{{
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)
{{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 It is claimed that it is "non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus".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)}}
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)
Your editing is being discussed at WP:ANEW. Please consider joining the discussion. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 01:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
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)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
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)
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)
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
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. — Newslinger talk 06:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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.
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)
Decline reason:
We don't unblock LTA accounts. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
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.