Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Kilz

This is a lie
This is an attempt to smear me, I corrected the fact that I was not logged in with a minor post within minutes. Why I was logged out I do not know.Kilz 22:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Second, I have a static IP, the accusation makes no sense. There is no way I could hide the fact I am the person editing. My IP is always the same.Kilz 22:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Third I believe Widefox is acting in bad faith he is involved in an argument with me and is using this to smear my name.Kilz 22:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Forth A sockpupet is an account. My static IP, which never changes points to me cant be another account.Kilz 22:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Fith - I am relitivly new to Wikipedia, I didnt even know what a sockpupet was, or was used for before being accused of this. I would like to know if Widefox can get into trouble for spreading this out and out lie!Kilz 22:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone looking at this page will seriously believe you use sockpuppets based on what they can read on this page. I really don't think you need worry about it. It does seem at present that this is a frivolous case. Hopefully User:Widefox can learn from the reaction to it and no trouble will be necessary but if it forms part of a wider pattern of behaviour then it's possible that some action may be taken. --Cherry blossom tree 23:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I truly did not do what Im accused of. A sockpupet is something that is used to decieve. I had no intention of any of that and tried to rectify that it was me. Kilz 00:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have said a day ago that I double checked his IP history ... "... I could be wrong.". Suspected_sock_puppets/KilzWidefox 21:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The final descision was wrong. I didnt use a sockpupet to get around the 3 revert rule. The 3rr I may have been technicaly guilty of. But that was pushed into that by a experenced editor that filed this report(widefox) who continued to revert to an edit that was made without concensious and was therefore vandalism. The so called sockpupet was a non loged in edit. I have a static IP. What use is trying to hide behind an IP that does not change? Kilz 00:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that you should not have been blocked for using a sockpuppet, as does Widefox. There was a discussion at the blocking admin's talk page which hasn't yet reached a conclusion.--Cherry blossom tree 22:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Only problem is that now Widefox is using this judgement as proof that I have done something wrong. I quote "and User:Kilz banned". Kilz 04:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI Kilz selectively blanked his talk page - hiding the context of that first edit war. An admin has warned him that this is vandalism. Widefox 10:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that, it is priceless, and shows a pattern. You know that my talk page is archived. Widefox can be shown to know that by this statement on my talk page ":Might it help if Kilz slightly modified the link to his archive page, to show it's an archive above Widefox 23:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)". Yet user Widefox falsely filed a case against me saying I had blanked the page "User:Kilz selectively, then totally blanked" . IMHO comming here with that statment shows a pattern of false accusations, then using it against me on other pages . Kilz 12:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Offtopic
After Kilz was warned, he has continued to vandalise his talk page. I will not accept his continued personal attacks against me, and have asked an admin to investigate. I write this here as offtopic, as I will not have my good name used in vain. Widefox 14:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have not vandalised my talk page, You know from the evidence above that it is archived. The reason it is archived is because you insist on using my talk page as a Swiftfox page. Untill it is to long imho. Your actions and words are recorded I will let your own words and actions speak. You have used false accusations to build on other accusations. Your own words prove you know the blanked page to be false. In fact you made the accusation on Oct 30, 2006. My archive page was created on Oct 28, 2006. So was the link that was placed on my page to the archive.