"

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

 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 . 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.
 '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 's actions at The Automobile Association.
 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!
 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.
 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.
 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 makin