Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TungstenCarbide/Archive

Report date June 8 2009, 18:06 (UTC)

 * Self-admitted sockpuppets


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Ckatz

User:TungstenCarbide was blocked for civility issues by Toddst1 back in March. The initial block was for 72 hours, and several admins and editors tried to talk TC through it. However, the block quickly became indefinite (courtesy of Kafziel) following a string of abusive messages on TC's talk page. From there, TungstenCarbide has returned with a string of admitted sockpuppet accounts: The last few socks started leaving notes on my talk page, as well as at Wikipedia Review, so it has become a bit of a game for him/her. I strongly suspect that this guy has switched names to User:Strontiumsulfate; that account opened a few hours after TCX was blocked, and the only edit to date is to add "Here kitty, kitty.." on that user page. The aim here is to get at the source of this series of accounts, in the hope of closing off his/her access. Any information on additional "sleeper" accounts would also assist in this matter. --Ckatz chat spy  18:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * User:TungstenCarbide II (blocked 09 April 2009 by Rootology)
 * User:TungstenCarbide III (blocked 21 April by Black Kite)
 * User:TungstenCarbide IV (blocked 22 May by Ckatz)(this is where I first learned of the issue)
 * User:TungstenCarbide V, User:TungstenCarbide VI, User:TungstenCarbide VII, User:TungstenCarbide VIII, User:TungstenCarbide IX, User:TungstenCarbide X (fairly rapid series of socks in early June 2009, all blocked by Ckatz)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Ckatz chat spy  18:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

I'm fairly certain that Strontiumsulfate is a sock of TungstenCarbide, given the choice of a chemical user name and the play on Ckatz's username. However it could be useful to run a check to weed out any sleeper accounts and to block the underlying IP(s). Icestorm815 •  Talk  18:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * On purely technical grounds, I see no overlap. Behavioral cues mentioned above do seem to be red flags, though. Could be unrelated, or could be hopping ranges to avoid the current block. No obvious sleepers, if so. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Everything on this page blocked and tagged by now. Closing. — Jake   Wartenberg  01:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Suspected sockpuppets



 * I'm not sure, but there seems to be clear evidence that this is someone who already has an account. I think we had better find out who they are, as I've blocked them already. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Tbsdy lives
I have actually already blocked this editor per WP:DUCK, but I'd like to know what the primary account is. There is very clear evidence that they have edited before, as their first edit was to WP:AN/I and they showed a clear understanding of where the admin noticeboard is and they mentioned User:JzG by name. They also went straight to my user talk page to comment on an ongoing issue between myself and User:Giano, which a new account would not really be expected to know about. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ - the following accounts as being the same editor;


 * That's all I can see there, sorry - A l is o n  ❤ 01:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's all I can see there, sorry - A l is o n  ❤ 01:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's all I can see there, sorry - A l is o n  ❤ 01:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's all I can see there, sorry - A l is o n  ❤ 01:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's all I can see there, sorry - A l is o n  ❤ 01:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's all I can see there, sorry - A l is o n  ❤ 01:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Ks0stm
Created yesterday and fits the naming pattern (last account was User:TungstenCarbide XVII). WP:DUCK. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 15:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Done. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 15:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Ks0stm
Account created yesterday right in line with the naming pattern. Suggest a checkuser to block IP or range, since TungstenCarbide has created 6 accounts since the February 11, 2010. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 06:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Original block log for TungstenCarbide here. Checkuser requested by Ks0stm (T•C•G) 06:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * to check for sleepers and possible IP block. Tim Song (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Maaaaybe possible match for . IP block doesn't look worth it currently. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing much else to do here. Marking as closed without blocking that last one. –MuZemike 18:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Ks0stm
Just one in a pattern of sockpuppets. Requesting checkuser to check the underlying IP address/range since these socks seem to come in spurts, and to see if there are any sleepers/related accounts not following the naming pattern. Here's the original block log. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 14:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
No sleepers. TN X</b> Man 14:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Account blocked and tagged. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 00:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

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: and. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (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)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
✅ (obviously), but a the range is too busy for blocking. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 15:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All blocked up. -- DQ.alt (t)  (e)   17:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by HelloAnnyong
WP:DUCK naming. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * Indef blocked. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

03 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

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

The name matches the prior pattern (WC = the chemical formula for Tungsten (W) Carbide (C), prior "TungstenCarbide XXII" etc name+roman numeral acounts); and a somewhat mild-mannered initial approach to administrative discussions is TungstenCarbide's MO...  This could be an innocent collision, but I suspect not. This edit to Tungsten carbide, other topics approached... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

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

 * - Been a few months. Could just use a CU to confirm the name change, and maybe also see if there are sleepers. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked by <font color="#C50">Nakon  03:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No other sleepers. –MuZemike 04:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to close, then. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

10 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

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

Per the naming standards found in the most recent archived case. I hate to beat a dead horse, as evidence in the past has usually suggested to busy of an IP range for IP blocks, but it might be worth checkusering again, if only to see if there are any sleepers due to the recent change in naming patterns. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 01:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

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
Sock, proxy blocked. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 01:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

03 January 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

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

Naming patterns, DUCK. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 23:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

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 and tagged, but request CU for sleeper check. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I think about this, this would probably be wise, because WC XXXV seems to be missing from his numbering sequence. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 23:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing except another open proxy, which is already blocked. –MuZemike 10:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

14 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

A rather bold assumption of WP:DUCK based on naming pattern on both and that the first account was created two days after the sockpuppet User:TungstenCarbide 10 (which appears to have already been blocked/locked). I don't know if CheckUser can give data from account creation, but just in case that works or in case it's worth looking for other non-edit actions I'm requesting checkuser to see if there are any related, undiscovered socks (User:Tungsten Tide gives me pause, but not enough to list it in the investigation)...if it's not worth it feel free to remove the checkuser request. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 22:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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
Sorry, there's nothing there. –MuZemike 01:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

13 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * 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)

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)
 * 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&cent;   &copy;  17:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

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)
 * On the other hand, I see the original Typoheaven account was blocked as a sockpuppet of TungstenCarbide 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)
 * 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&cent;   &copy;  17:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * - 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&cent;   &copy;  12:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

4 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets

This one is really obvious. The username is a barely disguised version of TungstenCarbide (Volfram/Wolfram is the German name for tungsten). Used to make a hit-and-run personal attack on Jimbo Wales' user talk page. Prioryman (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

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

 * - No checkuser needed for blatant socks like this one, which I have blocked. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

25 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Another really obvious sockpuppet; the username is a barely disguised version of TungstenCarbide (Volfram/Wolfram is the German name for tungsten). Used to make a hit-and-run attack on the ArbCom on User talk:Cla68. Given the date of creation this is clearly a sleeper sockpuppet. I'd recommend doing a checkuser to find out if there are more sleepers out there. Prioryman (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

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

 * -  King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Another CU has already blocked the underlying IP as a proxy. No other accounts showed up at this time on that proxy. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  08:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)