User talk:Grufo

Civility matters

Your recent edits to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard [1]&[2] shows you have strong feelings regarding the subject of the discussion and that you need to avoid further violation of Civility. I suggest you avoid making comments that are not related to making content changes. Best. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: What made you perceive that good comments such as [3] and [4] have anything against Civility? --Grufo (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Civility requires focusing on "focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." Further it says describes incivility as "personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments". Your comments is never an improvement to the discussion and instead violates civility. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hossein: I am fairly convinced that both comments have been good manifestations of Civility, both 1) defending two atheist bloggers who due to their opposition to the dictator Khomeini had been accused of being biased, using for it the argument that "being ideologically opposed to Khomeini is quite a symptom of good mental health", and 2) stating that the sentence according to which Khomeini was just like other clerics of his time "...sounds like “Wikipedia:Other stuff exists applied to a dictator”". On the contrary your allegations seem to go straight against it. --Grufo (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I already explained how your comments are never improvement to the article and/or the talk page discussions. So you need to avoid them. Repeating incivility is sanctionable, AFAIK. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

"Defending two atheist bloggers" is not what you should do here, as an editor. You need to pay attention to the our policies and guidelines (see your welcome message). --Mhhossein ^talk 12:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: As editors we defend what we believe in good faith should be defended. And suggesting that the opposition to a bloody dictator is a sign of good mental health is exactly what I think civility is. --Grufo (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein - Forgive me if I'm missing something, but I don't see how the two comments Grufo made here and here are uncivil? It's fine for him to disagree and see something differently than others. Disagreeing on something or even having a viewpoint on a subject matter that isn't popular doesn't constitute incivility. I don't see any personal attacks, harassment, intimidation, threats, or rude or snide comments made directly toward another editor... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Oshwah:: Thanks, then can you explain how the comments explained here are improvement to the discussion. I mean how "Being ideologically opposed to Khomeini is quite a symptom of good mental health" and "...sounds like “Wikipedia:Other stuff exists applied to a dictator” ", which are really irrelevant to the context being discussed, can be viewed as having anything to do with the content improvement? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Oshwah:I don't think describing the subject as "a bloody dictator", when it's not necessary, can be in accordance with our guidelines. Do you? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein - I must've misread those comments or interpreted them differently. I honestly was confused with Grufo's comments, "being ideologically opposed to Khomeini is quite a symptom of good mental health", and "sounds like Wikipedia:Other stuff exists applied to a dictator". I thought that maybe he was referring to himself by saying that being "ideologically opposed to Khomeini" was good mental health? I just wasn't sure what to make of that. And I didn't know what his comment about WP:OSE "applied to a dictator" was even talking about - it made no sense to me at all. Maybe I need to read through the entire discussion for more context... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC) I've read both of those comments, with context, and I see no issues regarding civility with them. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your intervention, Oshwah. Since we are talking about me I feel I should better explain the context within that discussion. I was showing what Dan Fincke and Kaveh Mousavi, two atheist bloggers, had said about Khomeini's controversial statement ([5] and [6]); an editor answered to that that the two bloggers were ideologically opposed to Khomeini; and my reply was “Being ideologically opposed to Khomeini is quite a symptom of good mental health”. As for the second comment, we were talking about the fact that someone had stated that Khomeini wasn't so extreme after all, and other clerics of his time were just as crazy; and my answer to that was that such an argument sounded like “other stuff exist” applied to a dictator. --Grufo (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a civility problem at all with those comments, Grufo. You were simply expressing your opinion regarding a blogger and what he published, and were participating in a discussion over whether or not to use a given source, or to locate a different reference instead (you could do both, you know...). I'm still not sure exactly why Mhhossein believes them to be a violation of Wikipedia's civility policy. I think he's getting hung up on the summary paragraph of the policy that states that comments should "focus on improving the encyclopedia", and interpreting it as a policy written in stone rather than in spirit. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I still do not understand what your problem is with me, Mhhossein. We barely had any interaction at all. Do you by chance endorse the dictator? In that case of course it would offend you if I called the dictator you endorse “bloody dictator”, as I did in this talk page. But then the question would rather be: would your position be acceptable for Wikipedia, let alone for opening a case against other editors? --Grufo (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Oshwah: Would you please help with this discussion/instruction as an admin? The user is not willing to accept the users are not here to defend/oppose a POV/person or lack thereof. I tried to tell him the talk page discussions should include comments aimed at improving the article and/or the talk page discussions. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• @Oshwah: since you're here, here are two personal attacks made on me by Grufo: 1, 2. Grufo accuses me of trying to "silence points of view that do not conform to your personal opinion", of "insisting on POV-pushing at all costs", of having "a wish to hide" content, of sockpuppetry. They accuse others in content disputes of vandalism. They revert me under the edit summary of "limiting the damage done [by Vice Regent]"[7][8].VR _talk 18:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, this is my talk page. Have you had a look at it? Is literally filled with your interventions or complains against me. You have reported me in all possible places (#1, #2), you keep projecting what you do on me, you have reached the point of repeating the same complains to different admins (have you ever heard about the principle “Non bis in idem”?), you have started to ping editors of completely unrelated discussions, and you have even misleadingly tried to present to Oshwah your own warnings (#3, #4) as “this article has attracted edit warring before”. Do you feel that any of this is normal? --Grufo (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Grufo repeatedly accuses me of psychological projection.[9][10][11] VR _talk 21:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Grufo, Vice regent - I think you both just need to work out the disputes at-hand, work with one another as a team of editors, and mutually agree to put your issues with each other aside and work together with a "clean slate". I don't believe that the diffs listed here show that Grufo was being uncivil in a malicious manner and with bad-faith intent. Sure, many of those comments could've been avoided or worded differently - I'm not saying that there's absolutely nothing wrong with them. Grufo, the best thing to take away from this is that other editors will interpret the things you say, even in subtle passing, differently and with more intensity than how you meant to present them. It's important avoid commenting on other editors and what you think their intentions are, as much as possible. If that can't be avoided, make sure that you word your statements with the other editor's thoughts in mind, avoid making accusations, and that you keep those comments only on appropriate channels (such as ANI), and that support your statements on other editors with diffs. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your precious insights, Oshwah, on which I agree completely. --Grufo (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Oshwah: Insight please. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Your talk page edit makes it difficult for us to have a discussion

This edit of yours on a talk page is unhelpful. I started a discussion on the talk page about your revert at 18:05 August 12 and then you started a discussion on the exact same revert at 18:20, August 12, 2020. I assumed that you hadn't see my discussion before adding a new section, so I simply merged the two sections. This is something simple and procedural that's done on talk pages. Yet for some reason you separated the sections which discuss the exact same topic. You even added comments in both sections. Why would you insist on having the same conversation in two different sections? VR _talk 21:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I saw the history only later and I thought you had changed the title of my paragraph. I have seen now that you had inserted a paragraph few minutes before I inserted mine. It does not really matter that in good faith we created two similar paragraph in a talk page. But I believe that at this point merging them would create confusion. --Grufo (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

You are doing it again. On 23:56, August 12, 2020 you replied in the section "Quote". So I responded to you in the section "Quote" on 17:36, August 13, 2020. But you posted a response to that in a different section called "Removal of direct quotation" on 19:22, August 13, 2020. On 22:47, August 13, 2020 you post a message in the section "Quote" saying you had responded to me in the section "Removal of direct quotation". Why are you jumping around between two sections. Can you pick one section to have this discussion? VR _talk 03:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what you talking about now, Vice regent. You asked me about the unbalance of your removal first under Talk:Nick_Berg#Removal_of_direct_quotation (19:22, 12 August 2020), then the day after (17:36, 13 August 2020), without even replying to my answer you asked the same question again under Talk:Nick_Berg#Quote. --Grufo (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

My 17:36, 13 August 2020 is clear response to your comment in the "Quote" section at 23:56, August 12, 2020. Yet you responded to my 17:36, 13 August 2020 in a different section. For the purposes of avoiding confusion, I would like to merge the sections again, and respond at the end of the section, please don't revert that.VR _talk 12:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Following me again

I notice you have restarted WP:STALK-ing me. Please stop. We've been over this before (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1044#Hounding). If anyone looks at your contribution history it consists mostly of following me around to different articles on Wikipedia and getting into disputes with me.VR _talk 21:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, if you believe that my any of my edits were not aimed at improving Wikipedia constructively or against destructive edits (removals or POV-pushing, from you or anyone else), but I rather wanted to cause “irritation, annoyance, or distress” to you in particular, please do come forward. I am rather keeping a low profile, I want to stick to the content and I am really not interested in anything else, but I actually could report you for some of your past behaviors, especially WP:CANVASS (like privately involving an editor apparently pro-Khomeini in a dispute about Khomeini's statements, who ended up accusing me in my Talk Page of not being gentle enough towards Khomeini, or pinging editors from the Planck units discussion in a completely unrelated context, etc.). But since – differently than you – I do not want to cause any distress to anyone, I prefer to stick to the content only, meeting you in a page or not as I feel I am interested in the moment, with the only goal of improving Wikipedia. --Grufo (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

If you think I have broken policies, report me. You made about 520 edits in August, and of those only about 40 were unrelated to me. >90% of your edits have been spent in conflict with me (all of which started as a result of you following me around). 90%!!

I'm asking you politely, please stop following me around. Thanks.VR _talk 00:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

“If you think I have broken policies, report me”

I never reported anyone and I am not a policeman, so I won't report you unless your misbehavior blocks the normal activity of other editors on Wikipedia or I feel that your POV-pushing overcomes what other editors are able to track. You did come quite close in some occasions.

“520 edits in August”

That is not a bad thing, and you have started a dispute in Islam and blasphemy after which you have reported me twice (#1, #2), so you basically have invited me to intervene more than my low profile would require.

“90% of your edits have been spent in conflict with me (all of which started as a result of you following me around). 90%!!”

Probably they would have been 100% if you hadn't WP:CANVASSED involving some editors from the Planck units page. You did make me rediscover more than one interest indeed.

“I'm asking you politely, please stop following me around”

WP:HOUNDING states:

Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in mediation, incidents, and arbitration cases. Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or meritless complaints about another editor.

Your account is basically a WP:SPA account, your activity is nearly that of a pure WP:SEALION, and yet I have limited myself to be constructive and fix only the most unacceptable interventions. Unless you believe that I have acted “to cause you distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight” – which I believe I didn't and for which a formal accusation must be started (again) – there is nothing wrong in having a look at what you do, considering also that as WP:SPA you tend edit closely-related pages. We do tend to have different opinions, so that alone does cause some distress – to both of us, not only you. But that's life I guess.

--Grufo (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

1) Grufo, you're really sore over the plank issue huh? I agree that it was rather unnecessary but I think your rage comes from the fact that your claims of having "won" the dispute and significantly improved the article were exposed. Maybe be a bit careful about making such claims in the future. It restarted the dead dispute again so we can consider this a win for wikipedia no?

2) VR only contacted the third editor after seeking permission from an admin and after you yourself requested a native Farsi speaker to look into the issue.

3) In the case of the Quran, your edits over at Islam and blasphemy were extremely problematic to say the least. You've gotten a warning and a huge lecture from Guy Macron now, but reporting you at the time (when you were refusing to listen) was the right thing to do.

I'd honestly prefer not get involved in the dispute between you two, but I kind of feel responsible since I was the one who caught your atrocious edits over at Islam and blasphemy and created a ruckus. Before this you barely even edited on this topic. At the time I invited the congenial Eperoton instead of VR but it's not as if you listen to him either.

P.S Having a focus area is not what an SPA is and you continue to make uncalled for charges about POV pushing which can just as easily be made about you as well. Islam isn't exactly a niche topic. As you yourself note you're the one acting as an SPA now (90-100%), and one that is following him, not just making edits on Islam related pages. You are most certainly not an auto-patroller either and your attempt to be one really falls flat. 39.37.150.110 (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

“I agree that it was rather unnecessary”

I was not so sad to remove a tiny pebble from my shoe, but for Vice regent's credibility was definitely counterproductive.

“I think your rage comes from …”

What rage?

“VR only contacted the third editor after seeking permission from an admin”

Interesting, you seem very well informed about Vice regent's activity too. But let's see what happened… Vice regent asks admin Girth Summit whether he may contact an Iranian about a controversial Farsi translation concerning Khomeini. Girth Summit answers that Vice regent can, as long as the involvement is due only to their language skills (“I think it would be OK, provided you're asking them because of their language skills rather than because you think they are likely to agree with your position”). The day after, the Iranian (with whom I barely had any interaction) is already polarized against me and asks for the intervention of another admin because of my critical opinions about Khomeini (sic). So, excuse me if after the unambiguous WP:CANVASS violation concerning the involvement of the Planck units' editors I wonder whether the involvement of that particular Iranian editor was also opportune.

“your edits over at Islam and blasphemy were extremely problematic to say the least”

This is interesting too, since I believe exactly the same about your edits – especially your insisting in POV-pushing into the page the infamous sentence “The Quran admonishes blasphemy, but does not specify any worldly punishment for blasphemy” (WP:POVSOURCE).

“I'd honestly prefer not get involved in the dispute between you two”

And yet apparently you can never resist the temptation.

--Grufo (talk) 06:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

"Interesting, you seem very well informed about Vice regent's activity too."

Your point? I've noted your less than civil arguments over at the plank dispute too though none of us have any input there. You accuse others of canvassing but do you really think there is a quantum-pro Islamic nexus here or does the problem lie somewhere else?

"“The Quran admonishes blasphemy, but does not specify any worldly punishment for blasphemy” "

Oh wow! You never really admit a fault do you. Whether it's Guy Macon, Rosguill, Eperoton, GMG , or VR [12]. If they haven't gotten to you by now, I doub't I'll get to you either. Can you not see that my claim was directly linked from two sources, first a newspaper report (admittedly a better source would be preferred) and then a stronger source that you yourself had personally deleted multiple times (even the sentence was from before.. The "POV" in question was endorsed by multiple reliable sources while all you could muster up was direct primary sources or utterly unreliable sources like Raymond Ibrahim. We can go over in circles all we want but it's your own behavior that is more suspect. How do you know VR's credibility is being harmed? Says who? The projection may indeed be real...39.37.150.110 (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

“Having a focus area is not what an SPA is”

Having a focus area is exactly what WP:SPA is: “A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose”. Vice regent's activity meets both points: 1. a single area of interest and 2. most edits appear to be for a common purpose (POV-pushing of minority interpretations of Islam or removal of the opposite positions)

“I've noted your less than civil arguments over at the plank dispute too though none of us have any input there”

Which ones? Facts please.

“do you really think there is a quantum-pro Islamic nexus here or does the problem lie somewhere else?”

Nothing so complicate. I simply think that as WP:SPA there is an agenda behind Vice regent's edits, and you normally collaborate with him in this agenda. Since the purpose of a WP:SPA is an agenda and not their care about Wikipedia there is potentially nothing to stop their destructive approach towards the encyclopedia as long as it is functional to the main goal. There are no conspiracies here, only the fact that as long as it benefits there is no hesitation in WP:CANVASSING on the basis of personal resentments or political/religious common POV. Being WP:SPA is not illegal – although I never trust WP:SPA accounts – only violating the policy is.

“You never really admit a fault do you”

What fault?

“Whether it's Guy Macon, Rosguill, Eperoton, GMG , or VR [13]”

There is no fault in having a different opinion than other editors, it happens constantly to you and Vice regent too. But since I happened to be minority in the discussion you mentioned, I accordingly removed the contested passage. That does not mean that I have to change my opinion about the fact that the contested passage was an indirect quotation and not an interpretation and in any case it was well within the discretion allowed by WP:RSPSCRIPTURE: the only thing that matters is my acknowledgment of other editors' different opinion, which is what I often see missing in both you and Vice regent (more in Vice regent than you to be honest).

--Grufo (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

"I have to change my opinion about the fact that the contested passage was an indirect quotation and not an interpretation and in any case it was well within the discretion allowed by WP:RSPSCRIPTURE"

That's the problem. Since you believe you did nothing wrong, chances are that you'll do it again which is why we'll only run in circles. I've made around a dozen comments on this issue (on the talkpages) followed by other editors making statements like your views "do(n't) hold water", "Wrong... Please stop saying things that are not true. Did you think nobody would check?", etc

The experienced editors have in fact been harsher than me or VR. This isn't an issue of a simple difference of opinion. It's an issue of continuous misuse of Wikipedia policies for the purpose of wikilawyering, POV pushing (with primary or unreliable sources unlike VR's mostly reliable sources) and now hounding.

The diff you posted is from Eproton's page where all three VR, I and Mcphurphy (an opposing editor) have requested his assistance at various times. That's not collaborating but if you have any accusations to make please take them to the incident noticeboard. Are Eperoton and VR collaborating too? Their discussions are more extensive.

Finally, if you want clarification, I've only been jaguaring VR for a few months whereas he's been active for over a decade. In total, I've made very few edits outside the talkpages. I first came into contact with him on the Sexual slavery article, where I first initiated the dispute and he joined much later. Infact it was user Mcphurphy who was warned by an admin for canvassing and being a single purpose account [14]. There are so many socks on the talkpage that I stayed in contact with verified editors like VR and Eperoton. After the Sexual slavery dispute is over I plan to roll back my engagement with them, if necessary. 39.37.150.110 (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

“Since you believe you did nothing wrong, chances are that you'll do it again”

Do again what? Have an opinion, be minority and immediately acknowledge the majority? If this is what you call “wrong” I wish Wikipedia was full of people as “wrong”. You can keep blaming me for having opinions, but that won't transform it into a fault.

“The experienced editors have in fact been harsher than me or VR”

Who exactly? Please, be harsher.

“Finally, if you want clarification”

It is not really needed. Although your interventions are those of a WP:SPA as well, you don't need to justify them: it is allowed to be WP:SPA. You have not done anything wrong with that comment (I guess), you have only shown that you do have an agenda (“Editor Grufo certainly isn't making this easy. His mass alterations should have been detected earlier.”).

--Grufo (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cairo2k18 (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice, Cairo2k18! --Grufo (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring

You seem to be edit-warring at Concubinage. You've been warned before to not edit-war. If you continue, I will report you.VR _talk 21:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Could you please have more respect for my Talk Page? You are POV-pushing at Concubinage, but I'd rather prefer to keep your Talk Page clean. --Grufo (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. VR _talk 04:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Concubinage. 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 ~~~~}}.  ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

@Oshwah: I see that this is the result of Vice regent reporting me at WP:ANEW. However I have tried to dissuade the editor from POV-pushing both in the Talk Page and after he kept a destructive approach I have asked for help at WP:AN. Furthermore this edit has nothing to do with a revert (no WP:3RR violation). --Grufo (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You don't have to violate 3RR to be edit warring. 331dot (talk) 07:19, 13 September 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.