User talk:Gruesome Foursome
June 2013[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Gruesome Foursome (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The last block I received for edit warring, was an actual 3RR block, in April. I've never even been reported for it since, let alone blocked. Over the last month and more, the only person I have ever even reverted once is Prisonermonkeys, let alone multiple times. It should be noted that we were both warned about it yesterday by a different admin, and I haven't reverted since. In a previous incident over material I added to the 2013 Bahrain Grand Prix article, we did indeed go through dispute resolution, and he was found to have had no case, and the material is still there. This time around, I made three reverts over two weeks on 2013 Formula One season, and two reverts over 4 days on 2013 Monaco Grand Prix. This was all to defend content I had added, that only he is trying to remove via edit warring, and that nobody else has disputed, at all, not via reverts or on the talk pages. The Monaco material was even exposed on the main page for several days, via ITN, with nobody saying a thing about it, let alone trying to remove it. So, yes, this is edit warring, and yes I know it is wrong, and yes, I know I should be following DR, but in all seriousness and with my recent record in mind, I think it's fair to say that any threat I pose to Wikipedia as regards long term edit warring would be more easily and efficiently solved by some sort of mutual restriction between me and him, rather than just locking me up and throwing away the key. In exchange for some kind of restriction that prevents him from just following me around reverting my work for reasons that nobody else apparently agrees with, I'm perfectly happy to be beholden to never revert an edit of his to any article, anywhere, anytime, for any reason. Or anything else that a reviewer can suggest that is just a little more realistic than expecting people to have to keep going through DR ad nauseum just because a single user is targetting their specific additions, which nobody else ever disagrees with. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You have failed to address all of the reasons for the block, which includes disruptive editing, tendentious editing, and an unwillingness to work collaboratively. Your block log speaks for itself. You have been blocked twice for edit warring, once in March and again in April. To say you have not been reported since is misleading. The reason I left a warning on your talk page about edit warring (which you promptly removed as you do all warnings) was because someone reported you. You were indefinitely blocked in early May for personal attacks and harassment, which continued into the block triggering a lock of your talk page. Your were unblocked on May 22 by King of Hearts based on the following statement in your unblock request: "I understand perfectly why I was blocked - for making attacks on others I disagreed with. I understand that is wrong. I don't see how I can make that any clearer. I also don't see how I've given anyone any cause to believe it won't happen again." King of Hearts unblocked you stating: "OK. But consider this your final warning." About two weeks later (May 27) King of Hearts blocked you for disruptive editing (one of the bases for the current block). Generously, they blocked you for only one week. You don't address any of this in your reequest. Moreover, based on your previous failed promise, why should anyone believe that you have mended your ways? Finally, you subtly shift the focus of the block from yourself to Prisonermonkeys and attempt to negotiate a deal ("In exchange for"). You're not really in a position to negotiate. You need to focus squarely on your history of misconduct. Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2013 (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.
Gruesome Foursome (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is entirely unfair. This is bordering on mental torture now. I am getting so much stuff thrown at me now from so many people, the only way I can deal with this is to break that previous decline down and answer each point. * You have failed to address all of the reasons for the block, which includes disruptive editing, tendentious editing, and an unwillingness to work collaboratively. I am not able to address reasons that have been invented after the fact ("unwillingness to work collaboratively"), nor am I able to address reasons that are given as mere links (WP:TE, WP:DE), with no other explanation whatsoever as to how they relate to anything I've supposedly done to earn the block. I don't think it is appropriate at all for one admin to block someone for "WP:TE, WP:DE", and for the blockee to then be expected to just guess what is meant by it. If BWilkins wants to lay any specific charges relating to disruption or tendentiousness, then I'll be glad to address them in an appeal so that others can judge if I am addressing those charges or not. I think it's entirley unfair for the interpretation of these charge to be coming from an entirely different admin, and only after they decline a request as unsatisfactory. * Your block log speaks for itself. If so, why am I even allowed the luxury of an appeal? Or is this just a ban in every way except the name? I'd also like to point out that I only have 6 blocks, and not all for the same thing. There are some people here with 20+ blocks apparently, why are they still editting if block logs "speak for themselves"? * You have been blocked twice for edit warring, once in March and again in April. Why is this being mentioned? I never said I hadn't. I said my last block for edit warring was in April. Which is correct. I took BWilkins charge of "long term edit warring" to mean the practice of conducting an edit war over a long period of time and addressed it accordingly. I do not think he meant to refer to the fact that I have now been blocked 3 times for edit warring, therefore I must answer for all those blocks now. * To say you have not been reported since is misleading. The reason I left a warning on your talk page about edit warring (which you promptly removed as you do all warnings) was because someone reported you. I didn't know that was the reason. Bb23 certainly didn't tell me. I didn't attempt to mislead anyone, as far as I knew at the time "I've never even been reported for it since" was an entirley accurate statement. I simply assumed Bb23 had noticed it in the logs, and that's why he warned us. And what is wrong with removing warnings anyway? I've never seen anyone blocked for removing a warning. * You were indefinitely blocked in early May for personal attacks and harassment, which continued into the block triggering a lock of your talk page. Your were unblocked on May 22 by King of Hearts based on the following statement in your unblock request: "I understand perfectly why I was blocked - for making attacks on others I disagreed with. I understand that is wrong. I don't see how I can make that any clearer. I also don't see how I've given anyone any cause to believe it won't happen again." King of Hearts unblocked you stating: "OK. But consider this your final warning." I don't dispute any of this. The charge of harassment was over the top, but yes, I made personal attacks, for which I apologised. But why is it being brought up now though? I haven't made any personal attacks since then, and BWilkins didn't mention any in placing the block. * About two weeks later (May 27) King of Hearts blocked you for disruptive editing (one of the bases for the current block). Generously, they blocked you for only one week. You don't address any of this in your reequest. I cannot address that block because I remain to this day perplexed by its placement. I strongly objected to it at the time, but King of Hearts totally ignored me, so when it expired after a week I just moved on. My ability to address it therefore will remain unchanged unless or until he explains it. As I'm already having to deal with Bb23 interpreting BWilkins reasons to block me, I don't think it's reasonable to add a fourth person interpreting Bb23's interpretation of King of Hearts intentions to that insane mix. Because that's bordering on the ridiculous if you ask me. * Moreover, based on your previous failed promise, why should anyone believe that you have mended your ways? Which promise does this even refer to? As far as I can remember, the only specific previous promise I've ever made was to not personally attack people. And I've kept that promise. If that's not good enough evidence that I keep my promises, then what is? Nobody has to believe me at all. But like I said, if this is not meant to be a block that I can appeal, then please upgrade it to a ban. Because I see no point in being asked repeatedly questions like "I think you're a cunt, what have you got to say to that?". * Finally, you subtly shift the focus of the block from yourself to Prisonermonkeys and attempt to negotiate a deal ("In exchange for"). You're not really in a position to negotiate. You need to focus squarely on your history of misconduct. I'm not trying to shift anything. It's a basic fact that the only specific charge laid at the time of my appeal was long term edit warring, and it's a basic fact that the only person I was edit warring with for this last month and more was Prisonermonkeys, who is if I ever get unblocked quite clearly going to continue to follow me around with the sole purpose of reverting my additions if he doesn't like them, even if nobody else objects to them. Yes, I obliged him in this latest round of slow edit warring, and that was wrong. I am not trying to shift blame and I am not thick, I know this is not a "negotiation". But I am just looking at these facts, and seeing only three possible ways forward - expecting me to follow DR every time this happens, eliminating me from Wikipedia permanently, or finding a solution that recognises that Prisonermonkey's apparent belief that all my edits that fall within his topic area are crap and automatically revert worthy even though nobody else does, is not a dynamic that DR was really meant to deal with at all. Far easier and quicker to do as I suggested, assuming that 'ah fuck it, this is too much to read, let's just ban the fucker permanently and just pretend all those articles really are fantastic without his edits' isn't already on the mind of the next reviewer. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I find it very alarming that you feel that this discussion is akin to torture. If you honestly feel that way it would obviously be best for you to stop appealing the block and move on to other pursuits. In order to help facilitate this I will be revoking your ability to edit this talk page. If, however, you still wish to appeal you may contact WP:BASC by email. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2013 (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.
- To the reviewing admin: As I have previously responded to an unblock request by Gruesome, I will allow someone else to review this block. However, I endorse the block. Danger High voltage! 16:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment by Prisonermonkeys[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Okay, I'm not sure if I should be weighing into this debate, but since you repeatedly bring up me and my editing practices, I feel I have some stake in this discussion.
In short, I think the behaviour you have displayed goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. You have not once allowed for any meaningful discussion to take place, instead choosing to restore your preferred edits to a page and demanding that the person who reverted them demonstrate proof of why their edits should be retained. This goes against the bold, revert, discuss cycle. For instance, I removed your edits about the Mercedes protest on the 2013 Monaco Grand Prix page because I felt that was an issue to be covered elsewhere. And since the stewards referred the issue to a higher authority and no action was taken on the actual protest, it essentially amounted to "this might have happened, but then it didn't", which I felt made the entire section redundant.
Secondly, I reverted the "tyre issue" section from the 2013 Formula One season page becuse I felt it set a dangerous precedent for future edits. The issue remains unresolved, and most of the information about it has come from the teams - which may be considered to be unreliable because they have a vested interest in seeing a particular outcome. Take Red Bull, for instance: they have been lobbying for changes to the tyres all season long. As soon as the FIA said that changes could only be made on the grounds of safety, Red Bull immediately changed their tune and started claiming the tyres were unsafe. Not once did you address any of these issue - you instead demanded that I show "specific, actionable concerns" about the subject and restored you preferred edits, making it pretty clear that you would keep those edits in place until someone convinced you otherwise.
Finally, this edit is of extreme concern to me, particularly this line:
- "Because based on the Bahrain debacle, I am not convinced that your word that they just exist because you say so is in any way sufficient to be depriving people of information about a topic."
So, based on my edits on another page, which you particularly disagreed with, you have effectively judged every edit I have made to this page. That is not assuming good faith.
Also, for the record, deleting my comments and claiming "I did no such thing" and then pretending like it never happened is pretty poor eticutte. You demand that I justify my edits at every opportunity. The least you can do is hold yourself to the same standard that you do everyone else and explain your actions. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- PM, why would I be inclined to take lectures from you about etiquette, when here you are trying to make the same point about my "behavour", even though you know that the reason I removed it the first time was because I thought it was proveably false? You can disagree all you want, but there is nothing in etiquette that says you can just come here and make the same point again, as if that somehow makes it true.
- But perhaps the reason you think that way is because that's also how you seem to view content disputes. There was nothing that violated AGF about my Bahrain comment, that incident shows that I have good reason to believe that future debates with you will go just like that one did - one or more people will tell you you are wrong, while you keep simply repeating the same point again and again, based on nothing but your own personal beliefs, and avoiding sources, or what actual policies like WP:V say, or indeed basic logic and common sense, like the plague. And here you are, simply making the same points again based on nothing but your beliefs, as if somehow blind repetition is all that is needed to turn them into facts or good arguments.
- BRD is just an essay, not policy. And that's probably because it loses its usefulness when editors discuss things the way you do, so should probably never be considered a 'rule'. I never stopped you discussing a damn thing, all I did was ensure that you didn't deprive people of viewing valid material before you had established consensus for removal. Nobody has ever agreed with you on any of these points, so if your objections are valid, why would that be? Isn't it more likely that, based on the Bahrain incident, you're simply not very good at getting others to see your beliefs as actual facts or good arguments. So, even if I have 'violated' an essay, I don't see where I have gone against the spirit of Wikipedia, which is to be an encylopedia that contains valid information that people want to read. That said, I am big enough to admit when I am ignoring BRD by edit warring, so why aren't you?
- That said, DR or not, edit warring or no edit warring, spirit of Wikipedia or all out Wikiwar, the underyling issue I have with you is that there is no doubt that if people got into the details of your opposition in this specific incident, it would all be quickly discredited, because it is all just so very wrong. Wikipedia doesn't write about unresolved issues? Clearly false. All that material only comes from the teams? Clearly not. Your comment about Red Bull? Totally unsourced, and bordeline libellous. A protest about the tyres used in the 2013 Monaco Grand Prix is redundant to that article? Who would ever agree that was valid? Clearly nobody but you, based on the fact that article was on the Main Page for days, with nobody making this point at all, let alone deleting the section (ironically, I've just noticed it has been deleted again, by you, using the exact same reason, which by my count means you have made more reverts to that article than I ever did, all to make a change you see as really important, but that nearly 13,000 readers in one day, or what looks like 50,000 in one week, didn't think was remotely necessary).
- At the end of the day PM, you're only here to try and pull the wool over people's eyes and pretend that just because I don't think very highly of you and just because I've wrongly expressed that view by edit warrring with you recently, this is what I must be like all the time, and thus I of course must be banned. It's an inconvenient fact to people like BWilkins and Bb23 that there's no actual evidence to support that view. I promised to cease personal attacks, I did. After King of Hearts block expired I never repeated the same behaviour he detailed as being behind that block, even though I still dispute the reason for it. The only thing I have done in between then and now that in any way resembles a pettern of repeated bad behaviour, is to edit war, and that has only been with you. And I've proposed a solution to that, above. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, at the end of the day, when 20 people tell you that a) you're acting poorly, and b) that the evidence is overwhelming, a human being therefore has to change. Simply removing proof from your talkpage, or removing the things you a) don't want to hear, and b) are true does not make them less true or valid. Your first block was the opportunity for you to change for the better ... it didn't happen, and here you are. Insanity is doing the same thing again and again, expecting a different result. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well said, BWilkins. One must wonder why GF keeps removing my comments instead of just addressing them head-on. I mean, he claims that admins are misrepresenting his behavior, yet each time I present proof (with diffs) that he's wrong, he simply removes it. His obstinance is perplexing. In any case, everything he's deleted is of course on the talk page log for others to read. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, at the end of the day, when 20 people tell you that a) you're acting poorly, and b) that the evidence is overwhelming, a human being therefore has to change. Simply removing proof from your talkpage, or removing the things you a) don't want to hear, and b) are true does not make them less true or valid. Your first block was the opportunity for you to change for the better ... it didn't happen, and here you are. Insanity is doing the same thing again and again, expecting a different result. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
GF, I know you can't edit this page anymore, but I'm pretty sure you can still read it, so please, consider this.
You can continue to find fault with my editing practices as much as you like. And if you feel that I am so compromised by those practices that my comments have no redeeming vale, then you can feel free to ignore them as you wish.
You can continue to find fault with 76.189.109.155's editing practices as much as you like. And if you feel that they are so compromised by those practices that their comments have no redeeming vale, then you can feel free to ignore them as you wish.
You can continue to find fault with BWilkins' editing practices as much as you like. And if you feel that he is so compromised by those practices that his comments have no redeeming vale, then you can feel free to ignore them as you wish.
But every time you try and explain away someone else's behaviour as an excuse to maintain your own, all you do is reinforce the point that has been raised: that your behaviour is unacceptable. If our behaviour is so poor that it needs to be addressed, then you can trust that it will be addressed in the appropriate fashion. But this is about you, and the way you present yourself.
Because if one person says something, that's just an accident. If two people say something, it's coincidence. But if three people say something, it's a pattern. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Prisonermonkeys, while I don't approve of GF's behavior and feel his block is certainly warranted, your comments are highly inappropriate. Gravedancing is not attractive at all. Especially when it's being done by the blocked person's #1 adversary. You know that GF he has been indeffed and that his talk page privileges have been revoked, so you coming here more than 24 hours after the matter was settled is, quite frankly, outrageous. The most perplexing part is that you began your comments with, "GF, I know you can't edit this page anymore", but...", yet still went on to post a condescending message to someone who has no ability to respond. I hope you'll seriously consider what I've said. You seem like a nice person, but I feel you made a very poor choice. Now that you've made your comments, and I've responded, you shouldn't remove them. But I would urge you to strike them (put a line through them). If you don't know how, just type <s> at the beginning of your comments, and </s> at the end of them. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)