User talk:Bus stop

Wikipedia's cesspool

There's a good deal of lowlife activity on Wikipedia. (There is also a lot of good work done on Wikipedia.) List of notable converts to Christianity is primarily a cesspool of the worst I have ever stumbled upon on Wikipedia. Bus stop 13:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block

Per Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, this account has been blocked indefinitely for persistent refusal to abide by site policies. Durova^Charge! 04:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite Christian antisemitism

Per Christian antisemitism, List of notable converts to Christianity uses that article (list) to "showcase" Jews. If they have ever displayed any passing interest in Christianity, especially if they have celebrity status (Bob Dylan, for instance) they are fair game for that article, which has been a locus of antisemitism since its inception. Bus stop 09:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite Christian anti-atheism

Per Christian anti-atheism, List of notable converts to Christianity uses that article (list) to "showcase" Atheists. If they have ever displayed any passing interest in Christianity, especially if they have celebrity status (Larry Flynt, for instance) they are fair game for that article, which has been a locus of anti-atheism since its inception. Ttiotsw 11:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It is debatable whether atheism is a religion. Bus stop 12:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock|Your reason here (A)

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:

editing an article shouldn't be a reason to be blocked

Decline reason:

You were not blocked for merely editing, but for being disruptive. Mangojuice^talk 14:29, 26 June 2007 (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.

I have not been blocked for being disruptive. I have engaged in far more Talk page dialogue than any other editor. I have tried to argue my point of view on the article's Talk page. You obviously have not looked at the article's Talk page if you think I have been "disruptive." What I have tried to do, far more than any editor in this discussion, is to articulate my argument using the article's Talk page. That, in Wikipedia terms, is the opposite of disruption. That, in fact, is essential to Wikipedia. My comments on the Talk page especially in recent days have been vandalized repeatedly. In fact the use of the Talk page in recent days has been all about vandalism. My remarks were moved. Other people moved or removed their remarks. Topic headers were inserted separating my comment from the person I was responding to. That I also edited the article on occasion too is not a violation of any policy. As an editor I have as much right as any of the other editors to directly make changes to the article. I have been anything but "disruptive." I have been articulate on the Talk page -- that is what this is all about. Rather than engage me in dialogue editors have chosen to report me on ridiculous charges, and engage in a lot of personal attacks, to which I have by and large not responded. It is my reasoning, articulated on the article's Talk page that has the present bunch of editors fuming. They cannot engage me in dialogue because I am using sound logic to present an argument. There have been plenty of personal attacks, and they have not been by me. I never called any individual an antisemite. I have characterized the placement of a known Jew on a list of converts to Christianity as antisemitic. That is my prerogative, because it is a comment on the article; it is not a comment on an editor. Any and every excuse has been attempted to harass me and get me blocked and drive me away -- just as they've successfully driven away several other people whose opinions were dissenting. Please just look at the Talk page. I don't think there is any reason why I should have to point to anything on the Talk page in particular. The bulk of my involvement with this article involves the articulation of a point of view. That was done by me on the article's Talk page. Nothing in that articulation of an argument in countless posts on the article's Talk page constitutes "disruption." Please see below for some applicable policies in support of this argument. And please, just look at the Talk page for yourself. Bus stop 15:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Another point that I would like to make is that I rarely if ever report anybody about anything, but the horde mentality so prevalent here has reported every misconstrued misstep that they could possibly find or dream up about me. Bus stop 15:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not at all about "disruption." This is about making a cogent argument. The gang of editors can't counter a cogent argument. My "offense" is making a cogent argument. I've argued that non Christians should be excluded from this list. I've argued that this list should confine its contents to Christians. That is my prerogative, to make that argument. I don't have to cave in to majority opinion if I think it represents something sufficiently problematic. It is my argument that has the editors here fuming. This is their way of responding to cogent argument. "Disruption" is not even a factor. The editors here are at least as guilty of anything they've accused me of. I've had tons of my comments on the Talk page removed. I've just moved on from there. I haven't compiled a list of wrongs done against me. I haven't gone complaining to administrators about it. My offense is the strength of my argument that this list should stick to straightforward parameters. These folks first decide what list they would like to have, then they concoct the parameters and the title that will result in that list. I am completely within my rights as a Wikipedia editor for speaking my mind, and that is not disruption. Bus stop 16:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Bus stop. I'm going to have to reiterate that your argument, no matter how awesome and glorious you find it to be, is merely your own opinion. Sorry to say, but others find your argument wholly lacking, myself included.

Likewise, I'm certain that any other editor involved finds their own argument cogent and worth great consideration, but that doesn't make it so (and as you continuously ignore arguments presented against you, your portrayal of the supremacy of your own argument is rather hypocritical).

You really need to get off this high horse and drop the drama. Your argument is nothing more than simply that- your own argument. It is not holy scripture. It is not the path to enlightenment. As other users have responded to your argument many times, and moved to such a critical standpoint of your position, it's safe to say that your re-pasting of your argument is more a cause of annoyance to the other editors than of actual concern.

Your original responses are always appreciated, but you are achieving nothing by repeating the same half-baked argument ad nauseam.--C.Logan 18:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy

Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and may not be treated as binding.

Polling discourages consensus

Having the option of settling a dispute by taking a poll, instead of the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of each side's arguments, actually undermines the progress in dispute resolution that Wiki has allowed. Wikipedia is not a democracy. This is a strength, not a failing. Dialectics is one of the most important things that make Wiki special, and while taking a poll is very often a lot easier than helping each other find a mutually agreeable position, it's almost never better.

Polling encourages the community to remain divided by avoiding that discourse; participants don't interact with the other voters, but merely choose camps. Establishing consensus requires expressing that opinion in terms other than a choice between discrete options, and expanding the reasoning behind it, addressing the points that others have left, until all come to a mutually agreeable solution. No one can address objections that aren't stated, points that aren't made.

Yes, establishing consensus is a lot harder than taking a poll. So are most things worth doing.

FYI

Hey Bus stop--I've made a personal appeal to the two admins who blocked and upheld the block against you as I felt the indefinite block was unusually excessive. I've followed the situation from a distance as I don't know too much about the subject matter. I am inclined to side with you on your principle points, in particular the agenda to promote Christianity through wikipedia (I know born-agains and recognize their tactics), and as well, the ganging up tactics used to discredit you. However, to be blunt, I'm not in favour of your own tactics and have felt you let things get out of control, rather than step back and find a different approach. The admin Durova has made an offer which you may want to consider. I won't get involved beyond this, mainly out of respect for you (I wasn't sure if "budding in" was the answer or would be considered insulting or patronising). Good luck and don't let the bastards get you down. Freshacconci 16:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Durova's proposed conditions for your reinstatement can be found on the User talk:Durova page under the heading of "Blocking of Bus stop". Unfortunately, I don't know how to make a link to a page that already has braces in the title, but it's the last heading on that page. John Carter 16:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Durova#Blocking of User:Bus stop? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop - Try editing for a while away from those pages. You've made your points, and you've made your stand. Its time to let it go. Modernist 18:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Freshacconci, I'm one of the "bastards" on that article and I have no Christian agenda (I'm not even Christian). Please keep the polemic out of this as there is no anti-semitic agenda. Drumpler 06:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

To clarify things if there's any doubt, I'm not asking for any admission of wrongdoing. I'll unblock you if you pledge to enter WP:ADOPT and avoid one article for three months. As I explained some time ago at User:Durova/Recusal, I could have headed down the wrong path myself. Maybe you'll regain good standing if you stay away from this hot button topic. Durova^Charge! 19:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You are not asking for an admission of wrongdoing from who?

I accept absolutely no constraints on me. The constraints suggested are equally applicable to several of the other editors who filed these complaints against me. My opinion (about the article) is backed up by a strong argument. Let the other editors use the Talk page of the article to counter my argument after this block is removed. I've done nothing that they haven't done.

Nor have you articulated anything I've done that they haven't done. Bus stop 22:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong argument? I haven't seen a single point from you which has not already been responded to multiple times, and yet you still feel inclined to post the same argument over and over again.--C.Logan 23:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

All right Bus stop, since your unblock review request has been denied your other option is arbitration. You can submit a statement to the open request by e-mailing an arbitration clerk. If you change your mind about my unblock offer you can contact me by e-mail or if I'm not available you can post a new unblock request to this talk page. Regarding the other portion of your comment, tu quoque is not a defense. That said, I'll take a look at an e-mail if choose to back up your assertions with a well researched report in the style of User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc. It wouldn't affect your block status one way or the other but it might result in action against other editors. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 01:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That sleuthing on Joan of Arc is excellent work. I like drilling down like that trying to match editors with IPs based on traffic/pattern analysis (have spent 20 years on fault finding on Telecoms and Network systems so it's in my blood). Lot to learn on that one (like using impersonation accounts).

On the other matter though I'd like to point out that Bus Stop was blocked for edits on Bob Dylan and List of notable people who converted to Christianity which was so eloquently described as the "cesspool" by him, so two pages not one. Shift happens though and it's probably moot now anyway. Ttiotsw 09:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Freshacconci, and Modernist for your support. Bus stop 10:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock|Your reason here (B)

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:

The administrator Isotope23 has been "protecting" the article for weeks at the drop of a hat. I have edited the article little in weeks. The administrator Isotope23 has been "protecting" the article for weeks even when I had not edited it in days, in each instance citing "edit warring" as the reason. The administrator Isotope23 has thus created the atmosphere in which to get me blocked. The administrator Isotope23 claims to have no interest in the outcome of any issues involved here. That seems unlikely.

My "offense" is the successful use of the article's Talk page, combined with my occasional edit to the article itself. What the editors dislike most about me is that I have used the Talk page to articulate an argument for confining the use of this list to Christians only. It is my cogent argumentation in support of that point of view that is my offense. I have actually put up with enormous personal attacks constantly. Anyone who looks over the Talk page and is in possession of an objective state of mind can see that I have been anything but "disruptive." I've put up with near constant personal attacks that I've rarely responded to.

I have occasionally edited the article. That is something that I am permitted to do. Everyone edits the article. The administrator Isotope23 has been constantly "protecting" the article even in the absence of edits from me. Drumpler posts this on Isotope23's Talk page:

"Where's the edit warring? I see no violations of WP:3RR or anything of the sort in the recent edit history. There's only one edit warrior (I guess you could call it) and its been User:Bus stop. Is it sensible to protect an article because of one person? I'm fairly certain your recent actions on the List of notable converts to Christianity article was because of this user and I'd sooner have this editor who has had a repeated history of such abuses removed from participation from this article, whereas the rest of us have been seriously discussing it and trying to come to a consensus. Drumpler 21:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)"

Drumpler, of course, filed this complaint against me. Yet even Drumpler is seen here saying to Isotope23, "Where's the edit warring?" See it for yourself here. Bus stop 10:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your statement is too long, and the supposed offenses of others are irrelevant for the question as to whether or not you should be unblocked. At any rate, it appears that all of your last 500 edits involve a very few articles and the single question of what religion Bob Dylan is. This is a pretty good indicator for disruptive editing. This makes the block appear, on its face, to be correct. Please discuss the terms of any unblock with the blocking admin. — Sandstein 20:16, 27 June 2007 (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.

Sandstein -- The question is not what religion Bob Dylan is. The question is whether or not non-Christians should be on a list of Christians. Why would a non-Christian be on a list of converts to Christianity? A convert to Christianity is a Christian. Look at the parameters expressed in the tag which heads up the List of notable converts to Judaism:

"This page is a list of Jews. This list of Jews should be restricted to individuals identified as Jews by reliable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies. Any items not conforming to these policies may be removed immediately."

Why would anybody think it would be otherwise? Bus stop 22:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it goes on from there. Here is Drumpler's next comment on Isotope23's Talk page: "Again, you blocked the page. Where are the violations? I am just curious as I would like to know your reasoning for doing so. Thanks. Drumpler 05:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)" It's in the same place, here. Bus stop 11:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Isotope23 has been blocking the page when I hadn't touched it in days. But Isotope23 will tell you that he has no interest in the outcome of this dispute. Of course, Isotope23 also blocked me for 48 hours for editing the page one time.[1]. He says that I do not use the article's Talk page. Please look at the article's Talk page. In point of fact I make extensive use of it. In point of fact I use the article's Talk page probably more than any other editor. I don't use it to make personal attacks on other editors. I use it to articulate my point of view. That is what this block to my account is primarily about. Secondarily it is about my edits to the article itself. But primarily this complaint has been filed against me in lieu of addressing my points. They can't address my points. Because they are using Wikipedia as a soapbox, and ignoring Wikipedia's primary policy of neutrality, not to mention failing to respect the differences between different religions. Bus stop 12:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Any protection I did to the page was not specifically about you Bus stop (talk · contribs), it was because of edit warring, which I explained to Drumpler (talk · contribs) after he contacted me. The fact that you and others were continuing to add and remove the same content from the page over and over constitues an edit war, plain and simple. The one time I blocked you was for resuming said edit war immediately after the page was unprotected. I didn't create any atmosphere to get you blocked Bus stop (talk · contribs); my page protections were interrupting the edit warring and despite what Drumpler (talk · contribs) stated about protecting the article from one person I didn't see it that way. It takes more than one person to edit war. It was a choice to either protect the article or block the lot of you who were edit warring... I chose to protect the article.

Though I suspect you don't believe me, I really do not have any interest in which wrong version of the article is ultimately at that namespace; I just want the disruptive edit warring to stop. I'm sorry to see you blocked indefinitely for this, but I suspect that this second attempt to request an unblock by trying to blame me for your woes isn't going to be very successful given the fact that I didn't block you. It's unfortunate the earlier ARBCOM request was not accepted because, in my opinion at least, there were multiple issues at this article that went beyond just your behavior there.--Isotope23 13:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Isotope23 blocked me for making one edit to the article in several days. I don't think Isotope23 ever blocked anyone else for editing that article. Isotope23 never once spoke up about near continuous personal attacks on me on the article's Talk page. Isotope23 had no comment on the ongoing vandalism of a lot of varieties that plagued that article's Talk page, on which I tried to make my case for the List of notable converts to Christianity to confine its name collecting endeavors to Christians only.

My argument that the List of notable converts to Christianity should exclude non-Christians is what this argument is about. The complaints filed against me and my subsequent account block are because I argued an unpopular argument. "Disruption" is nonexistent, not from me anyway. Bus stop 14:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I blocked you for making adding the same disputed edit immediately after the article came of protection. That is disruptive. As for the article talkpage, there were/are a lot of editors saying a lot of things, some rather incivil, which is something I was hoping the arbitration request would address. I never took action against anyone, yourself included Bus stop, for talkpage issues. I wasn't there to be the "niceness police". My interest was in seeing the revert warring on the article stop. If you had an issue with the conduct of other editors, you should have brought it up on WP:ANI.--Isotope23 14:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I had every right to edit the article. Did anyone else ever edit that article? Did anyone else ever edit that article after it came out of protection? Did you block them? How can you tell me to use the Talk page? I used the Talk page more than any other editor. What does this mean [2]? Are you saying that I did not use the Talk page enough? As an editor I had the right to not only use the Talk page but edit the article. Every time the article came out of "protection" someone edited the article. Who edited the article was dependent on the state that the article was in when you put it in protection. And you were unusually fond of putting the article in "protection." Even Drumpler said to you, on your Talk page, "Where's the edit warring? I see no violations of WP:3RR or anything of the sort in the recent edit history." And in Drumpler's next post on your Talk page he says, "Again, you blocked the page. Where are the violations? I am just curious as I would like to know your reasoning for doing so." (link)

You, Isotope23, were putting the article in "protection" even if I had not done any editing to the article in days. And you were not, concomitantly, blocking anyone else for editing the article. And all the while the horde on the article's Talk page were plotting their next move against me. Were you aware of that? Was I not being blamed for the fact that the article was in "protection?" Were you not aware of that? You caused this situation as much as any editor did. You used your power as an administrator improperly and you failed to use your power as an administrator properly. Bus stop 15:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There is really no point in continuing dialogue with a disruptive editor who honestly believes he has done nothing wrong. What can be gained from attempting reasoned discussion with an editor who suffers from a delusional perspective of events and holds a strongly narcissistic view of his own argument?--C.Logan 15:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the diff you posted, I meant exactly what I said; going back to removing Dylan & continuing the add/remove/add/remove pattern that has been happening at this article for a while now, right when the article came off protection, & during a conversation on the talkpage about said content was disruptive... hence the temporary block I issued. I replied to Drumpler (talk · contribs) here; I don't feel it is necessary to rehash that. It appears you feel that my use of protection was implicitly to protect the article from you Bus stop (talk · contribs) and that simply is not the case. I was protecting the article from edit warring by multiple editors. If it had been my intention to protect the article from any one specific editor I would have used user blocks instead of article protection. I don't doubt that there are individuals who would have been much happier had I chosen that route... Regardless, as Durova said above, you are welcome to email an ARBCOM clerk if you feel that my actions or your block merits further review.--Isotope23 15:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Isotope23 blocked no one but Bus stop. And Isotope23 "protected" the article when no "edit warring" was going on. That is what Drumpler's remarks are saying. Drumpler says:

"Where's the edit warring?"

And Drumpler says:

"Again, you blocked the page. Where are the violations?"

And furthermore, if you were "protecting" the article from "multiple editors" then why did you not block anyone else besides Bus stop? In point of fact you only blocked Bus stop. Bus stop 16:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• In response to your contention that I protected the article when no edit warring was happening, I again direct you to the diff of the response I made to Drumpler's orginal post above. As for page protection and blocking, I've answered all this above. Sorry, but I have no interest in tediously repeating myself here ad infinitum. If you have a problem with my actions, please email an ARBCOM clerk.--Isotope23 16:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me fine tune what I said above: You sometimes protected the article when no edit warring was going on. That is not only my opinion. That is what Drumpler says in two posts on your Talk page.

When there was edit warring going on, why did you block no one but Bus stop? Was only Bus stop edit warring? Bus stop 17:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as you're going to continue using my quote for your own cause, no matter how noble you think it may be, let's quote it in full, shall we?

Where's the edit warring? I see no violations of WP:3RR or anything of the sort in the recent edit history. There's only one edit warrior (I guess you could call it) and its been User:Bus stop. Is it sensible to protect an article because of one person? I'm fairly certain your recent actions on the List of notable converts to Christianity article was because of this user and I'd sooner have this editor who has had a repeated history of such abuses removed from participation from this article, whereas the rest of us have been seriously discussing it and trying to come to a consensus. Drumpler 21:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

When I wrote said comment, I was actually commenting against you. My gist was that I didn't think any editor was being disruptive at the time of this incident except you. If my memory is correct (and I may have to go back to the diffs to substantiate this), editors were correcting one another, true, but I didn't see any contentious editing, only people making improvements to each other's edits. It was then I noticed that you reverted at least twice. That's why I called you an "edit warrior". That's why I thought you were being problematic. And although I still think that's the case and I protect that statement, I actually have no point to even argue this with Isotope23 as he perceived the events differently. This, however, stems beyond one incidient of disruptive editing on your own part, so I think using this quote in isolation and out-of-context to be wholly deceiving. You may or may not perceive it the same, but it is best to look at the case at a whole and not mistake the forest for the trees. Drumpler 19:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Drumpler -- What does the following mean?

"Where's the edit warring?"

And, Drumpler, What does the following mean?

"Again, you blocked the page. Where are the violations?"

Please stop trying to transform black into white, and/or white into black.

You are clearly in your above two statements responding with incredulity to blockages being applied to the article without the presence of causes, by Isotope23. Please stop trying to transform the intent of your past statements into a revised meaning to suit your present concerns. Bus stop 13:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

See that, Drumpler? First, he tells us what the actions of Bob Dylan really mean. Then, he tells us what the reliable and explicit sources really mean when they claim conversion.

All the while, we've been told what the disclaimer on the List of notable converts to Judaism really means, and also what the title of List of notable converts to Christianity really means (not to mention dictating his own scope of parameters like a knight in shining armor).

Now, he's telling you what your statements really mean, because apparently he can provide an exegesis of your words which holds more weight than your own explanation of what you'd actually meant when you said them. That's a superhuman power!--C.Logan 15:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not too worried about it. Obviously, the only thing that matters is what my own words really do mean and if I alone know what they mean, that's sufficient for me. My concern, however, is that he wants to establish himself as being the victim and is using childish tactics in order to reclaim his status as editor, a prospect I find more and more unlikely the more he posts these same accusations to these page. Drumpler 22:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Since C.Logan and Drumpler are obviously not seeing what is so obvious, let us just look at the entire topic under the heading For your information on Isotope23's Talk page:

For your information

Please see here for what I believe may be an example of someone you had earlier warned not to do something doing it again. John Carter 15:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Where's the edit warring? I see no violations of WP:3RR or anything of the sort in the recent edit history. There's only one edit warrior (I guess you could call it) and its been User:Bus stop. Is it sensible to protect an article because of one person? I'm fairly certain your recent actions on the List of notable converts to Christianity article was because of this user and I'd sooner have this editor who has had a repeated history of such abuses removed from participation from this article, whereas the rest of us have been seriously discussing it and trying to come to a consensus. Drumpler 21:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, you blocked the page. Where are the violations? I am just curious as I would like to know your reasoning for doing so. Thanks. Drumpler 05:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As I explained here, the continued addition, removal, and re-addition of sections while the discussion is ongoing constitutes edit warring; that is why I protected the page. I've been away from the talkpage for a couple of days (busy elsewhere). I know the protection says "indefinite", but that is simply because I didn't want to update the protection every time it lapsed if the talkpage conversation took too long. I'm fairly satisfied there is a consensus on the page right now and I'm willing to unprotect it.--Isotope23 13:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for your help, however, it would seem Bus stop is already gaming the article.[3][4] The individual has not taken part in any of the discussions and when consensus has been reached, often filibusters in order to distract from the issue at hand. The problem is not with the article, its with him. I have asked other editors not to touch the article, inspite of Bus stop's edits. We've already been through two mediators and this user has ignored all counsel and attempts at consensus -- in fact, he rarely participates, except to give his own "copy-paste" dry response. What would be the next best step? Drumpler 14:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFC, WP:CN, or possibly WP:ARBCOM. This article is going to exist in a continual state of flux unless some of the editing behaviors here are addressed. Protection was the band-aid I slapped on there to let a discussion happen without continual edit warring.--Isotope23 15:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The above is the entirety of it. I've merely underlined and bolded the relevant parts. Bus stop 22:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock|Your reason here (C)

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:

decline,Your statement is too long, and the supposed offenses of others are irrelevant for the question as to whether or not you should be unblocked. At any rate, it appears that all of your last 500 edits involve a very few articles and the single question of what religion Bob Dylan is. This is a pretty good indicator for disruptive editing. This makes the block appear, on its face, to be correct. Please discuss the terms of any unblock with the blocking admin. — Sandstein 20:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The question is not what religion Bob Dylan is. The question is whether or not non-Christians should be on a list of Christians. Why would a non-Christian be on a list of converts to Christianity? A convert to Christianity is a Christian. Look at the parameters expressed in the tag which heads up the List of notable converts to Judaism:

"This page is a list of Jews. This list of Jews should be restricted to individuals identified as Jews by reliable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies. Any items not conforming to these policies may be removed immediately."

Why would anybody think it would be otherwise?

Decline reason:

In other words, you're saying "but I'm right." Administrators will not be choosing sides on the issue; you will certainly not be unblocked for being right. I don't care one way or another but I will say that consensus is clearly against you but you keep making your points anyway, over and over, and this is accompanied by editing the article in a way that is immediately reverted. This unblock request makes it clear you are not interested in dropping the issue, which to me makes unblocking a remote possibility. Mangojuice^talk 12:37, 28 June 2007 (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.

Bus stop 11:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Your statement is too long, and the supposed offenses of others are irrelevant for the question as to whether or not you should be unblocked. At any rate, it appears that all of your last 500 edits involve a very few articles and the single question of what religion Bob Dylan is. This is a pretty good indicator for disruptive editing. This makes the block appear, on its face, to be correct. Please discuss the terms of any unblock with the blocking admin. — Sandstein 20:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The question is not what religion Bob Dylan is. The question is whether or not non-Christians should be on a list of Christians. Why would a non-Christian be on a list of converts to Christianity? A convert to Christianity is a Christian. Look at the parameters expressed in the tag which heads up the List of notable converts to Judaism:

"This page is a list of Jews. This list of Jews should be restricted to individuals identified as Jews by reliable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies. Any items not conforming to these policies may be removed immediately."

Why would anybody think it would be otherwise? Bus stop 11:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please DO NOT unblock this user.

Sorry but this banned user was still on my watchlist and I noticed he's still at it. To any passing admin I'd just like to point out that the same argument about the "This page is a list of Jews......" was posted around 12 times on the talk page of the List_of_notable_converts_to_Christianity article. He's now used it 3 or 4 times here on the user talk page. Please do not reverse this ban as the block so far has just caused him to generated the same screeds of talk here that had caused the disruption on the talk pages. Post reply on my talk page as I'm unwatching this page.Ttiotsw 12:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ttiotsw -- What you fail to realize is that the much vaunted consensus for the inclusion of non-Christians in the List of notable converts to Christianity is a fiction because consensus is the result of dialogue, not simple voting. See WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. I am not posting the following for my health:

"This page is a list of Jews. This list of Jews should be restricted to individuals identified as Jews by reliable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies. Any items not conforming to these policies may be removed immediately." [5]

In order for you and your bunch of editors who cling together like peas in a pod to claim consensus you would have to address the implications of the above, and you would have to satisfactorily counter the implications of the above, as those implications would be applicable to the List of notable converts to Christianity. You have not done that. Nor has any other editor. Instead you and others have used the article's Talk page to attack me. I have presented the above and other arguments to support my contention that the List of notable converts to Christianity should exclude non-Christians. I think that in order to claim consensus you have to actually respond to someone who presents a point of view that you disagree with. Personal attacks do not constitute adequate response. Most of the Talk page use by Ttiotsw and a gang of other editors is merely personal attack on me. There is failure to address relevant points, such as the one I raise above. If you can't adequately respond to it and counter it, then you do not have consensus. Please see the following:

Wikipedia is not a democracy

Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and may not be treated as binding.

Polling discourages consensus

Having the option of settling a dispute by taking a poll, instead of the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of each side's arguments, actually undermines the progress in dispute resolution that Wiki has allowed. Wikipedia is not a democracy. This is a strength, not a failing. Dialectics is one of the most important things that make Wiki special, and while taking a poll is very often a lot easier than helping each other find a mutually agreeable position, it's almost never better.

Polling encourages the community to remain divided by avoiding that discourse; participants don't interact with the other voters, but merely choose camps. Establishing consensus requires expressing that opinion in terms other than a choice between discrete options, and expanding the reasoning behind it, addressing the points that others have left, until all come to a mutually agreeable solution. No one can address objections that aren't stated, points that aren't made.

Yes, establishing consensus is a lot harder than taking a poll. So are most things worth doing. Bus stop 13:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to Mangojuice

Mangojuice -- Consensus is not "against" me. You have apparently not looked at the Talk page for List of notable converts to Christianity. Consensus is not arrived at by taking straw polls. And consensus surely is not arrived at by personal attacks. Consensus is arrived at by honest debate. See WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY:

Yes, establishing consensus is a lot harder than taking a poll. So are most things worth doing.

Bus stop 14:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to quote the policy on your page, especially not three times. I'm well aware of it. What you fail to realize is that consensus does not mean that everyone has to agree: in particular, you don't have to agree. Wikipedia is not a democracy but neither is it a tyranny of an argumentative minority who refuses to accept that their arguments have not convinced others. If there is a time that the majority should be overruled it is when policy supports the minority over the majority, but here, policy supports the majority. There is no policy that will tell us what should be covered at any individual article: that is up to the editors. However, policy (WP:V) does say that it is up to those who want to include the information to justify it, and it has been justified plenty. You've had plenty of opportunity to convince the other editors that you are right and they are wrong but you haven't convinced them. At this point you are continuing to argue because you can't accept that you haven't won the argument. On top of that you have been insulting the users who disagree with you, bickering over minor points, and also, reverting the article to your preferred version whenever you seem to pluck up the courage to try again. What we are all saying is, enough is enough. Mangojuice^talk 16:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is fundamental Christian animus toward Jews to put Jews on a list of Christians. Wikipedia should know better than to fail to respect differences in this fundamental way. Bus stop 14:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

BUT it's NOT a list of Christians? It's a List of notable people who converted to Christianity Teapotgeorge 14:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And the difference is what? A convert to Christianity is a Christian. Bus stop 14:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as you want to hold to this view that the whole of Wikipedia is on an anti-semitic agenda, I don't think there's much that can be done. A reasonable proposal was made above to mentor you, on the condition that you stayed away from previous problematic articles, but you ignored that proposal. I'm not saying you don't have the right to hold the view that you do and you may even be right in the end . . . however, this isn't about who is "right" as much as it is about behaviour and as an editor involved with the above dispute with you, I fear the day that you are unblocked is the day you will return to disruptive editing on the articles mentioned above. I'd suggest the proposal considered above. I think when you can learn to discuss with people, instead of throwing up a brick wall of accusations and ignoring other editors concerns with a copy-and-pasted response, then I would be more comfortable with your unblocking. Until then, use this as an opportunity to grow and consider the mentorship. There's no shame in that. Drumpler 14:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I said that the "whole of Wikipedia is on an anti-semitic agenda?" Does Drumpler have a respect for truth? In my opinion this discussion could be more meaningful if Drumpler responded to what was actually said. Bus stop 15:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Whenever an individual joins the discussion and disagrees with you, they are easily maligned and eventually grouped in with all the other individuals with whom you disagree. Individuals, it seems, whose editing stance you believe is purely antisemitic. Nevermind what they say! Don't bother listening to their explanation! Don't even consider that the majority of individuals to whom you attribute the development of a pro-Christian agenda are not even Christians!

You'd made it clear on your userpage that you do not edit antisemitic Wikipedias. Well that's good, because neither do I, nor should anyone. The point is that you have to move beyond your conspiratorial suspicions and just accept the fact that people disagree with you. If individuals argue over whether or not tomato should be listed on List of vegetables, they are simply arguing opinions.

Every individual has a different concept of what would make Wikipedia more informative, more useful, and more user-friendly. This doesn't mean that having a majority of individuals supporting the inclusion of the tomato implies an anti-fruitarian bias.--C.Logan 15:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not concerned with anyone's religious identity. It does not matter whether an editor is a Christian or not. Does Wikipedia ask you your religion when you sign up? Do Wikipedia's guidelines apply differentially depending on the editor's religion? Bus stop 15:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

How does that pertain to my above comment?--C.Logan 15:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I am unconcerned with whether any editor is Christian or not. Your above post implies that I am. That is obfuscation. You say that some of the editors in opposition to me are not even Christians. What difference does that make? Have I ever stated that anyone's argument was incorrect because their religious identity was Christian? You are throwing up obfuscation. Please stop doing that. I have never cast negative aspersions on anyone's argument because their religious identity might be Christian. Bus stop 16:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, you have ascribed the opinions of individuals (who are unbiased in the matter) to a pro-Christian agenda, not really considering the fact that maybe - just maybe - people disagree with your opinion simply because they think your argument holds no real weight. The concepts which you so frequently espouse, such as that of the parameters being 'contrived', is based wholly on the concept of an agenda affecting the development or adherence to such parameters.

Unfortunately, with little involvement from Christian-biased individuals in the matter, it would seem that the parameters in use are a matter of preferences and the improvement of an article rather than the pushing of any agenda. Why, then, do you choose to view the scenario as such? You have consistently raised proselytization as a major factor in Dylan's inclusion. The ultimate problem with this fallacious assertion is, again, the fact that almost none of the editors involved have a bias towards Christianity (and if anything, they stand quite contrary to it), and therefore form opinions independent from any method which might benefit Christianity. In simpler terms, the editors involved don't care about Christianity, and view it disdainfully.

If your assertions regarding the reasoning behind inclusion are true, then why do these individuals so whole-heartedly support the inclusion of this individual and the others? Could it be that your argument is not as cogent as you believe it to be? Could it be that maybe, just maybe, the inclusion of such individuals actually makes sense? Could it be that your argument is so single-minded and unflinching that you can't begin to comprehend why other individuals might actually support the inclusion of such individuals? You repeatedly cry 'obfuscation' when an editor raises a point which takes the conversation in a direction you don't want to go. Give it a break, Bus stop.

The repeated times in which you cry 'obfuscation' because you don't realize or understand the point being handed to you does not paint a pretty picture of your level of comprehension, so I would advise you to discontinue this ploy. I doubt that anyone else sees your cries of obfuscation as holding any validity, and it rather seems that you yourself are ironically committing obfuscation through your misdirection, misinterpretation and misrepresentation.

The fact that I've had to explain this to you because you take the last sentence in the first semi-paragraph of my earlier comment down the wrong alley is a troubling sign. Again, in plain terms: You have an opinion. Others disagree with you. This doesn't make them wrong. This doesn't mean that they are catering to any sort of agenda. It simply means that some individuals believe something, and you believe in another thing. You are as "wrong" as they are, and they are as "right" as you are: that's how opinions work, Bus stop.

My opinion is that the article would be more useful in general if the individuals in question were included. Apparently, many editors agree, and given their backgrounds, it's hard to continue arguing that any sort of agenda is being pushed in this scenario.--C.Logan 17:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

C.Logan -- I couldn't care less what any editor's religion is. Nor have you the foggiest idea what my religion is or if I have a religion. I don't attend to such petty matters that are none of my business anyway. If the article is "antisemitic" then that is a problem with the article. Please don't try to censor my comments on the article based on some trumped up charges of personal attacks on any editor based on that editor's religion. The article (List of notable converts to Christianity) in its present state happens to smack of Christian antisemitism. That is a criticism of the article. Bus stop 21:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You can believe the article is antisemitic, but I wholly doubt that that's ever been the intent. Surely not on my end. And this doesn't seem to be working for you, so I advise you stop it and become a more reasonable editor and consider the proposal above. Drumpler 22:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Drumpler -- No one said anything about anyone's intentions. Have you been following the discussion? Bus stop 23:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd think an article could only be anti-semitic if that was the intention of its author(s). As I do not see any evidence to support that statement, I don't perceive the article as anti-semitic. Maybe you could argue that that could be the perception, but it certainly is not the intent. But then again, you're banned from editing that article so I don't know why I'm even discussing this with you. I would heartily recommend the proposal above from the admin who offered you mentorship. Drumpler 23:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Drumpler -- I'm blocked from editing List of notable converts to Christianity because you nor any other editor was able to address the problems that I raised on that article's Talk page. My disruption is not to the article itself. I presented argument that you and no other editor were able to respond to. Straw polls don't establish consensus. Consensus is the result of honest discussion. You would have to have been able to counter my argument to have been said to have established consensus.

Wikipedia should not be creating meandering parameters at List of notable converts to Christianity in order to include Bob Dylan on that list. The name of that article was changed only a few days ago. That change was for only one reason and that was in order to try to justify the inclusion of Bob Dylan on that list. The other 200 names on that list are Christians. The name change was only in order to accommodate Bob Dylan, who is not Christian. And that name change was brought about totally by my actions. I find the name change a laughable contrivance. But the editors at List of notable converts to Christianity would certainly have not made that name change if not for my pointing out the illogic of the list. That illogic happens to still be there. Name changes and other contrivances don't change underlying illogic. Bus stop 23:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments have been responded to numerous times, and refuted numerous times- you simply choose not to listen. In the end, all you have here is an opinion. So does everyone else. When are you going to realize this?--C.Logan 23:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I had to remove the template cited because it was listing your talk page as an article, but my question is this -- should we preclude mentioning Jews on any page where there's a crucifix? What if they are noteworthy and belong on a Christian article?

To me, the question is petty and is yet another attempt to find an anti-semitic reasoning for the editors who disagreed with you. Much like when you tried to convince every one that we were part of a "hate group". You may not say that you weren't questioning intentions, but that's a lie. Drumpler 13:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Drumpler -- Why is there a crucifix hanging over Bob Dylan's head on the List of notable converts to Christianity article?

Have Drumpler or C.Logan noticed the following tag at the top of List of notable converts to Christianity:

How does the above apply to the people on this list who don't happen to be Christian? Bus stop 14:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a cross, not a crucifix. John Carter 15:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

John Carter and Drumpler -- This is not just any article under the auspices of the Wikipedia Christianity Project. This is specifically a list of converts to Christianity. Christianity is a religion that places great importance on converting people to Christianity and on proselytizing in general. Judaism, by contrast, is a religion that does not seek converts at all. The crucifix is a symbol of Christianity. Since this is a list of converts to Christianity, and it contains visual implication of that, in the form of a cross, obviously it is offensive to a Jew such as Bob Dylan. Bus stop 15:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I favored removing the former converts, but I think you might be misunderstanding the project and what a crucifix is. Wikiprojects are put in wherever the article is relevant. It does not imply the article is, necessarily, a Christian article. For an example see Talk:Elijah. Elijah is clearly Jewish, but is in the Christianity project for relevance to Christianity. (Although he doesn't seem to be in the Judaism project, which I'll admit seems a little weird) Talk:Capital punishment also has the Christianity project in it, but is not an issue solely among Christian. As for the crucifix it is a cross with an image or representation of the crucified Christ. A cross without such an image may represent the Resurrected Christ, but it is not referred to as a crucifix. There is no project I know of that uses the crucifix. (Just popping in. Good luck with letting go of this issue and moving on to do more art stuff either here or in life)--T. Anthony 20:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as has been noted elsewhere, he seems only to be amused, not offended, by religious classification. What I think you really mean, and have effectively stated repeatedly, is that it is offensive to you. And removing verifiable information because another editor finds it offensive is not really permitted by wikipedia policy. John Carter 15:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

John Carter -- It is offensive to Jews, to Judaism, and to anyone who respects the distinctions between religions, or any other differences that people take seriously as concerns their personal identity. Bus stop 16:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for once again making yet another broad, sweeping generalization about the character and motivations of others. I'm sure your repeatedly demonstrating your willingness to insult others will be a great help in your effort to get the block lifted. :) But, as stated before, it is evidently not offensive to the subject, Dylan, himself. On that basis, the real concern seems to be not whether the subject himself finds it offensive, which would matter, but whether certain editors do, which does not. As stated before, there is no WP:IDONTLIKEIT policy, and any and all people who find certain facts offensive should know that their objection to the facts does not alter the nature of those facts, or their potential relevance for inclusion. John Carter 16:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"And then the usual gang of editors, including Isotope23, were claiming that the article had to be "protected" because of me."

Really? I claimed the article needed to be protected because of you Bus stop? I'd love to see a diff of that. In fact another part of your statement would seem to contridict that ("Isotope23 was repeatedly "protecting" the article when I had not made an edit to the article in days.") Did the thought ever cross your mind that if you didn't edit the article in days and I was protecting the article, perhaps I wasn't simply protecting the article from "you" as you've stated? Trust me, if it had ever been my intent to simply protect the article because of you Bus stop, I would have indef blocked you weeks ago rather than protect the article. Pulling out-of-context posts from Drumpler and trying to blame me for your block is just retreading your same old argument... and it wasn't compelling the first time around.--Isotope23 18:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still curious as to the location of these magical, mystical, invincible arguments you've been referring to recently. So far, I've only seem the same tired argument which has been responded to and overturned numerous times- apparently, you like to skim over those comments, if anything is evidenced by your consistent aversion to replying to many of the items addressed to you in various comments. You need to get off the ego trip concerning your 'awesome' argument- it wasn't, and it isn't, and I don't think anyone besides you holds it in such a high place.--C.Logan 18:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Consider the bottom of this page: "Categories: WikiProject Christianity | List-Class Christianity articles | Mid-importance Christianity articles | Biography articles of living people". This is because of these templates on the page (I've already had to remove them twice, but Bus stop keeps adding them). Why is Bus stop adding himself as a subject for WikiProject Christianity when he finds it offensive that Dylan is part of this project, just because his name is on a list? ;) Drumpler 21:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Template:Jew list

At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Jew_list Mangojuice is proposing deletion of that template.

At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Jew_list Mangojuice expresses his reasoning on why this is called for.

Is it my imagination or is that pretty much exactly what Mangojuice is arguing against right here on my Talk page? Should I understand that my account should be blocked because Mangojuice (twice) has declined to unblock my account, with those opinions in place that leads him to propose the deletion of the Template:Jew list? What does the above say about this administrator's ability to be unbiased in relation to the entirety of the issue of my account being blocked? Bus stop 20:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent example of failure to assume good faith. I proposed the Jew List template for deletion because it's obtrusive and unnecessary, and serves no encyclopedic function. Yes, I think what you have said led me to notice that problematic template (not the other way around). I apologize for declining your unblock twice, but in my opinion the first one was pro forma because you didn't justify your actions, respond to the complaints against you, et cetera, at all. If you request unblocking again, I will not be the one to review it, but I note that your blocking has already been reviewed by Durova (who has offered very reasonable conditions for your unblock, that you have still not responded to), Sandstein, myself, and four Arbitrators have so far not seen any reason to review the case. I suggest you do some self-examination before you throw up another unblock request, though, full of accusations of bias on behalf of everyone that disagrees with you. Mangojuice^talk 20:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Mangojuice -- In order for me to assume good faith I require at least a shred of evidence for doing so.

It continues. Now Mangojuice is putting "former converts" back on the List of notable converts to Judaism. This represents a lowering of the standards of the List of notable converts to Judaism. I guess rather than raise the standards of one list you can alternatively lower the standards of another list. Here: [[6]]. It is interesting that this administrator has twice declined to unblock my account. Pretty interesting. Bus stop 20:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be getting pretty close to declaring "cabal" Bus stop.--Isotope23 20:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the Template being proposed for deletion:

"This page is a list of Jews. This list of Jews should be restricted to individuals identified as Jews by reliable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies. Any items not conforming to these policies may be removed immediately." [7]

It explains that only Jews are contained on, for instance, the List of notable converts to Judaism. The reason why the above Template is being proposed for deletion is that editors at List of notable converts to Christianity want to include non-Christians on that list of converts to Christianity. That constitutes flabby parameters which open up the possibility of point of view pushing, which is the problem that we see at List of notable converts to Christianity. This represents the lowering of standards at one list in order to accommodate the unwillingness of the editors at another list to hew to higher standards. Is this the direction in which we should be going? Bus stop 13:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I note your comment above seems to once again indicate that you believe your own opinion regarding an issue is one which you seem to believe is almost dogmatically true. Just for your information, I would like to point out to you how dangerous that is, regarding one of your oft-repeated allegations regarding what you have charactized (not word for word) as my own blatant "agenda". I mention on my page that I am a Roman Catholic because of my involvement with several of the Christianity-related project, particularly WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy, primarily to indicate to others that I am less than really well informed on the articles relating to that subject, so that if I do make a mistake that they can feel free to correct it. You will note that I was the first person to join it, and actually the creator of the page, because I believe that content needs to have some variety of focused attention, and because the tagging and work on all the huge number of Christianity-related articles is often pretty poor, not for any didactic purposes. I say this primarily to indicate to you that your oft-repeated statement that my involvement in the previous debate was driven by evangelical purposes was, at least I believe, inaccurate. You will note, by the way, that I have never joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism, which would be the logical group for me to belong to if I were trying to push my own beliefs. Perhaps, if you were not so quick to rush to make such insinuations and actually respond to the substance of what others said, as opposed to simply repeating your own previous statements, the discussion there would have been settled more amicably and without your being blocked. Anyway, just a thought. John Carter 15:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Another Angle

I just thought I would try this in different words. I know you probably look at me as your enemy, and whatever I say will probably be replied to with a direct quotation of something you said above, or a link to irrelevant policy, but I'm going to try anyway, because I really believe that you have the potential to be a great editor if you just let go of this.

At the list of notable converts, yes, you presented a very reasonable argument against including "former converts" on the list. It was well considered and made a lot of sense. However, most of the rest of the group disagreed with you. I would go so far as to say that by the end of it, all but one of the group disagreed with you. Now, in order for there to be consensus, everyone does not need to agree, so long as almost everyone agrees, and there's no policy against doing whatever "almost everyone" wants to do. So, yeah, we understand that you're unhappy, because nobody agrees with you, but you can't win them all.

My point is this: you're blocked because "everybody else" agreed on what to do, and you insisted on doing something else, over and over, in such a way as made it hard for "everybody else" to do what they'd agreed on doing. No, a straw poll doesn't imply consensus, but when only one person holds your position, and eight or ten people hold the opposing position, that's a pretty clear consensus.

That's what we mean when we say that you were being disruptive. Removing Dylan and folks like him from the list, even after the rest of us had agreed to keep them, was the disruption. I understand that you find their inclusion offensive, but that's really not the issue at hand- if you want to keep on making your argument, without changing the article's content, you won't be blocked for that. I suggest, though, that you just leave it alone for a while- you seem to be stuck in your position, and it should be clear to you now that you're not going to sway the rest of us easily. No, we're not fundamentalist Christians trying to push an agenda- most of us aren't even Christian- we're just trying to move on with our lives. Please do the same. --Moralis (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

A note to those who need to smarten up

I don't think a name should be added to a list for decoration. Since Bob Dylan is not a convert to Christianity he has no rightful place anywhere on a List of converts to Christianity. Please remove his name. It is a farce. People should smarten up and stop trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes. Bob Dylan has nothing to do with Christianity and the folks posting here should stop engaging in the perpetrating of a hoax.

It is extremely difficult to understand your (seemingly willful) lack of comprehension in this matter. The inclusion of these individuals, one of whom you focus on almost exclusively, has already been explained to you many times, and I believe it is rather difficult for you to say that a person who converted to Christianity does not have a rightful place on a list of individuals who have converted to Christianity. Anyway, not much else is accomplished with the above comment beyond a seeming exhibition of paranoia concerning the article.--C.Logan 12:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah -- "it has been explained to me." Blah blah blah. It is impossible to articulate anything as nonsensical as that Bob Dylan ever converted to Christianity but some will never cease trying. Please stop mocking Christianity. Christianity happens to be a great religion. A performer uttering something about Christianity is not the conversion to that religion, despite the media's use of that term. There is no conversion in the case of Bob Dylan. There is no formal conversion. There is no statement attesting to having converted on the part of Bob Dylan. There is no statement that the person is a Christian, on the part of Bob Dylan. There is the original research of a bunch (an admittedly large bunch) of editors at Wikipedia who think that by saying that Bob Dylan converted to Christianity makes it so. It doesn't work that way. Without reliable sources indicating conversion to Christianity it is just an assertion of the bunch of editors who assert this. As such it is original research and should be removed. Bus stop 12:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the "original research" of those at the Encyclopedia Britannica? Drumpler 14:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No source implies conversion. (That includes Encyclopedia Britannica.) Use of the word does not imply factuality. No source states that actual conversion took place. The use of the word and the factuality of the act (of conversion) are two different things. Editors here should not be stating that conversion is a fact when in fact no source exists for that. Bus stop 15:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Then I really do believe you ought to make a submission here. It would seem that the Encyclopedia Britannica is anti-semitic, as it expressly states: "In a dramatic turnabout, he converted to Christianity in 1979 and for three years recorded and performed only religious material, preaching between songs at live shows. Critics and listeners were, once again, confounded. Nonetheless, Dylan received a Grammy Award in 1980 for best male rock vocal performance with his 'gospel' song 'Gotta Serve Somebody.'" Drumpler 17:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say the Encyclopedia Britannica was antisemitic. Please try to stay on topic. The above quote in no way asserts formal religious conversion to Christianity. It doesn't state that any sort of religious conversion took place. Clear reference is made to style of music. The reference is to music. Preaching between songs does not imply religious conversion, and Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't say it does. A 'gospel' song is just a 'gospel' song. It has nothing to do with religious conversion, and Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't say it has anything to do with religious conversion. Bob Dylan should be removed from List of converts to Christianity because no source exists saying that religious conversion to Christianity took place. Bus stop 18:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me requote this part again: "In a dramatic turnabout, he converted to Christianity . . . " That's from the Encyclopedia Britannica link I provided on Bob Dylan. Where are your sources? Drumpler 19:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No religious conversion is referred to whatsoever. In fact the several references are only to musical styles. Can you find a source that indicates religious conversion? Obviously not, or you or another editor would have presented it by now. Religious material refers to a style of music. As does "gospel." It may be Christian material but musical styles do not necessarily accomplish conversion to that religion. What you need is a source indicating religious conversion. Please find a source that states actual religious conversion. Without a source for actual religious conversion Bob Dylan should not be on the List of converts to Christianity and should be removed immediately. Bus stop 20:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Do I detect an aversion to conversation here[8], here[9], and here[10]? Apparently dialogue on this important subject is being avoided. Bus stop 23:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No "formal" conversion is required in order to change religion?... Religious conversion is the adoption of a new religious identity, or a change from one religious identity to another. This typically entails the (sincere) avowal of a new belief system, but may also be conceived in other ways, such as adoption into an identity group or spiritual lineage. Teapotgeorge 18:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No source exists for any religious conversion whatsoever, formal or otherwise. "Sincere" avowal of a belief system does not necessarily include "sermonettes" between songs or "gospel" songs themselves. But that is not for you or I to decide. Let us not debate the significance of art. The important point is that there is no source indicating religious conversion, or if there is a source for that then cite it, please. Bus stop 18:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblock|Your reason here (D)

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:

It's stupid to tie the hands of an editor who is making a valid point. Yes, there has been a dispute. No, I was not any more disruptive than any other editor. I've been far outnumbered. But that does not blunt the validity of my point. Ganging up on one editor to get him blocked does not suppress the basic validity of the point that he has stood for. The validity of my argument does not go away by confining me to my Talk page. Why are editors hobbling my ability to take part in this debate? The debates that I was involved in have been going on since my account was blocked. Not a day goes by that the discussions that I was so much a part of do not go on. All that a gang of editors succeeded in doing was suppressing my ability to speak in those discussions. Bus stop 18:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The language of your unblock request says it all really. You see wikipedia editing in terms of a battle and this is not the way we do it round here. You were blocked because you simply failed to follow site policies and you have absolutely failed to convince me that you see any fault in the way that you have behaved. We can do without that. — Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Spartaz -- My "failure" to follow "site policies" is the failure to slink away from the Talk page of List of notable converts to Christianity when confronted with not only a quantity of editors that succeeded in chasing many other people away with dissenting opinions but also a quality of editors that have no qualms about using personal attacks and intimidation. The entire block on my account is just the result of a concerted crew to suppress my opinion. Please spare me your sanctimonious claims that I "battle." I argue my points forcefully and convincingly. That is the only reason I am blocked. It is because editors on the Talk page of that article could not respond to valid concerns that I raised on the Talk page of that article that they had to get me blocked. And there was never for a moment consensus, because there was never the dialogue that by definition must precede consensus. Bus stop 18:57, 1 July 2007 (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.

WP:BLP

A person's religious affiliation is a sensitive matter.

WP:BLP says, "unsourced or poorly sourced material must be removed immediately."

As we see there are no sources unambiguously attesting to religious conversion for Bob Dylan. We certainly have no statement from Bob Dylan (at any point in time) that "I have converted to Christianity." Nothing like that exists. This being the case then under WP:BLP this material should not be included. My efforts to remove this material have been justified because WP:BLP allows for the removal of poorly sourced material about people. Religion is clearly a sensitive subject, so it is especially justified in this regard. Bus stop 01:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do I even bother with this? I'm afraid you're mistaken. There are at least three reliable, biographical sources (by Dylan experts, further satisfying WP:BLP), all of which are quite explicit about his religious conversion. Of course, you neglect to mention that, as far as you're concerned, any source which disagrees with you is either "off the table", uses "figurative language", or is only considerable when it is O.R.'d to an agreeable 'interpretation'. Give it a break- you aren't fooling anyone with this nonsense plea to WP:BLP. You're only making yourself look clueless and straw-grasping.--C.Logan 01:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

BLP says that poorly sourced material not only can, but should be removed immediately. Bus stop 01:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

...And this is material which is not only not poorly sourced, but is actually sourced very well, almost to the point of overkill. Even beside the biographies, which are in and of themselves wholly sufficient as far as WP is concerned, there are still 11 other sources (or even more) which attest to the same material. Do you understand that your unwarranted criticism of the sources is leading you to mis-apply policy in a case where practically any other user would find the citations to be entirely satisfactory?--C.Logan 02:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The labeling of Bob Dylan as a convert to Christianity is conjecture and pseudo information. WP:BLP clearly cautions against this. Bus stop 02:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of argument let's say you are right. Now what have you accomplished on the matter? Has Dylan been removed? No. Have you persuaded other editors you are correct? No. Has your continued discussion of the matter led to you being unblocked? No, perhaps the opposite. You should at least consider that you are not succeeding on the Dylan matter at the moment and need a new strategy. I'd suggest accepting whatever deal you need to in order to get unblocked. Then in the months following you can improve your editing skills and try to make friends. Once all that reaches a certain momentum you will be in a much better position to get Dylan removed. It's sort of a The Count of Monte Cristo/The Stars My Destination kind of a thing. Right now you may appear to just be a whiny crackpot.--T. Anthony 03:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The far future may be fun to ponder, but as of this moment, it seems that Mr. Bus stop is still stuck on this policy which he's quick to mis-use and abuse. You're right about one thing- BLP does caution against conjecture and pseudo information... when the information is poorly sourced. In this case, the "conjecture and pseudo information" to which you refer is considered "clear information supported by very reliable sources" by others. You are, it seems, quite pleased to persist in this delusion that the sources present are insufficient for this subject. If that is the case, then it is indeed futile to continue to reply to you- at times, I feel as if you are a Flat-Earther and I'm showing you orbital pictures in space only to have them cast aside as 'pseudo information'.--C.Logan 03:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Strategy? There is no strategy. There is adherence to BLP. There does not happen to exist any source asserting religious conversion. Don't confuse other uses of the term with religious conversion. Bus stop 03:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That was too Machiavellian, nevermind. Still it seems clear you'll have to act differently or your block will stay. I guess you can't act differently because of your principles, which is maybe a good thing. Being indefinitely blocked might allow you to focus more on your art or life. Or have greater respect for yourself. Or whatever, point is it's not not necessarily worth spending time on anyway. I don't think it's really worth my time either.--T. Anthony 04:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Bob Dylan is not an insignificant person. Why do we not see a prominent publication stating that religious conversion has transpired for Bob Dylan? Even the Christian sources do not state that actual religious conversion has transpired for Bob Dylan. This presents a BLP concern that requires closer examination. Bus stop 04:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Without a source explicitly saying that actual religious conversion transpired, for a person as prominent as Bob Dylan, the inclusion of him on a list of converts raises real BLP concerns.

By the way, Bob Dylan himself says the following: "I'm not a believer in that born-again type thing. The media make up a lot of these words for the definition of people." Bus stop 09:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[11] This was written in 1985, right after Dylan renounced Christianity. I still refer you to this sentence fragment from the Encyclopedia Britannica: "In a dramatic turnabout, he converted to Christianity . . . "

I recommend the adoption proposal below. A member of ArbCom? Shesh. I'm jealous. ;) Drumpler 09:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Another quotation from the Britannica article: "By 1982, when Dylan was inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame, his open zeal for Christianity was waning." Its important to note that Bob Dylan quotes do not exist in a vacuum, that they do have a context and the context of that quote is when Bob Dylan already renounced his Christian beliefs.

Even the interview, where this quote you shared was initially introduced, said this in its introduction: "Bob Dylan, poet laureate, prophet in a motorcycle jacket. Mystery tramp. Napoleon in rags. A Jew. A Christian. A million contradictions. A complete unknown, like a rolling stone. He's been analyzed, classified, categorized, crucified, defined, dissected, detected, inspected, and rejected, but never figured out. . . . Later, during the height of "flower power," when everyone was getting into Eastern religion, Dylan went to Jerusalem, to the Wailing Wall, wearing a yarmulke. A decade later he was a born-again Christian, or so it seemed, putting out gospel records." Drumpler 09:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Again: the Encyclopedia Britannica usage of the word does not attach a religious conversion meaning to the word. Were there any evidence of any actual conversion of a religious nature there would likely be a source stating explicitly that. Religious conversion is a serious event in a person's life. It raises a BLP concern when one makes the leap from the mere use of the term in a descriptive way to the comprehension that real change in religion has taken place. When a musician immerses himself in Christian poetry in his songs and publications refer to his conversion that cannot automatically be assumed to be religious conversion. That is a descriptive use of the term in relation to the words used by the artist. He is a prominent enough person that if any semblance of actual religious conversion transpired, that conversion would receive its own separate treatment, apart from a description of his shift in artistic style. Bus stop 10:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Again: Original research. I think you either a) see what you want to see or b) misunderstand the word "conversion" and its relation to Christianity. Be that as it may, this is fruitless. Drumpler 11:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Enough

If the above editors feel Bus stop is in the wrong, that he is disruptive and paranoid, and that none of you are what he claims (i.e. as disruptive as he), why do you persist in responding to every comment he makes on his user page? It is unlikely he will be unblocked anytime soon, and I doubt he will change his mind on any of this. Why continue with this? He claims that several editors have ganged-up on him to push a specific agenda. Your obsessive responding to everything he writes on his talk page lends at least a little bit of credibility to his accusations. At the very least it makes you all look as obsessed with being right as you claim he is. Enough is enough already. Let it go. He can't do anything to the article at this point so move on. Freshacconci 11:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Offer

Bus stop, this is a very generous unsolicited mentorship offer from a member of the arbitration committee. If you accept it and stay away from those two articles for three months, you're welcome to edit everywhere else. You may cite the diff of this edit in your unblock request. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 04:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)