Misplaced Pages

No communications here please! Article talk pages are a better venue.

Blocked indefinitely

I just noticed this exchange: User talk:Dennis Brown#Lucretius/Sir Gawain McGarson. Just to let you know: I am not able to email anyone via my WP account as it is disabled (I've tried to enable it but haven't succeeded yet), nor can I edit any page but my talk page. I have not been through this process before and I don't really know what my entitlements are yet. I do know I am allowed to appeal against the block. As I understand it, a block is an opportunity for a contributor to reflect on his circumstances. That is what I am doing on my talk page. I am not attempting to play evil games here and I am not forcing anyone to read my drafts. I would like my current account to be re-activated please if that is one of my entitlements. Thanks. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

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. It has never been a secret and it has never been a problem till now. My record is quite exemplary. I have never been blocked before for anything.

The three individuals making these accusations (User:Achilles, User:Cynwolfe and User:Obsidian Soul) seem to have axes to grind. How else to explain it? The catalog of my misdeeds in the ban log is specious. It looks bad at a glance but a detailed search of the facts leads to a very different picture. I mean really, have a careful look at the case against me! I'll be going through the accusations in reply. Also have a look at User:Sir Gawain mcGarson#The McRap Project for a context, and my last user page.

Blocked indefinitely? For what? Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 05:18, 8 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 The claims that I was using multiple accounts as sockpuppets are specious. "So why did you create multiple accounts?" you might ask. At first, it was out of frustration. Here for example is my creation of my second account, User Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest. The new account is clearly linked to the old one. Then came my third account, Amphitryoniades. Again notice how the change is clearly identified. If you go through all my accounts, you will find the same kind of declaration. In November last year I put retired tags on all the old accounts, just to make sure there was no doubts that these accounts were inactive, and still I kept all the accounts linked. At sometime during this process (I'm not sure exactly when), I began to realize that there was potential for satire, since multiple accounts could be represented as a project of many former members and only one current member. I eventually named it the McRap Project and recently I began creating auxiliary members (see my last user page), as an alternative to new accounts. It occurs to me now that I could also satirize the use of sockpuppets in this manner. Why not? Is WP afraid of satire? I guess it must be or I wouldn't be in this pickle. Has my attempt at satire been seamless and expert? Of course not. Nobody as ever done anything like this before and I'm finding out the boundaries as I go along. I like pushing boundaries.

I have been accused before of having sock-puppets but never been blocked, a fact that made the accusation look silly. User:Pmanderson made the accusation at the 2nd AfD for Greek love (I can't locate the AfD discussion now since it isn't mentioned on the article talk pag)e. The accusation didn't lead to a block on my account but it certainly damaged the credibility of the AfD, since I was the one nominating that article for deletion (warning: don't nominate articles for deletion if you are a satirist). Curiously enough, Pmanderson has now been blocked for a year for using a sockpuppet. Well, now I'm the one faced with a block and my neck is on the line. So let's go through these accusations about my sock-puppetry.

• Obsidian Soul's complaint against me is the only new circumstance leading to this block, as far as I can tell. He 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..
• 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, since I say things like 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 quaint 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. As I said, it takes at least two to tango.
• 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. There is no attempt by me 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 most of the article as OR! You only had to check my SGM user page if there were any doubts about my identity.
• 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. As for me using an IP number, that's not unusual for anyone at WP. Obsidian Soul began editing Sacred Band of Thebes as an IP number, later declaring 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). I get disillusioned too, and sometimes I forget to log in.
• 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 inappropriate 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.

Summary: I have long been known to have had multiple accounts and I have never been blocked before. Cynwolfe's arguments here are quite specious when you look at the details and when you consider the long period involved. The accusation by Obsidian Soul is clearly wrong. I told him who I was at the outset but he seems not to have read my post. I had never encountered him before then, as far as I can recall, and he clearly didn't know that I was once McOoee. We seemed to be heading into a controversial debate and I figured he was entitled to know my backgound. I could have gone to much greater lengths to point out his mistake to him but I genuinely believed he would find it out anyway. Somebody should have told him the truth about me. Why was he misled? Since Cynwolfe has ventured opinions about my personal "issues", I think I'm entitled to venture a personal comment in return. She is clearly the driving force behind the accusation of sock-puppetry and she has not come up with the evidence. She is just grasping at straws. That shows poor judgement. Akhilleus prefers instead to focus on a different issue, which seems mainly to be about disruptive behaviour, since he says I make at least one article too unpleasant for him to edit there anymore. Mr Brown also has singled out this issue as the main one for the block. I agree that this is the real issue I need to address.

Disruptive behaviour I edit lots of articles without any confrontations at all. The articles where I seem to be involved in controversy are all related to ancient Greek and Roman pederasty – the topic is controversial, and it should be! Greeks and Romans didn't have a term or a concept anything like our modern notion of 'homosexuality'. They thought in terms of pederasty, which includes homosexual and pedophile behaviours. This is a complex and subtle mix of ideas and behaviours. It is not territory for original research yet all the articles where I have been involved in controversy have been subject to OR for years. I have been persistently and strongly opposed to the way these articles have been used for original research, especially the way that primary sources have been quoted and interpreted by WP editors without support from modern scholarship. Modern scholars don't use primary sources in that uncritical way and that's why such a treatment amounts to OR. And I'm not the only one who has felt deeply concerned. I'll need to give a brief history of the wide controversy surrounding these articles. But first, let me deal with some of the other straws that Cynwolfe is grasping at here.

• Cynwolfe says: As User:McCronion, he began contributing productively. In a discussion on a user page about how to improve our coverage of classical poetry meters, out of the blue he interjected "Greek love must be deleted" twice: . Yes but if you look at the actual context I am being misrepresented yet again. Yes I ended my posts with Greek love must be deleted – but I signed myself off as McCato. This is a reference to Cato the Elder, who ended every speech in the senate with the injunction "Carthage must be destroyed". I am satirising myself during a discussion with User:Wareh, one of the real classical scholars here at WP. My opposition to the article Greek love has become one of my defining characteristics as far as many WP editors are concerned. Why shouldn't I laugh at myself and at the image I seem to have here, as some kind of deletionist fanatic?
• Cynwolfe 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.... Again let's look at the circumstances. I had already tried to re-assure Nuujinn in my previous statement. I told him: If I implied that only someone sympathetic to pedaphiles works on this article then I must be one too, considering the amount of time I have put into it. I have put a lot more time into it than you have. I mean really, can I be more generous than that? I took upon myself the odium he seemed to think I was casting on others. Notice also my conciliatory tone to Cynwolfe in my next contribution there. Do these reasurances get noticed? No. It's just another case of people not reading or not wanting to read my posts. I'm sorry but there is something like a herd mentality in controversial articles like that and it doesn't matter how often you reassure people of your good intentions, they go on reinforcing each other's prejudices against opponents. Most people give up and go away when faced with that scenario. I go away too but I come back and I come back and I come back. But not if this ban is upheld.
• Returning to Talk:Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece#This silly article and Delete this promotional article. Notice Cynwolfe's attempt to dismiss my deletion of the OR content when she observed that modern scholars had used the same primary sources and this somehow validated their use in that article. She referenced some modern sources in a rushed way without providing a cited context. I stated there that this was not a valid way to support primary sources – we need to know how modern scholars are interpreting them. I subsequently accessed one of the sources she provided and I summarised the context that the modern scholar had provided: Plutarch was arguing that homosexuality should not be condemned even if heterosexuality was a superior option. Obviously this has only indirect relevance to homosexuality in the ancient Greek military, but don't blame me for that. I was citing the context given by the source that Cynwolfe had supplied. That's what you get when you begin with primary sources and then look around for secondary sources to explain them. Obsidian Soul then came in and removed a source I had supplied because he disagrees with it, but without providing a source to back his view. Was I being disruptive? I made this comment on the talk page there: Anyone looking at this article may assume two things. First, original research is acceptable here at WP (it will be tagged as problematic but the tags on this article are over three years old and nobody does anything about them). Secondly, the article is protected by a group of individuals whose interests it apparently serves. That's not the sort of message we should be spreading. Yes that's a confronting comment and it shows some exasperation on my part. However I also made conciliatory statements there. That kind of exchange is not unusual at WP. Exasperated comments are not unique to me. I would be a better person if I could avoid all signs of exasperation, I grant you that. I'm working on it. At the same time, I often show extraordinary patience in difficult circumstances. I never get any credit for that.

Note

I missed your last note for a bit because it was at the top of the page, not the bottom. I made an allowance for a potential unblock when I blocked you, but I feel it should be reviewed by an independent admin. The only one to view it so far, Elen of the Roads, wasn't very impressed, as you saw in the discussion on my talk page. What you did was at the very least, very confusing, and there was enough confusion and overlap and everything else that if for no other reason, it rose to the level of being disruptive, via WP:DE. Please note, that to qualify as disruption, it doesn't matter if it is intentional or not, only that it disrupts. I can't promise you anything except that I'm open minded enough to insure a neutral admin will review your proposal to be unblocked, but it would need to include an understand of why you were blocked (it isn't required that you agree with the block, only that you understand the rationale), as well as your plans (and pledge) for the future to prevent this type of disruption again. You can also read WP:GAB although the procedures there aren't likely to be as effective as an ad hoc proposal, in this situation. Again, I promise nothing other than to insure a well respected and genuinely neutral admin will review it and make a determination, and perhaps outline additional restrictions. It is really up to you. Obviously, if you sockpuppet again, you will be indeffed with no chance of becoming unblocked, so I recommend you take a different approach than above, and consider a proposal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your time. I didn't use the alternative accounts as sockpuppets. If I did, I would have been blocked years ago. Yes, my use of multiple accounts may have been disruptive to some extent. It became a way of protest. It was done as satire and it was never an attempt to mislead. The accusations made against me in the block log are 90% crap, quite frankly. I have already spent enough time pointing that out in the appeal I have drafted so far. People can make their own investigations without direction from me, if they choose. Punishment? I will accept 9 barnstars, one for each of my accounts. I won't accept anything else. Please pass that on to the neutral admin. :} Lucretius, Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest, Amphitryoniades, McZeus, McCronion, McRap, Eyeless in Gaza, McOoee, Sir Gawain McGarson

I don't think that is going to be very persuasive on its own. I did the SPI investigation myself, so I'm aware that there is little overlap, but the overall pattern is the issue. When you change names over and over, it looks like you might be building up a bad reputation with one name, then changing names, rinse and repeat, for the purpose of avoiding scrutiny. That is a different form of socking, but it is socking. I'm trying to be open minded here, and no one is interested in punishments, only solutions, so I suggest proposing a way forward, including agreeing to keep it one account and finding more creative ways to protest, ie: polite verbal discourse. Getting unblocked isn't guaranteed, but that is going to be required at a minimum, and it should be clear that I am trying to assume the best of faith here and give you every chance to not stay blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

uninvited guest commentator: Since I'm an editor who interacts with McCetera on articles other than the contentious ancient sexualities topics, I just want to pop in say that he is very productive—if, as Cynwolfe says, a bit "idiosyncratic"—when he stays out of disputes in which he loses himself. I very much hope that he pays attention to what Dennis is saying and what Elen said at Dennis' talk page, and tries to move forward from this situation productively, no matter what he thinks of its circumstances.  _.: 14:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This is why I waited so long to take any action. As I pointed out in the SPI, with some of his new socks, he edited productively quite a while. In literature articles, he tends to add content, but in sexuality articles, he almost always deletes it, even though the literature articles might also start out with large passages of content without footnotes. There are troubling signs, however, that even in literature articles the user is uncomfortable in a collaborative environment. Although voluble and witty, he can become defensive quickly if other editors offer even mild or minor criticism.

• At Talk:Anacreontea, during one of his productive phases, I could see him starting to lose it and tried to deflate the situation by playing along with a metaphor he used. On that page, I happened to agree with him. Wareh had raised a possible objection, and Pmanderson had concurred, focusing solely on the content with no reference whatever to the socking user—whose response was nevertheless personalized and emotional.
• At Talk:Pindar#Note?, I pointed out his unconventional method of structuring the article, and he responded with a comment belittling me and praising himself. When Akhilleus points out the more conventional approach, and I too reiterated that this was a mere style point, McOoee tells me to write the article myself, and brings up Pederasty in ancient Greece. I had been trying here as elsewhere to give him a fresh start, and to look only at what was going on at that moment. Other editors did the same: this user was always the one to bring up past conflicts in other settings, as was evidenced by the example in the SPI when we were talking about poetry meters and he suddenly brought up "Greek love." Everybody else was letting it go, and even if he was joking (he wasn't; he still wanted to dismantle the article, as subsequent actions showed), there was no need to mention it. On the Pindar talk page, he apparently had been assuming bad faith, since only after I raised the page rating as a result of his work did he concede good faith. Then, despite his tiresome objections to OR in everybody else's articles when it's no such thing, he defends his use of Misplaced Pages for creative expression: Yes the structure is a bit idiosyncratic but so are Pindar's poems and I think its alright to give the reader a sense of that. Some of the prose is a bit on the lyrical side but so is Bowra's Pindar. Well, no: in articles on literature and culture, you give readers a firsthand taste of what the primary sources are like by providing short quotations, chosen by secondary sources as exemplary.

All this points to why the sockpuppetry can't be disassociated from the disruptive behavior. Other editors didn't point out his history of socking (or didn't until he became intolerably disruptive again) because we were giving him a chance to start over. The user himself injected past conflicts into unrelated discussions under a new identity. He even says here explicitly that the socks were meant to make a mockery of clean-start accounts and community trust. Editing as a protest is the definition of tendentiousness, and the serial socking is disruptive because it erodes the WP principle of good faith. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone should be able to see at a glance that there is a history of conflict between me on one hand and Akhilleus, Cynwolfe and Pmanderson on the other. I am in no mood to go through that whole story, or to fish through history pages like Cynwolfe has done (how the colours of the fish shimmer and change and vacillate, depending on which light you put them in!). I'll say this much: the root of this present problem was the disgraceful editing of the now banned User:Haiduc, whose outrageous use of primary sources the threesome never made efforts to resist. When he was banned, I tried to get a rescue operation started at the CGR project, to mend the articles he had messed up, but that was quashed. The consequences of that failure were inevitable. A large number of editors angry with the pedantic pederast (as one editor has termed him) rushed about tearing apart articles that he had worked on, while the threesome rushed about trying to prevent them. My disruptive behaviour comes from that root cause. The threesome continued to protect OR articles as if they were sacrosanct. Meanwhile I made persistent efforts to improve or remove a few articles that the pedantic pederast had worked on and which have continued as part of his legacy. All those articles are now better for my involvement: Pederasty in ancient Greece, Greek love, Symposium, Sacred Band of Thebes and Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece. So exactly what have I disrupted? I trod on a few toes. I'll gladly do the same anytime a propagandist like Haiduc is allowed to flourish, even if it means I get labelled a homophobe or – what was it Elen said? Something about the Reichstag and Spiderman? I wonder whose friend she is? The history I just outlined is the cause also of my contempt for projects. What is the point of a project if it can't secure an appropriate methodology for the articles under its banner, or if it can't articulate the concerns of all those editors who struggle with tendentious editors like Haiduc? When it misrepresents the intentions of an honourable editor like me? In this distorted and distorting environment, I play octopus. So stop accusing me of this and that and the other thing and first mend yourselves, then look to see if I'm any better or worse than you are.

For the moment, I see no compelling reason to revisit the pederasty articles I mentioned though they are still quite a way short of where they should be. I also see no compelling reason to go on creating new accounts. Nine is a nice number. It is the number of Muses. It is the number of lives a cat has. The McRap gang will continue to grow through auxiliary members like the lone piper of Dunimop, the Mongolian prince and the Murray River, all under the umbrella of User:Sir Gawain McGarson. Soon we shall have WP surrounded (ah now I see where the Reichstag thing comes into play). Actually, I see no compelling reason to go on editing WP at all, but I may pop in now and then to test the waters, eat a few squid, that sort of thing. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, Elen is the admin who imposed the current extended block of Pmanderson. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Elen is evidently defining me as somebody deluded. Why else talk about the Reichstag and Spiderman? So evidently she is not used to somebody standing outside the project system the way I do. Therefore she has 'friends' in a way that I studiously avoid. Not having 'friends' leaves one vulnerable at times like this. But a WP governed by alliances of 'friends' is something of a problem. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Unsolicited opinion on this block

Maybe I'm just being typically naive, but this process is not as straightforwardly digestible to be as I believe so serious a punishment (taking this at face value as a lifetime ban of the editor) should be. It seems three things are possibly at issue here: (1) disruptive editing within a specific topic (ancient pederasty) about which the editor has strong feelings that have led to intemperate actions (not just to cleaning up some of Haiduc's mess); (2) possible disruptive editing otherwise/elsewhere; (3) use of multiple accounts. I can see how #1 presents as behavior that merits sanction, but for that behavior I would expect the editor would receive the opportunity to observe a topic ban before being banned simpliciter. I am pretty familiar with the facts of #3; all nine banned accounts were on my watchlist, and I knew they were connected by simple observation of the editor's public behavior. Now, I can understand that the community should not have to watch an editor deliberately and closely to keep track of who is who, but I don't see any intention to deceive here, and I believe we ought to be regard issue #3 as completely satisfied with a promise (backed up with threat of banning, if need be) to dwell forevermore in the persona of Sir Gawain McGarson (a promise would require more than the statement offered so far, "I also see no compelling reason to go on creating new accounts"). In sum, I'm a bit queasy that a disruptive editing issue has been adjudicated and punished as a socking issue. This may fit the technical definition of bannable socking (I am not a wikilawyer, and I wouldn't know), but I do find it hard to square the punishment for what this editor has done with the serial creation of his nine user accounts with my sense of fairness. (I've skipped over #2; I do not present myself as the world expert on Sir Gawain's edits, inside or outside of pederasty articles, so I'd only repeat that a problem editor should be told plainly and clearly what problem behaviors need to cease, if a severe penalty is going to be imposed.) Wareh (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Wareh. It is now time for me to put aside the satire and jokes. I addressed the complaints and I made a couple of offers, with qualifications attached. If my qualified reply and my offers have not been completely serious, that's because the process itself is something of a farce. In my opinion, I was dragged into this show trial under a false accusation of sock puppetry. It is absurd to tell me that I have been using sock puppets when my accounts have been open to public view for years. The real issue is one of disruption. And the real question there is whether or not that disruption was in fact serious enough to deserve a block. There are plenty of vigorous disputes at WP every day. At times, I persisted a bit longer than I should have done; at times, I was a bit too confronting. But put that in the context of the mess that the pederasty articles were in and the history of problems that I merely happened to stumble into. Anyone who wants to go through my edits to check up on my behaviour will be amazed at this outcome. Anyhow, I'm done with this humiliating and ridiculous process. I'll pop by in about a week to see if WP has regained some common sense. If there is no change in the scenery here, I'll assume that the block is indefinite. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 11:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten, I've allowed the discussion to move forward and explanations to as well. As for why it was "punished" as socking, that is simply because it landed on my desk at WP:SPI, and it is a form of socking, although not the most common type. Keep in mind that having multiple accounts is allowed under certain circumstances, but if the average person can't connect them, then we have a problem. I had to spend a great deal of time connecting the dots since I wasn't familiar with the articles, and that is pretty much the standard, it wasn't obvious to an outsider. Part of the reason I was waiting was that I was hoping for a more straight forward and definitive response, rather than the vagueness that I have seen here, for your own benefit. I will ping an ininvolved admin and ask them to review. You can still follow the guidance in WP:GAB to get unblocked if the reviewing admin won't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Appeal

I just noticed Dennis Brown's link to WP:GAB. I'm sorry I didn't know about that option sooner. We're not all bureaucrats and lawyers, you know. I have every reason to think an appeal will succeed. Pmanderson, I think, has had numerous blocks for various offences and only got a one year block for using a sockpuppet. I have had no blocks till now and my 'sockpuppet' is just a legal technicality as there was no attempt at deception. I should get off with a warning. On the other hand, if Elen's psychological profiling is right, I could be too dangerous to be released ever. A maniacal zealot such as I am – If free to roam WP at will, I could walk into a talk page with explosives inside my underpants at any moment, or hijack a debate and send it crashing into a project somewhere. Yes there are good reasons for an indefinite block, if that psychological profile is right. However, I think I deserve to be blocked indefinitely for a more serious reason. I have set myself up as a satirist. A satirist is a messenger with bad news who manages not to get shot. Clearly I have got some people angry enough for them to take a shot at me. An indefinite block on me as a failed satirist might be in everyone's best interest, including my own.

Anyway, I'll continue drafting an appeal here, if that is allowed. Thanks. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• You are welcome to appeal, but based on the confirmation below, I would doubt it would be successful at this time. Perhaps after a 6 month break, if you didn't continue to edit or create accounts, and could articulate your way to deal with the concerns expressed here and leading to your block, then it might fall on more sympathetic ears. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Review of your block

I am here because I was asked by Dennis Brown to give an independent review of the block.

For convenience I shall refer to the editor in question as "Gawain" and as "he". Certainly the username "Sir Gawain McGarson" suggests a male person.

There is a considerable amount written relating to this editor, both on his talk page and elsewhere. I have spent a considerable amount of time reading substantial amounts of stuff, and I do not propose to spend a similar amount of time commenting in detail on every aspect of it. Instead, I shall simply summarise what I see as the essential features of the case.

Gawain has been a persistent disruptive editor, in many ways. Over a long period of time he has persisted in trying to impose his own view of what articles should be like, despite knowing full well that consensus is against him. He has repeatedly stated that he has no intention of accepting consensus, and openly expressed contempt for other editors. He has repeatedly made remarks which come at least very close to being personal attacks. He has repeatedly used alternative accounts in ways which, unless he is stupid, he must have known would give other editors the impression that more than one person was taking part. The fact that somewhere or other information connecting the accounts existed, and could in principle be found by anyone who spent large amounts of time and trouble searching for the information, is irrelevant: the effect of his use of different accounts was bound to deceive most readers, and he knew that was the case, unless he is pathologically unaware of the way normal human minds work to such an extent as to constitute a lack of competence to edit effectively. Describing his attempts to deceive as "humour" and "satire" is of no value. I do not get the impression that any of his antics were intended to cause amusement for other editors, and if they were intended to cause amusement for himself, then he was doing so at the expense of misleading other editors, and wasting their time. Deliberately causing disruption in order to amuse oneself is not a legitimate use of editing privilege. He continues, even in his pleas for an unblock, to make statements which seem strongly to suggest that he has every intention of continuing to be disruptive and dishonest. To take just one example, he says "I also see no compelling reason to go on creating new accounts", which on the face of it reads like a statement that he intends not to do so, albeit without explicitly saying so. However, two sentences later he says "The McRap gang will continue to grow through auxiliary members", which reads like a statement that he does intend to do so. Apart from the apparent self-contradiction, there is the fact that both these statements, like so many other thing that Gawain has said on many occasions, avoid making explicit statements, but rather hint at what he appears to be trying to convey, in ways that leave it open to him later to deny having said it.

I could go on at much greater length, listing individual examples of Gawain's disruptive behaviour, and answering one by one the points in his disingenuous defences, but I see no point. It is clear that Gawain has been persistently disruptive in many ways. The disruption is on a large enough scale that it is an utter waste of time and resources for all concerned, and is far more than enough to outweigh any benefit that the project may gain from him when he edits constructively. He is quite rightly blocked, and I see no reason why he should be unblocked. The sockpuppetry was, as I have indicated, deceptive and disruptive, and in no way "just a legal technicality", but in any case, the many other disruptive aspects of his editing would be sufficient to justify the block even without the sockpuppetry. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

A few things to note here. First, I never asked for a review. I have been drafting an appeal with the idea of submitting one as soon as it was finished, and meanwhile I have been waiting for the appeal process to be made known to me, not even being quite sure if there was one. The link for appealing was supplied too late and suddenly here you are condemning me for an appeal that is still in the early stages. No, I am not an idiot. I believed there was nothing wrong with sequential accounts. Nobody had warned me that there was anything wrong. Those who have been vilifying me for years never filed a complaint before. Secondly, all the controversies I have been involved in concern articles that have featured extensive use of primary sources and original research. Factor that in when you make judgements about how controversial I am. Thirdly, if I really have been so disruptive, why is this my first block? Your judgement comes down to this: The disruption is on a large enough scale that it is an utter waste of time and resources for all concerned, and is far more than enough to outweigh any benefit that the project may gain from him when he edits constructively. In other words, you made up your mind without really looking at the case at all. Fourthly, I have donated time and energy to WP. Donors don't have to beg forgiveness for a mistake, least of all while still drafting an explanation of their behaviour. I can donate my time and energies elsewhere and you are welcome to your foolish opinions about me. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 07:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Spiderman

Climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman. A concept related to Disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. I believe any request for an unblock would need to address this aspect of your editing behaviour.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I just popped in to review all this stuff. First, I accept Elen's explanation of the Spiderman Reichstag reference. I never got a handle on WP terminology in all my years here. I have enough trouble filling out my tax returns without bothering with all these in-house WP terms, policies and guidelines. So I say sorry to her for misunderstanding her meaning. In fact, I agree that Climbing the Reichstag in a silly costume comes closest to describing some of the things I have been doing here. I can't honestly apologize for that behaviour however as it seemed appropriate in the circumstances. The right to protest is an important ingredient in any healthy organization. I would be willing to be guided by a mentor, when and if I go too far up the walls or the tights are a little too revealing. But I can't go around just like everyone else. I don't want to be like everyone else here at WP. You all seem to wear team colours, judged by your user pages, and there is a kind of lickspittle culture here that sometimes amounts to institutionalized dishonesty. I agree to the amiable Mr Brown's suggestion that I confine myself to one user account but I can't agree with the honourable Wareh's suggestion that I should be Sir Gawain McGarson forever. The name grates even on my ear after a while. If I can choose one account, I would go back to being either User:McRap, or User:McZeus, or maybe User:Eyeless in Gaza (if I can remember the passwords!). Those names have a ring to them that I quite like and I'd be happy to sail under one of those flags indefinitely. There has also been a complaint that I am in the habit of being rude and insulting. I don't accept that. For instance, I have never called anyone a liar or an idiot. I have an insulting opinion of groups that collect like sheep at the paddock gate, competing to see who can get whose head up whose arse the quickest. I'll try not snap at their heels, if I ever come on board again. Again that's where a mentor might be useful. A shepherd. A good shepherd.

Anyway, I'm really not ready to come on board in the circumstances, judging by my own responses here. One or two people will feel disappointed by that outcome, and I apologize to them for the inconvenience. On a different, unrelated matter, there are a few things that have happened to some articles I have worked on and I hope someone will do something about them, if anyone is watching this page.

• Horace: An anonymous IP number deleted sourced material here and insulted the cited author on the talk page here. In fact, I think I know who that contributor is. The style and tone are familiar. How is it that someone can delete a secondary source in that manner and nobody stirs?

• Pindar: Some edits were made by Akhilleus to put the biography in the usual chronological sequence here but he hasn't finished the job and the article still contains a reference to the old biography in this wording: "Moreover, the biography progresses backwards in time, as a reminder that it is less history than fiction, and as an example of Pindar's unique literary methods." Somebody needs to fix that. Also, an anonymous IP number objects to OR in the same article, regarding Pindar's notion of the divine, and inserted a tag here. The citation he asks for is already in the text, specifically page 86; I quote Bowra: “Nor is it easy to avoid the conclusion that on some occasions his language suggests something closer to ‘God’ than to ‘a god’. This is not to say that he tends to monotheism, but he is probing the nature of godhead and its powers.” The tag should go and maybe a footnote might be added instead, with Bowra's comment, just to avoid further troubles.

• Archilochus: Cynwolfe revised the sentence structure a little but her revision doesn't make sense, as seen here]. Another editor then deleted some ancient quotes about Archilochus on the grounds that they were random and indiscriminate here. Actually, the quotes concern reception and they have a rightful place at the end of the article.

• Wasps: somebody has objected to OR and placed a tag here. In fact, if you look there, the sources are cited. I agree that I could have expressed it more clearly rather than in terms of a wine list.

There are some other puzzling little edits that I might mention but enough said. Everything we do at WP is a just a sandcastle and there is no stopping the tide coming in. I'm going to the shops for an icecream.

PS: This is for the Welsh nut—you are wrong about Callimachus and the description "contentious". I quote Kathryn Gutzwiller, A Guide to Hellenistic Literature, Blackwell Publishing 2008, page 60: "Controversy always followed him, and the reason was apparently both his poetic originality and his personal contentiousness."Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Dearest McCetera, it's good to hear from you and I'm very happy to have some renewed hope that you might return to contributing someday. I'm not quite sure what edit you're talking about re Callimachus. If you let me know what entry you're talking about, I'll take a look at what I've done in the light of this Gutzwiller quote. If it was a passing mention of Callimachus that had nothing to do with the major passages that are quoted in support of his reputation as a grump (i.e. the end of the Hymn to Apollo, the Reply to the Telchines, the to mega biblion fragment, etc.), then I'll probably still think I'm so perfectly correct, as I can't help but be. Good to see you pop by.  _.:τ 04:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not coming back. I appear here as a ghostly apparition with a bit of unfinished business before I cross the great divide. Your edit was here. It's a small point but I have a pedantic as well as idiosyncratic outlook. The ferryman is signalling to me now. It's a leaky little boat that I have to share with propagandists and lunatics but that's how the story has played out and there is nothing I would do differently. I'll give them a poke in the eye as we go. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup, I stand by that edit and I'm surprised I let the rest of the sentence stand as is.  _.:τ 01:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Suit yourself. I'll come back when WP is an innovative, credible encyclopaedia rather than a club for Wikipedians. I can't see that day coming but miracles can and do happen. My last contibution is this picture, which I can't resist. I'm the dude with the shield. Now you can remove this page from your watchlist. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Wy didn't I get something like this?

I cut this template from the talk page for User:Cla68, who has been blocked for outing someone who had already outed himself.

What's this got to do with me? I am writing this for the record—I never received a template advising me of anything. Nothing for Sockpuppetry, nothing for Disruption. Something for Outing would have been appreciated. Anything would have been better than nothing.

If people can't police rules consistently, they shouldn't block those who push boundaries a little. Especially when they push boundaries to enforce rules that are being routinely trashed. I'm not ready or willing to come back to this place until WP meets my requirement, which is that it should function like an encyclopaedia. Still, there is always hope. I'll let you know when you pass the grade! Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Poetic Appeal

I wrote a poem here in heroic couplets describing the farcical SPI in farcically obscene terms. It was subsequently revised by some editor with the tag Sanitized since it was insulting to specificr editors...especially the tongue part. Not only was this censorship but, more importantly, the revision was insensitive to the iambic meter. So I have deleted it completely.

The real obscenity was not the poem but the SPI and the lies that were told about me there. An SPI is not the way to settle content disputes and lies are not the right way to settle anything. I didn't mind doing my bit to clean up WP (it has featured too many articles on pederasty unsupported by modern sources). I didn't mind the vilification I attracted. What I do mind is the fact that significant admins were not able to protect me from a bogus complaint of sockpuppetry. If I was guilty of disruption, a friendly note would have been enough to begin sorting out the problem sensibly. Instead I was blocked indefinitely without being given any advice about my entitlements or about the process involved. All my accounts are now locked up as if I were a liar and a cheat.

And you think a poem should be censored?

I am now thinking of writing another poem, titled The Bordello and Miss Information or maybe just Misplaced Pages. It's about guys taking turns to leave their mark in an environment run by gangs. Spenserian stanzas will suit it perfectly. I won't be appealing the disgusting SP charge since it is up to Wikipedians to overturn it as a matter of conscience. I won't hold my breath. Anyhow, not being an editor here has a lot of benefits. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It's important to go without bitterness, and every man is responsible for his own behaviour in the end. I made a mistake in not understanding how this place works. Now that I do understand, I don't want to come back. Enough said. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm making a 'temporary' comment here, which I'll stick in the drawer after a short time. I am not inviting replies.

There are three editors whose contributions I still follow out of lingering respect or lingering habit and one of them led me to Cynwolfe's talk page, scrolling which I chanced to arrive at this exchange between her and 'David', or the Welsh Nut: .

No, David, I am not a homophobe. I used to be until an absurd relationship with a rotten actress introduced me to some gay friends of hers, who were so colourful that I was immediately cured—who am I to deny the world a bit of colour? Maybe I should educate you about the dynamics of poetry writing. I wrote an obscene poem to satirize an obscene SPI and I wanted a rhyme for O------- S---. The natural word in that context was of course a--- h---. I also had a fair idea what I wanted to do with a certain admin's name, B----, and the best way for him to turn that colour was if I put a tongue in you-know-where, so that B---- would be spray-painted, so to speak. The dynamics of the writing process led to that choice of words, not homophobia.

This is a good opportunity for me to repeat what I have repeated before. Like vomiting, I do so for my own ease rather for anyone else's edification (WP is a hopeless place for edifying remarks, I have found). My engagement with articles on ancient pederasty followed inevitably from my main interest, articles on Greek poetry. I hated linking to pederasty articles that were not supported by modern sholarship and which relied on ancient sources, the best press pederasty will ever get. That's why I sometimes cut them back, or tried to. Those articles were clearly propagandist in intent and my language on those talk pages got a little strident sometimes, mainly out of frustration. I should add also that I was acting in the best interests of gays—their identification with pederasty is definitely not in their best interests, and yet that identification is clearly being made here at WP.

I'll add that your exchange with Cynwolfe is typical of something else that's very wrong with WP. It is supposed to be an encyclopaedia anyone can edit but it is being turned into a set of social clubs—whose members are anonymous! So long as you are part of the in crowd, it might seem like a nice arrangement. So long as you accept the club's decisions. Otherwise you are disruptive and out you must go.

Groucho Marx once said: "I'll never join any club that would have someone like me for a member!" We should all say that about any club that has anonymous members. I'm glad to be gone. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The SPI Trial

Dennis Brown wore a judge's robe and wig,
Priding himself on being rather big.
Gavel in hand, a glad gleam in his eye,
He groaned a bit and then zipped up his fly.
"Bring in the prisoner!" he cried aloud.
Tense expectation gripped the courtroom crowd.
The prosecutor, erudite yet dim
Cynwolfe, declared "What need have we of him!
Keep him locked out! For two and two are four
And basic math is two-thirds of the law."
A witness was brought in–Obsidian Soul,
Who could talk shit, a tongue in his arsehole.
He wagged his tail and no-one disagreed.
Brown, who was sitting near, grew brown indeed.
"Bring in the other witness!" Cynwolfe cried
And in walked Akhilleus, cool and snide.
"All that they say is almost true," he said;
"One size fits all and so cut off his head!"
He turned and left, for he had choir at ten,
Instructing counter-tenors, almost men.

The trial was over, which had just begun,
And that's how justice Wiki-style is done.

Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 08:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)