If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
((Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/VacuousPoet))
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

VacuousPoet

[edit]
request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 23:14, 24 May 2007

VacuousPoet is permanently banned for numerous reasons which probably do not to be accounted here. ProtoCat and ImprobabilityDrive have similar editing patterns as VacuousPoet, including a singular focus on Intelligent Design. Other facts will be added soon.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orangemarlin (talk • contribs) 23:14, 24 May 2007.

no Declined. Not enough reason to check. Voice-of-All 14:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VacuousPoet

[edit]

Much of the information about this case can be found here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (2nd). Essentially, User:VacuousPoet is a confirmed sockpuppet who has been banned. He has requested that his ban be lifted, and it was denied [Denial of request to lift ban]. Both of the above users have admitted publicly to being VacuousPoet sockpuppets. Orangemarlin 00:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could Estuary (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) be added to the list? There's some similarities in modus operandi to StudyAndBeWise's attacks on me (Described in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (2nd)), as well as various actions of socks of VacuousPoet described below, and I'd like to have it ruled out. a glance at Estuary's contributions will show that he was used only for adding indefblock templates to various people's user and talk pages. Adam Cuerden talk 18:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no Unnecessary, give that they've already identified themselves. no Declined for the additional request, as in "no fishing". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VacuousPoet

[edit]
request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 01:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This user seems to have added a few other names and IP addresses to harass me and others. Two of the users above have made false accusations that User:N6 and I are sockpuppets. Orangemarlin 01:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been highly disruptive in editing Evolution and Talk:Evolution and shows an utter disregard for WP:BLOCK and WP:SOCK, continuing to edit with anon IPs to evade the block on User:VacuousPoet and even creating a new account. Even when using anon IPs, the user signs Talk page comments with "VacuousPoet" or "VacousPoet".

PurpleSunfish (talk · contribs) was created apparently for the sole purpose of filling out sockpuppetry cases against myself, Orangemarlin (talk · contribs), and Filll (talk · contribs), alleging that we are all the same person. Note that PurpleSunfish's first edit comes after one of VacuousPoet's anon IPs added sockpuppet templates to our User pages.

--N6 02:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Example Talk page diffs signed with some variation of "VacuousPoet": [1] [2] [3]

diff for 170.215.15.99 adding sockpuppet template to my userpage

corresponding suspected sock puppet page created by PurpleSunfish

There are other suspected sockpuppet IPs that have been used less recently--see the old case.

--N6 03:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note • Could you please provide an explanation as to what the pattern of the vandalism is, in accordance with code letter C? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I agree that this user has a serious pattern of vandalism per se, but he certainly has a history of bad-faith edits, mostly ignoring WP:POINT: [4] [5] [6] [7]. I would argue that opening frivolous sockpuppetry cases against several users including myself ([8] [9] [10]) was purely retaliatory and in obvious bad faith, but perhaps this doesn't constitute vandalism.
Far more troubling, I think, is the brazen evasion of blocks. N6 19:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note • What would be most helpful is: you refer to vandalism of the Evolution article - could you please describe the nature of the disruption? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user wanted to add "abbot" in front of Gregor Mendel's name in Evolution and did so repeatedly despite and ongoing content dispute about this very issue on the talk page. In response to reversion of his edits, he started deleting professions for other figures from the article to illustrate a point (see the diffs above). I would consider this vandalism, but again, I don't know that I agree that it represents a "serious pattern".
The user has been substantially more disruptive on the talk page with these and other anon IPs, hijacking discussion to rant about an "anti-God crusade" and bringing up the same points for discussion time after time. I wasn't specifically involved in the last round of talk page disputes with VacuousPoet socks (per the previous case), but perhaps Orangemarlin can comment.
--N6 20:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do I include all of the various puppets, or just the ones in the new complaint?Orangemarlin 20:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note • Only new socks and the user account of the user making the socks should be listed. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:VacuousPoet is on an indefinite block so has no known edits for the past few days.
User:199.62.0.252 has disrupted the Evolution article several times

The form his talk page disruption has taken (at least that I have seen) is in repeatedly alleging cabalism and bad faith among other editors (claiming there is a conspiracy to quash legitimate anti-evolutionist viewpoints in the Evolution article). When he is not ranting about an "anti-God crusade", he is presenting points in a highly sarcastic and inflammatory tone over and over, no matter how many times they may have been addressed previously. He strikes me (and others) as possibly a deliberate troll. N6 01:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed that Vacuous Poet and PurpleSunfish are the same user. If IPs are disrupting the talk page they may be blocked for escalating periods of time. Mackensen (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any word on the anon IPs? Again, I have to stress that this goes beyond disruption or vandalism into cut-and-dried block evasion. VacuousPoet (talk · contribs) is on an indefinite block and is deliberately and brazenly using IPs and other socks to avoid it.
Thanks for taking a look at this case. To be honest, it's been a little exasperating presenting such clear evidence here and at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/VacuousPoet and hearing nothing back except a request to justify the C tag. N6 03:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your work on this. I know it takes a long time and you are doing this to prevent abuse of the complaint system, but he was very disruptive in the meantime. Thanks. Orangemarlin 05:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VacuousPoet

[edit]

view edit history watch
Filed: 23:49, December 26 2006 (UTC)

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.OrangeMarlin 23:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, because I had had a Freudian slip of the highest level in using the name Vacuous Puppet rather than VacuousPoet. I hope it did not cause any problems.OrangeMarlin 16:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Possible. Dmcdevit·t 08:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.


More