Accretionist

November 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for your account is clearly a sockpuppet, or at best a meatpuppet. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Magog, I noticed you restored the bias tag when there was clear consensus not to. And now you're questioning another editor (not me) for removing it, even going so far as to question whether "an email" is circulating. As far as I know, none is. No matter how many breathless/transparent ejaculations of "Magog the ANGEL!!!!!!" LGAE directs to you, he's still tendentiously editing in very bad faith.

In fact there is clear evidence of off-site canvassing by an involved editor: LGAE. More here. These diffs, provided by Will Beback, cast some doubt on the legitimacy of today's editor who restored the bias tag. Rather than questioning the motives of editors trying to keep the SPLC page honest and accurate, perhaps you should ask LGAE if he's returned to canvassing, perhaps via an email campaign of his own.

And now LGAE has personally attacked every editor taking an opposite view from his on the Talk page. He apparently wishes to use you as a "go-to admin," a hoary Wiki method otherwise known as "working the refs." Please be warned. --Accretionist (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This is all irrelevant at the moment. The fact is the community has decided your behavior was flatly unacceptable, and you are no longer welcome to edit here (that is the reason I reverted the edit). If you wish to address this issue, mainly the blatant incivility (no matter how justified you think it was), please go back to your original account and request unblock there. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's very relevant. No "community ban" was issued; you blocked me in a rash, overzealous manner. A number of your bans have been reversed; most likely, mine will be too. I can't take your accusations of "blatant incivility" seriously, as you're dangerously close to becoming the "pocket admin" of LGAE, one of the most tendentious, disruptive and uncivil editors on Wikipedia.

And to reiterate: I didn't "out" him. He accused Will Beback of this a little while ago as well; it wasn't true then, either. LGAE publicizes his website on his page, and links to info about his name, location, etc. LGAE is being dishonest again, and trying to curry favor with you via such transparent ploys as "zOMG.... u r Magog the ANGEL!!!!!"

Please. --Accretionist (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There was consensus at WP:ANI that it was a good block. Nice try. If you want to edit Wikipedia, you can express your disagreements with another editor that passes the "don't act like a complete jackass" sniff test. No really, I'm sure we'd be glad to have you if you could just stop being an ass. Otherwise, you're breaking one of our five core policies, and we have no need for your time; we'll simply handle the matter amongst those of us who know how to get along politely with each other (including our enemies). Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Less than a handful of comments at WP:ANI hardly amounts to a well-reasoned community ban. And it's amusing to see you champion one of our five core policies while unleashing personal attacks. Yes, I see you hold civility in very high regard.

The fact remains: you have been coddling LAEC, and enabling his several-years-long campaign of tendentious editing and activism for his off-site activities. LAEC, by reverting to lickspittle form, has played you. I suggest you be more circumspect in the future.

Incidentally, this is troubling. A check of the SPLC Talk page archives, or of LGAE's editing history, shows nothing surprising about so many editors joining in consensus against his disgraceful behavior. To suggest, as you did, that an "obscenely" large number of editors are involved is disingenuous at the very least. To then suggest that the consensus is "too high... to be just a natural consequence of [LGAE's] behavior" suggests you either haven't adequately researched LGAE's editing history, or are becoming an advocate for such behavior. Neither is acceptable. --Accretionist (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)