. My actual edits to articles were few. At no time since mentorship with User:Fred Bauder did I exceed 3RR. The issues at the articles in question have continued in my absence. I have not caused the issues to exist. The issues are real. Others recognize them. If you look at the Talk page of the Who is a Jew? article for the past two weeks you would think that Bus stop was still there. Blocking me is a simplistic solution to a complex problem. If my account is unblocked, I promise to be more careful in my dealings with other editors. I understand that they believe their points of view as strongly as I believe that my point of view is the correct one. But the health of the encyclopedia is not promoted by silencing one half of an argument. I am asking that my account be unblocked so that I can participate in a verbal enterprise. Bus stop 06:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REDVEЯS -- What are you saying? All you are doing is rubber stamping what has been previously said by others? Have you looked into the matter? Or are you repeating the conclusions of others? I don't see you digging into the facts. Have you? Why don't you do origininal reaserch? That is called for, in this instance. Bus stop 13:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) That I agree with the block; 2) No; 3) Yes; 4) No; 5) Yes; 6) I don't understand what you mean. ➔ REDVEЯS was here 07:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REDVEЯS -- I was just hoping that you could give actual examples of what you saw as my problematic editing but for whatever reason you do not seem inclined to do that. Bus stop 14:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a regular editor of Who is a Jew?, I can concur with Bus STop's assessment of the current state of the talk page. YOu WOULD think Bus Stop is still there, and briefly, I did consider that FlaviaR was a sock, but I hadn't seen any particularly ad behavior from Bus Stop, and FlaviaR speaks and acts slightly differently. However, Bus Stop, having two people who continue to insist on turning the article Who is a Jew? from a report about the question's history, multiple points of view on the answer (orthodox, non-orthodox, secular, by non-jews), into a singular answer, "Get born a jew or be converted according to Halakha" doesn't make your attitude towards the article any more valid. This is an Encyclopedia, not AskMoses.com. We aren't concerned with 'the one truth answer', we're concerned with all the true, valid, and verifiable facts that make this question interesting, including, but not limited to things like hitler's attempts to create his own 'One Drop' rules, not unlike how in America before desegregation, one black ancestor, no matter how far back, was enough to make you black in the eyes of some aspects of the .gov. You still don't understand this, and no, your suggestions have not been implemented, grammar and technical aspects of writing excepted. I agree with all the above commenters who ask you to take more time off, consider the difference between writing an opinion essay and factual reporting, and then, if you can return without the excessive and hostile POV pushing, to help us expand and build the article, then we can work together. ThuranX 15:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ThuranX -- What it seems to me, is that you think you own the "Who is a Jew?" article. It also seems to me, that you like having me blocked because I had the temerity to question the accuracy of the article as written. There actually is no issue of a religious nature, despite your assertions that there is one. The issue is a language issue. My philosophy is that if one uses accurate language, one increases the likelihood that truth emerges in an article. I doubt if I ever mentioned the word "Orthodox" or the term "halacha," though if I have, I stand corrected. But what I have argued for, at the "Who is a Jew?" article, is the cessation of the willy-nilly sprinkling of the word "ethnic" where it does not belong. Not that "ethnic" is not an applicable term in some contexts, but that the misuse of it can constitute point-of-view pushing. I would suggest, in order to improve the article, that you devote an actual paragraph or in some other way substantially treat the subject of the applicability of the term "ethnic" to Jews. Or, alternatively, begin an article on "Ethnic Jews," or "Jews as an ethnicity," or "Jews as an ethnic group" -- you get the point. My point is that there is a distinction between, on the one hand, the term "ethnic," and, on the other hand terms such as "nonreligious," or "secular." I would throw into that category the slightly less useful terms "nonbeliever" and "non-practicing." The application for this second category of terms is a different application than for "ethnic," generally speaking. If one is specifically referring to the absence of religious practice, one of the four terms from the second category is preferable to the word "ethnic." It is preferable because it is accurate. Appropriate specificity is what is called for in choosing one of these terms or the other. In this instance, "ethnic" lacks the specificity of either the term "nonreligious" or the term "secular." If the context of the sentence calls for pointing out the absence of religious practice or belief, then clearly terms such as "secular" and "nonreligious" are preferable to "ethnic." This has nothing to do with Orthodoxy, "halacha," or any other religious issue. At issue is good English usage. Good English usage, in this instance anyway, cuts down on the possibility of point-of-view pushing.

After my account was blocked the following edit was made: [[1]]. In that edit there is the swapping of the word "ethnic" for the word "secular" -- exactly what I argued for. There are other things that I didn't like about the article and I don't like about the article. But I'm not going to write an essay here on my Talk page about the article. You had your opportunity to interact with me productively on the article's Talk page but you by-and-large were not interested in that. You were interested in getting your way. And many people are like that, including some administrators. That is to the detriment of Wikipedia. Bus stop 15:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, BusStop, ThuranX is just what you describe, and the worst part is not so much that he can't see it, but that he's pretending everyone else is the way he, himself, is. He has misrepresented my views even worse than he has yours, and no amount of my, or anyone else's, pointing it out to him will help. I have realized that I have spent far too much time trying to make him see what he's done (I'm not holding out for any admittance, & far less an apology), and not nearly enogh time discussing with the others what should actually be done with the page.141.156.20.173 15:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please unblock my account

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:

My "crime" is arguing an unpopular view, nothing more. If the numbers were reversed, my edits would be unremarkable. But as we know, might makes right. Here are the details of the case brought against Bus stop as the "disruptive" editor: [[2]][[3]] Bus stop 14:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Community's patience has run out. I support the block given above and decline this unblock. — ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:39, 10 October 2007 (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.

User:^demon -- Who constitutes the "community" that you refer to? Is User:TShilo12 a member of the community that you have in mind? Here is what User:TShilo12 had to say on the "Community sanction noticeboard":

"Oppose: This is a grossly inappropriate effort to limit the contributions by an editor who opposes the POV of another group of editors. Please revisit WP:DR. Tom e r ^talk 23:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

You can see that here: [[4]]

There exists an aggressive, vocal, mob-oriented group who feel a need to silence those they don't agree with. That is all that this is about. I've made no editorial faux pas, unless presenting the minority point of view is not permitted on Wiki. See mobocracy. Bus stop 18:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You neglect to note that the voting resulted in an 8-2 vote against you. Should one go about quoting the judgments of these individuals as well, or are the comments with which you agree the only valid representations of a discussion?

Additionally, it's worth noting that you had all but exhausted every possible WP:DR procedure during the 70+ day discussion on List of notable people who converted to Christianity. Perhaps Demon is partly referring to this; as it stands, you have a history of finding yourself in bitter disputes which often revolve around you (and perhaps one supporter) pushing a particular POV on an article.

I don't want to bring up an old discussion, obviously, because the topic is way past exhausted, but I think that you should put down the conspiracy theories, and take into perspective why individuals might be disagreeing with you. Perhaps it is your editing style, or your style of argumentation. There are other reasons that I can consider, but those general statements seem to summarize things well. As I've told you before, presenting the illusion a "mob mentality" is foolish: it is a natural tendency of those in the minority to assume that the majority is against them. They are, but in no confederation. If I feel that you're wrong, and 7 other editors on an article feel that you're wrong, it is not a mob, but consensus. There is a difference.

If you keep spouting this sort of stuff, you will not stand any chance in future unblock requests. How many times have you been turned down while using this same argument? I'd hate to imagine you putting on a persona to get unblocked, but unless you seriously come at Wikipedia with a fresh perspective, no one is going to unblock you. I seriously suggest that you come to Wikipedia as if it were the first time: forget all past disputes and issues. Try again. No one wants to help you now because you're exhibiting the same attitude as before. I'm saying this to help you, and I would hope that you'll take the idea seriously.--C.Logan 19:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Logan above. You said "My "crime" is arguing an unpopular view, nothing more." Evidently you don't consider repeated violations of 3RR, demanding material be changed to fit an unsourced opinion, violations of WP:TE, WP:NPA (thinking of Durova here), and other policies at all unusual or objectionable? I also note that Fred Bauder, arguably one of maybe the ten most respected people in wikipedia, offered you adoption, and then you failed to abide by the terms, and that later you did much the same thing after Dweller offered adoption. Given that clearly apparent history above, I cannot imagine that any other admin will consider offering better terms than those two highly regarded individuals did, particularly if they note that your own conduct caused both to retract their offers. On that basis, I cannot imagine that any other admin will unblock you until after the time period your previous "adopter", Dweller, indicated above. And, in all honesty, if the situation were changed and the editor was blocked for conduct regarding articles relating to Tamil or other religio-ethnic groups (not Jews, of course), I think you would probably respond to that hypothetical editor's requests exactly the way the individuals above responded to yours. John Carter 21:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C.Logan, John Carter -- If the shoe fits, wear it. Bus stop 13:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's more or less what we were indicating would be your own best response to this situation above. :) John Carter 14:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Michael-richards-showAA.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Michael-richards-showAA.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the image has been added to the infobox on The Michael Richards Show, which previously did not have an image there. John Carter 19:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, I've increased the size. The JPEG didn't compress well, and there was really no necessity in restricting pixel size anyway.--C.Logan 19:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock the account

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:

This user has opposed point of view pushing at certain articles. But more importantly this user has committed no editorial infractions, at least no administrator has been able to point to any editorial infractions. When asked (by me) to show some reason why I should be blocked, no reasons are given, except for the blank boilerplate cooked up by the original blocking administrator. I would like an administrator to point to (quote) edits made by me that are faulty in some way, and to cite the way in which those edits are faulty. I don't think anyone can, and that is why I don't think any administrator has done so thus far. I am asking that my account be unblocked. If that request is to be declined, I would like that declination to be accompanied by at least one, preferably a few, actual edits by me, and the reason why those edits are improper. I have only been blocked because I have opposed point of view pushing at certain articles. The "Who is a Jew?" article is the best and most recent example of this. "Point of view pushing" is not a minor issue. It is the use of Wikipedia to foist misinformation on the public. This can happen inadvertently -- we all have our biases. But when a legitimate editor (me) points that out, one would expect errors and biases to be corrected. In point of fact, that happened in one instance, but that was after I was already banned: I was banned only for being right. If an administrator is going to decline this request, he/she should at least try to provide an example of my editorial infraction, and the reason why that edit is improper. Thank you. Bus stop 13:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your previous block was shortened from indefinite to 90 days on the good will of the blocking admin. Subsequently, they decided that this was a mistake, and offered to unblock after 6 months if your attitude improved. Your behavior so far has not been productive; you have not taken the advice of multiple editors who have told you are exhausting the community's patience and explained why and how. Your repeated requests for unblock on this page, despite being declined are disruptive, since you don't seem to care about the input you get. I'm definitely not inclined to unblock you, and no other admin is. Your talk page was unprotected so you could negotiate unblock provisions. This has failed, so I am reprotecting it. As Durova said, above, if you think their action was incorrect, you can email an arbitration clerk.— Haemo 14:23, 15 October 2007 (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.

Against the suggestions of your fellow editors, you persist along this same argument. You still assert that you're right, even when most everyone else seems to disagree with you. You still portray yourself with a valiant, heroic self-image, and I for one don't think that this presentation is very convincing to anyone around here.

We're all just editors, Bus stop. You've been wrong, I've been wrong- everyone has been wrong at some point. Everyone is a minority sometime. But you can't keep lashing out against the community just because your suggestions are unpopular or unsupported. In my experience with you, you appear to present your own personal theories as authoritative without providing supporting sources, while dismissing all sources presented by the opposing side. From what I've seen, you've repeated this behavior several times afterward. You've been disruptive in your consistent POV pushing and with your seeming unwillingness to compromise or even undergo mediation.

In short, I'm afraid that there wouldn't even be a point in referencing your previous infractions, because you prefer to go only by your own interpretation of the facts- showing you a clear example of disruption, it seems, would elicit your own plea of self-righteousness in the matter. This is what I've learned about you from the editing experiences we've shared, and what can be clearly exhibited in the self-serving portrait of yourself in the above unblock request.

I doubt that anyone is ever going to unblock you until you actually take the advice given by various users on this page: Drop it, and make a fresh start. You still seem ready for conflict, and you still want to be right, but I don't think it's time for that anymore. If you'd truly like to return to editing Wikipedia, you should simply accept what has already occurred, and let it go.--C.Logan 13:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gravely disappointed

Bus Stop. Behind the scenes, I've been trying to negotiate your return. I've only just seen this page (not been here since August) and I'm gravely disappointed. You repeatedly ignore well-intentioned advice. I am not currently prepared to arugue for your return as I anticipate that your return would be disruptive. You seem to have lost your only supporter. I feel that my goodwill has been misplaced. What a shame. --Dweller (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock, please

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:

see below

Decline reason:

Please refer this matter to WP:ARBCOM. — Yamla (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2007 (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.

Are they ready for a dissenting voice? Or do they still need the "protectionism" of a ban on "Bus stop?" I think that is the only question. There are no editorial infractions for Bus stop. I provided you with your only editorial infraction: the vulgar words I used towards Durova. I wonder: how much more mileage do my adversarial editors intend to extract from that one quote? How many more times do you intend to quote it? Do you find that quote "in character" for Bus stop? Can you find a second example of a similar quote from Bus stop? Or is that quote unlike anything else uttered by Bus stop? Please quote for me another example of Bus stop's use of similar language, or a statement made by Bus stop conveying a similar sentiment. I've apologized to Durova for those vulgar words. Would several more apologies from me to Durova result in my adversaries' ceasing to seize on the only thing that sounds like a violation of WP:CIVIL for Bus stop?

Durova is an administrator. Durova put together a list [[5]], ostensibly of the reasons to indefinitely ban Bus stop. It consists of 8 links to articles and article Talk pages. Why are there no editorial infractions to be found for Bus stop in any of those links? Tell me if I am wrong, but I do not find any editorial infractions for Bus stop in any of those links. This is what Dweller had to say about those links:

"Comment. I looked at three or four of the diffs presented as "Recent disruption" (not in order), without perceiving any of them as particularly disruptive. This bothered me and put me off looking at the rest of the diffs, because my time is short. Can someone present a diff for the "nigger" comment referred to above and a few examples of recent, really disruptive behaviour. Thank you. --Dweller 16:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)"

(There exists, of course, no "nigger" comment, just another editor's need to misconstrue.)

The above is from that same link, called "Full Judaism community topic ban for Bus stop" [[6]]. Also at that same link, please see TShilo12's comment concerning that effort to get Bus stop banned:

"Oppose: This is a grossly inappropriate effort to limit the contributions by an editor who opposes the POV of another group of editors. Please revisit WP:DR. Tomertalk 23:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)"

It should be noted that TShilo12 is an active contributor to Judaism-related articles. TShilo12 does recognize and identify the editors opposing me as representing a "POV." He does not accuse them of "point of view PUSHING." But my personal opinion is that point of view pushing is what some of them sometimes engage in. For instance, one important "battleground" has been the Who is a Jew? article, where a group of editors have substituted the term "ethnic Jew" for the far more plain terms "nonreligious Jew," "secular Jew," or "nonobservant Jew." I'm not going to get into a dragged out argument here, but the point of view pushing is on the part of those who promote the relatively unusual locution "ethnic Jew" where far clearer and plainer terms are available. It is not that "ethnic Jew" has no applicability. Nor have I ever even addressed the question of whether Jews constitute an "ethnicity" or not. But when constructing a sentence, the proper term is the one that conveys the intended meaning of the sentence, without added spin. "Ethnic Jew" is, or has been, used gratuitously in many of these instances, and that is a clear instance of point of view pushing. Wikipedia should not be in the business of telling people how to think. Wikipedia should not be promoting points of view. That is in violation of the spirit of WP:SOAPBOX.

All of Durova's links are to religion-related articles. Is this why some editors want to see Bus stop banned from editing religion-related articles? Durova's links are actually exculpatory, because no editorial infractions are to be found for Bus stop in any of these links. I have not found any and nor has anyone else found any.

My account should be unblocked because I have a legitimate "voice." Calling someone (me) a troll and attempting to get them excluded from editing is immature and selfish.

I don't think the editors opposing me need endless protectionism. I am at least as legitimate an editor as those wishing to silence me. (I don't wish to silence ANYONE, just about. I welcome healthy debate. I use the Talk page of articles. I engage other editors in conversation. I do not make a habit of reverting in totality -- that is the non-communicative way of working with other editors on writing an article. Collaborative writing is ruled out by reverting in totality somebody's hard work; it engenders bad feelings.) Please look over the following links and tell me where the editorial infractions (for Bus stop) can be found:

Recent disruption:

I look forward to helping those editors who oppose me to write better, more balanced articles, especially religion-related articles. Where religion crops up on Wikipedia there are to be found some passionate people who see it as their mission to promote some dearly held view. For instance at the List of notable converts to Christianity article, there is still no mention that for Bob Dylan there exists no known conversion procedure, time, or place. That is an interesting point; I think the viewer would be well-served to be apprised of the plain and simple fact that the term conversion may not have any more than a figurative applicability in the instance of Bob Dylan. But any mention of that is considered anathema to the dearly held beliefs of some editors, and is vehemently resisted. That too represents point of view pushing. Depriving the reader of jumping off points for further inquiry I think is contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia. Relevant information should not be purged in order advance a favored view.

PS: I am now working full time at a job in the real world. I may not have time to respond to all comments immediately. I would appreciate it if some of my adversaries would not agitate to get my Talk page "protected" before I've had an opportunity to respond to comments that may be left for me. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]