User talk:GiantSnowman

2A02:C7F:9E12:8F00:0:0:0:0/64

Can we please explain which block this user is evading, and any evidence you may have to support that? Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

IP range used by Woking123 (talk · contribs) who was blocked by @Yunshui:. GiantSnowman 11:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

(Keeping discussion in one place.) Thanks, and I found the AN post. But I asked for any evidence you may have to that these are operated for the same person. And I see Legacypac was asking for similar at AN. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

As I explained at the ARBCOM talk page, it's a clear case of DUCK - same editing pattern, same articles, same content. See also here where @SilkTork: agreed it is a sock. GiantSnowman 11:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I see no agreement from SilkTork that it was a sock in that discussion. Only that they note that the user is blocked as a suspected sock. A note and block that YOU made. You're basically saying that because someone saw that you blocked them based on personal suspicion, that they therefor agree with your suspicion. That's simply not how that works. You may feel it's a clear case of duck, but not only is that not a policy, it's not even a guideline. It's an essay which holds no basis in policy. But even if it was a clear case of duck, that doesn't grant you the discretionary sanction rights. You still need some actual evidence to back up your claim that they're a sock. Otherwise we'd be a complete wild west where anyone could block anyone and simply claim that they're a sock of any randomly blocked editor they choose. Considering you recently blocked an IP, for an edit that was not only correct but also sourced, and you then reverted to the incorrect stats, I'd also like to see your evidence that this range here is really used by this Woking123 because that range is not among the confirmed socks of that account, nor is any other IP for that matter.84.219.252.47 (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi there mystery IP - see the comment that "I'm OK with the revert and block of 2a02:c7f:9e12:8f00:6c51:14d8:1b23:f46c as they made the same edit on the article as User:Cnomis who is blocked as a sock of User:Woking123". If you want policy, see WP:BLOCKEVASION - "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule". There is no obligation to revert, but many do so, including me. GiantSnowman 08:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, that's not agreeing with the supposition that they're a sock, it's simply noting that they are indeed blocked. It may be that they do agree, but that's not quite what they are saying. That they are fine with blocking someone based on doing the same edit as someone blocked does not necessarily mean that they think that they're the same person as they could be fine with doing so for any number of reasons. If the edit in question is correct (and given recent history, there's actually quite good odds of that being the case), plenty of others will make the same edit. Claiming that because someone makes the same edit as another user is evidence in and off itself, of those being the same user, is absurd and someone you don't actually believe as evidenced by that you've blocked users making correct and sourced edits for "vandalism" (see my comments on the evidence talkpage for the arbcom case). You've essentially put several articles in a state of being impossible to correct now because you believe any correction to what the source is currently saying, to being done by a sock, simply based on that they are making "the same edit", which is obvious that they would since the edit was correct, so anyone else correcting it would obviously be the same. So to call on blockevasion as the policy for which to block, is simply not not correct here, because you were not asked under what policy you issued the block, we asked you what evidence you based your claim that they are the same user on, a claim you still have provided no evidence for and if you're unable to back up, I might point out that WP:ASPERSIONS exist. So to reiterate, please, what evidence are you basing the claim that they are the same person on? That they are making the same edit, is very VERY insufficient. Especially considering WP:AGF also exist. 84.219.252.47 (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)