Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sorginak/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Sorginak

Sorginak (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

03 March 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Ridership appeared shortly after the AFD, which sorginak was blocked from editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier closed as delete and recreated the article. Their mannerisms are pretty much the same and both users are bludgeoning the AFD. The IP is also doing retaliatory AFD noms. CUPIDICAE💕 14:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All three accounts are keenly interested in promoting the now salted Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier, (aka the recently recreated Xabier Lezama). They're being disruptive and have wasted a lot of editor time. There are lots of examples if you examine their contribs.. for example:

  • Sorginak: says "The museum was affiliated with the Canadian Museums Association, the Canadian Information Heritage and the Virtual Museum of Canada which closed its doors on May 29, 2016, following a decline in visitors and revenue."
  • 85.84.33.17: says "all of them were exhibited in the affiliated museums of the The Association of Canadian Museums, Canadian Information Heritage and Virtual Museum of Canada closed its doors on May 29, 2016, following a decline in visitors and revenue."

Ridership is in there as they recreated the article a few weeks after it was deleted. As I have been writing this, the IP has been blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing.--- Possibly (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC) --- Possibly (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I did not see the previous report. Feel free to merge, of course.--- Possibly (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mz7: nothing on the master, Sorginak? Thanks for the CU.--- Possibly (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I would suggest checking this IP also 212.142.199.227 - same voice, same interest in the artist Xabier_Lezama. Also geolocates to the Basque region. Netherzone (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

05 March 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

inactive

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations (talk • contribs) 14:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I think User:Ridership should be added to this SPI, as it seems that User:Goriako has admitted that they are responsible for the edits made by Ridership, here:[1] - Netherzone (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the CU at Commons showed Gorriako as a sock of Ridership.--- Possibly (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Clerk note: Case reformatted to separate recently active and functionally stale IPs. The 212. ones are all part of 212.142.128.0/17. The fourth, and many of the inactive ones, are on 85.84.0.0/16, with another group on 85.85.0.0/16. They all belong to the same ISP, but it seems like the assignment pattern is less than great, so it might be hard to get a catch-all rangeblock here that doesn't have excessive collateral. --Blablubbs|talk 14:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

26 May 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


The sock created Draft:Patxi_Lezama, which is the same biography that all the other socks in this archive want to create: Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier. The draft is here. --- Possibly (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, isn't Sorginak globally locked? [2]. Perhaps it's time for a community ban. Vexations (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vexations: I am not very knoweldgeable on how bans work, but if this SPI turns out to be a confirmed sock, I believe that's the third strike and they get site banned? This is definitely an account that qualifies for all bans, blocks and measures on the menu. --- Possibly (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@L235: I am not sure this will help much, as this user has a habit of coming back, but do the two checkuser blocks subsequent to the original block add up to a ban?--- Possibly (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@L235: I don't "feel strongly about it" one way or another. I was asking if a ban would help with this user, since they tend to come back repeatedly and waste a lot of time. This is the third time a group of users has had to chase down this user at SPI, for exactly the same reason each time.--- Possibly (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

We opened the same investigation at es wiki [3] after catching another one some days ago [4], mentioning that many pages seem to have been creating from the rank the puppetteer was using and mentioning some other rank that couldn't be checked locally.[[5]--Lost in subtitles (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone: here you got the link to the namesCategory:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sorginak and in the Spanish verssion (that is connected to it) some more.--Lost in subtitles (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lost in subtitles, I'm pretty sure there was an earlier wave of socks too, but I cannot remember the names + a lot of IPs that were cross-wiki spamming. Netherzone (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If possible, I add two IP. Many of global creations were inside the rank 85:84, and in Spain they confirmed he's been working on some IPs from that rank at least. But there are some who weren't there and there were no means for checking.
Not sure if I did it right. If not, please correct.--Lost in subtitles (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Pretty sure this is them based on a shared formatting quirk in the recreation, but  Clerk endorsed for a sleeper check. --Blablubbs|talk 08:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed with respect to the named user(s). no No comment with respect to IP address(es).  Blocked and tagged, requesting locks, closing. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Possibly: I don't typically personally bother working out which ones count as 3X banned except in obvious cases, but feel free to ask an SPI clerk or CU to make a determination if you feel strongly about it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, in my experience, the existence of a ban doesn't really prevent block sockmasters from returning in any way; they're already not "allowed" to return. 3X is really only used to determine whether a user needs to appeal at AN, or whether an individual admin (or CU) can unblock. Thanks for taking the time to file these. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Possibly: by my read, they are not 3X'd (at least not yet) because the first CU result wasn't an outright "confirmed", but a "Very Likely" and policy states "confirmed by a checkuser". For what it's worth, I agree with Kevin's take that a ban wouldn't change the likelihood of a return, just impact the appeal process. --Blablubbs|talk 08:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Blablubbs, I'm concerned that the user doesn't seem to understand that they are not allowed to do what they're doing. See for example [7] and [8]. They need to understand the restrictions they are under. I'm not sure that we have something that will accomplish that. A ban will likely only reinforce their belief that some of conspire against them. Vexations (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Vexations, that is of course rather suboptimal.
      Sorginak, since you seem to be reading: There is no conspiracy here. Your continued editing, as well as your initial use of multiple accounts, is absolutely a policy violation. WP:SOCK does not only prohibit sanction evasion – the block template explains this as well. If you want to continue editing without having to expect getting blocked, tagged and reverted, please appeal by emailing stewards and then filing a local appeal (I assume UTRS would do the trick as well). --Blablubbs|talk 12:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sorginak/Archive&oldid=1025652373"