| 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 | Latest revision as of 13:23, 21 April 2013 edit undoDennis Brown (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions69,230 edits re | ||
| (74 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| I've went ahead and revoked talk page access as well. I'm pretty liberal about how blocked editors use their talk page as long as it is at least partially related to their work at Misplaced Pages, but it seems pretty obvious that you are using yours for a soapbox only and not to conduct Misplaced Pages related discussions or to seek an unblock. I would also note that this is a sockpuppet account, so normally we require you log into the master account to seek an unblock anyway. | |||
| No communications here please! Article talk pages are a better venue. | |||
| {{hat|drawer}} | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for July 6== | |||
| I encourage any and all admin to review the history and make their own determination. If any admin feels I'm too involved to be unbiased, or that this is a mistake, then by all means, please revert it and simply leave a note to that effect on my talk page. This isn't about the attacks on me (he has posted these all over the place, I'm not concerned) and I've waited to see if he is going to actually request an unblock, but it seems abundantly clear that his only use for the page will be a soapbox, and regardless of who was the target, this is inappropriate. I've watched it go on for a long while without comment, figuring it would blow over eventually, but it seems pretty obvious that this a pattern due to the history of updating and refining the same attacking, soapboxing message. As few people likely watch this page (he had very few article edits with this sock) I've just taken the same action I expect any admin would have. | |||
| Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to ]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| I would direct Gawain to ] for information on getting unblocked, or to file the inevitable complaint over my actions. I will post a notice on ] that I have taken this action. ] - ] ] <small>]</small> 13:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :] (] | ]) | |||
| ::added a link pointing to ] | |||
| :] (] | ]) | |||
| ::added a link pointing to ] | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == West's ''Studies'' == | |||
| A 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". <span style="font-family:century gothic;letter-spacing:2px;"> ]]</span> 21:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC) — formerly the ''Welsh Nut'' | |||
| :No I don't have that one. I've got a Cambridge edition on Horace's Epodes and also Loebs on Iambus and on Elegies, plus various odds and ends with critical notes and commentaries, but even those are at home and not here with me. I have some dim memories of being an iambist in a previous life but ''tabula rasa'' has scotched most of that. Sorry. | |||
| :: Gotcha ... thanks ... I'll do me best with me crusts. Best of luck with yer tours of the delta reeds. <span style="font-family:century gothic;letter-spacing:2px;"> ]]</span> 06:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not in the delta at the moment. I befriended a gaggle of magical geese and harnessed them to Madame Sesostris's Toyota. We have flown to the moon. I am looking at the earth through a telescope. Sometimes I sit in the moon dust and ponder the nature of being. No replies thanks. ] (]) 12:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for July 17== | |||
| Hi. When you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (] | ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| ==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. Certain people want me gone because I'm a nuisance. Because I won't accept crap from some projects, especially their use of original research and their use of gangland style edits to enforce their power here. 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> | |||
| 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. As for the admin chap who made this decision{{spaced ndash}}you have banned an editor who has never received a warning about his behavior. What was your decision based on? You mentioned the complexity of the case. What you mean is, you'd rather take the word of some people with a grudge, rather than have a good hard look at what has really gone on here. Nobody asked me for my input into that decision. | |||
| <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) | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| 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. | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| What are the accusations? I am accused of sock-puppetry and disruptive behaviour. I'll go through those in that order. | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| '''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 ] 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 ], 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. ] (]) 10:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *Cynwolfe also says: ''After a long and heated discussion, in which McZeus by ] 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 that implies this is an ''additional'' opposing view. Only after I did he '' 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)'' (] 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 . You never know who will creep out of the woodwork when you start adding secondary sources to an Original Research article! ] (]) 10:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *Cynwolfe also sees sockpuppetry on the Pindar talk page 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 ], he's and most of but 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. ] (]) 09:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *Cynwolfe says: ''He next begins participating as McCronion. Only ''after'' ] points out his (02:41, 22 October 2011) does McCronion 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. ] (]) 09:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| '''Disruptive behaviour''' | |||
Latest revision as of 13:23, 21 April 2013
I've went ahead and revoked talk page access as well. I'm pretty liberal about how blocked editors use their talk page as long as it is at least partially related to their work at Misplaced Pages, but it seems pretty obvious that you are using yours for a soapbox only and not to conduct Misplaced Pages related discussions or to seek an unblock. I would also note that this is a sockpuppet account, so normally we require you log into the master account to seek an unblock anyway.
I encourage any and all admin to review the history and make their own determination. If any admin feels I'm too involved to be unbiased, or that this is a mistake, then by all means, please revert it and simply leave a note to that effect on my talk page. This isn't about the attacks on me (he has posted these all over the place, I'm not concerned) and I've waited to see if he is going to actually request an unblock, but it seems abundantly clear that his only use for the page will be a soapbox, and regardless of who was the target, this is inappropriate. I've watched it go on for a long while without comment, figuring it would blow over eventually, but it seems pretty obvious that this a pattern due to the history of updating and refining the same attacking, soapboxing message. As few people likely watch this page (he had very few article edits with this sock) I've just taken the same action I expect any admin would have.
I would direct Gawain to WP:GAB for information on getting unblocked, or to file the inevitable complaint over my actions. I will post a notice on WP:AN that I have taken this action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)