Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (2nd)


 * 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 16:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Report submission by:

I know his other old incarnation, User:kdbuffalo (which VacuousPoet was banned for being a sockpuppet of) rather better. I'm frankly rather surprised to learn the connection: StudyAndBeWise may have been occasionally annoying, but he did try hard to work with people, up until the madness at the end. Still, he says he's the same, so I suppose we must believe him. I must admit to wondering now if User:Estuary was his first salvo in an attack on me, though I sincerely hope not: That would imply a fair bit of duplicity that I'd rather not believe of him. Diffs from both: user&diff=prev&oldid=109916769 user&diff=110759153&oldid=110691313 user&diff=next&oldid=110760009 However, I can't see any connection between the other users Estuary attacked and StudyAndBeWise at th e time, besides all of us, I think, being editors of the Evolution article. Unless that comes up, probably not him. Vanished user talk 11:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Evidence
 * User:VacuousPoet received an indefinite ban for sockpuppetry. See
 * User:170.215.40.207 admits to being VacuousPoet (a standard signature of VacuousPoet), and posts a trolling commentary about another Admin here.
 * User:170.215.40.207 makes several edits to StudyAndBeWise's page.
 * User:StudyAndBeWise page now clearly states he is the same user as User:VacuousPoet.
 * A checkuser case has been filed Requests for checkuser/Case/VacuousPoet
 * Comments
 * Checkuser was declined since the accounts have identified themselves as socks. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So what does this mean? You can register a new account just to avoid a ban as long as you state that you are doing so publicly?  I thought it would be more difficult than that.  I'll keep that in mind.  Orangemarlin 00:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the intent is more 2Just presume they're sockpuppets and sanction accordingly. However, as someone personally involved, I'm not touching this one. Vanished user talk 03:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Checkuser response basically means "this is so obvious we won't bother checking." However, I already posted about this an ANI and got no response, so if you don't do something, Vanished user, I'm not sure who will... --Akhilleus (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I really thought it meant that just admit to being a sockpuppet and you can do whatever you want!!!  So what happens next?  Orangemarlin 18:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose someone sets a block or other punishment on one/both of them as they see fit, and put that in Conclusions? Vanished user talk 18:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * kdbuffalo and vacuouspoet were exceptionally unproductive and uncooperative, in my opinion. StudyandBeWise at least made some valuable contributions before what seems like an eventual meltdown that I still do not understand very well. I am a bit mystified about this entire situation on all sides.--Filll 21:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should care whether StudyandBeWise was a good contributor or not. I actually disagree with you, and found him to be annoying and unproductive, but that's just a matter of opinion.  He is a sockpuppet who attempted and did, in fact, avoid a indefinite ban.  At that point, nothing else matters.  If he wanted to prove that he was "worthy" of being a Wikipedia editor, he should have taken up this offer.Orangemarlin 22:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am undecided as to what his fate should be. I do agree with your previous statement that, at the minimum, he should apologize for disruptive editing which he conducted as VacuousPoet and possibly as kdbuffalo. I am certainly willing to go along with whatever the community feels is the appropriate response, however. I am not arguing that his helpful edits should outweigh his repeatedly disruptive behaviors. The point is, other creationists can be productive without engaging in such tactics; why should he get a pass? After all, this is not some forum to judge the correctness of his or our personal views, but to write an encyclopedia, and in that respect, he has been a negative influence.--Filll 22:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't they be blocked for ban evasion? · AO Talk 15:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's block evasion, not ban evasion. But yeah, the socks of indefinitely blocked accounts usually get indefinite blocks themselves. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why aren't SABW and the IP blocked then? What's different about this case? They even admitted to being socks, wouldn't this lead to an indef block? · AO Talk 16:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The basic reason is that admins don't pay attention to the SSP page. Vanished user's aware of this case, but doesn't want to block because he's personally involved. I've posted to WP:ANI, and Vanished user's posted to ANI about this issue, but there was no response. However, it's not as if there's an urgent problem: SABW is "on strike", and the IP hasn't contributed in a couple of days. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block on the registered account, 3 month block on the IP address. If an IP or a registered account has admitted to being a sockpuppet of a blocked account, all that's really necessary is to post diffs that demonstrate the admission at WP:ANI.
 * Conclusions

BTW, could someone take a moment and post notices of these blocks at the relevant talk pages? I'm pressed for time today. Durova Charge! 22:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)