Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CatCafe/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets





 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

See below. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I think that CatCafe is also a block-evading sock of User:Gongwool. Should I file a separate SPI at Sockpuppet investigations/Gongwool, or ask that this one be merged there somehow? gnu 57 20:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The most recent Gongwool sock was blocked in 2017. User:Efefvoc2 registered an account in 2018 and switched to the CatCafe account in October 2019.In the SPI archive, Gongwool is described as someone who adds "heavy-handed content critical of anti-vaxxers or content about the skeptic community, with a concentration on Australia". Efefvoc2/CatCafe has collaborated with the GSoW editors on articles like Taylor Winterstein, Barbara O'Neill, and Matt Fraser (psychic). In 2016 Brian Martin (social scientist) publicly objected to the way Gongwool and another editor had rewritten the Wikipedia article about him. CatCafe has continued to add negative material to the Martin article (e.g.,, , ) and to disparage Mr. Martin on the article talk page.Gongwool and CatCafe both abbreviate "reliable" as "rel" and "primary" as "prim" or "pri". Here are a few examples: CatCafe Efefvoc2  LanceUnderpants  Gongwool Perhaps the Gongwool sockfarm is related to Sockpuppet investigations/Zxcv9? There's been lots of sock activity at Universal Medicine.
 * I don't think that IP editor is related to CatCafe. Cheers, gnu 57 00:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, it may be worth looking at these IP contributions; based on timing, content, and the fact that they're an IP that appeared to immediately continue a dispute CatCafe was involved regarding Stock, I suspect they may be CatCafe as well: . The general aggressively-personal tone they take and their focus on fairly lurid analogies reflects what CatCafe did on 99g, eg. . --Aquillion (talk) 08:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I ran a check on 99g due to their similar interests to CatCafe and claim of being a clean start account. This check ✅ CatCafe to 99g as well as to Tex9. Given that CatCafe has a history of problematic editing in the sex and gender topic areas and is currently under a partial block, I consider this an inappropriate WP:CLEANSTART (note the expectations that cleanstarting editors pick new areas to edit and that cleanstarts should not be done to avoid the consequences of past behaviors). I also note that there is logged-out editing from CatCafe in the topic area, which further suggests evasion of scrutiny. . GeneralNotability (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've marked this case as reopened while we talk this out. What's your evidence for CatCafe being Gongwool? GeneralNotability (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - Anything left to do here? Otherwise any objections to this being closed? --Jack Frost (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , fyi - I'm inclined to take 2021111010002614 as excluding the IP. No objections to closure. Cabayi (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed . I'm going to close this without merge, though I've left a note in the Gongwool archives pointing to this SPI for future reference. --Jack Frost (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Reviewing this pre-archival, can I ask about the decision not to merge? To me, the "rem pri" thing looks pretty persuasive, but maybe it's used more than I think. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 02:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd done a lazy man's search and found "rem pri%" came up a few times. In my view while these text features were suspicious enough make a note on each SPI for future reference, I didn't see the value in merging the cases at this point (no real forensic benefit came from doing so that couldn't be acheived by a note in the archives, and there was the risk of muddying the evidential waters if the cases were actually unrelated). That was my thinking, but I don't really have strong feelings on the matter. For academic purposes I've run a quarry for edits from 01/01/2021 shows "%rem pri%" used 6 times since January 2021, 5 were by unrelated editors, and only once was "rem pri" used, and it was by CatCafe. I've also got another query running; I don't think it really changes my view, but let's see what it shows. --Jack Frost (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Has been editing the same areas as Catcafe over an IP range. Just made a threat to a user that they had contacted their employer and complained about their Wikipedia editing - this is exactly the same behaviour that we had before from Gongwool, (who also did the same thing to editors) and it seems likely that they are connected. Probably worth a block either way, but might help with the connection here. Bilby (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I don't think this is CatCafe, but they've been given a nice long block by Cullen328. Closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Pro forma. GeneralNotability (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Checked SandyWoody based on clear not-new-user behavior and strong topic overlap. They are ✅ to 99g. . GeneralNotability (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)