User talk:Grnwng

October 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring, as you did at Multi-level marketing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. DMacks (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus fucking Christ. "X is a controversial Y" is not neutral. That could not be more obvious. You think it can be made neutral by consensus? And you're prepared to block someone who removes the word "controversial"? It really is no wonder that the vast majority of Wikipedia articles are so badly written.

I'll remove it again in three days. I'll keep removing it for as long as people keep putting it back. If you abuse your administrative tools to protect a blatant NPOV violation, then Wikipedia really is in desperate trouble. Grnwng (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Grnwng. This approach isn't helping your case. Actually, I dislike the word 'controversial' myself. But as an admin, I have to look at consensus. You won't succeed in getting that word removed unless you persuade the others. A declaration that you intend to continue reverting forever is enough reason for longer blocks in the future. If you are willing to try negotation, the steps of WP:DR are available to you. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV is non-negotiable. There cannot be a consensus to ignore it. If you as an administrator cannot perceive a blatant violation of it, there is no hope for Wikipedia. So please, be clear: do you think "X is a controversial Y" is neutral? Grnwng (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For you to refuse all negotiation does not seem to be an effective strategy. It is easy for a person to convince themself they are right (you've already accomplished that). Convincing others is the hard part. I actually don't see any neutrality issue with the word 'controversial'; my own objection to the word would be different. If there is truly 'no hope for Wikipedia' then (I hate to say it) nothing forces you to edit here. But I hope you change your mind. EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think "X is a controversial Y" is neutral, you're an idiot. It is specifically noted as a word to avoid because it is vague and subjective. And if you think that me quoting the WP:NPOV page, which says "This policy is non-negotiable" was me "refusing all negotiation", you're an idiot on that score as well. Grnwng (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

{{unblock|reason=[[WP:NPOV]] is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. It is claimed that it is "non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus". The statement "X is a controversial Y" is as obvious a violation of that principle as one could imagine. It is not possible to argue that it is a neutral statement. Simply removing the word "controversial" leaves behind a neutral and verifiable statement. Anybody removing this word in this way should be thanked for doing so; it should be absolutely uncontroversial. And yet, I have been accused of original research for doing this; I've been accused of ''introducing'' a POV; multiple editors have restored the word; two administrators have claimed that there is a consensus to include it; and I've been blocked. It is as if I had been blocked for removing a statement that the sky is pink. If someone removed a statement that the sky is pink, would you block them and say that there is a "consensus" that the sky is in fact pink? If you as an administrator would do that, it would mean that you had completely lost sight of the concept of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia. It is the same here. Blocking me for removing the word ''controversial'' and claiming that there is a consensus to include it means that you have completely lost sight of the concept of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia. I find it extraordinary that I am having to appeal being blocked for making such an uncontroversial edit, but there it is. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia written from a neutral point of view, and I should not have been blocked for fixing as blatant and simple a violation of that principle as you could possibly imagine. [[User:Grnwng|Grnwng]] ([[User talk:Grnwng#top|talk]]) 09:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)}}

Reviewing admin will want to take note of the editor's comments in the preceding section. I'm the blocking admin (and block was specifically for EW), so I'm not going to review myself or take further action based on ongoing other behaviors. DMacks (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is so ridiculous. It is as if I had encountered the statement "Citizen Kane is a brilliant film" and removed the word "brilliant", only to see it restored by multiple editors claiming that Wikipedia must say it because sources say it. Indeed, you can find a lot of sources that say it. But sticking a ref tag on an opinion does not and cannot ever convert an opinion into a fact. This is obvious! And yet I am the one being attacked by multiple editors and administrators and prevented from editing.

If you cannot comprehend an obvious violation of a fundamental policy, and if you would attack and block someone fixing that violation without taking any action against the people making the violation, then there is no hope for Wikipedia. There is no hope for a project if the vast majority of its participants no longer understand its fundamental principles. Grnwng (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice - ANEW

Your editing is being discussed at WP:ANEW. Please consider joining the discussion. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I'm referring to e.g. [1], [2] and [3]. HaeB (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go and hassle the people who do not understand NPOV, if you care about the quality of articles. I suspect you are one of the majority who care more about tone-policing though. Grnwng (talk) 09:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you shouldn't be indef blocked. It is fine to disagree with the Wikipedia policies, but not fine to ignore them. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your second sentence answers your first. But I can tell you are just itching to block, and that your own enjoyment of blocking is way more important to you than the "non-negotiable" policy of WP:NPOV. Grnwng (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was going to be page-specific, but the above shows that you're not here to build an encyclopaedia. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:13, 20 October 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Never met you, never interacted with you, no idea who you are, and likewise you with me, but you have decided that I am "not here to build an encyclopaedia"? That is ridiculous. Just look at my edits. What do you think I am here for, if not to build an encyclopaedia? Grnwng (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Newslinger talk 06:40, 21 October 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I did address the reason for the block. It was claimed that I am not here to build an encyclopaedia. That is absurd. It is the only reason I am here because why else would I be here? Check my contributions. See the articles I have improved. Nothing about my editing could possibly lead anyone to conclude that I am not here to build an encyclopaedia. To be slandered in that way by someone who I've never had any interaction at all with is ridiculous. Grnwng (talk) 09:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you click on the blue link "Not here" is a fairly broad set of things - in this case it's the "treating editing as a battleground", rather than using the formal dispute resolution methods. I do believe that you do intend to try and improve the encyclopedia, but you haven't addressed the issues that got you blocked originally (both the short-term block and then at the edit warring board) . If you believe that NPOV is being violated then you need to convince others that that is the case. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:00, 22 October 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

If you agree that I am here to build an encyclopaedia, and I was blocked by someone specifically claiming that I am not, then you obviously should unblock me. I certainly have not ever "treated editing as a battleground". To declare that I must be blocked indefinitely for fixing as blatant an NPOV violation as you can imagine is simply outrageous. If you genuinely believe that I need to convince others that "X is a controversial Y" is not neutral when there's a guideline that specifically highlights "controversial" as a word to avoid, and that removing the word warrants an indefinite block, then it seems to me that something has gone spectacularly, unbelievably wrong. If you genuinely believe that I am in the wrong here, then please immediately go and remove all mention of the word "controversial" from the list of "words to watch". Specifically highlighting a word as "vague and subjective" and then attacking anyone who tries to actually remove it is a pretty disgusting way for a supposed encyclopaedia to behave. Grnwng (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We don't unblock LTA accounts. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:42, 22 October 2020 (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.

It will be a non-involved admin who will review that appeal, but I specifically didn't say you were here to build an encyclopedia, but "try and improve" - because your actions indicate that is currently has a major chance of not succeeding. Part of the definition of "treating editing as a battleground" is not using the dispute resolution channels when you should. And you specifically didn't initially receive an indef block - that would indeed have been wildly over the top. It was your statement that you would continue to act in the same way that meant the block had to be maintained. Highlighting it as either a problem or potential problem would be fine. Edit warring is not - there are very specific exemptions built in, and guidelines and policies being broken outside of those don't inherently provide additional authorisation to avoid it. This is because edit-warring means the issue isn't really being resolved, and it's causing collateral damage and preventing people actually settling the dispute in a mature fashion. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]