User talk:Gruesome Foursome

June 2013
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Long term edit-warring, WP:TE and disruptive editing overall. It appears that you have zero desire to work within the community nature and structure of Wikipedia, and are merely trying to force your own version no matter what. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 10:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 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
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)

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   at the beginning of your comments, and   at the end of them. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)