User talk:Uncensored Kiwi

You've been accused.
FYI. Dylan Flaherty  16:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In response, I have no vendetta against you or anyone else. But the facts remain; you were indefinitely blocked as BlueRobe, and you violated that block by continuing to edit. Today, you even denied that the account belongs to you. Now, you can man up, admit you violated your block, and agree to a community discussion about your situation, or I can go to SPI. What's it going to be? Viriditas (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not a sock puppet. I am not user bluerobe. I don't know what an SPI is. I disagreed with you in Talk:United States diplomatic cables leak. Get over it. I don't know what your problem is but I bet it has a very long name that is difficult to pronounce.  Uncensored Kiwi  Kiss 22:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the question isn't whether you are a sock of BlueRobe. I think the evidence shows that you are. The real question is whether you are also a sock of the notorious puppetmaster, User:Karmaisking.  Viriditas (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You have also asserted that I and Uncensored Kiwi work in tandem. Have you relinquished that position now? __meco (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Now I am a puppet master? Does that title come with a crown?


 * I have looked at some of the editing history of User:Bluerobe and I can see no overlap between him and myself. I must have really annoyed you in Talk:United States diplomatic cables leak for you to go crazy-mad like this.  Uncensored Kiwi  Kiss 23:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Meco. I thought we had seen the last of Viriditas when we hadn't heard from him for a week. But here he is, madder than ever.  Uncensored Kiwi  Kiss 23:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Save it for the SPI. You'll have plenty of time to discuss it. Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Viriditas. You may be a full 6-pack, but you're missing the plastic bit that holds them all together.  Uncensored Kiwi  Kiss 23:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll see them on the SPI report, and you'll have a chance to respond there. Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, L2Life.  Uncensored Kiwi  Kiss 23:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with people who lie, is that it is very difficult to keep track of lies. For example, you appear to have forgotten that you already admitted to being  User:122.60.93.162 on ANI.  122.60.93.162 is beyond a doubt BlueRobe.  You are BlueRobe and you are in violation of your block. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you linking? How many hours have you spent hunting me over nothing?  Uncensored Kiwi  Kiss 00:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Over nothing? You are indefinitely blocked as User:BlueRobe.  That means you are not supposed to be editing.  Is that clear enough? Viriditas (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, importing your user boxes from User:BlueRobe and your sig from BlueRobe's friend User:Toa_Nidhiki05 is something you have yet to explain. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not User:BlueRobe or User:Karmaisking or User:Meco. I admit to posting into a couple of the same talk pages as meco, and to making a couple of posts on his user talk page, but that is about it. As far as I can see, I have never edited any articles or commented on any talk pages edited by bluerobe. Karmaisking's list of aliases is so long that I am not going to bother checking for overlaps with him. I don't have your level of OCD to compel me to search through the editing histories of users I don't care about.  Uncensored Kiwi  Kiss 00:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said you were Meco; I said you were friends. I did say you were BlueRobe, and I was curious if BlueRobe was Karmaisking.  That's it.  I don't know why you keep denying you are BlueRobe, but this is the last time I'll bring it up.  We'll let checkuser decide. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your strange taunting is over and I am disengaging, lest I sink to your level of banality. I respectfully request that you refrain from posting in my user talk page. Please stop harassing me.  Uncensored Kiwi  Kiss 01:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Your Signature.....
.. is impossible to read. Please change it. Spartaz Humbug! 03:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It's a pain. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm changing it. This is the first I have heard about it being difficult to read.  Uncensored Kiwi  Kiss 06:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Uncensored Kiwi 07:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool! I like! -- Brangifer (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's only a matter of time before someone now complains that it's too big or whatever. Dylan Flaherty  07:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I'm just waiting for Viriditas to accuse me of stealing the signature of Jimbo Wales. Uncensored Kiwi 07:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's too big if it disrupts line spacing. Otherwise, screw 'em.  (You stole Jimbo's signature??  How could you.) Ocaasi (talk) 08:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This confirms my theory that he's a sock of Jimbo! Dylan Flaherty  09:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

SPI notice
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/BlueRobe. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 12:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Commentary

 * Burn the witch sock!
 * This extreme-sounding sentiment is justified; after all, the SPI does call it a "likely match". That sounds pretty damning.
 * No, wait, it sounds pretty vague. What makes this match "likely"? We already know that the two accounts edited from the same city; does that alone make it "likely"? Do we all need to worry that we're living in cities that banned editors once edited from?
 * The problem is that the process is completely opaque. We have no idea what happened inside the star chamber. Instead, we're supposed to simply trust an unsupported claim whose confidence level is, to be frank, not particularly reassuring. In a world where we expect claims to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, conviction based on "likely" doesn't inspire confidence in the legitimacy of the system.
 * How many "likely" matches are false positives? Is Uncensored Kiwi a sock of some long-banned user? I don't know, but the point is that neither does anyone else, yet we've just ejected another person from the swiftly-diminishing pool of those who are willing to deal with the level of nonsense inherent in Wikipedia. Good job! Dylan Flaherty  17:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Has an appeal been submitted to repeal this block? From my gleaning the blocking process the evidence seemed less than conclusive. __meco (talk) 09:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)