User talk:Grufo

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you are involved. The thread is Continued antagonism by The Banner towards Grufo. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I'm here from the ANI thread; I was also one of the folks who participated in the RfD that Banner started and re-opened.

You mentioned your {{Sanitize HTML attribute}} template had been deleted in a discussion. I looked in the deletion discussion, and I do feel the delete !voters didn't make a good enough argument that your template was not going to be useful. I just wanted to say: I think, given Banner's (likely) bad faith delete !vote, you might have sufficient grounds to either ask the closing admin to re-open the discussion or to open a deletion review.

That's all. Have a lovely day! MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 04:07, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@MEN KISSING: Thank you a lot! I don't know if I have the strength to ask a new deletion review right now—there is already the deletion review of Template:List with serial comma going on at the moment, and participating in all these deletion discussions in the past months has already been stressing enough. But I will definitely be on your side if you do ask an admin to undelete the template! Have a lovely day you too! And Happy New Year! --Grufo (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

...the most persuasive argument is just not replying. When another editor is asked to provide evidence and does not, personally I find that the way to make that clearest to other !voters is to just let it sit or at most to briefly call out that they were asked to show X and did not. Anything more than that just risks muddling the issue/being ignored as TL;DR at best and being accused of bludgeoning at worst. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 14:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Probably you are right, Sdkb. So much bureaucracy and now also this made me realize that it is incredible that Wikipedia does not have a way to challenge the content of deletion discussions. Or maybe is our amount of bureaucracy a direct consequence of that? --Grufo (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Your edits are starting to become indistinguishable from trolling now. So here's a instruction. Stay off The Banner's page. Don't mention The Banner anywhere on the project, and don't refer to them in talk edits or the like. Drop the stick. Canterbury Tail talk 16:19, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: “So here's a instruction”: I invite you to pay attention to the words you use, you are crossing a line. Please do not write again on my talk page. --Grufo (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I will take administrative action and postings as needed. If that involves posting on your talk page, I will post on your talk page in that capacity. I will not engage on your talk page in a non-administrative capacity if that is your desire. Canterbury Tail talk 17:28, 14 January 2026 (UTC)