User talk:ToBeFree

Please click here to add a new message!

^{To add this button to your own talk page, you can use {{User new message large}}. It can easily be modified: Colorful examples are provided on the "Template:User new message large" page.}

Please note that you are currently not logged in.

This is not a general problem – you can leave a message anyway, but your IP address might change during the discussion, and I might end up talking to a wall. Creating an account does not require an e-mail address; all you need is a password and a name. You are not required to do this, but please consider creating an account before starting long-term interactions with other users. Thank you very much in advance.

Update on a ANEW update

In reference to this report, it seems that the IPs that were involved in edit warring were actually 1 person who is evading his ban for months now. See [1]. Interestingly, the IP user himself confirmed his personal feud with Abhishek0831996 (the reported editor).[2] Perhaps this block evader's edits shall surface again on ANEW anytime soon so kindly keep this in mind. Thanks Ratnahastin (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ratnahastin, thank you very much for the notification, but could you please report this at WP:SPI? I currently can't investigate this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes I had already reported to SPI [3] as one of the link I provided above confirms. This message was mere information, not exactly a request for any action. Thanks Ratnahastin (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thank you very much, Ratnahastin. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing on Portal: Current Events

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Disruptive Editing on Portal:Current Events

 – ToBeFree (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for responding and moving this to a second forum. Could you provide some guidance on how I should respond to the discussion? I'm quite concerned as it appears that the discussion has quickly deviated from its original scope and now includes numerous false accusations of wrongdoing against me. 33ABGirl (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for opinion

Greetings,

I wanted to ask for your experienced opinion about sockpuppets and reverting if this is alright.

For about two years now a certain sockmaster has been creating new accounts, often IP accounts, and brigading various Azerbaijan-Armenia related pages, and basically spamming edits. This is the link to the investigations Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Əzərbəyəniləri

I was wondering, what is the Wikipedia guideline on reverting the edits of a new, spam sock account? Is it generally accepted that all edits made by the sock should be reverted, or is it advised to consider the edits on a case-by-case basis?

It seems logical to me that reverting all the edits of a sock, regardless of whether they are of good quality, makes sense because that way the sockmaster is discouraged from creating new accounts continuously. This is especially the case given that as I said, this has been going on for two years now, and doesn't seem to end.

I wanted to ask you specifically because you were the person who blocked the original sockmaster back in 2021, when the case name was "ClassicYoghurt" Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ClassicYoghurt/Archive

Please share your thoughts on this, your opinion would be very appreciated. - Creffel (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Creffel, first of all, thanks for reporting and dealing with these. If you are 100% certain that an edit has been made by someone evading an active block, even if the IP/account is currently not blocked, you can freely revert it. You are not required to wait for a checkuser result when you are sure about this; you are not required to wait for the new sock to be blocked, and you are usually not required to perform a lot of work to check if an edit was good or not. When in doubt, you may revert. You are not required to, however, and you should of course not restore content that was clearly vandalism or a violation of the biographies of living persons policy. If a sockpuppet reverts vandalism, restoring the vandalism would obviously not be good.

The blocking policy says that "the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert."

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)