Zoombox21

Welcome!

Hello, Zoombox21, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Bearian (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. There are two reasons why you should not edit while logged out: 1) doing so will reveal your IP address; and 2) people may accuse you of sockpuppetry, i.e. trying to make yourself look like multiple users in order to gain the upper hand in a dispute or rig votes in polls. If this was not your intention, then please always remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Murry1975 (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting that Murry1975 should turn up here, and at ANI in support of HK. Very interesting. 2 users who operate with the same blind editing of IMOS abuse at a rate of knots. Recently I have seen M1975 apply IMOS to 10 articles in 10 minutes. Not even Superman could read that fast. Something to watch though Zoomie, as these 2 users are obviously logging in and out as each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Harassment

I'm getting some serious harassment from IMOS warriors. We should gang up together like those 2 then go page to page applying "our" version of IMOS. Wouldn't that be fun, then tag team revert any opposition, then report them to ANI then keep on molesting wikipedia to push our own POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't waste your time. HighKing will soon be blocked for his edits, if not by anyone else, then surely once Cailil returns. If Murry is simply copying HighKing, then he will be too, or at the very least be put on the same path as HighKing was, with a topic ban first, to see if he truly gets it. It's all about WP:ROPE with editors like this. Given his history though, HighKing is surely all out of rope now. He will most likely be indeffed this time, given the fact Cailil has already had to re-impose the BI topic ban after he went back to the same behaviours that saw it enacted in the first place, and the fact he has clearly ignored his very clear warnings about how not to edit in future. Zoombox21 (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

As per BlackKite's close at ANi[1] you are free to raise complaints about others under your own account - using throw away single purpose accounts to evade scrutiny is both inappropriate and against the rules--Cailil ^talk 15:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Cailil, please, just think about what you're saying here. Let's take this by the numbers:

1. Firstly, quite frankly, I am dissappointed that you saw no reason to act in the face of the diffs and information I posted at User talk:Black Kite [2]. Your suggestion that HighKing should "step back from this type of edit" is, quite frankly, going to be ignored, again, as his edits on The Automobile Association showed. His admission that he has a problem sounds depressingly familiar. After 5 years of being unable to contain this problem himself, and in the face of overwhelming evidence yet again in this case that it still exists, then coming as it did off the back of yet more of the usual erroneous defences, duplicitous denials and improper deflections, is surely wholly unsatisfactory.
2. Black Kite's close was both abusive and counter-productive. He closed a perfectly valid complaint, based on completely irrelevant reasons, namely my 'status' (further below, and on his talk page). If I had not pressed him about it on his talk page, he wouldn't have even bothered to notify you about it, and you would never have even heard about HighKing's actions at The Automobile Association.
3. Your charge of harassment is frankly ridiculous - all I have done with this account is make factual statements about HighKing's current and past behaviour, which you yourself have just repeated today, is still problematic. I am obviously not the IP user he was edit warring with, I never engaged with HighKing, I never reverted HighKing, I never threatened or personally attacked HighKing. All I did was comment on the situation in a factual manner, in the hope other admins would take action in your absence. If me making this sort of contribution spoils HighKing's enjoyment of Wikipedia, who the hell cares, quite frankly? It's simply not harassment. If HighKing was to turn into a model editor tomorrow, then he'd never hear me talking about him ever again. That's not harassment, it's practically the job description of a Wikipedia admin!
4. Your block for evading scrutiny - it is entirely pointless. Enforcement of WP:SOCK long ago stopped being about what's good for Wikipedia in many instances, as this block shows. Whatever my history, whether this is a legitimate or illegitimate alternate account, whether I'm blocked or banned, whatever, there isn't a single thing that I could possibly be hiding that would make the edits this account performed look any less valid to an outside observer. Nothing that might be or could be revealed about me, would change their meaning or relevance, and it certainly wouldn't make them any (more) true. The idea that only established can be implicitly trusted to tell the truth on Wikipedia strikes me as extremely dangerous, a view no admin should be seen within a hundred miles of holding, let alone repeating.
5. Taking 3 & 4 together, there was absolutely no preventative purpose to this block, and so, it it is entirely without grounds in basic policy. And on the issue of basic points of policy with regard both the socking and harassment charges - you don't even know for sure if this is an illegitimate sock. You don't know if I have a regular account, or if I'm blocked or banned. You're just guessing. For all you know, I might be using an undeclared alternate account because I myself might have previously been the victim of harassment from HighKing, and so I would have a perfectly legitimate reason to hide what my 'regular account' is when commenting on him in future. And given the fact that, as this block shows, being critical of HighKing is seemingly enough to get someone tarred with a charge of conducting a "long term campaign of harassment" without any actual evidence whatsoever, then it would be entirely understanable if an editor in good standing would not want to expose their main account to that sort of smear, as the price of simply commenting on HighKing.
6. To expand on the socking issue - rather than being an "inappropriate" use of a sock, when it comes to HighKing, I think its self evident given his past, using a sock when commenting on his behaviour at a venue like ANI is highly appropriate, as it removes his ability to do what he has often done in those situations, namely trying to deflect attention from his own behaviour by talking about what the people reporting him have done, whether it is even relevant or not, and indeed, whether it is even true or not (his habit for example of making matter of fact sock accusations without any evidence at all, as if he himself were an admin, is really disgracefull). Frankly, as EdJohnston just recently told him, WP:NOTTHEM.
7. As an aside, if you're determined to enforce WP:SOCK just because it exists, rather than because it's the right thing to do, then why not ask HighKing why he has failed to abide by WP:SOCK by not linking his alternate account User:Popaice from his current account? Or is one rule for established accounts, another rule for 'brand new' accounts? The policy says no, fwiw.
8. And on the general pointlessness of this block - unless or until other people (like you, Ed, Black Kite, or any of the other hundreds of admins who seem to just be content to ignore him) take more of an active interest in HighKing and start to focus their energy into either reforming him as an editor who actually follows the rules and is actually here to benefit Wikipedia, or removing him from the site if that proves to be impossible, then I, and all the other people who object to his continuing pattern of behaviour, will continue to 'harass' him by making reports and pointing out his entirely relevant history and record of being warned and topic banned.

Wll, I think that just about covers it. Zoombox21 (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• You can appeal this block, there is a process for that linked to above (in the template). You're reply cites WP:NOTTHEM, you should in fact read that policy yourself. Frankly speaking, all you have done here is create yet another block evading account to break this site's rules and trot out the same rhetoric that got you blocked multiple times already. If you continue to use this page for soapboxing and flamebaiting access to it will be revoked--Cailil ^talk 21:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• That wasn't an appeal, of course. But I'm dissappointed Cailil. This reply was the sort of lazy, hackneyed tripe I would expect from the average joe that that hangs out at ANI, or from the sort of petty pointless admin who runs around dolling out the stock phrases like this and blocking socks without even bothering to look at the edits they make, the sort of admin where you can be sure that for 90% of their daily activites, thinking about whether they're even benefitting Wikipedia or not doesn't even enter their thought process. You just thanked Black Kite for the "heads up", which you would never have even got if it wasn't for me, the evil rule breaker. What's up with that? Can you deal with that Cailil? Can you deal with the idea that someone like me can in your eyes be 'breaking a rule' on Wikipedia (which, I might add, you still haven't even proven), while also apparently benefitting it by shining a light on the continuing bad behaviour of HighKing. You can't in all seriousness expect to come here and expect me to listen to this sort of crap, when you've discredited it with your own actions elsewhere. I saw Jimbo talking recently about how he vehemently disagreed with someone's claim that Wikipedia was very bad at dealing with whistleblowers. What say you? Or is it all just rhetoric to you? You could unblock me yourself if you really wanted, nobody forced you to make this block. Not even Black Kite thought it was necessary, which is saying something, as he hands out blocks like confetti. I don't have any issue with promising you that the next time I want to make a complaint about HighKing, I'll use this account, if it satisfies your need to be able to track my history, if it satisfied your need to enfore a rule, even though doing so is entirely pointless in this case. But it's almost like you want people like me to sock, it's almost like you want me to break the rules, it's almost like you think it helps to have HighKing running around blaming all his woes on socks, when you know it's just one of many ways he tries to deflect attention from his own edits. What is the official story now, btw? He seems to have caught on to the fact that there is more than one person who is critical of him, yet you seem to be taking the retrograde step of going back to his old theory that we're all the same person. Can you really not see how your approach only exacerbates the issue? That it only makes eventual resolution less likely, or at least add another couple of years onto the final reckoning of just how well Wikipedia was able to deal with the sort of behaviour HighKing is by now the textbook example of. Or have you just been working around Sandstein for far too long, and you've completely lost your higher brain functions and can now only operate literally to the rule book as he does, the freak that he is. Maybe if you were truly honest about the fact that who we are doesn't make a blind bit of difference to whether or not you are doing what you should be with regard to HighKing, you wouldn't find yourself having to make these sort of replies, which must surely make you feel just that little bit shameful. You cannot really be happy that you feel have to say things like this to people like me, things that are so obviously intelectually dishonest that if it wasn't already the case, you just know we're not going to take a blind bit of notice of them? Because like it or lump it, whether you treat me as the enemy or as a whistle blower, I'm not going away, not until the HighKing situation is resolved one way or the other. And neither is anyone else by the looks of it. I don't even care if the resolution is that he becomes a good editor. That's how foolish it is for you to continue on this track. I'm not harassing HighKing in any way, shape or form, and you have still yet to establish whether I am an illegitimate sock or not. This is why you avoid the central issues like that when answering for blocks like this, instead preferring the sort of non-reply reply given above. It's just poor, Cailil, very poor. Zoombox21 (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Your talk page access has been revoked. Follow the advice at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks if you wish to appeal. And once again read WP:NOTTHEM--Cailil ^talk 01:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)