| Revision as of 17:15, 7 August 2012 editDavidiad (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers18,221 edits Whoa! Just saw this. Keep your tone polite and to the point and agree to use a single account in your appeal and you'll probably be unblocked← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:57, 8 August 2012 edit undoSir Gawain McGarson (talk | contribs)399 edits →Blocked indefinitely: fix the tone thereNext edit → | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| {{hab}} | {{hab}} | ||
| ==Blocked indefinitely== | ==Blocked indefinitely== | ||
| Well, I've been indefinitely blocked. Apparently I have tried to deceive people. Oh yes? True, I did create and abandon different accounts{{spaced ndash}}'''one after the other''', not simultaneously |
Well, I've been indefinitely blocked. Apparently I have tried to deceive people. Oh yes? True, I did create and abandon different accounts{{spaced ndash}}'''one after the other''', not simultaneously. I have never engaged in an edit war. A careful search of my work will show that my edits to articles are well balanced and objective. | ||
| <br> | <br> | ||
| <br> | <br> | ||
| The three individuals making these accusations (], ] and ]) have axes to grind, Achilles because I once accused him of meat-puppetry and of tendentious editing in support of the banned ], Cynwolfe because of her supporting role in attacks on my edits by Achilles and the now banned ], and Obsidian Soul because of our encounter at ]. Hmmmm. The block has been done so quickly and with such prejudice that it amounts to an assassination. |
The three individuals making these accusations (], ] and ]) have axes to grind, Achilles because I once accused him of meat-puppetry and of tendentious editing in support of the banned ], Cynwolfe because of her supporting role in attacks on my edits by Achilles and the now banned ], and Obsidian Soul because of our encounter at ]. Hmmmm. The block has been done so quickly and with such prejudice that it amounts to an assassination. | ||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | <br> | ||
| The catalog of my misdeeds in the ban log is tendentious. It looks bad at a glance. But a detailed search of the facts leads to a very different picture. My accusers are grasping at straws. I mean really, have a ''careful'' look at Also have a look at for a context. Blocked indefinitely? For what? ] (]) 00:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | The catalog of my misdeeds in the ban log is tendentious. It looks bad at a glance. But a detailed search of the facts leads to a very different picture. My accusers are grasping at straws. I mean really, have a ''careful'' look at Also have a look at for a context. Blocked indefinitely? For what? ] (]) 00:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 04:57, 8 August 2012
No communications here please! Article talk pages are a better venue.
| drawer |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Disambiguation link notification for July 6Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
West's StudiesA thousand pardons for posting here, but do you still have West's Studies in Greek Elegy and Iambus? I'm currently working without a library and the notes I took from the book when I had it are a bit deficient. Feel free, of course, to ignore, delete or shove this intrusion into your "drawer". .: 21:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC) — formerly the Welsh Nut
Disambiguation link notification for July 17Hi. When you recently edited Argonautica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Longinus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC) |
Blocked indefinitely
Well, I've been indefinitely blocked. Apparently I have tried to deceive people. Oh yes? True, I did create and abandon different accounts – one after the other, not simultaneously. I have never engaged in an edit war. A careful search of my work will show that my edits to articles are well balanced and objective.
The three individuals making these accusations (User:Achilles, User:Cynwolfe and User:Obsidian Soul) have axes to grind, Achilles because I once accused him of meat-puppetry and of tendentious editing in support of the banned User:Haiduc, Cynwolfe because of her supporting role in attacks on my edits by Achilles and the now banned User:Pmanderson, and Obsidian Soul because of our encounter at Sacred Band of Thebes. Hmmmm. The block has been done so quickly and with such prejudice that it amounts to an assassination.
The catalog of my misdeeds in the ban log is tendentious. It looks bad at a glance. But a detailed search of the facts leads to a very different picture. My accusers are grasping at straws. I mean really, have a careful look at the case against me! Also have a look at User:Sir Gawain mcGarson#The McRap Project for a context. Blocked indefinitely? For what? Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll start assembling my case here, in no particular order, until I'm ready to appeal the decision. I haven't yet found a way to email key figures at WP about this case but I hope to do so soon. Hopefully, wheels are already in motion on my behalf.
What are the accusations? I am accused of sock-puppetry and disruptive behaviour. I'll go through those in that order.
Sockpuppetry
- Apparently my sequence of accounts is a form of sock-puppetry. That's news to me. Nobody has ever put in a complaint before. Obviously because nobody really thought it was sock-puppetry until now. What's so different now? Obsidian Soul's complaint against me is the only new circumstance, as far as I can tell.
- Obsidian Soul says I never advised him that I was User:McOoee. That's not true. I said at Talk:Sacred Band of Thebes on 24 July Oh and I should add that I was McOoee.. Apparently I am being blocked because Obsidian Soul could not be bothered to read my posts on the talk page.
- Cynwolfe says: At Talk:Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece, he's User:McOoee in May 2012 but User:Sir Gawain McGarson in July 2012. Yes but look at the two sections she refers to, beginning with Talk:Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece#This silly article, then Delete this promotional article. Does that really look like an attempt to deceive? There is no attempt to sound different. No change in my angry opposition to that OR article. If it was an attempt at deception, what a clumsy, brainless attempt it was! Especially since I deleted the OR content of the article! You only had to check my SGM user page if there were any doubts about my identity. Notice also Cynwolfe's attempt to dismiss my deletion of the OR content when she observed that other scholars had used the same primary sources and this somehow validated their use in that article. She referenced some sources without providing a cited context. No, referencing does not validate the use of primary sources unless a context in modern scholarship is cited also (I'll say more about this fiasco in the next section). I'm a nuisance because I won't put up with that sort of crap. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Cynwolfe also says: After a long and heated discussion, in which McZeus was asked by User:Nuujinn to stop implying that any editor who worked on the article was a pedophile, followed by a hiatus, he re-enters as IP 121.223.100.220 with a misleading subhead that implies this is an additional opposing view. Only after I gave him a prod did he admit who he was. Again look at the page and see if there was any attempt at deception. Damned if I can find it! My post under "misleading subhead" clearly identifies me. Moreover my opposition to that article was well known. I might observe here that Obsidian Soul edited Sacred Band of Thebes as an IP number, saying I was that IP editor, editing without bothering to log in as I was disillusioned with Misplaced Pages at that time (still am) (Talk:Sacred Band of Thebes#Mostly harmless 7:13 24 July). My feelings exactly! Except apparently it is a hanging offense for me. I should add also that Obsidian Soul's edits were backed by a mysterious MrGendel here. You never know who will creep out of the woodwork when you start adding secondary sources to an Original Research article! Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Cynwolfe also sees sockpuppetry on the Pindar talk page here where another contributor criticizes an edit by User:Amphityoniades, one of my old accounts. I said in reply there that Amphitryoniades and I are "generally identical". I am willing to plead guilty to an idiotic sense of humour but there was no attempt at deception on my part. What was I to gain by deception? I was conceding the other editor's right to change things.
- Cynwolfe says: At Talk:Pederasty in ancient Greece, he's Amphitryoniades in Archive 1 and most of Archive 2, but switches to McOoee, again without revealing his socks to other editors in that discussion. Yes but Amphitryoniades final post there was 7 June 2010, and McOoee's first post is 6 May 2012, and the discussions are quite separate. There was no attempt to fool anyone and no attempt to gain advantage by the change in accounts. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- Cynwolfe says: He next begins participating as McCronion. Only after User:Akhilleus points out his long string of identities (02:41, 22 October 2011) does McCronion post a notice on his new user page acknowledging his previous socks (06:54, the same day). Yes but again there is no attempt at deception, with indicators such as Consider the pretexts you and Nujin have given me for retaining the pedophilia-like images: It's clearly the same man continuing the debate. If I was thought to be using a sock-puppet, why wasn't I blocked? Why didn't I receive a warning like You are suspected of using sock-puppets! Do not change accounts again or you will be blocked? It takes at least two to tango and Cynwolfe and Akhilles were dancing the tango with me in a little chorus, where they knew perfectly well who I was, and I knew they knew. As for acknowledging my previous "socks" on my user page, I had already acknowledged there that I was User:McZeus. What more was needed? McZeus linked back to the other accounts. However, Akhilles seemed to imply that I might be ashamed of my other user names. I wasn't ashamed of them and so at his prompting I added the whole collection of former user names to my User:McCronion page. Debates don't happen just at an explicit level, except for idiots. They include hints and allusions and subliminal messages. That's what it is to be human. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Disruptive behaviour