Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tonymetz: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:38, 4 March 2024

Tonymetz

Tonymetz (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/Tonymetz/Archive.

03 March 2024

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

TonymetzAlt (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

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)[reply]

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 ^[1]. 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”^[2] and “two factor”^[3] 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.^[4]

I also put an additional tag^[5] on the previous SOCK report to the sock team to review the practices here for false positives. Tonymetz 💬 19:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's context that the ~~plaintiff has a vendetta~~ 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

[1] [[1]]

[2] WP:SECURESOCK

[3] WP:TESTALT

[4] [[2]]

[5] [[3]]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 {{SPIarchive notice|Tonymetz}}
 {{SPIpriorcases}}
-===27 February 2024===
-{{SPI case status|closed}}
-====Suspected sockpuppets====
-{{sock list|1=Tonymet|tools_link=yes}}<!-- Add more accounts or IPs to this template as needed -->
-Nearly identical usernames (with the "z" being removed from this potential sockpuppet), both supporting the same stance within minutes on [[Talk:Joe Kent]]. [[User:Panian513|Panian513]] 01:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
-====<big>Comments by other users</big>====
-:<small>''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims|Defending yourself against claims]].''</small>
-User has already admitted to having two accounts. However, even after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tonymetz&diff=prev&oldid=1210576293 being warned] not to use multiple accounts without a legitimate reason, user has continued to do so. At 15:10 on 27 Feb, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tonymetz&diff=next&oldid=1210598889 user said] "It was a login bug and has been sorted", but still used both accounts well after that statement. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tonymet 2 hours later] with Tonymet and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tonymetz right up until now] with Tonymetz. [[User:Fred Zepelin|Fred Zepelin]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Fred Zepelin|Fred Zepelin]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Tonymetz|<small style="border:2px solid;border-radius:4px;padding:0 4px">Tonymetz</small>]] [[User talk:Tonymetz|💬]]  04:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
-::@[[User:Bbb23|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. [[User:Tonymetz|<small style="border:2px solid;border-radius:4px;padding:0 4px">Tonymetz</small>]] [[User talk:Tonymetz|💬]]  04:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
-====<big>Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</big>====
-*Left a note at [[User talk:Tonymetz#Multiple accounts]]. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x[[User:0xDeadbeef|<span style="text-transform:uppercase;color:black">'''Deadbeef'''</span>]]</span>→∞ ([[User talk:0xDeadbeef#top|talk to me]]) 08:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
-:*{{re|0xDeadbeef}} 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? --[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 13:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
-:*:I am done. Not blocking the master, per [[User talk:Tonymet#February 2024|this note]] I left at the sock's talk page. Closing, thanks for the ping. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x[[User:0xDeadbeef|<span style="text-transform:uppercase;color:black">'''Deadbeef'''</span>]]</span>→∞ ([[User talk:0xDeadbeef#top|talk to me]]) 13:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
-----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. -->
 ===03 March 2024===
 {{SPI case status|}}