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.