User talk:VacuousPoet

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

VacuousPoet (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

pschemp claims that I am Kdbuffalo, and have a single purpose account. Both are false. Also, an objective reading of the threads he is concerned about [[1]] shows that the discussion is valid. I have attempted to resolve this with pschem [[2]] but he just continued to block me. I have even provided my email address, but he did not contact me. This is defamation, and abuse of power.

Decline reason:

account created to avoid one week IP block. -- Vsmith 14:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Restoring vandalized appeal

History: Recently, I made some posts to Talk:Evolution. I wanted to discuss possible changes it to Evolution article, but the tone was quickly hostile. Responses to the sections I made were removed. When I added them later, the earlier removals were inserted, to make the subsequent thread look ridiculous. Responses to the second redundant section were largely off topic. I posted a request to please review a wiki page on falsifiable before posting here [[3]]. Even so, others continued to post obfuscations. I removed subsequent obfuscations, ad hominems, etc., in an effort to keep the section intellectually honest and prevent it from devolving into a flame war. This of course was met with hostility. During the course of this, a user, fill, it appears, became convinced that I was a sock puppet of a user called Kdbuffalo. Of course, I am not. Even so, he continued to write things like "don't cut and paste from creationist websites." Not realizing that he was alledging me to be a sockpuppet, I challenged him to produce a single instance where I cut and paste from a creationist website. He could not. My I.P. was banned by pschemp somewhere along the way, but I had a new IP. I continued to post. When I went home to my old IP, I realized that my IP had in fact been banned. I tried to appeal, but was unable. I VPNd to get a new IP, and then learned I was no longer banned. I appealed the IP directly to [| pschemp], but did not get a response. I was then banned again. Mind you, I created the account Vacuous Poet to appeal the IP ban. I continued having the discussions, which were largely reasonable. I was subsequently banned from the user account Vacuous Poet. No response to my appeal directly to [| pschemp]. So I appealed to other admins. Apparently, they believed that I created the account to thwart the ban, when in fact, I created the account to appeal the IP ban. Since the account allowed me to post, I continued to use it at Talk:Evolution. Also, an objective reading of the threads he is concerned about [[4]] shows that the discussion is valid. I have attempted to resolve this with pschem [[5]] but he just continued to block me. I have even provided my email address, but he did not contact me. This is defamation, and abuse of power. Also, I have contributed to other articles on wikipedia unrelated to evolution or Darwin. For example, McCollum Memo, where I made significant contributions regarding Admiral Nimitz's son, Admiral Nimitz, and his comments on a history channel documentary, comments which have withstood several edits. Consequently, that I am a single user account (as was alledged with the IP ban and subsequently the user ban) is false. This ban is a lie, an abuse of power, an attempt to keep the philosophy of science point about Falsifiability out of the discussion of the evolutionary theory of the origin of species. Also, it seems valid that I discuss the idea of Falsifiability in the Talk:Evolution section before being bold and posting it to the main Evolution article. Merry Christmas. Please try to do some research on this because I am not kdbuffalo. I am Mike. If you email me (I have added my email to my Vacuous Poet user account), I can prove it. ,,, ,Lastly, I just saw who this Kdbuffalo was, and the dispute he was in. [[6]]. I can assure you that the person referred to in that article is not me. I have engaged in no such thing. No quote mining. I don't even know what the word 'abiogenesis' means. I am concerned about the philosophy of science. Falsifiability is a criteria used to evaulate scientific theories. My name is not Ken. It is Mike. I can prove it if you send me an email. Clearly, Pschemp is abusing his power, or is at least reckless while weilding his power as an admin. I also request that Pschemp's admin powers be suspended for 1 week.VacuousPoet 07:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet,,Lastly, I just saw who this Kdbuffalo was, and the dispute he was in. [[7]]. I can assure you that the person referred to in that article is not me. I have engaged in no such thing. No quote mining. I don't even know what the word 'abiogenesis' means. I am concerned about the philosophy of science. Falsifiability is a criteria used to evaulate scientific theories. My name is not Ken. It is Mike. I can prove it if you send me an email. Clearly, Pschemp is abusing his power, or is at least reckless while weilding his power as an admin. I also request that Pschemp's admin powers be suspended for 1 week.VacuousPoet 07:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet, I am not the only person to be concerned with this issue, and somebody more knowledgeable than me is finally addressing the problem. See the link [[8]], to which I cannot respond to, since I have been banned by an abusive admin.[reply]

I was banned for being Kdbuffalo's sockpuppet, not for editing. I took correction on editing others posts.

Merry Christmas, and thanks for your time

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

VacuousPoet (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

pschemp claims that I am Kdbuffalo, and have a single purpose account. Both are false. Vsmith said I created account to avoid IP block. Also false. The appeal was for the IP block. The account was to appeal the IP block. That it was able to post again was utilized, but that is a fixable problem in the code, if you did not want me to. Please review the initial IP block, and read what follows too. Please respond in my talk page. Somebody reverted my request to unblock (vsmith). I don't think I [[9]] I removed anything vsmith said. But I reoriginized my own posts to my own talk page. I am resubmitting

Please include a decline or accept reason.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

On your sockpuppetry

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 19:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Den of Vipers and their lackeys

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

VacuousPoet (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Simply, indefinitely is not eternity. Please lift the block.

Decline reason:

Sockpuppet accounts are blocked permanently...(see WP:SOCK) or close enough that the difference is meaningless. -- ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet

I closed this case with an offer to attempt to mediate on your behalf with certain conditions. If you agree to those conditions, post on my talk page. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Orangemarlin 16:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

VacuousPoet (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not Kdbuffalo. See below. Kdbuffalo was and is from SUNY/New York and posted from buffalo.edu. I am not and never was from SUNY/New York. Please have Raul654 look into this. My ISP happens to be based in New York. Triangulation at the time did not resolve geographic areas. Now you should know that KdBuffalo is from New york, and I am not, since IP triangulation has improved so much. Also, OM and I are friends now.

Decline reason:

there is currently not sufficient evidence to justify unblocking. Consider contacting the blocking admin. — slakr^\ talk / 02:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Kdbuffalo:

Other interesting edits by KdBuffalo (who I am not):

"I use many different computer addresses/locations as I use different university computer facilities. It will be impossible to contact me via IP addresses." [32]
"Dear Mark, I am kdbuffalo. I was getting a little hassled by some Wikipedia members who I wish not to discuss. Nothing major and we are on pretty good terms considering they are atheists and oppose what I compose. I just found I had less problems going anonymous. Please do not mention this to anyone else."[33]
"from kdbuffalo" (in edit summary) [34]

Smoking Gun

Note: I went digging through some old archived information, matching it up with checkuser logs. I found a smoking gun, clearly linking VacuousPoet with Kdbuffalo. They are the same person - do not unblock. Raul654 (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]