Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tonymetz/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
Nearly identical usernames (with the "z" being removed from this potential sockpuppet), both supporting the same stance within minutes on Talk:Joe Kent. Panian513 01:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

User has already admitted to having two accounts. However, even after being warned not to use multiple accounts without a legitimate reason, user has continued to do so. At 15:10 on 27 Feb, user said "It was a login bug and has been sorted", but still used both accounts well after that statement. 2 hours later with Tonymet and right up until now with Tonymetz. Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Another note for the reviewer: you've probably already noticed, but the master was created in 2018, made 6 edits, and suddenly reappeared with an absolute flurry of activity, incredibly well-versed in Wikipedia procedures and formatting, exclusively to make Joe Kent appear to be more mainstream, 6 years later. I don't know what, exactly, is in Denmark, but it's something rotten for sure. Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * For the record, I added the duplicate account template immediately when asked. I was then blocked without warning.  The tone in the conversation was not constructive and it was received as accusative.
 * I recommend someone senior review these policies to be more inclusive to new users. Are we tracking false-positives? Tonymetz  💬  04:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23 can you or another clerk add this to a retro or review process? i do not like how this was handled and it sets a bad precedent for future wiki users. WE could improve notice of a pending block.  and we shouldn't block users who are following the protocol (in my case, adding the "duplicate acct template" ) when asked. Tonymetz  💬  04:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Left a note at User talk:Tonymetz. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 08:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Since your note, you've indeffed the alternative account. Did you wish to block the master as well, or are you done, in which case this can be closed? --Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am done. Not blocking the master, per this note I left at the sock's talk page. Closing, thanks for the ping. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 13:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
After being warned, violating the warning by continuing to use 2 accounts, blocked, renaming the sock account, and getting it unblocked, user has continued to use the (now-renamed) sock account. Account was used to make this significant addition to the article Computer security. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

tldr WP:SOCKLEGIT seems to be clear that multiple accounts are OK assuming the association among accounts is explicit. I immediately added both associations when asked. Unblocking the account was an indicator that it was in compliance.

I had issues with multiple logins, and I filed a ticket here. I was asked to add the “alt account declaration” and did immediately. Thinking that resolved the issue, i continued making test edits (treehouse, sandbox) testing out a push notif bug.

I was then blocked without warning of the impending block (assuming alt account declaration satisfied the request). I was asked to add “ALT” to the account name to make it clear it was an alt account. I did that right away. (I had also put a second request to add (TEST) to ALT but that was rejected saying that “ALT” was adequate)

By this time it seemed to be clear that it was abiding by the “security” and “two factor” use cases for WP:SOCKLEGIT

I enabled 2FA and was using the accounts on multiple devices. 2FA was not working on some. I entered a ticket for that issue as well.

I also put an additional tag on the previous SOCK report to the sock team to review the practices here for false positives. Tonymetz 💬  19:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * There's context that the plaintiff appears to have a vendetta because I raised concerns about lack of WP:NPOV on Talk:Joe Kent and WP:BLP/N Tonymetz  💬  20:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not a plaintiff, this is not a courtroom, I have no vendetta, and I will ask you once to strike that remark and apologize, as it is a gross violation of WP:NPA. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonymetz (talk • contribs) 19:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * It's best practice to link the alt from your main account's user page, as well, but there is no violation here, the alt discloses quite clearly (now, I'm not spending a bunch of time digging into how long it has been there) who it belongs to. As long as that connection is so clear, this isn't an SPI issue.  Case closed. Courcelles (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * i've now added that to my primary account page
 * thanks for the help. Tonymetz 💬  15:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * can we escalate these two cases? they were cases of abusing WP:SPI for bullying Tonymetz 💬  15:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Tonymetz You could go to WP:ANI if you wanted, but I suspect it wouldn't be a useful use of time. @Fred Zepelin, at this point I don't see anything that justifies filing future SPIs. User conduct issues are handled at ANI, in general. Courcelles (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * got it thanks for the guidance Tonymetz 💬  16:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)