User talk:95.96.74.188

September 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm Joshua Jonathan. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Zen have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

so insincere 95.96.74.188 (talk) 06:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

@Bishonen: could you take some action here? See alsl diff. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

95.96.74.188 (talk) 07:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

some obvious issues with the article:

intro has only one source

dhyana in intro only one source

dumoulin is used twice in the third paragraph

that means the claims there have only 1 source per claim too..

you could've removed those referencez to dumoulin when you said dumoulin wasn't relevant anymore/is outdated? but you didn't? how is your concern not feigned and insincere then?

small attribute to taoist influence only one source

3 sources without page number in my edit are referenced without page number in this or other articles too

if you want people to make decent edits then don't half-ass it yourself either? you set those standards, or at the very least was fine with them for a long time, since you didn't edit them. That means using it as an argument now, while ignoring your own issues, is insincere, hypocritical and probably an indication of editor bias.

zazen being central to zen has only one source too, or that dhyana means meditation.

zazen is also a later invention and can thus never be considered central to zen, since the tradition has existed in other forms before that, as well as after.

you also found it necessary to open another talk page when there's a perfectly fine one on the zen page? further splitting the conversation making everything look confusing?

idk what you're trying to do here..

you can ask others to take action but from what i can see here action should be taken against you

~~~~ Editor 95.96.74.188 (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 95.96.74.188! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Zen several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Zen, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Aoidh (talk) 07:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please also keep in mind that WP:CIVILITY is an important part of how disagreements are handled on Wikipedia; even if editors disagree they still all are deserving of a certain level of respect. Comments about another editor like this are wholly inappropriate and unnecessarily combative, please comment on the content, not the contributor. - Aoidh (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you people don't deserve anything 95.96.74.188 (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Your IPs 95.96.74.188 as well as 62.145.192.0/22 have been blocked for a month for disruptive editing, bludgeoning and personal attacks at Zen and Talk:Zen. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page, plus on the page of 62.145.194.183. Your changes between several different IPs may be a problem as far as unblocking is concerned. If you have some difficulty sticking to one IP, I suggest you create an account so fellow editors have some chance of seeing who's talking. Bishonen | tålk 09:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

oh cool

more mod incompetency

appeal on 62.145etc

when its a changeable ip from outside

meaning i cant edit it..

using a phone to make an edit rq shouldn't have to be this much of an issue.. 95.96.74.188 (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yeah this is obvious bs and bias

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).

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

Request reason:

bludgeoning what, when the raised arguments are still relevant to the discussion and go unaddressed over and over? where do i personally attack someone? because i bet you're mistaking a statement of fact as an insult. The revert edits are what is disuptive. the way everything was being handled on yor side was artrrocious and honestly not quite civil either 95.96.74.188 (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your attitude makes it clear to me that editing Wikipedia isn't for you, and I see no reason here to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2023 (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.

@331dot and Bishonen: They are quick with the block evasion, now at 89.205.227.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). - Aoidh (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

attitude lmao

have you seen yourselves?

id like to hear you say this to a zen master too

which is the topic you are ignorantly moderating btw 95.96.74.188 (talk) 10:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not moderating any topic. Admins do not moderate topics, they just have a toolset. It isn't required to be an expert in a topic in order to contribute about it, as Wikipedia summarizes independent sources. There are encyclopedia writing projects where expertise in the topic is required, perhaps you would be more comfortable there. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

by leaving biased editors youre moderating it by extension. and a certain familiarity is nessecary when we have users call something in a source "rambling" when they can't even tell what was being said or meant.

meanwhile expertise in editing is expected and can't be done by long time user more familiar? isnt that the point? that if you have an issue with wording for example that you change the words a bit, rather than just reverting the edit like a child, making up some bogus excuse, and keep goalpost moving, including about what your standards for valid sources are? 95.96.74.188 (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All people have biases, including you and me. Being biased does not preclude someone from participating in a topic. Their behavior might, such as if they make things up out of whole cloth, but not merely being biased.

I'm not sure where the goalposts have been moved, no one is doing that here on this page. We want you to tell us what you did wrong, how you won't do it again, and how you will contribute productively. You are very close to losing access to this page for the duration of the block until you can begin to do those things. You can start by addressing your clear insults(see below). 331dot (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

its happening on the talk page

the bias is relevant because it translates back to the article. obviously..

from how ive seen other users act, all i did wrong was being an outsider 95.96.74.188 (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't claim that articles are without bias here. The sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge things like bias for themselves. You are free to read an article and disagree with everything presented or think it is full of biased lies. That doesn't give you license to insult. If your next post isn't an attempt to do as I stated previously, you will lose access to this page. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i have explained

bias is also a comment on moderation bias

idk what you want from me, because all it seems like to me is you deciding for me what is an insult vs a statement of fact, as if my word choice wasnt deliberate to the point that i expected these exacts arguments.

but you claim to know what the sources/academic consesus says?

if you can't recognize that as valid criticism in context of the issues raised then you and the people you're defending is why nobody takes this place seriously in sholarly discussion. which is again not an insult, no matter how much you perceive it as one. 95.96.74.188 (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have no business editing here since you don't think your comments were insults. I am now removing your access; someone else will review (and most likely decline) your request. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't even have to be an apology from you; if you are sorry, it would be nice, but don't apologize if you aren't sorry. But there needs to be at least an acknowledgement that your behavior was inappropriate. That doesn't seem forthcoming. 331dot (talk) 12:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Where do i personally attack someone? because i bet you're mistaking a statement of fact as an insult". That's interesting. I quote from your posts on Talk:Zen: "just don't be an ass", "You dont seem to have the competence or integrity for this conversation or to edit this page", "Is there someone else who isn't an ass i can talk to?", "not just biased but stupid as hell", "fucking morons". So sorry I mistook those as insults. Bishonen | tålk 12:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

yeh obviously

they sound like value judgements, but they aren't, and that you can't see how they aren't makes me wonder if any of you can look past your personal biases, bringing into question your competence as i said.

how about joshuas "fox slobber" or "rambling"

i think it's fair that if you don't want to see a certain attitude here you shouldn't be an example of said attitude 95.96.74.188 (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

getting blocked for reflecting the attitude of long time moderators and editors, who also move goalpoasts and don't address concerns raised. Sources get considered invalid for example when i place them, but don't get removed elsewhere in the article, making me wonder what the actual intent of the page is, if not to reflect the academic consensus or even be consistent in its view itself

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2023 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

because the talk page editing isn't disruptive at all. im addressing serious issues om the talk page and you're treating it like a joke. then goalposts get moved, and claims stay unaddressed, further contributing to the (to me obvious) one sidedness of the conversation surrounding the topic and the users and their conduct, issues that now nobody seems interested in addressing, certainly not the regular editors from what ive seen

Decline reason:

If we think it's disruptive, it's disruptive. That's kinda the definition of disruptive. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:09, 7 September 2023 (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.

If you have additional comment, please use WP:UTRS to give it. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotection[edit]

331dot and Aoidh, I've semi'd Zen and its talkpage for a few days to stem the block evasion. Bishonen | tålk 12:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: Given the continued block evasion this talk page might need protection as well, but I obviously can't be the one to make that call. - Aoidh (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's some chutzpah, Aoidh. Done, and 89.205.227.0/25 blocked. Bishonen | tålk 16:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Repetition[edit]

@Bishonen: see diff and diff. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHERE = projection

not your place to remove either 95.96.74.188 (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

guys pls

just look at this dude

hes now trying to bury the argument and paint it in a negative light by reducing the concerns to "rant" on the talk page

consider this an official complaint with request for moderation

basically just a subtle way or edit warring 95.96.74.188 (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023[edit]

Your recent editing history at Zen shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 06:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i think I'm within 3 and didn't intend to go any further anyway because it's getting ridiculous.

removing the tags for no reason when wiki doesn't consider the article good, and trying to keep doing that, is equally edit warring, no?

so why did joshua get to remove the tags the first time when there was no good reason to do so? 95.96.74.188 (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it's things like this right;

'Regarding "zazen is also a later invention and can thus never be considered central to zen, since the tradition has existed in other forms before that, as well as after." - later than what? Chan started as a meditation-tradition, that is, teachers who instructed others in meditation, in contrast to sutra-teachers and vinaya teachers. There was no 'Zen-tradition' apart from this meditation-tradition.'

the article already contradicts this by saying it was originally just "pointing at mind"

is the guy even familiar with the stuff he edits? does he just not care at all?

zazen is also being equated to meditation here, which can't be the case since zazen was an invention by dogen much later.

and if you say zazen just means meditation, that contradicts the other interpretations of meditation, or, if it doesn't do that, and you don't say that but say that it simply means sitting meditation, then it contradicts the interpretation in the article that dhyana means meditation, because then zazen would mean meditation meditation or meditation sitting meditation, which is not an academically accepted definition of the term

im not just shit talking here, i really think the guy shouldn't be allowed to moderate or edit the article in any way whatsoever

and the joke is that he quotes something about [[WP:COMPETENCE]] to me as if he didn't just present a huge fallacious argument 95.96.74.188 (talk) 06:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Let me start by saying that I have no opinion on the actual content of the article, or indeed whether the maintenance tags you added are warranted, and I'm not in a position to evaluate the arguments you've laid out here.

No one "gets to" edit war, and you're right, removing tags can equally be considered edit warring. I'll let an administrator figure out how to respond if action is needed. In hindsight, maybe I shouldn't have sent the warning message, but only because I think you should know better if you can cite policy shortcuts. (And you should know that WP:EW specifically states that something can still be considered edit warring even if it doesn't violate the three-revert rule.)

I'm going to step away from this now. Please continue to discuss on the article talk page and follow the advice at WP:DR if needed.

Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 07:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

which is why im saying the initial revert by joshua was edit warring and i was just trying to correct it.

im bringing up the content of the article mostly to provide context to the argument and how it's being presented and communicated, the content itself was kind of secondary here, mostly just to illustrate a point, because i didn't imagine you would be familiar or able to do anything in that respect anyway

maybe another moderator or admin can

but ofc someone who makes logically fallacious arguments would label anything they don't agree with or are able to understand and address as "rant" or "rambling"

95.96.74.188 (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

In view of your continued disruption at Zen and Talk:Zen as soon as your 30-day block expired, you have been blocked for three months. I believe you know how to request unblock. I have blocked 95.96.74.188 as well as 62.145.192.0/22 and 89.205.227.0/25, both of which you have previously used for block evasion. Bishonen | tålk 08:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

not a disruption, read the topic above

if anyone is being disruptive it's you people trying to block the process and defending mistakes wikipedia doesn't agree with 95.96.74.188 (talk) 08:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

biased moderation; see talk page. october 2023 specifically

Decline reason:

Block is obviously necessary and appropriate here. Yamla (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2023 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

omg

have any of you even looked at these pages?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Competence_is_required

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Call_a_spade_a_spade

Decline reason:

That's quite enough. Talk page access removed, again. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:06, 8 October 2023 (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.

January 2024[edit]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for persistently making disruptive edits. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.