Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:VacuousPoet

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

OrangeMarlin 08:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Report submission by:


 * Evidence

This gentleman, who goes by the name of Vacuous Poet, has been banned outright several times. Please see his change of IP Addresses (and he's not trying to hide it) in Talk:Evolution, and Talk:Evolution/falsifiabilitydraft. He engages in a hit and run argument, changing his IP address as he gets banned. I believe a couple of his addresses have been banned. He is very frustrating. Here is a quote from one of his postings:

''Regarding block my account. Easy enough to get around (assuming it is true, and I do not think it is true). Regarding my single purpose account. Not true, I have contributed to other articles on wikipedia. With regard to me being a Creationist. False. Regarding to my not being interested in this article. Self-evident that I am. Regarding my deleting of posts. I did not delete posts that I disagreed with. I left many posts that I disagreed with. I deleted posts that seemed to violate an honeset intellectual discussion. Regarding my being brainless. False. I am in fact a scientist (though unpublished in a journal). I admit that I am not a relevant scientist, though. Regarding the hostility. Some of you are clearly fanatics, self-appointed gaurdians, who obfuscate and ignore a perfectly valid question. Regarding others who have defended the question, thanks. VacuousPoet 20:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC) User:Vacuous Poet''

I have added, Velvet Elvis 81 to the suspected sockpuppets of VacuousPoet. In discussions at Talk:Evolution/evolutionreligiondraft, his method of typing (using bolds within a sentence), his shrill tone, and argumentativeness indicates to me that he's the same person. He's being very disruptive.


 * I don't know if VelvetElvis81 is or is not VacousPoet; I've run into him on the Noah's Ark article but not the Evolution article. It is possible he is a sockpuppet, but I don't see any reason to suspect he's a sockpuppet - there are other people than VacousPoet who are biblical literalists.
 * VacousPoet is not engaging in sockpuppetry. What he is doing is actively evading a ban. That is very much against the rules of wikipedia, and he has absolutely no respect for following the proper procedure to be unbanned. He may more may not be a sockpuppet of someone else (kdbuffalo?), but this branch of accounts is him trying to evade being blocked. He needs to wait for his ban to be lifted via the process and stop evading the block. Titanium Dragon 07:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Added. This account was created to fill out sockpuppet accusations against myself and other users after another VacuousPoet sockpuppet added the corresponding templates to our User pages. N6 08:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments

I'm not sure what "evidence" has been presented here, but I am certainly NOT a sock puppet. I've never heard/seen VacuousPoet, I'm not a scientist, I have a user account not just a random IP address (which seems to be Vacuous' m.o.), umm. . . what other evidence is there? A quick look at Talk:Evolution/evolutionreligiondraft will make it clear that I have neither displayed a shrill tone nor been particularly disruptive. This is just an example of someone who is mad that I disagree and is attempting to retaliate. It's ridiculous that I have to keep this baseless sock puppet tag on my page for 10 days now.--Velvet elvis81 03:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed that Vacuous tends to post only on the Evolution page. I've made edits all over the place.--Velvet elvis81 03:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Are we ever going to get a resolution as to whether I am or am not a sock puppet of Vacuous Poet? I think it's pretty clear I am not based on our edit histories--we happened to connect on a single issue (and not even on the same PAGE, mind you) and I was accused of being a sock puppet. That sounds vaguely similar to the sock puppetry charges involving Orangemarlin and N6 that were probably untrue and that they crowed so very loudly about. It's been ten days with no resolution. I'm removing the tag from my user page. Let me know if there's a problem with that.--Velvet elvis81 16:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind I had nothing to do with the case against you in particular, just some anon IPs and PurpleSunfish. N6 00:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin and are engagued in persecuting Christians and Creationists. For exmaple, see Singling out of a Christian user.. "This topic infuriates me, because I just despise the Christian Right in the US." from Crusade against Christians contributing to Evolution related articles for source. Orangemarlin and fill bait new users with ad hominems when they bring up problems with articles (e.g., failure to distinguish adequately between evolutionary speciation and evolution within a species), get discussions to devolve into flame wars, accuse new users and users they don't agree with (such as Velvet elvis81) of being sockpuppets, etc. I have been falsely accused of being a sock puppet of Kdbuffalo.
 * Vacuous Poet Comments

In any event, I am not a sockpuppet. Sock_puppet defines a sockpuppet to be "A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name." Initially, I posted not signing, then I would add the tag "Vacuous Poet," in response to somebody who asked me to sign my posts, then I created an account called "Vacuous Poet" to appeal a block of my IP address.

I have never hidden my identity on any of the evolution talk pages or articles. I was initially unsigned and then Vacuous Poet.

My IP was blocked because an admin accused me of being a sockpuppet of Kdbuffalo (probably due to a message from fill or Orangemarlin, who did not like the criticism's to fill's baby, the evolution article, on talk:evolution). This has been appealed twice, and denied, so apparently more than one admin does think that I am a Kdbuffalo, although they have not emailed me. Email me at msm30@yahoo.com, and I will respond with my phone number. You can then call me, and we can figure out a way for me to identify myself to you in such a way that you will know that I am not Kdbuffalo.

It is clear that fill and Orangemarlin are using evolutionary and religious articles as soapboxes to argue that God is a myth, evolution is on par with the law of gravity, and it is clear they are abusing wikipedia due process by accusing me of being a sockpuppet of kdbuffalo, and now Velvet elvis81 of being a sockpuppet of me. It is also clear in the evolution article that fill is doing something analogous to "quote mining" in that when he addresses the controversies of evolution, he, for example, compares evolution within a species to the law of gravity, as opposed to evolutionary speciation, which has a less solid scientific foundation than evolution without speciation.

This complaint should be dismissed since the complainants are clearly on a crusade, claiming that I am a sockpuppet of myself (how can that be?), and likely the sources that falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet of Kdbuffalo as well as falsely accusing velvet evlis81 of being a sockpuppet of me. Also, they violate so many of wikipedia’s standards, such as no personal attacks, for example, without fail calling anybody who brings up a point they cannot refute a "Creationist", a slur in their minds. They are wasting admins time fighting intellectual battles using dirty tricks. 74.33.26.71 06:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * Just a note, it looks like somebody (perhaps those playing dirty pool) are now actively vandalizing the evolution talk page with a strawman sockpuppet. These possible strawman sockpuppets are Ymous, 12.145.177.110,  64.53.136.44 21:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC).   65.73.80.45 06:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet


 * More comments from OrangeMarlin
 * What I say or don't say about Christians is a personal opinion. In the Evolution article and discussion, we dismiss pseudoscience, because it has no place in the discussion.  I admit to using pedantic language, but I have not violated any rules, including sockpuppetry.  Since this is a fact-based assessment of Vacuous Poet being a sockpuppet, here are the facts:


 * Vacuous Poet was banned on or about December 22 for deleting and revising comments on the Evolution:Talk page. Several users filed complaints about his doing this, and his user name was blocked.
 * Within hours of being blocked, he switched IP addresses, did not register under his name, although he clearly uses his name with various IP addresses, to avoid the block.
 * That day another of his IP addresses were blocked, whereupon he switched to another IP address.
 * velvet elvis81 has posted in several locations, including Evolution based discussions, despite his claiming not to, and uses the exact same wording, tone, and bold highlighting as VacuousPoet.
 * According to the sockpuppet rules, a member who uses other methods to get around a ban, including switching IP addresses can be accused of sockpuppetry, which I have done. I

OrangeMarlin 14:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Personal issues aside, the facts are that you keep changing your IP address to get around bans. I believe two or three of your ID's are currently blocked, and yet you brazenly continue to post, using your IP address along with the nom de guerre "VacuousPoet". That's your choice in life, but it meets and exceeds the definition of at least attempting to get around the blocks. Why can't you just sit it out for one week, relax, and come back. You got blocked for editing and deleting comments, which is expressly forbidden. None of us find what you write to be very informative, and it is argumentative, but so what? You believe what you believe, we'll discuss it with you and move on. But for you to violate rules left and right means you have no respect for us or Wikipedia. Why don't you just chill out, quit evading blocks, then come back in a week? Then you can argue to your heart's content and as long as you don't get into revert wars, deleting comments, and violating other pillars of Wikipedia, you can post away. Many of us will argue with you, but that's how it works here. As for a vendetta against you, please give me a break. I don't care what you write. Do you think you're the worst or best of the anti-evolution crowd? Hardly. But I don't like rulebreakers and people who publicly state they can get around the rules. So there are a bunch of us who monitor each of your IP addresses, and add it to the case. You aren't making your case any easier. So, again, if you think I dislike you, you're wrong. If you think I don't respect you, that's true, because of your frequent and obvious disregard for the rules of Wikipedia. If you respect us and Wikipedia, then do the right thing. OrangeMarlin 19:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you please quit editing pages? You are not an administrator. You are blocked just for editing discussion. Leave anything I write alone. Please. Orangemarlin 07:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I am astounded to find more attacks and unfounded accusations here. I will respond however:
 * Comments from Filll

God is a myth

I have never claimed this, and in fact I have tried to enlist the services of some creationists to explore this topic with me. No one has taken me up on it however. I do claim, similar to the US legal system, all major scientific organizations, Nobel Prize winners, and the vast majority of scientists, that introducing the supernatural into science is against the rules of science. Once you do that, it is not science any more.--Filll 15:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

evolution is on par with the law of gravity

They are both well established theories of science. I am not the only one who has noted this. I am in good company. This is a terrible negative charge?--Filll 15:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

and it is clear they are abusing wikipedia due process by accusing me of being a sockpuppet of kdbuffalo

It is hard to keep track of all radical extremists. But I do not believe vacuous poet is as constructive as kdbuffalo. He would actually produce real citations that were not from creationist websites sometimes. Vacuous poet is mostly just disruptive.--Filll 15:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

and now Velvet elvis81 of being a sockpuppet of me.

As I said, it is hard to keep track.--Filll 15:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It is also clear in the evolution article that fill is doing something analogous to "quote mining" in that when he addresses the controversies of evolution, he, for example, compares evolution within a species to the law of gravity, as opposed to evolutionary speciation, which has a less solid scientific foundation than evolution without speciation.

All that it requires is a few more citations, which we have. Of course "true believers" will reject anything, so this is just an empty complaint. And it is clear he does not know what quote mining is.--Filll 15:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Back again!

VacuousPoet is back to their old tricks again, muddying discussion on Talk:Evolution with the same tired arguments. I added another IP. At this point we have a clear violation of WP:SOCK since User:VacuousPoet is on an indefinite block. N6 06:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * This is clearly related to Suspected_sock_puppets/Orangemarlin and I will close both at the same time. That was a clear revenge nomination, and baseless.
 * User:Velvet elvis81 has many different interests, so seems unlikely to be a sock puppet of a gentleman blocked as a single purpose account.
 * User:PurpleSunfish as been blocked indefinitely already.
 * 170.215.15.99 has admitted to being Vacuous poet, and is currently sitting out a 31 hour block for vandalism (presumably for specious accusations against Orangemarlin).
 * 199.62.0.252 was blocked for a week on Dec 26, and went back to his ways as soon as that block expired, with the Orangemarlin SSP accusation, and blanking the VacuousPoet user page.
 * 67.139.169.22, 74.33.26.71, 65.73.80.45 are admitted VP accounts, but haven't edited since Dec
 * 65.73.44.65, 74.33.29.35 and 170.215.45.95 haven't edited since being blocked for a week as a VP account
 * User:YouNeedASmackBot doesn't seem to exist - no contributions, user page was created by User:Orangemarlin for the sole purpose of placing a suspected sock puppet tag, and when I went to block it for implying a bot per Username, I got a "no such user" message.

Whew.

I'm going to make an offer to VacuousPoet to discuss his case with Pschemp, who seems to be the main blocking admin. This offer is based on the fact that from what I've seen of his edits, they are contentious, but not outright vandalism, they do seem to be mainly discussion, and allow for argument and compromise. I am also not sure why the admins think he is User:Kdbuffalo, who seemed to have a different style. And finally, I am not at all happy that the accusers in this case apparently lumped in a bystander who happened to hold opinions they disagreed with, and make up an account to pad out their case. :-(

However I will only do take up VP's case with Pschemp on the case that VP promises to If so, then quite possibly we can improve the articles in question instead of wasting everyone's time with blocking IPs.
 * stick to one account,
 * not make any more revenge accusations of sock puppetry or similar,
 * not to edit war on articles until consensus or at least compromise is reached,
 * and to restrain himself from deleting other people's posts on talk pages.

If so, then VacuousPoet should post his agreement to this offer on my talk page, and I will take up arguing for his case. I can not, of course, guarantee success in convincing Pschemp to let me unblock the main account, but I can guarantee that I will try.

If not, then unfortunately, we will have to continue the useless dance, probably by blocking, then the next account VP switches to, with nothing constructive coming of it until VP gets tired. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)