Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DegenFarang/Archive


DegenFarang

DegenFarang (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
11 April 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


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

A few days before DegenFarang's indefinite block was reinstated, he started editing on the Dutch Wikipedia. According to a checkuser investigation on that wiki, conducted by Groucho NL, he has a sockpuppet named Laowai88 (see here). That account has been used on this wiki since DegenFarang's block was restored, so I think this constitutes block evasion: Laowai88 edited on 30 March 2012 while DegenFarang was still blocked (from August 2011 till April 2012) and he edited again in March 2013 while DegenFarang was blocked again (since 21 February 2013). It may be appropriate to (perhaps check for sleeper accounts, and) block the sockpuppet too. Mathonius (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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
  • CheckUser requested - Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention - For a sleeper check, blocked the sock. Rschen7754 07:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing else. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 11:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
04 July 2015
Suspected sockpuppets


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

First time I've filled one of these out. DegenFarang is already banned for abusive editing, sockpuppetry and making physical threats. Handpolk is almost certainly another sock of DegenFarang. The evidence is in the hyper aggressive tendentious editing with anyone who has a different point of view than him; 2) Handpolk's editing of a selection of obscure articles that were among the very few that DegenFarang also edited; 3) the common obsession with the word "peacock"; 4) the defiant assertion that he will vigorously "ignore all rules"; 5) Handpolk blanks his talk page like DegenFarang did. Additionally, Handpolk has been an editor for one month has gotten blocked, ANI, and has a talk page history that reads like the Spanish Inquisition (while also never sounding like a "new" editor at all).

First, the IAR. Here is DegenFarang one, two, three. Here is Handpolk.

Here is a page of Handpolk's edit circa June 28, and the obsessive use of peacock. Here is DegenFarang's obsessive use of peacock one, two, three.

Blanking the talk pages DegenFarang and Handpolk.

Among the smallish numbers of pages Handpolk has edited one that has only a few technical edits in the past two years since DegenFarang last slashed by. The same here where Handpolk decides to an AFD on article that was previously "snow keep" when Degen Farang nominated it. This obscure article was one of the few ever created by DegenFarang but then also gets an edit by Handpolk. The chances these two editors are different based on the edits to these three articles alone are astronomical, given the small number of articles edited ever by DegenFarang and Handpolk.

Handpolk also posts bogus warnings on talk pages here, and here.

He is now removing and reverting various edits I have made, including on AFD and other people's talk pages. He needs to be permanently banned and IP blocked again. (I want to check the checkuser box but I don't see it.) 2005 (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

The accusation and the "evidence" are absurd. 2005 fails to mention that article is one of a couple dozen I have nominated for deletion. I've also been on Wikipedia for a year editing a broad array of articles and topics. I referenced WP:IAR one time and quickly said WP:BOLD was more appropriate to make my point. Now I see why 2005 was triggered and refuses to let that go. The truth is this editor thinks they WP:OWN WikiProject Poker and pretty much every poker BLP -- and consensus is for deleting lots of his pet articles. He's desperate and trying to get rid of the editor driving that effort.
  • While this investigation is ongoing, somebody please warn this editor against making this accusation in other venues, as they are currently doing across numerous talk and discussion pages. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 05:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that DegenFarang has circumvented his ban by using a sock Handpolk and has reinitialize his campaign against user:2005

This does have all the tell-tale hallmarks of DegenFarang, like these simultaneous AfDs by Handpolk All of which are still active.

The simultaneous AfDs by DegenFarang was pointed out by User:Toohool "Degen has also AFD'd 5 articles created by 2005 in the span of half an hour. (1 2 3 4 5)" (which can be read here the last time I saw something like this)

Some of nominations were first gutted by DegenFarang under the guise of following policy, he was warned not to do this by Amalthea "If you send an article to AfD, don't gut it first. If the material is problematic, point it out in the AfD instead" here and here

Hand poker would also gut articles after AfD after AfD

I notice it's been DegenFarang's habit to game the system by citing policies during his disrupted editing and was a particular admire of the pillar ignore all rules that is often misused, the "new" editor Handpoke hasn't made any edits to poker related articles until this last month with one exception being his 14th ever edit to the article cardrunners as noted above this article was created by DegenFarang also unusual about Handpoke is if you start from his very first few edits its that this does not appear to be that of a genuine new user but someone already familiar with Wikipedia by giving his philosophical views of Wikipedias policies and practices on his user page something that DegenFarang also would do. [1] I acknowledge only one Wikipedia rule, WP:IAR. If you would like to speak to me in general terms, using real words, please leave your comments here. If you are here to do some WP:WIKILAWYERING or otherwise cite WP:RULES or WP:POLICIES to me, of any kind, I will likely remove your comment with no response. DegenFarang

Look at handpoke history He made uncontroversial edit to cardrunners on January 1, 2015 he didn't make another poker related edit until June 5, 2015 on the Shirley Rosario here what telling here is that his 1st ever edit was to an article that DegenFarang created and that his 2nd ever poker edit was to an article that user:2005 created and that DegenFarang tied to AfD twice. [[2]] January 23, 2010 , and a malform attept here was reverted because it still linked to the old AfD. also see edit history

his 3rd was on June 17, 2015 Billy Baxter and his 4th less than a week ago June 27, 2015 right before going into overdrive.

The Steve Badger article was created by User:2005 on February 25, 2006‎ edit history [3]

  • January 18, 2010 DegenFarang nominated the article Steve_Badger for AfD for the 1st time (at the time it wasn't a disambiguous page)

the 2nd 12 February 2013 by DegenFarang the 3rd by Handpolk on 3 July 2015

Some background

over 6 years ago in January 2009 DegenFarang would edit poker biographies and articles with the website the ThePlayr.com a citation which were identified and removed by user:2005 as an unreliable source. DegenFarang didn't take well to this and issued this threat on User:2005 talk page.

"Ok I guess what they are doing then is within the Wiki rules, I thought detailed pre-production speculation was not allowed. I disagree with you that ThePlayr.com is not a reliable source. Especially since you link to poker-babes.com constantly and I suspect you own or work for that site. Unless you stop reverting my edits, I am going to continue to remove any reference to poker-babes.com from anywhere on wikipedia as you are clearly spamming this site. I wouldn't waste my effort to stop you except you appear to be willing to go to any length to stop me from making any contribution to wikipedia...so I'll return the favor. Or you can just leave me alone, its your choice. DegenFarang (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)" here

From that time an edit war began DegenFarang going throw many biographies & removing poker-babes.com from external links former admin User:Balloonman and member of wikipoker project (now retired) tried to intervene on both talk pages [4] and [5] (Note that 7 out of 15 Handpolk's AfD noms Starla Brodie, Jackie McDaniels, Alexander Borteh, Ernest Bennett, Don Baruch, Dao Bac, Dave Alizadeth were created by User:Balloonman who blocked DegenFarang twice once for an hour another for a week.

  • Handpolk edit of user:2005 talk page

"friendly advice

As you seem to have these issues with many people the solution seems very simple. Some people don't appreciate your attitude and the way you try to own the whole poker topic. Learn to get along with others, be nice and be open to collaboration -- and maybe you can keep some of your pet BLP's. Continue on with this approach and people will keep making things hard for you out of spite. Your choice. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 08:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)"here

It look as Handpolk had a discussion at the WikiProject Poker about Biography article notability criteria that were brought about about by consensus here and decided to unilaterally make changese himself invoking WP:BOLD here never having been part of the project making of the changes and AfDs in a weeks time.

DegenFarang edit. "Jastcaan, nice work. See WP:IAR. You were being WP:BOLD. Don't let people bully you with their WP:WIKILAWYERING. If you don't like something, change it. And don't feel the need to apologize to anybody for anything. DegenFarang (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)" [6]

other ANI of DegenFarang nearly all to do with his campaign against user:2005

[7] July 2011 [8] August 2011 [9]

[10]

April 2012 [11] Beeblebrox ask for a mentor/advisor for DegenFarang and was acceped by madman Later DegenFarang was blocked by him in feb 2013 after ignoring a topic ban [12]

February 2013 [13]▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 03:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Thank you, User:2005 and User:Sirex98, for your good information. There's a rather overwhelming amount of it, including some less valid points — for instance, "hyper aggressive tendentious editing with anyone who has a different point of view than him" is only too common all over the place from our only too common disruptive users. But I see much that is convincing re the sock charge, including the coincidence of pages edited; Handpolk's harassment of User:2005, who was previously hounded by DegenFarang; and the significant overlap in articles AfD'd. The number of Handpolk's AfDs that are of articles written by an admin who had twice blocked DegenFarang is a nice catch, as is the similarity of wording in the respective threats issued to 2005. It all adds up to WP:DUCK. I've blocked Handpolk as a sock of DegenFarang. Bishonen | talk 08:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
06 July 2015
Suspected sockpuppets
  • LowballChamp (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

(I'm on a new computer and it's making my life miserable, so could somebody please assist by formatting this report in the proper way?) The account User:LowballChamp was created 5 hours after Handpolk was sockblocked and went straight to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Badger_(poker_player)_(2nd_nomination), voting to agree with Handpolk. I’ve blocked it per the loudness of the quacking. Bishonen | talk 16:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Formatted to the best of my abilities. Favonian (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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
  • information Administrator note He's not even trying to be subtle. Blocked, closing. Favonian (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20 July 2015

Suspected sockpuppets
  • 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:F1D7:1D4E:3322:141F (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:C522:E72D:12E4:4802 (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

duck. poker edits EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As requested by Vanjagenije:

  • For IP ending 12E4:4802
    • [18] Reverted edits removing vandalism by the other IP ending 3322:141F
    • [19] Reverted edits removing vandalism by other IP ending 3322:141F and thus restoring Handpolk's edits. Original edit by Handpolk here: [20]

Vanjagenije, if you can and if you remember, please ping me when more info is needed. I don't always check my entire watchlist. I see you did ping me... odd I didn't get the notice. Oh well. Thanks! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  Additional information needed - @EvergreenFir: In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin action needed - Block those IPs for three days. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 IP blocked Doug Weller (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08 December 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


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

Filing for the record only. Already checkusered, blocked and tagged by User:Ponyo. Bishonen | talk 21:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pro forma report. Bishonen | talk 21:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

30 December 2015

Suspected sockpuppets
  • SocialJusticeWarriors (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

Per below. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

27 August 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

  • 50m race walk (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • 172.6.238.220 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
  • Editor interaction utility

Here user 50m race walk states that they are the same person as an IP which had just edited the page earlier [21]. These are both very recent accounts. That IP's first edit was this [22], where they basically call User:2005 a "dick". That edit was actually part of ongoing vandalism/harassment of User:2005 by several anonymous accounts at this time. In addition to 172.6's edits the following anon accounts made more or less the same edit: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27] (several others in the same vein, check the page history around July 7, 2015 to July 14, 2015). All of these, except for the IP, which made its edit a bit later, were blocked for sockpuppetry after a checkuser. All of these were continuing a harassment campaign of User:2005 initiated by User:Handpolk [28] who was banned by User:Bishonen on July 4, 2015 for harassment [29] which block was then extended to an indefinite ban on July 6th after checkuser confirmed this was a sockpuppet of DegenFarang. So 50m race walk is the IP, the IP is Handpolk and Handpolk is DegenFarang.

Additional evidence: DegenFarang, even though their main area of interest was poker or something, also showed an interest in the Clinton Foundation which is the article on which 50m race walk is active [30]. In fact, this is essentially the same edit that now 50m race walk wishes to make, almost eight years later. So that's another link between these accounts.

Also, the IP had a keen interest in the article Social justice warrior [31] (typical edit, usual whinnying [32]). One of DegenFarangs other sockpuppets was named User:SocialJusticeWarriors [33] (obviously meant ironically).

A checkuser is not necessary in this case since 50m race walk states they are the IP, and the behavioral evidence is compelling. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to 50cm race walk: Right. No attempt to even deny that you're a sockpuppet. No attempt to address the evidence.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

This guy is angry consensus is in my favor on the Clinton Foundation article. Threatened me to stop editing the article or he would report me here. I did not succumb to his threat and here we are. 50m race walk (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here we have a new account making personal attacks at Talk:Duke ("Best of luck with your smear campaign") while on another article talk page writing "."Stop. Making. Personal. Attacks. On other editors. Read WP:NPA". So they know about NPA but don't - what - think it applies to them? Posts at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JonTron show they also know about "DONTBITE" and quite a bit about our notability guidelines. I'm not sure though whether this is a DF sock although his socks have of course denied being socks before. Doug Weller talk 15:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was quoting Volunteer Marek, he likes to say "Stop. Making. Personal. Attacks. On other editors. Read WP:NPA". Then he'll make a bunch of personal attacks. As you said to me, he thinks it doesn't apply to him. 50m race walk (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So that is why you start bullying here? The Banner talk 07:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I ask you to stop harassing me, as you keep going through my history and contesting everything I do, anywhere I do it. And you respond by coming here and doing the same exact thing. If you do this one more time, I am taking this to ANI. Please stop harassing me. 50m race walk (talk) 08:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • The MO similarities with SocialJusticeWarriors and Handpolk are glaring enough for me to make the call. 50m is already indef'ed and I'll block the IP as well. Closing. Favonian (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DegenFarang/Archive&oldid=1079624044"