User talk:Zimbazumba

Hello, Zimbazumba! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

You have received these suggestions because we are currently running a study to see if SuggestBot is helpful for newly registered Wikipedia editors. Normally SuggestBot only makes suggestions for users who ask for them explicitly on the SuggestBot request page. We will not post suggestions on your talk page again unless you ask for them. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find a complete consent form with contact information on the SuggestBot Study page.

Stubs: September 2005 California wildfire; Green manure; Hyphodontia sambuci; Fireman's switch; Mount Vision fire; Ica (city); Minto Flats south fire; International Firefighters' Day; Volunteer Wildfire Services; Pilot (2) (Wildfire); Tillandsia 'Wildfire'; Baker's larkspur; Super Scooper; Dead Man Zone; Board of Jewish Education (Toronto); 2004 Alaska fire season; Taylor Complex Fire; Black Sunday (1955); Ruben Grijalva

Cleanup: Handcrew; Epidemic; Victorian era
Merge: Pilot (1) (Wildfire); Surgical strike; Fire Master
Add Sources: Hotshot crew; Wildfire (Carol Vance Martin); Homeopathy
Wikify: Rescue pumper; Firefighting; Hose coupling
Expand: Wildfire (1945 film); Smoke detector; Hypernova

SuggestBot picks the articles you might be interested in based on the articles you've edited and using a number of different techniques: following links from them to other articles, matching articles based on their content, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedia users. It tries to recommend only articles that others have marked as needing work, such as stub articles that need to be made longer, clean-up articles that need writing help, and so on. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you choose to participate we encourage you to leave feedback on these suggestions, which you can most easily do here by editing your user talk page. We'll stop by later to read them.

Regards, Nettrom (talk), project researcher and SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Please stick to one account in future - Alison ^❤ 06:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell does this mean?. Is my account blocked? "Please stick to one account" what other account? Zimbazumba (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one, for starters - Alison ^❤ 04:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's my wife's account, I'll check to see has happened here. Zimbazumba (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Zimbazumba (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am blocked, my family all contribute to wiki from the same machine. We have all (as far as I know) contributed constructively. I feel my blocking is unfair. If your system can not deal with multiple user accounts from the same machines then delete the other accounts. We will simply use the same account.

Accept reason:

I am unblocking on the understanding that you will comply with the instructions you have been given, and that this account may be blocked again without further warning if not. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a couple of issues:

one person, one account
people within the same house/office should not edit the same articles, or else WP:MEAT/WP:SOCK will be an issue.

So, suggesting you are all going to use the same account will result in a decline. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re:

one person, one account.
people within the same house/office should not edit the same articles,

Then we will abide by these rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimbazumba (talk • contribs)

I am assuming by the lack of response to my reworded appeal that this household is now blocked indefinitely. This is a shame as we have much to contribute to Wikipedia over a large span of subjects. However I still asked one last time that we be unblocked as we will abide by the rules as set out that we were unaware of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimbazumba (talk • contribs)

First, you clearly have not read the guide to appealing blocks

Second, you clearly do not understand that even we admins are volunteers. There is no deadline to responding to a request, nor to your returning to editing.

Third, you are only permitted one unblock request at a time, and you currently have 2

Fourth, please learn to sign your talkpage posts with ~~~~. It is a requirement, and it's one way that we know that it is actually you posting the information (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. I am trying my best I am a little out of my league here technologically. Zimbazumba (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added a whole whack of information, policies and processes at the very top of this page. Editing Wikipedia requires some level of technological WP:COMPETENCE - for example, since all additions need to be backed up by reliable sources, you need to be able to understand how to insert <ref> </ref> in order to cite your references. This is merely 1 small example. If after reading all of the policies etc above, you still feel you can edit accordingly - especially keeping in mind the five pillars of Wikipedia, let me know. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the information, policies and processes which I have read and am digesting rapidly. It is very informative and will improve my ability to operate on this site. I feel I can edit in a manner appropriate for Wikipedia. I thank you for your time in dealing with my case. Zimbazumba (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I will be a good Wiki citizen. Zimbazumba (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification concerning multiple use of account

When I unblocked this account I was under the impression that you had said that you individually would use only one account. Looking back now I do not understand how I got that impression, as you quite clearly said that your family as a whole would use only one account. Unfortunately this is not acceptable, as Wikipedia's policy is that an account is for an individual, and I would not have unblocked this account had I properly appreciated what you were saying. However, it would seem unreasonable to reblock you without warning, so instead I am writing here to ask you for an undertaking that the account will be used only by one person. If you cannot give that undertaking then the account will have to be blocked again. I see that you were blocked because it was thought you were abusing multiple accounts, but you say it was different members of your family using the accounts. If that is so, then there is a case for a request for the other accounts to be unblocked, which may be worth taking up with the blocking administrator, but at present I am asking for an undertaking regarding this account alone. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically I am the only active member the moment. The others have lost enthusiasm for now due to a multitude of reasons. They are my kids and are back at college. They are big boys and girls and can ask for reinstatement on their own if they want. The only person using this account will and always has been me. I think the problem arose from people not logging out and then others thinking it was their account logged in when they went to the machine.

But in short I will comply with your request and I appreciate you spending time on this.

Zimbazumba (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for clarifying that. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to follow this up Zimbazumba with a question: did you use User:Pancur as an alternative account?
The comments made by that account on Talk:Feminism and Talk:Sexism about rape are very similar to those made by this account

(User:Zimbazumba) and by User:Tomtac. Could you clarify this for me?--Cailil ^talk 09:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cailil. Tomtac was from this household. Pancer is nothing to do with us. I did agree with his/her views which may explain your percieved similarity. I have not ever commented on the Sexism page. Zimbazumba (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Zimazumba. The edits made by your account (User:Zimbazumba) and the blocked User:Tomtac are remarkably similar. Example: [1] and [2]. You admitted that both accounts edit from the same IP, but insisted that the Tomtac account was used by your wife or children, not by you. What are the odds that there is another person in your household that posts almost the exact same things about the Hamilton College as you, edits at similar times and from the same POV and has such an interest in articles about rape, specifically false accusations of rape?

The similarities between User:Tomtac and User:Pancur are pretty remarkable too. Examples: [3] and [4]. The inclination to be "speechless" is another thing that Pancur and Tomtac have in common: [5] [6] Pancur started editing while Zimbazumba/Tomtac was blocked and stopped editing when Zimbazumba was unblocked despite that imo there is reason to believe that Zimbazumba and Tomtac are one and the same person (instead of two different persons in the same household). Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at this similarity as well. It's a serious matter, starting a sockpuppet account while blocked; it would merit an indefinite reblock if found to be the case. Some of the style similarities between Pancur and Tomtac, and between Pancur and Zimbazumba seem to make an investigation worth carrying out. Binksternet (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow harassment of people who disagree with your views. Accusations of sockpuppetry I thought were considered a very serious matter on Wikipedia. I am not sure what the rules of engagement on someones talk page are. But if you flame me, my involvement in that art form goes back to Usenet days and beyond. I doubt you would pose much of a challenge.

Zimbazumba (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hurray for Zimbazumba

There are many aspects of the emergent group intelligence of Wikipedia that are not fully understood. But one thing is understood, it requires people of differing perspectives. Case in point being. If I had not come in here rattling peoples cages, expressing different views, challenging group think opinions and going to NPOVN then Wiki feminism would almost certainly still look like this mess

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminism&oldid=419734961

I don't claim I was personally responsible for this, but, Well Done Zimba!!!

Zimbazumba (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zimbazumba for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page.--Cailil ^talk 18:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of multiple accounts, by either by sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, or both. Unfortunately, since I posted to the sock puppetry investigation further evidence has come to my attention which has made it unambiguously clear that attempts have been made to push a point of view through on Feminism by use of multiple accounts. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block Appeal

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Zimbazumba (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

To answer this I need "the full nature of the charges and of the evidence against me". At the moment all I have is some vague notion of "unambiguous evidence of meatpuppetry". For instance who are my meatpuppets? Who are my sockpuppets?

Frankly I am getting tired of this. Zimbazumba (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The sock case is convincing. Whether the editing is by family members or is all by the same person, it's still a violation. Even User:JamesBWatson, who was supporting a second chance for a while, no longer has doubts. Zimbazumba has declared below that he was signing out for the last time. Since he proved unwilling to follow our policy after being given many explanations, this is for the best. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Response to block

To answer this I need "the full nature of the charges and of the evidence against me". At the moment all I have is some vague notion of "unambiguous evidence of meatpuppetry". So

Who are my meatpuppets?

Who are my sockpuppets? (CU report now shows 1 not proven related and 1 technically not proven related. ie I can't be associated.)

Frankly I am getting tired of this.

In short to answer the meat puppetry charge I need to know who my claimed meatpuppets are?

If evidence can't be presented then the charges should be droppped.

in addition

Since accusations have been made against me by JamesBWatson on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zimbazumba that I am not able to reply to as I am blocked I would ask he post his evidence here, so I may respond.

Ever since I entered discussion on feminism and other contentious gender issue related pages I have been hounded and harassed. These pages are dominated by left wing pro-feminist view points. I am a Individualist and Libertarian Feminist. I believe equality is to be obtained through legal and evolutionary social change. I don't believe in socially constructed gender role or Patriarchal arguments. Yes gender roles are socially constructed but so is our concept of equality. Simplistic social models result in Pol Pots Cambodia and Stalinist Russia

As such I am a complete anathema to left wing pro-feminist crowd. I provide a viable and popular alternative view, I am smart, I am literate and I am getting better at Wikipedia daily. I am not a foul mouthed crack pot, an MRA or a moron. I am very dangerous, I am not easily dismissed.

I have had bullying crap put on my talk page as has Pancur(talk) who had the balls to stand up to the bullies here. I have had a bad faith sockputtery case made against me and now this bizarre meatpuppetry case. None of those names in CU will relate to me I assure you. Poor old Pancur had only been on a week or so when Cailil post the most odious post I've seen on his talk page(here). He words were intentionally misconstrued and he was accused of being overly familiar with wp:rs for a newbie, he's an academic for Gods sake. Looks like Pancur is gone for good, job well done.

My presence has brought huge positive change to feminism, (see above), with ultimate credit to Cailil. I am involved in Talk:Sexism#Domestic_Violence. I can't think of a more contentious issue, the whole page is a mess. To start we were spitting blood at each other, but slowly but surely we reached the stage of agreeing on page structure, gathering info and doing this in a friendly fashion. This is Wikipedia at it finest, Jimbo Wales would be proud.

I have brought about positive change. Oh yes but that's the problem isn't it.

So I am to be,

A strange fruit

In the Magnolia tree.

Zimbazumba (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a disinterested third party, I will assume good faith and offer this advice: TL;DR. This appears to have nothing to do with the content of your edits per se, but rather the appearance of multiple accounts engaging in similar patterns of editing. I would suggest that you re-respond to the claims made above and in the SPI more concisely, without the hyperbole and feeling of victimization seen in your statement above. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kinu at the time of writing I did not know what the charges against me were. The sockputtery is sorted as well as it will be. Still don't know what the meatpuppetry is about. As for the TL;DR I just like writing stuff and blowing off steam. Ty for the advice anyway :-)

Zimbazumba (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the checkuser report -- a report like this isn't exculpatory, it's neutral. It's as much information as if checkuser had not been run at all. All it says that "Checkuser does not prove that XXX is guilty of abusing multiple accounts"; it does not disprove, since it's not exactly difficult to simultaneously use multiple IPs. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon I understand CU can prove 'guilty' but not 'not guilty', 'not proven' is the Scottish legal term I think. I was using the the term 'related' as it is used in the report. Though I hope we go by the innocent till proved guilty principle, (preponderance of evidence).

Zimbazumba (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I make no attempt to speak for anyone else, but the suggestion that anyone who opposes you in any way must do so because of a political opposition to your point of view emphatically does not apply to me, and if you knew more about me you would certainly not imagine it did. I accept that you have a right to know the evidence against you. First of all, there is the evidence already mentioned in the sockpuppet investigation and elsewhere, which you are well aware of. My own opinion is that the evidence is highly suggestive, but not conclusive, and on that basis I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, although some other Wikipedians thought it was proved beyond all reasonable doubt. However, there is also a clear case of off-wiki canvassing in an attempt to recruit meatpuppets at http://antimisandry.com/feminist-misandry/fight-wikipedia-page-about-feminism-help-needed-38569.html. I have read that page very carefully, and examined the history of the Wikipedia article referred to and its talk page, and I think there can be little doubt that the canvasser was you, despite the careful use of the third person. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an MRA or have ever visited that site. It is repulsive. Looking at the date of the attempt of meatpuppetry on someones part I do not see anyone, other than those who had previously contributed, posting in the talk page. As you say it was an attempt, no meatpuppetry occurred. My guess is a lot of people follow the debate on talk:feminism including MRA's.

I have made mistakes on Wikipedia I admit, but I also think I have also contributed positively as well. My activity was partially responsible for a significant improvement in feminism and I have been positively engaged in the talk:sexism page that everyone admits requires a significant clean up, here.

Unfortunately a lot of the issues here can not be proved with certainty so we have to rely on gut feelings. I don't think arguing fine details of evidence will get us anywhere other than exhausting us. I think you an honorable man I can see where you are coming from. I think I have a lot to offer Wikipedia and would ask that all of this be put behind us and that I be allowed to again to contribute. I think you will find me nothing more than the best of Wikipedia citizens and hopefully a long term contributor.

You have my word that I will behave in nothing other than in an honorable way.

Zimbazumba (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you edit my appeal and remove links supporting the points I made, ie here?

It looks as though I accidentally edited an earlier version of the page, and thereby removed material which had been added since the version I edited. For that I am sincerely sorry. I am now restoring the removed material (I hope correctly). JamesBWatson (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbazumba (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the antimisandry.com discussion board post appealing for more meatpuppets is a concern here. Xxavier is highly likely to be Zimbazumba. Looking at Xxavier's posting history and several other factors including other discussions by Zimbazumba out on the web makes the connection clear for me. Binksternet (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly Binksternet at this stage in the proceedings I find your post pretty classless.

Zimbazumba (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...but not baseless, eh? Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at other edits by Xxavier, and I have no doubt that it is the same person as Zimbazumba. Xxavier has more than once claimed to have made Wikipedia edits which were in fact mad by Zimbazumba, and has expressed the intention of editing in the future in a way that agrees exactly with Zimbazumba's editing practice. There are also noticeable similarities in Xxavier's use of English to that of Zimbazumba and Zimbazumba's Wikipedia sockpuppets. I was originally very much inclined to give Zimbazumba the benefit of the doubt, even when others were convinced of his guilt (remember that I unblocked Zimbazumba, and I asked for a checkuser when others thought the behavioural evidence was enough for a guilty verdict). However, I have now looked much more deeply into the history of the matter, and there is no longer any doubt to give the benefit of. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So be it.

As for you JamesBWatson, I actually think you are an honorable man and never considered you part of a mob. Others I am not so sure about. The Wiki idea relies on diversity of opinion. Atm gender related issues are dominated by one point of view, which explains the shockingly poor quality of some of the articles. I am not entirely sure on balance this action was in the long term best interest of Wikipedia. Anyway signing out for the last time.

Byeee

_{Speechless ;-)}

Zimbazumba (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're all in favour of diverse opinions, but using WP:SOCKS is never permitted for any purpose. So, the WP:SOAP above really doesn't cover the important part of this whole situation. A wise person would have admitted their wrong, kept their nose clean, and then been able to return at some point in the near future to edit collaboratively on this project, and therefore add to the diversity of opinion. But no. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbazumba, if you ever come back to read this, I actually agree that someone presenting an alternative point of view against the standard one on feminism is helpful. However, that is not what you did. You set out to try to impose your opinion, by whatever means it took, honest or dishonest. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To settle this once and for all

JamesBWatson already posted the link to the thread where "Xxavier" is asking to support Zimbazumba's edits: http://antimisandry.com/feminist-misandry/fight-wikipedia-page-about-feminism-help-needed-38569.htm

Here we have that same "Xxavier" who wrote on October 9th, 2010 that he updated the Wiki page to Hamilton College and added the section controversies: http://antimisandry.com/feminist-misandry/first-year-men-attend-presentation-campus-rape-culture-33945-3.html And surprise, surprise! What did Zimbazumba do on October 8th, 2010? He added the section controversies to Hamilton College: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamilton_College&diff=389612210&oldid=388049454 And then Tomtac came along: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamilton_College&diff=394927724&oldid=392869146

Here we also have "Xxavier" who wrote on October 20th, 2010 that the article about Vassar College should have a controversies section about false rape accusations: http://antimisandry.com/feminist-misandry/misandry-vasser-college-34457-post233919.html#post233919 And of course, on October 20th, 2010, Zimbazumba contributed this to Vassar College: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vassar_College&diff=391920332&oldid=391448511

If anyone actually thinks that this is over, think again. Zimbazumba/Tomtac/... is still with us. Read his musings about how much he has to contribute. To think that he insisted until the very end that this was all just a big misunderstanding or a "Wiki lynching" and that he hates that site... Just wow. I guess the plan to keep editors occupied by little tricks like that is working like a charm. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And here is "Xxavier"/Zimbazumba/Tomtac... being "speechless" again: http://antimisandry.com/discrimination-sexist-double-standards/official-_-men-2nd-class-citizens-37953-post248175.html#post248175 Just saying. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 02:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]