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)
For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TungstenCarbide/Archive.
– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.
24 September 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
- TungstenCarbide XXVI (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Evidence submitted by Ks0stm
Another TungstenCarbide sock following the usual naming pattern. Somehow he's managed to create socks 3 times in the last two months, so some sort of IP (possibly range?) block might be useful. Requesting checkuser to determine if an IP block would be feasible, but no hard feelings if the checkuser check is declined.
Former sockpuppets that would be helpful in determining a range if checkuser is endorsed include the most recent two blocked ones: TungstenCarbide XXV (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and TungstenCarbide XXIV (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Ks0stm (T•C•G) 14:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
- Yes, I am indeed TungstenCarbide and every time I'm blocked I create a new account. It's simply not in your interest to keep blocking me. I don't cause much trouble and the blocking doesn't work. So why bother? Why not just let me have my say? Why the heavy handed censorship? Best regards __TungstenCarbide XXVI (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)