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:. DMacks (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC) 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

NPOV

 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

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., and . HaeB (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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:. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)