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)

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

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request 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. Grnwng (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=[[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) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=[[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) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=[[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) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}