SuperblySpiffingPerson

SuperblySpiffingPerson (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
05 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Was reported to WP:AIV as an obvious sock by User:Noclador, a cursory check indicates this might be the case. But SuperblySpiffingPerson is currently restricted from editing in article space as a part of their unblock; if they have been using this account to edit in article space that impacts on them as well, so for procedural purposes I would like an Checkuser to confirm it is not an imposter etc.

(I would have let noclador file the SPI, but Gaddafipeace is currently editing :) so best to nip it in the bud) Errant (chat!) 10:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • I would also appreciate if it could be checked if the IP behind the user either comes from Voronezh in Russia or from this ranges:
  • 90.128.116.236 - DE-TELE2-NET3
  • 83.189.90.131 - DE-TELE2-NET2
  • 213.101.230.37 - DE-TELE2
  • 83.189.94.84 - DE-TELE2-NET2
  • 83.181.93.81 - DE-TELE2-NET2 as these two IPs tried to vandalize the article 2011 Libyan civil war by claiming NATO and al-Qaida were fighting togehter in this campaign to get rid of the great leader Gaddafi. noclador (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI checkuser is not used to link accounts to IP addresses (or ranges) for privacy reasons. --Errant (chat!) 10:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed the following are the same:

 Done All socks blocked. Thanks TNXMan :) --Errant (chat!) 15:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Edits on 2011 Libyan civil war match the edits of User:Transitionrenewal, who yesterday was identified as a sock of User:SuperblySpiffingPerson – Muboshgu (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One editing habit I noticed is that they always mark their edits as minor. This could be important in suspecting sock puppets. TL565 (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a frequent calling card. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2011 (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

 Confirmed plus:

–MuZemike 04:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]



11 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Same edits as before. This guy/gal never quits. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2011 (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 All blocked. Elockid (Talk) 00:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

17 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Edits on Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war and other articles are similar to past sockpuppet edits. TL565 (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I have blocked this user for 48 hours for various kinds of problematic editing, including gross violations of the BLP policy and some acts of unambiguous vandalism. However, I regard 48 hours as absolutely minimal. The block is only that short because the editor is ostensibly a new editor, but I don't really believe that this is a new editor. They have far more knowledge of how Wikipedia works than an editor who had only been here for a short while could possibly have, so I believe this is a sockpuppet of someone or other. If that can be confirmed then the block should certainly be extended to indefinite. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
20 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Same edits on Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war as DontHammerMuammarRepealJalil, trying to delete the article. TL565 (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2011 (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

Named account  Confirmed, no comment on the IP. TNXMan 18:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. Elockid (Talk) 19:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

26 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please also check for potential sleepers as he usually creates more than one account. noclador (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No sleepers. Since Flatule is blocked, I'll mark for close. TNXMan 12:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
25 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Shows up on Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war 3 min. after making account making questionable edit. TL565 (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2011 (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
1 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Brand new account, then shows up at Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war making edits marking them minor when they aren't. TL565 (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Please also check if User:Trekconvention is a sock; pattern of edit is the same and he is already blocked; but for the sake of being sure please CU if he is part of the sock circus, noclador (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Likely –MuZemike 03:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also Sectioner (talk · contribs), who just went active - Alison ❤ 05:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
07 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Registered user and IP both seem to have a bit of a battleground mentality in trying to remove another editor's Talk page comment from Talk:List of surviving veterans of World War I - the comment simply says "RIP Claude Choules :(" after M Choules died - and the IP edit summary suggests ideological, not policy, motivation. Also, PrussianKaiser has only just registered and immediately nominated this article for deletion - seems also to know about WP:BATTLEGROUND and clearly has knowledge of List policies. This raises my suspicions about this perhaps not being their first account - perhaps CheckUser? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now blocked the IP for 24 hours for edit-warring to strike the other editor's Talk page comment -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

There's no fault in not logging in when you don't want to waste time on it, especially when the only reason you created a login in the first place was to be able to accomplish the action of nominating content for deletion. And in no circumstances should disputation about the appropriateness of third party talkpage comments be settled by one of the parties to the dispute threatening and implementing bans. That is corrupt. Such adjuducations should only come from an uninvolved disinterested party.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PrussianKaiser (talk • contribs) 11:32, 7 May 2011
I'm not a party to any dispute - I reverted and blocked your IP simply for breach of the rules about not refactoring other people's Talk page comments and not edit-warring - which are pretty hard line rules. I should also point out that you had been reverted by two editors (both admins) before you were blocked (not banned, that's different), and that a third admin has rejected your unblock request and has agreed you should not have been edit-warring -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but this is more of a case that is going to be closed fast without check-user because fish CheckUser is not for fishing. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 11:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that the behavioural evidence is enough. I am removing CUrequest and replacing it by open. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 11:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough if that's what the rules say. I'd just thought that the Editor/IP account abuse might be a sufficient existing offence to warrant further investigation - was going to remove the CU request but you beat me to it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(PS: I was actually going on "Checking an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry is not fishing" - as I thought there were reasons for suspicion, but I guess not) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)(edit conflict)PrussianKaiser (talk · contribs) did admit to have used that IP so all the evidence is there, we do not need checkuser. Also User:PrussianKaiser did violate the policy on multiple accounts. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 12:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, fair enough -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sockmaster for this user is most likely Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SuperblySpiffingPerson/Archive. The Sasha Grey article ties them together - both IP/location wise and their shared interest in Sasha Grey and war. Nymf hideliho! 12:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that sufficient suspicion for reinstating the CheckUser request? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so. Nymf hideliho! 12:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, ta - let's see what happens -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The confirmed socks of the sockmaster that I just mentioned, but not listed in that report, is JohnPaulThree, RespectedInfluence, 124.171.20.210, etc. Nymf hideliho! 12:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And note the IP, especially. Try whoising it. Nymf hideliho! 12:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the sockmaster has changed, the page is moved and its all done. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 19:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

PrussianKaiser (talk · contribs) is  Likely the same as Parentalmachismo (talk · contribs). TNXMan 14:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

14 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Usual "pro-Gaddafi –> anti-Jalil" shenanigans pulled by other socks: account IP. Quack, quack. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Will he/she never stop? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a ban is soon becoming the best option so that accounts may be blocked on sight. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think a ban is already warranted. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
16 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Blanking the List of surviving veterans of World War I after AfD recently decided to keep it - it has to be an existing editor who dislikes this list, and User:SuperblySpiffingPerson is the main recent one -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the IP is in the same range as previously known IPs -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The IP looks "likely" based on the closeness. The username rings another bell though... I can't for the life of me remember the sockmaster but the naming scheme fits a past schemes. I might be wrong, just something niggling at me. --Errant (chat!) 10:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
His previous sock at that article was PrussianKaiser (talk · contribs) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find what it was that niggles me. But the previous sock makes it a clear DUCK, see below --Errant (chat!) 11:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, there's something niggling at me now about "TheOnlyRationalBeing" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I chugged through a load of recent SPI cases but nothing sprang out at me as obviously similar naming - the think that interested me was I seem to recall another user with a very similar name TheSomethingSomethingSomething - where the name was related the common sense/rationalism and the last "Something" was usually a person/individual etc. I know SSP's original naming scheme is also like that, but the one I am thinking of was even more so. There may be a link? --Errant (chat!) 12:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, TheSomethingSomethingSomething is exactly what I was thinking - I've been looking through usernames like TheRational... TheOnly... TheObjective... TheExpert... etc but haven't found anything -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2011 (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

Blocked as a WP:DUCK sock. CU for sleepers would still be useful as this guy is pretty prolific --Errant (chat!) 11:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hehe, edit conflict :D. Agreed with the above findings, too much collateral for an IP block, sorry. -- Luk talk 13:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Completed All of them now blocked and tagged, thanks guys --Errant (chat!) 13:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Registered after previous socks were blocked and created List of surviving World War I era veterans (now speedy deleted as CSD:A10), and in its Talk page is clearly carrying on the argument from previous recent sock User:AnotherRomeo at Talk:List of surviving veterans of World War I -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2011 (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

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged. –MuZemike 00:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

17 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets
did 9 edits at List of bassoonists to add 11 names (all red links or linking to the wrong wiki articles), and 3 min later goes to Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war and makes an edit for "objectivity". Only strange thing: the account was created on 16 December 2007. noclador (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

Doesn't look like SSP to me. The edit did indeed have "objectivity" in the summary, but it was not a trademark "Jalilist" edit. But I could be wrong... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
no Declined - fish CheckUser is not for fishing - also note the account has been on WP since 2007 - Alison ❤ 12:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
wrong decision, keep the case open and wait for his next edits. Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war is semi-protected and "objectivity" one of SSPs favorite words to justify his vandalism. noclador (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, isn't fishing about 1 user and 1 IP? ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 18:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So this is about one word in one edit to one article, by an account which has been around four years now? And 'fishing', from the policy page is broadly defined as "performing a check on accounts where there is no credible evidence to suspect sockpuppetry" - Alison ❤ 19:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also do not see enough activity to take action. Please re-list if there are more issues. TNXMan 13:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
06 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Protection on List of surviving veterans of World War I expires, and we immediately have a "new" user who's done just enough to be autoconfirmed blank the disputed material again -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've indef-blocked on the Duck assumption - can unblock should this SPI prove negative -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

parallel article edits [1] Saifulofit became active as soon as SpadeItOver was blocked and continued to edit same article. WWGB (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
26 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

suspicious edits on the 2011 Libyan civil war page, and a short (recent ly created account) edit history correlating with various 124....IP accounts used by the puppeteer on another page L1A1 FAL (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

obvious sock - please block and check for sleepers too. thanks, noclador (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed as being the same as SolelySelfdirectedCompassion (talk · contribs). TNXMan 13:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked and tagged. Favonian (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
26 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

suspicious choice of username, typical articles edited with pro-Gaddafi slant; plus the editing time is the usual time when SuperblySpiffingPerson becomes active. noclador (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re. Kynuna - POV editing and then saying it is just a minor edit - typical modus operandi for SSP + inserting a note that the NTC is against democracy.
Comments by other users

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

please check for sleepers too. thanks, noclador (talk) 04:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
07 August 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Same articles as User:TheologianOfSatan, another blocked SuperblySpiffingPerson sock, in some cases with identical edits. WP:DUCK. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:46, 7 August 2011 (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
29 August 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


WP:Duck: reasons are the choice of username, the first edit ("With so few of the good guys left fighting"), then 10 no-edits, then marking highly POV edits at 2011 Libyan civil war as minor edits (i.e.). Quack-quack! please check also for sleepers. noclador (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2011 (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

 Confirmed as SSP. TNXMan 14:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

07 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


highly POV edits and immediately goes to Muammar Gaddafi ‎for some whitewashing, but not before deleting news about Libya from the Portal:Current events; only strange thing are his edits of Karl Popper and Gresham's law. noclador (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2011 (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
16 June 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


New accounts making the same edits to same article: Jamie Leigh Jones starting June 13. Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2012 (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


16 June 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Per request. The Helpful One 20:06, 16 June 2012 (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

The following are  Confirmed:

Several IPs have been blocked. --MuZemike 20:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More