Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CFredkin/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


CFredkin

CFredkin (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
22 August 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


CFredkin was reported for edit warring but DDK2 suggested filing an SPI following what we and user:j believe to be sock/meat puppetry. CFredkin has been removing references to Mary Landrieu being a "conservative Democrat" from her article. For example, here, here and here. Bmmcatee then made the same edit here which he promptly undid here, only to make the same edit again here. These are the only three contributions Bmmcatee has made. NewtonK6 has now made the same change for his first and so far only contribution. Tiller54 (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • Opened a similar case almost simultaneously. Added User:Middleground09 above, as it looks like they are almost certainly related. user:j (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks j, I was just about to tell you I had opened the SPI. I've not done one before and I've only been watching Landrieu's page so I didn't notice Middleground09. Thanks for adding him as well. Tiller54 (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are also a few IP addresses that have few or no other edits but to participate in edit warring on behalf of the two main accounts already listed above at the half-dozen or so articles where they intersect, but that could have just been an issue of editing while logged out. We'll see where these accounts lead to first, I guess. user:j (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Could you add something about the other articles where he's been sockpuppeting? Or is it not necessary? Tiller54 (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (←) Yes. At Rick Snyder, for example, User:Middleground09 was involved in an edit war with User:Excellius. After the Middleground09 sock was mothballed, User:CFredkin picked back up with the exact same edits. The overlap in articles is also there, even though both of these accounts are almost certainly single purpose and have very few edits. Middleground09 is actually the older of the two, but also started editing in a nature that made it clear he was not new to Wikipedia... user:j (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cheers. Tiller54 (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The WP:DUCK nature of the accounts already listed is pretty quacky, but I think there are likely to be more accounts tied to these that will hopefully be found by a CheckUser. I'm just concerned that the oldest "new" account that seems directly related is already a few months old, and I don't think CheckUser data goes back very far... user:j (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk endorsed - New accounts appear as if from nowhere to participate in a content dispute. Very worth checking. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed CFredkin, NewtonK6, Middleground09. Red X Unrelated Bmmcatee. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Socks blocked indef, master for one week. Bmmcatee is presumably some kind of meatpuppet, but as he only made the two edits, just leaving him alone for now. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

16 October 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


History: On Sept. 24 CFredkin was topic-banned from U.S. politics for three months, for battleground and partisan editing and attempted gaming of AE, as a result of this AE request. He has not edited since then, except for one sentence on his talk page. On Sept. 29 a new user, NationalInterest16, registered. They immediately began to edit with a competence that clearly showed they were not a new user (for example see this edit summary on their third day here). All of their edits were partisan from exactly the same viewpoint as CFredkin. After receiving a few comments from User:Bishonen on their talk page, NationalInterest16 stopped editing from Oct. 4 to Oct. 14. They resumed editing Oct. 14-15, again with a very partisan pattern: one article edit (to remove damaging information about Trump) and multiple comments at the Clinton talk page (5 posts in favor of having the article say that Clinton is a "congenital liar", 4 posts arguing that Juanita Broadrick's allegations against Bill Clinton should be included in the Hillary Clinton article).

Diffs:

Most striking: Comparing what's in a given article (e.g. Trump) to what's in an article on the other side of the political spectrum (e.g. Clinton), insisting that if something is included or omitted in the other article, the same should be done in the article under discussion. That was a characteristic, recurring theme with CFredkin. Examples from CFredkin: [1] [2] Examples from NationalInterest16: [3][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Accusing other editors of bias or bad faith. Examples from CFredkin: [10] [11] Examples from NationalInterest16 [12] [13] [14]

Persistent, repetitive arguments at a talk page, even when they are the only person supporting a particular position. Example: From Sept. 29 to October 3, NationalInterest16 edited the Hillary Clinton talk page 33 times. MelanieN (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

23 November 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


  1. CFredkin has used sockpuppets in the past.
  2. September 24, 2016 - Cfredkin topic banned form US politics.
  3. September 28, 2016 - Password123 makes first US politics edit
  4. The username Password123 implies that the account may be easy to hijack if the password were actually Password123
  5. Overlapping article edits. - MrX 17:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Similar edit summaries
CFredkin Password123
rm speculation (and similar) [15] [16]
more accurate [17] [18][19][20]
weasel [21] [22]
  • Bbb23 - What ever happened to the good ole days of slow clerking?;) I'm adding the evidence now. You can't add tables until the SPI template is substituted.- MrX 17:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

The evidence is way too thin to justify a CU. Declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The accounts are Red X Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are not behaviorally similar enough to overturn the negative CU result. Closing. GABgab 23:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

02 December 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


  1. ThaiWanIII has been editing for less than two weeks and has already edited 8 of CFredkin's favorite articles.[23]
  2. ThaiWanIII second and third edits ever cited WP:WEASEL in the edit summary. CFredkin also cited weasel frequently [24]
  3. ThaiWanIII uses DS page restrictions as tool for winning disputes [25][26]. CFredkin was sanctioned at WP:AE for similar gaming behavior.
  4. ThaiWanIII edit wars [27][28]. CFredkin was also an edit warrior. [29]
  5. By day four, ThaiWanIII has already learned how to drop an edit warring warning template on someones talk page:[30]
  6. In his first three days, ThaiWanIII has invoked WP:CLAIM in an edit summary as many times. CFredkin has also invoked WP:CLAIM: [31].

ThaiWanIII claims that he edited some years ago, but their short edit history under this account shows a clear agenda and WP:PRECOCIOUS knowledge of Wikipedia culture. While I'm sure I'll be lambasted for not having a mountain of evidence, I am requesting that this SPI remain open for a reasonable amount of time because sockpuppets need time to bloom before we can fully appreciate them in all their splendor. - MrX 14:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you Bbb23. My instinct still leads me to believe this is CFredkin, but without a doubt a sockpuppet of an experience user.- MrX 23:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

This is a witch hunt based on the political views of Mr. I won't bother to address this set of, essentially baseless, "evidence". I would encourage someone who can compare IP addresses to settle this matter.ThaiWanIII (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

11 November 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


This one's pretty obvious. CFredkin got indef'd in October 2016, he's been socking galore ever since, although it's been awhile since someone bothered with an SPI. Anyway, CFredkin edited articles related to American politics. Before he got into it on articles relating to Trump he made lots of edits to articles about particular Republican politicians. For example: Dean Heller. And also Dean Heller. And Jeff Flake. And also Jeff Flake. And Pat Toomey. And also Pat Toomey. And Thom Tillis. And also Thom Tillis. And Marco Rubio. And also Marco Rubio. And Steve Daines. And also Steve Daines. And Rob Portman. And also Rob Portman. Now I'm just pulling out more or less arbitrary edits for each article by CFredkin since he made a lot of them. Some of them are pretty close to edits by Amberwaves, some of them just establish that there's a *tremendous* overlap between Amberwaves' articles of interest and those of CFredkin. According to Editor Interaction Analyzer there's 13 articles on Republican politicians which both accounts edited. Now, some of them are big names, like Rubio, so ok. But others are pretty obscure. And all it takes is a few clicks on each account's edits and there's little doubt it's the same person.

One thing. After his indef ban, CFredkin was sock puppeting pretty consistently without a sign of letting up. Then there was a lull in SPIs and related reports. I seriously doubt he had quit sock puppeting during that time, and Amberwaves shows that to be the case. Rather I think that people just forgot that there was an indef guy named CFredkin who got indef'd (which happens). So I got double nickels on the dime which say there's a ton more socks out there that just haven't been picked up yet. Volunteer Marek  05:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)  Volunteer Marek  05:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I concur that Amberwaves is the same user as CFredkin. The editor interaction report provides very strong evidence in itself, as does the tell tale user page with just enough meaningless content to avoid redlink scrutiny.- MrX 18:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

I noticed another interesting connection: look at how CFredkin and Amberwaves sign their names:[32] [33] Most people will add a space (and maybe a couple hyphens) before signing, but CFredkin always neglected adding a space before his signature, and the newer account does the same thing. Sro23 (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - I'm satisfied there is more than enough evidence to warrant a block. In addition to the signature evidence, there's the extensive overlap (Ron Johnson (American politician), for instance). Note how all socks will remove negative info from the article ([34] [35] [36]). Please block this sock indefinitely. Sro23 (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Blocked and tagged, closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/CFredkin/Archive&oldid=1084294449"