Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr.Cappadocia: Difference between revisions
Orangemike (talk | contribs) →Comments by other users: another WP:DUCK case |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
:Pinging {{ping|Orangemike}} [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please {{[[Template:re|re]]}}</small> 21:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC) |
:Pinging {{ping|Orangemike}} [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please {{[[Template:re|re]]}}</small> 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. --[[User:Orangemike|<span style="color:#F80">Orange Mike</span>]] | [[User talk:Orangemike|<span style="color:#FA0">Talk</span>]] 23:23, 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. --[[User:Orangemike|<span style="color:#F80">Orange Mike</span>]] | [[User talk:Orangemike|<span style="color:#FA0">Talk</span>]] 23:23, 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 to making 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. [[User:KatiiK2|KatiiK2]] ([[User talk:KatiiK2|talk]]) 23:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>====== |
======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>====== |
||
Revision as of 23:46, 21 October 2014
KatiiK
- KatiiK (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
21 October 2014
– This SPI case is open.
- Suspected sockpuppets
- KatiiK2 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
WP:DUCK. Same edits on same pages. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 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 @Orangemike: EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 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 | Talk 23:23, 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 to making 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)