User talk:2A02:A210:BA9:9080:90CB:BEAF:12E3:7772

@Johnuniq:

Nope. I'm not going to jump more hoops when you people keep piling on. I'm being silenced here with all these blocks and meanwhile other people's transgressions dont get any attention because theyre not from ips.

Imgur is not a "random website", the issue and on which page is already described. Can any of you people read or do you just look at a couple of lines and make your judgements hastily without understanding? It would explain why everyone seems to be in favor of joshua j here, like seeks like eh.

As evidenced by the bodhidharma talk page, "Any disagreement here will be resolved by discussion of what scholarly sources say." is just not true. One side of the scholarly discussion is given more weight. And again there is a failure to address how the rfcs are not neutral. I'm supecting because of the "I suspect bias" claim I made regarding joshua, which is not at all a unfounded claim.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia

Even the founder thinks so.

https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/

And joshua is clearly heavily invested in the topic, which can't only be seen clearly in his responses, but on his personal page, too

Seriously, read things thouroughly before you respond. That goes for all of you. You can't say "butthurt child" has no place on wikipedia when you aren't even keeping the wiki standards yourselves.

I went through the DRN already, again a failure to read on your part. How are you people even allowed to edit and play admins? You're clearly not suited for the job and are probably a big part of the reason why wikipedia got biased in the first place.

I'd add this all under the right header (october 2021) if mobile did not prohibit me from editing under headers, another issue with these childish bans.

@Johnuniq:

Of course you're not responding. Third person who fails to point out how concern for user bias is a personal attack or whatever fantasy you thought up to be the attack.

You can claim my "misconduct" has a part in it, but then you should just state that and leave the rfcs out of it. Whole thing reeks of wikilawyering. You all quote the rules but seem to completely forget what the rules were for to the point that their effectiveness has diminished over the years, as evidenced by the systematic bias prevalent throughout wikipedia.

You have this bit on you page:

"One reward from working on Wikipedia comes from interacting with a wide variety of amazing talent. Why do great contributors edit here? A factor is that humans have evolved to enjoy cooperation and the passing of knowledge to others. Further, Daniel H. Pink has written a very interesting book asserting that rewarding people with payments will only go so far towards motivating them (and in fact, can produce negative effects on productivity). Instead, Pink suggests, the best results occur when people find intrinsic meaning in their work. The three key motivating factors for creative work are autonomy (choice of task and its implementation); mastery (urge to improve performance on a task believed to be worthwhile); and purpose (desire to improve the world). Enabling those factors has resulted in what is seen at Wikipedia"

First off, amazing talent is a joke. I'm talking with people here that lack attention to detail in their reading, if that same lack of skill is used for the rest of the site, it's no wonder the quality and neutrality has been in gradual decline. Imagine being a encyclopedia and not understanding simple sentences and missing whole chunks of information when reading a piece of text. You people are a goddamn joke.

As far as the key motivating factors go, it's compeletely ignoring that some people may be misguided or that their motivations may be completely selfish. It's the same kind of drivel you can find on @Joshua Jonathan:'s page, looks smart/wise on the surface but has no actual depth or value. Just like the other people that were engaged with me over the past few days. Just like wikipedia itself. Superficially looking smart enough to fool the ignorant... But everybody with even a little intelligence knows wikipedia is not a reliable source.

If user bias is "what is seen at wikipedia" then whatever pink suggested is a flawed and you're an idiot for including it on you personal page. (Objectively an idiot, if I wanted to insult you you would have known it.)

89.205.227.125 (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

bishonen

Cant reply to the block appeal anymore for some reason so I switched device because I disagree. Please point out the personal attacks in the rfcs. They are imo neutrally worded, just describing the situation and my pov. I'm asking for 3rd party input for a reason.

Meanwhile the "civil" talking down of the other users involved gets ignored. (Oh hes just emotionally stuck, novice, novice, he may just need a koan, look how compassionate we are for offering our superior (non-novice) pov)

On the drn I have also not attacked the users but the agument they posed. Quote me what you have issues with specifically and I'll clarify and please re-enable the editing of the block page, I don't like my phone for editing and typing and I'm pretty sure ips change more often from this device because it is mobile, so that just makes things more confusing.

@Bishonen: Obvious block evasion is obvious. Kleuske (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

You cant be serious. You make a baseless accusation without explanation and then block me to keep me from responding? Wth is wrong with you people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.137.219 (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

You don't get to use a different IP when you're blocked. If at least you had posted on User talk:2A02:A210:BA9:9080:B953:3521:CEB7:BBD8, this switching of IPs would have made some sense. Who's keeping you from responding? Post on the page with my block notice and your block appeal, i. e. User talk:2A02:A210:BA9:9080:B953:3521:CEB7:BBD8. You know, the place where I explained, at your request? The place where an uninvolved admin will assess your unblock request? If you create yet another page, or keep fucking about in some other way, I will block 89.205.137.219 as well. Bishonen | tålk 13:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC).

@Bishonen:

I am, deal with it. Both pages are now blocked for editing. Do you ever even read what I type. I said the page you are suggesting can NOT be edited anymore. Someone "protected it against vandalism". ::::Drop your fkng attitude.

Imgur.com/a/8MjfVT3

That is why is switched IP in the first place. Editing is locked. Another baseless accusation form another incompetent editor who apparantly doesn't possess basic reading skills.

I'll repeat this because you probably will read over it again:

IF I COULD EDIT THE PAGE YOU SUGGESTED, I WOULDN'T HAVE SWITCHED IP OR TRY TO POST ON DIFFERENT PAGE.

I hope the caps will make it stand out enought so that you actually take your time to consider what people are actually saying to you.

89.205.137.219 (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• I read what you said but didn't understand it. User talk:2A02:A210:BA9:9080:B953:3521:CEB7:BBD8 is not protected from editing. Of course I checked its protection log. Here it is. (Scroll down the page to the log.) Nevertheless, I assumed good faith of your statement that you couldn't edit it from your original account. That's the reason I have not blocked 89.205.137.219. If you're saying you can't use that either to edit User talk:2A02:A210:BA9:9080:B953:3521:CEB7:BBD8, I don't know what to tell you. The page is not protected. If there's something about your mobile, or your connection, or Wikipedia, that prevents you from editing it, it's beyond my skill. I'll ping User:Johnuniq for you. Bishonen | tålk 15:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC).

Another IP blocked. I dont get the idea any of this is in good faith at all, can't even upload the prove (legitimately)

https://ibb.co/yVGcDLD

Don't act like a child and remove this ip range too. It's my last option and it makes me think you are more interested in pushing your own povs instead of actually wanting to engage. Doesn't feel like good faith at all... feel free to ban me and prove me right though.

@Bishonen: pinging because Im not sure you get notified otherwise.

89.205.226.15 (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what page the person using this IP cannot edit, but I guess it is the talk page of one of the IPs that have been used, possibly 89.205.137.219 (talk · contribs). It's not a good idea to click links to random websites so I would prefer an on-wiki description of a page (e.g. "talk of 89.205.137.219") rather than what is presumably a screen shot. I suggest waiting until all the blocks expire then thinking about a new approach. There are plenty of places on the internet where people can exchange barbs such as "butthurt child" at Talk:Zen. However, Wikipedia is not one of them. Any disagreement here will be resolved by discussion of what scholarly sources say. The options are at WP:DR. An RfC is used to resolve a specific question framed in a neutral fashion. Johnuniq (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

---