Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TungstenCarbide

TungstenCarbide

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

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TungstenCarbide/Archive.

– An SPI clerk has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting a behavioural investigation.

13 June 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

Typoheaven IV (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.

This is rather obvious. The reason for CheckUser is because this was a sleeper sock that just came to life. Jasper Deng (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

If not TungstenCarbide this user obviously is a sock of Typoheaven II, so in either case there's socking to be investigated.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Typoheaven II is a sock of TungstenCarbide, so we have entered an infinite loop. I'm guessing we got it right here, and he is putting up tags for his legacy. Maybe we would better to remove the tags, and see who puts them back. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I blocked it as a WP:DUCK.

However, this report may be mis-filed. I see no evidence that this is a sock of TungstenCarbide. In fact, this sockpuppet was claiming to belong to TungstenCarbide by putting {{sockpuppet}} tags on other sock pages. See the contribution history. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, I see the original Typoheaven account was blocked as a sockpuppet of TungstenCarbide[1] although this isn't mentioned anywhere in the archive. So maybe the sockpuppet was just being honest in the tagging. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, building his legacy, which is a bad thing. I think you nailed it here, and he is just using this sock to do something different than edit articles. Perhaps he would have tomorrow. I'm leaning toward declining CU as I don't see that it is needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk declined - CU really isn't needed here, I see a bunch of similarly named socks, will search and block the ones that aren't yet, but this is obvious enough that more proof isn't required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]