Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr.Cappadocia/Archive

21 October 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

WP:DUCK. Same edits on same pages.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Why is there a "sockpuppet investigation" going on against me? I'm brand new to wikipedia first of all and this second account was only created because I was unnecessarily blocked yesterday by Orangemike for "block evasion" even though I was never blocked prior to that, so I wasn't "evading" anything.

Also so far I've made edits to talk pages only and haven't even edited any articles on wikipedia and probably won't be doing so in the future after receiving such a hostile welcome. KatiiK2 (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Pinging  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Fairly obvious WP:DUCK, with the characteristic edits accusing feminism of gynocentrism and misandry, using the former word this time instead of the latter, and of being dominated by lesbians and wimpy ment; but not offering any actual suggestions for improving the articles except that the articles are insufficiently anti-feminist. -- Orange Mike  &#124;  Talk  23:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * who is KatiiK a suspected sock of then? May need to move the SPI  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Not obvious WP:DUCK at all, in fact WP:DUCK states in the lead "Unless there is such clear and convincing evidence, editors must assume good faith from others". I am only trying to contribute and make some additions to the wikipedia articles in question, not trying to censor them like the other two users here wish to do. Also Orangemike is just making things up, I never said anything about "wimpy men" in my comments. KatiiK2 (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * A throwaway account like KatiiK replying to a thread by a throwaway account User:Bob Hammersley should be a red flag for anyone. KatiiK's behaviour is consistent with various SPA trolling over the years, the most recent SPA to do this would be User:Mr.Cappadocia (who is blocked). This is/was an obvious case and didn't need SSPI becuase it's playing directly into the hands of trolls like KatiiK who just want us to waste our time. Please read WP:DFTT/WP:DENY & WP:RBI. Trolls want attention and it's our job NOT to give it to them-- Cailil  talk 10:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Responding here to Orangemike's statement below who stated "there have been a series of these over the years, the latest being Mr. Cappadocia". I looked into this and it looks like Mr.Cappadocia lasted posted on wikipedia in September 2013. Not exactly sure how that's "the latest" seeing as it was over a year ago. Also the other person I'm being linked to is BobHammersly who made a total of one edit on the Feminism talkpage about a month ago and who hasn't been blocked from wikipedia. I find it interesting that I decided to make some comments on a talk page and people like Orangemike, EvergreenFir, and Cailil have decided that I must be blocked and censored from contributing on wikipedia talk pages. I thought this site was supposed to an open and unbiased website where people "assume good faith". Anything but has happened since I joined a few days ago. KatiiK3 (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Through the user's own admission (not to mention the obvious behavioral evidence), the second account was created to evade a block of the prior account and I've blocked it indefinitely. However, I note with the first account it was blocked for evading a block. Could you provide the name of the master account? Mike V •  Talk  02:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As Cailil says, there have been a series of these over the years, the latest being Mr. Cappadocia. The distinguishing characteristic is that they always rant on the some small group of talk pages; and the accusation, invariably unsourced and unsupported, is always flat statements of one-four sentences that feminism is "misandrist" and hurts men. The only thing different with this one is that they used the term "gynecentric" instead of "misandrist". -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  04:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Please read my response to Orangemike above. KatiiK3 (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Given the behavioral evidence, I've moved this case to "Mr.Cappadocia" and tagged the accounts as such. Mike V  •  Talk  15:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

23 October 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

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

This is so silly, now ANOTHER sockpuppet investigation is being launched against me. Clearly you can tell from my choice of username that I'm the same person as Katiik2, however the only reason I had to create a new account and then re-join wikipedia was because I was banned for no legitimate reason and further censored from contributing comments on a talk page.

Also please read my comments above on this page as well as comments made by Pfhorrest on the feminism talk page:

"AGF is precisely what I'm concerned about; this looked to me like people assuming bad faith on the part of an editor merely on the basis of the content of that editor's opinion. I'm not defending their opinion but it looked honestly expressed (unless you honestly think anyone critical of feminism is automatically a troll, and nobody honestly, however unjustifiably, holds a critical opinion of it)" KatiiK3 (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've blocked the account for block evasion. As I've mentioned on KatiiK2's talk page additional accounts should not be created to evade blocks, regardless of the perceived merit of the block. Mike V  •  Talk  00:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)