Using Wikipedia as a battleground[edit]

Hi GrignardReagent007,

I see that you have read the previous messages; thanks for the read confirmation.

Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. [...] Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind. Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely. If necessary, point out gently that you think the comments might be considered uncivil, and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue. If a conflict continues to bother you, take advantage of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. There are always users willing to mediate and arbitrate disputes between others.
In large disputes, resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions. Assume good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. Work with whomever you like, but do not organize a faction that disrupts (or aims to disrupt) Wikipedia's fundamental decision-making process, which is based on building a consensus. Editors in large disputes should work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints.

Please also have a look at WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Continued disruption, for example by personally attacking users or edit warring, will lead to a block from editing.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Uyghur genocide, you may be blocked from editing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Des Vallee (talk) 00:36, 30 December 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).

GrignardReagent007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There is no clear explanation as to why this decision was made and Des Vallee was being discriminative by stating that I was being pro-China when I was only stating facts and have quoted figures in my editing. Their behaviour is clearly against Wikipedia:NPOV and against Wikipedia:AGF. GrignardReagent007 (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No. You were given the opportunity to demonstrate good faith after I warned you yesterday, and yet you go on to insert editorial commentary ("reader beware") making an obviously false claim about a researcher and repeating, at length, a Chinese talking point. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 30 December 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.

How is it an 'obviously false claim' when I have directly quoted from your beloved Adrian Zenz's own report? The fact that you are constantly trying your hardest to defame China despite reliable sources to believe otherwise than a 'genocide' claim, shows how little you actually are neutral and would only want to be editing Wikipedia in the West's point of view, disallowing any arguments, facts and figures from the East. That is in fact deeply concerning and you should not be on Wikipedia if so. You infringe Wikipedia:NOTHERE as per your comment. GrignardReagent007 (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think you made my point well enough. Good luck with your next unblock request. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]