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[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

VacuousPoet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Happy Couple2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Loving day (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Kdbuffalo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 09:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

• User:Happy Couple2's first edit was here in an attack on User:Filll. Rarely does a brand new editor make a first edit at an RfA.
• User:VacuousPoet's edit attacking same User:Filll
• User:VacuousPoet writing style is similar to kdbuffalo, and these two socks.
• Early edit is the type of article edited by the original sockpuppeteer of VacuousPoet, User:Kdbuffalo.
• Another Buffalo, NY edit
• User:Loving day's second edit was to remove sockpuppet template from Happy Couple2's user page here, an odd thing to do for a brand-new editor, who's first edit had nothing to do with Happy Couple2.
• Loving day's first edit was suspiciously on an article that I was discussing with another editor today.

Comments

Conclusions

I think it's highly likely that this is a sock, based on the contribs. I did send this to checkuser: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kdbuffalo, both to see about confirmatory technical evidence and to see if any more socks have been registered. MastCell ^Talk 17:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Loving day indef, the others were already indef blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---