Jump to content

User talk:Berean Hunter/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10
Thank you. I'll take a look later today.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 13:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I checked the New Yorker link ... the title of their article is "The Julian Assange Show"; but within the body of the article, it clearly references "The World Tomorrow" as the title of the television program. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Barek. I was out longer than I thought I would be. I've seen the article talk page and agree. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


Since you have now acknowleged the original programme is still in production, then immediately restore that original article to the number one position on the disambiguation page - if you are truly unbiased as to how these articles appear. The original article should retain the number one position it has held for many many years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.189.5 (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you won't get far making demands like that. Let's try to keep focused on logical discussion on the article talk page.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

account deletion

Please delete the account 'superchargedone" I created this evening to respond and attempt to deal with users Barek, Sladen, et. al. Clearly the consensus of all Wikipedia administration parties is that the Assange article in question -- which was deliberately superimposed last month, over top of the original article of the EXACT SAME program name -- will remain at the number one spot, and in the number one position on the disambiguation page thus replacing the original article which was extant for many years.

Why don't you simply delete the original article for our broadcast of The World Tomorrow (1934) program altogether, while you are at it.

Respectfully,

Garner Ted Aukerman The World Tomorrow Evangelistic Association SAG-AFTRA, Hollywood Office — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superchargedone (talk • contribs) 04:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Auckerman, Accounts aren't deleted. I would suggest that the approach has been flawed as it is filled with combativeness rather than cooperation. Notice how you made some headway by giving us the information about the other version of the show. From what I've seen, you've been making it hard for others to assist you. A new approach might be tried after things have cooled off a bit. Patience is a virtue.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice of ANI discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ongoing disruptive behavior by IP socks of Garnerted. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Barek; have commented there.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

In response to your message about my external links, I am not sure if there is a better way for me to supply pertinent information. I have found getting reliable information on how to get gun permits, reciprocity etc is tough. Wikipedia is a great resource for general information, but as a gun owner I appreciate knowing I can go to one site for information for when I travel, etc.

I read the external links guidelines and thought I was following them carefully.

You mentioned my link to California, and since California is a "may issue" state, the process of getting a permit can be especially cumbersome.

I hope that I may add additional links to help other gun owners who use Wikipedia, so they can learn more about the process as well as have easy to find resources to help them.

If I am going about this incorrectly, I would appreciate more specifics on what the problem is and/or how I can make my links better.

Sincerely,

Kyle Battis (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me Mr. Battis. It would probaly be better if we link directly to the State of California's site on this rather than the commercial-driven site. The more specific site is more germane to the article.
Regards,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of references

Dear Berean Hunter,

Good Noon!

You have called many references as 'reference spam' and have deleted them. I would like to tell that they were not reference spam. I simply googled the word panchakarma and then have given references which came there. I have not given any of the references to promote a particular website. You will see that Panchakarma is such an important therapy and I was surprised to see that there is no article on wilipedia about it. Thanks. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Abhijeet, you would agree that 9 refs on a single point is overkill, right?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 12:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The article got deleted 2 times in past i guess. When i started article, I done want it to be deleted. So I try to give maximum references. If they are not needed, fine. They can always be removed. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Newbie

Hi,

I received a message from you re: canvassing. I suppose I am looking for assistance with an issue I'm having, but I don't know any users (I picked a topic and posed a question to those who edited the topic in order to ask for assistance). I don't know any of their previous views, just that they are regular contributors. If you're interested, perhaps you can give me a bit of assistance, yourself. The remainder of this message is copy-pasted, and is pretty much identical to the message I sent to others (excluding a bit of minor personalisation).

I've recently been editing a page called "RINJ," specifically the section titled, "Controversy" (I had originally tried inserting the relevant pieces of information into the main body of the article, but it was quickly deleted). Another user, who I suspect is aligned with the group RINJ and Wikipedia editor Micheal O'Brien, has been removing my edits and calling them vandalism. I admit I am a novice editor of Wikipedia, but I am not a novice user of encyclopedias or uneducated about the subject matter. Personally, I question the validity of the entry in the first place, as it seems very much to be a vanity page rather than an entry into an encyclopedia, but it was already challenged by someone else, I believe. Anyway, I was hoping you would take a look at RINJ and perhaps give me your input on the subject, and consider lending your support in ensuring the page is complete. Much appreciated.

BestDef (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me. Yes, you don't want to canvass other editors and any that respond to it may be disregarded when attempting to reach consensus. Instead, consider whether filing a request for comment or seeking dispute resolution are paths that you wish to take.
I may look into the dispute you are having.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

THAT would be awesome. Thanks loads. BestDef (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Word of thanks...

Berean—Thanks for the reference added to my Hopwood draft. I will use it. It allowed me to track down who R.W. must be in the obituary, and now I can give better credit. There aren't too many WWI RN admirals with those initials (like only one) and the one it is, is quite illustrious. Appreciate your help. Since I'm sure I won't be able to use the artwork, can you think of a place to look for an image of Hopwood other than Google images ☺ Best, JMOprof (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

No, that R.W. can't be right. He died in 1933, and the obituary came out in 1950 ☹ JMOprof (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I did manage to find a British general named Hopwood in the LOC archives but not the RA Hopwood that we are looking for. I did find another Hopwood that we have an article for and will upload that shortly. I'll keep looking...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
G'Day, Berean - Thank you again. Are you on the left or right side of the pond? There is a Mererid Hopwood, Welsh poet, and maybe(?) a granddaughter. Do you have genealogical skills? ☺ Hopwood's wife was Gladys Whitmore. I'm a member of Ancestry.com, but I only pay the US fare. I'll check anyway. There is this site http://allpoetry.com/poem/8628029-The_Laws_of_the_Navy-by-Ronald_A_Hopwood Do you think an image cut down like that would pass muster as representative of a larger work? And when we get done, would you like to join with me to submit a DYK that... Rear Admiral Ronald Arthur Hopwood (1868 - 1949) was referred to as the "poet laureate" of the Royal Navy by Time Magazine? Spending my afternoon at the library. Best, JMOprof (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll see about Mererid to RA Hopwood connection via HeritageQuest. Will respond later...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
A very worthy candidate, which should make for an interesting article. See Ronald A. Hopwood 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
JMOprof's working article is here. I'm sure he would appreciate any help. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Berean Hunter. You have new messages at Falcon8765's talk page.
Message added 05:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Falcon8765 (TALK) 05:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Walsh

That's a little irritating, to be honest. I understand the idea behind it, but really... it's a waste of our time for them to continually do this. Unless they're going to be removing this stuff after the semester is over, this is pretty much the equivalent of vandalizing a page. Yeesh, they should just block the entire campus from editing if this is what they're going to do. Like the article said, there's not a lot of us left and we don't have time for one professor's cute little idea to troll the internet. I mean, it's easy for him to handwave this away as an "educational" experience, but it's kind of like sticking gum on the top of a park bench. Not only is it rude with very little benefit outside of the person sticking the gum on the seat, but not all of the gum will get removed and eventually the park bench will be pretty much unusable unless you're exceptionally desperate. Sorry, just ranting. I have stuff like that. There's no real benefit to what he's doing besides him getting a hard-on because he managed to vandalize and dupe various sites on the internet. He doesn't have to keep repeating it- he's already proven his point.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I sympathize with you. It would have been more irritating if we had not routed them and their handiwork out. This means that they may likely try this again so hopefully we catch it the next time it goes around. I guess it may give us the benefit of having to remain vigilant against this.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hi, Berean. I have just posted a message to ANI about a user/issue that you should be aware of. It's located at this section. NTox · talk 16:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, I'll take a look...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Berean Hunter. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Replied, Cheers.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

"Villain of Wikipedia"

Would the real villain please stand up?

Thanks for sorting out my talk page. Maybe I can return the favour for your userpage, with a suggestion inspired by a current thread on ANI.

I didn't want to do it myself to your userpage in case it went down wrongly, but if someone like our charming IP had threatened to 1) have me held down 2) cut my throat 3) behead me (step 2 seems a bit superfluous, does it not?) then since I'd regard him as evidently a very serious fellow, I'd be looking to add "Villain of Wikipedia" (Almost sounds like a hereditary title, doesn't it?) to my list of barnstars & other kudos as it was obviously sincerely meant, and after all Garbo did keep his Iron Cross. Er, if I had a list of barnstars & other kudos Egg Centric 17:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I can think of at least a dozen editors more qualified who would probably wear that moniker well...most in the WikiDragon category. Usually, I would not list such things per WP:DENY although I always got a kick out of this threat which was especially funny because he was in Australia.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Fake memberships..?

How do I have someone look into memberships I suspect are fraudulent? BestDef (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly sure what you mean by fradulent but if you suspect that someone is a sockpuppet then you would file a case at this board. Please do read those pages and make careful consideration before you try anything. Accusing someone of sockpuppetry is a very serious matter and it may be considered uncivil if it ends up being baseless allegations. You will need to provide your evidence which will include making diffs.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I meant sockpuppet. I'll take your message under advisement. Thanks much.BestDef (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
So, the user in question has deleted his talk page. I believe this was done because of the nature of the conversations on Wikipedia - they're all done in the clear, so it's easy to see someone is raising concerns about a user. Can anything be done to revert it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BestDef (talk • contribs) 03:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Fae's ability to serve as administrator. As you are involved, it is recommended that you recuse but do not have to. You are free to participate in discussions. Please keep them civil and constructive. The thread is User:Fae. Thank you.—cyberpower ChatOnline 01:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject North Carolina

There is only two or three of us active right now, if you want to join. We don't have our own jackets yet, but you do get a fancy template for your user page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I've got that page open...which is what led me to your sandbox. :) I just haven't added my name yet.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Please feel free to play in my sandbox anytime you want. red slaw has some tips on the talk page and needs sourcing as well. I still hate the stuff, but the article is worthy as a cultural food. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I make white slaw and don't like the red either. I've got a few sources on Carolina barbecue. I left a message here for you last night about the sandbox article. I'll look red slaw over to see what I can do.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

May-June 2012 Edit Warring Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Necrophobia. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts. 2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.252.49 (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

That is the warning that I gave you. At the present, your edit lacks consensus and you will need to discuss this issue on the talk page. You do not get to force the edit into the article through edit-warring.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you want to get it. You are the one who started the edit-warring of what it was an addition to the article by pure academic interest. When I explained meticulously my points on "Talk", instead of replying, you just reverted my edit again. This is edit-warring on your part. I issued you the warning, 1. because I thought it was clear to you that you were part of the edit-warring too, if not the main responsible part, and 2. because when I filed the "Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring", the template asked me if I had warned the other part, and if not, to do so. There's not gonna be any consensus between us, simply because you aggressively reverted the edit stopping the "talk". Who loses? Wikipedia and the general public.

--92.118.252.49 (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Please review WP:BRD. You made an edit that I didn't agree with so I reverted...from there on, it is supposed to be a discussion where the editors of the article attempt to achieve consensus on the talk page. The edit war starts when someone decides to place it back in although it lacks consensus.
I would welcome other editors input at that page. I don't think that Wikipedia or our readers will lose anything.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I welcome other unbiased third views as well. But, indeed, Wikipedia and the readers are losing already, and the efforts of nice editors in here go without due recognition, due to deletionists who use "rollback" and other such tools, abusing their power, to revert contributions made in good-faith and call them "nonsense", despite Wikipedia's rules - which supposedly they protect. When I read this I thought of you:

The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely On Wikipedia --92.118.252.49 (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

No one is abusing you and there has been no misuse of rollback. And where did some "experienced" editor advise you of this?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy on edit-warring is not prescriptive given all the possible cases it has to address, except for the Wikipedia:3RR#The three-revert rule) bright-line policy: three reverts in 24 hours and you are guilty of edit-warring and you (should/are liable to) get banned for 24 hours. Berean Hunter's statement above that "The edit war starts when someone decides to place it back in although it lacks consensus" is I think factually wrong - there's no mention of that in the three strikes rule and I can't find anything in WP:BRD. WP:BRD does say "Do not edit war. The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D" - but anyway WP:BRD is not policy but simply a guideline. I think Berean Hunter was therefore edit-warring on Necrophobia on 3 June 2012, but not within 24 hours. However, I think that sometimes as in this case you simply need to edit war.
The reason I agree with the revert is that a claim of "the term was first introduced" is being made on the basis of a PhD dissertation. But it should be in a book or other widely publicized event - otherwise the term is not going to stick. It is defensible to add a reference to a PhD if a claim is being made that something was first discovered elsewhere, if the PhD actually predates that. Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for commenting. I disagree that there was any edit-warring on my part. Once BRD has begun, it is bad faith to ignore discussion and enforce one's will without consensus. What had been added should not have been and was promptly removed. Also, this went to the noticeboard already.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
It is always bad faith to ignore discussion and enforce one's will! The point about BRD is it can be used to break deadlock, but does not in itself justify anything. And other editors may not recognize, nor need they, that BRD has begun? Anyway, have a good day. Aarghdvaark (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

--92.118.252.49 (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Berean Hunter. You have new messages at DeltaQuad's talk page.
Message added 23:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

IRC cloak request.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

What is ref-spam?

You reverted an edit I did and referred to "ref-spam", but when I clicked on that term I got no definition form Wikipedia. Did I violate Wikipedia policy? If so, please refer me to the specific policy. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RagingDog (talk • contribs) 19:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Refspam calrification

Do I understand correctly that the issue of Refspam is where the reference resides on the web? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RagingDog (talk • contribs) 21:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I see this was answered on your talkpage. If you have any questions remaining, please ask.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

Hello Berean Hunter. You recently applied for a Wikimedia IRC cloak, but it looks like you forgot to register your nickname first. Could you please log on to IRC and do:

/msg NickServ REGISTER <password> <email>

where <password> is a password of your choice and <email> is your e-mail address? After you do that, please follow the instructions that are e-mailed to you to confirm your e-mail address. When you're done with that, I just need you to confirm your cloak request:

/msg MemoServ send wmfgc IRC cloak request

After you finish all of that, I'd be happy to get you a cloak. :-) If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. --Filip (§) 17:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you, Filip.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The cloak will be set in the next batch of cloakings, which should be very soon. --Filip (§) 18:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked IP

Thanks for letting me know. However, I did not disagree with his change (despite the way I worded the edit summary). If this infobox were about the entire campaign, it would be legitimate to cite the naval contribution, but I don't think they had much of anything to do with the siege. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Good enough. Just didn't want you getting frustrated with the IP...:)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Spam?

Just out of curiosity, what is one of my websites (howtoreallybuyaproperty.co.uk) doing on your references page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berean_Hunter/References) listed as a spammer? Have you been receiving spam from this domain or is there a user who has been adding links - and if so who?

Best Polishwanderer (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That was added on Feb 18, 2011. I also see that I removed one promo link from Houses in Poland on that day which is different but I picked up where someone had been trying to promote your site. If no one has been trying to promote it in a while, I'm not opposed to removing it from the list...just removed it. If someone works to promote it here again however, I will request that it be blacklisted. Fair enough?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 13:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

ScienceApologist

I don't understand why you say ScienceApologist isn't blocked or banned. He was banned by Arbcom, and indefinitely blocked. He was disruptive for years, and Arbcom finally took action against him. TimidGuy (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not know the details behind ScienceApologist other than he invoked the right to vanish and his block log was cleared and he is not listed at WP:BANNED. Do you know of an active ban against him? If so, would you please supply a link? Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
ScienceApologist's ban is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, down at the bottom of the page. Note that he had accumulated lots of temporary bans, changed to user Joshua P. Schroeder, and as that user got some more temporary bans before being blocked indefinitely on 21 Jan 2011:
  • Joshua P. Schroeder (talk · contribs) (formerly ScienceApologist) is blocked indefinitely, the first year of which block is made under the authority of #Discretionary sanctions. Further, the topic ban above is extended to run indefinitely. The block will be lifted, and the topic ban reset to the original expiration date, when and if Joshua P. Schroeder provides credible reassurances that he will not engage in tactics designed to circumvent, evade, or game his topic ban.
As detailed still further down, he then became VanishedUser314159 who was found to be controlling a sock puppet, with the sock puppet getting blocked for a year on 10 Dec 2011. VanishedUser314159's talk page is blanked, but the version of 20 March 2011 repeats the indefinite block as above (presumably that came over when Joshua P. Schroeder's page was moved to VanishedUser314159). What the deal is with the courtesy blanking I don't know. What to make of all this I also don't know, except just to log when he pops up again and block his sock puppets for a year if confirmed? Aarghdvaark (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello Aarghdvaark. Thank you for supplying this additional information. I was not familiar with the ArbCom case when I was assisting Berean Hunter to handle the SPI, so I based my advice on incomplete information. We have reopened the case. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Commenting in the wrong section

Hi, like this edit and more on other SPI pages, you're leaving your comments in the section for "Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admins". You're none of those things (yet :-) so you should leave your comments in the area "Comments by other users". --HighKing (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Whoops! Apologies Berean! I didn't know you could be a clerk and not an admin. Actually, that's something I'd be interested in doing myself. --HighKing (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

CSA flag RFC

Please contribute your comment/sources at Talk:Confederate States of America#RFC Infobox flag choice to select the flag representing an historic nation-state 1861-1865 from three alternatives, a flag _____ .

a) sourced as flown everywhere in the Confederacy, 1861-1864,
b) sourced as "not satisfactory" at the time 1863-1865, or
c) sourced as "never" seen by 1865 participants. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

BUGLE July 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Magic 8 ball

You repeatedly rolled back my edits of the Magic 8 Ball page in which I suggested a 1940 movie by The Three Stooges may have provided inspiration for the 8-ball representation. You demanded a citation. I provided a link to an off-site webpage that alternately displays two images from said movie, one of which shows a large "magic 8-ball" (their words) being examined by The Three Stooges in the manner of a crystal ball. You still removed my text. I think you're pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.74.87 (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. The link that you supplied is not considered a reliable source. Further, it appears that this is original research which we are not allowed to do. Your speculation remains precisely that. I made the effort to get the video and watch it and quite frankly, the assertion seems way off. The woman in the video is using it as a crystal ball ; not an 8-ball. There is the talk page entry where this has been discussed.
Also, if I may ask, why aren't you using your account to edit and communicate?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 12:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting spam on the article of Panchakarma Abhijeet Safai (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 10:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:DUCK and checkuser endorses

Hello Berean Hunter. I have noticed you have endorsed several requests for checkuser, linking to WP:DUCK and stating that there is an obvious relation between the listed accounts. An example of this is present here. Your comment on this case left me a little confused. You endorsed the request to confirm socking, but then state that the accounts appear the same (linking to WP:DUCK); if it was a "duck case" then no checkuser would be necessary, which contradicts your statement that you wanted checkuser confirmation. Which is it? I do not know now. Please try to be a little clearer. Also, as a personal preference, I'd prefer not to see clerks linking to WP:DUCK on checkuser cases as it gives people the wrong impression about how serious the application of the checkuser tool is. Thank you. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Deskana, I will amend my comments from now on to be clearer. It is my understanding that sometimes when there are DUCK cases, it is worthwhile to check for sleepers even when not specified. (As an example). No matter, I'll apply your advice going forward.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, but in such cases we are not checking to confirm the link (as you stated in that case). Thanks. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Your User page title

The "Berean Hunter" word is colored, and can you please tell me how to do that?-- ✯Earth100✯◕‿◕TalkContribs 15:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)(reply in my talk page please)

I've placed the code on your talk page with a close proximity of your sig color. Feel free to change and enjoy. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

err... i want the color to be exactly like yours in the talk page and the user page. Would you be so kind to do it please? Please find your time for it! -- ✯Earth100✯◕‿◕TalkContribs 04:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

And are you an administrator? -- ✯Earth100✯◕‿◕TalkContribs 04:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not an administrator. I've switched the color on yours to the same as mine now.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a LOT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earth100 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Vandal sock

Re your message: Thank you. I've blocked the duck. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

RfA

Berean Hunter, Perhaps its time for your knowledge, experience as an unquestionably valued and trusted member of Wikipedia, to consider and Accept an Administrative role on this project.--Hu12 (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your confidence and I'm honored that you think so highly of me. I hope to live up to your expectations and I thank you for the opportunity. Any advice or suggestions are welcome. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Once you've done the questions and are ready for it to go live, either you or I can just move it out of my userspace. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Berean, If you choose to accept the draft, I am confident that your experience, knowledge and consistently balanced approach will greatly benefit the project. It is nice that Hu12 recognized and acted upon it. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much; that is very kind of you.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Julian calendar". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 10 July 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Berean Hunter. You have new messages at TheGeneralUser's talk page.
Message added 19:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Julian calendar, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:Lord Roem (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dauster

I meant to ask for a CU but forgot, and don't know how to edit this to fix it! Dougweller (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like this was taken care of for you.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts

Found a few current accounts (from an older case) that are active and have added them to this SPI Case. Thoughts?--Hu12 (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I've commented in the case. A combination of blacklisting and salting may finally denature his/their motivations. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

4 million articles

We're getting real close to a natural benchmark. Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. 3,997,655 articles in English. How cool is that! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That is quite a marker. Four million articles would make one hell of a watchlist and a few neurotic vandal fighters, too. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Considering that Britannica has ca. 300,000 articles, the size is daunting. And a lot (not all) of our articles are significantly bigger than theirs. What was the first article in Wikipedia and what did it look like? Just a rhetorical musing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Wiki is so big that it even has an article for that: Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

List of Eagle Scouts

Trying to add John Swainson, and am having trouble with the table. Please take a look. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)  Done 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry

I saw your comment on my evidence for sockpuppetry page. Where did you get the idea that I am going to "sock again"?. I didn't say that to anyone. Heymister14 (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)heymister14

After just socking, you state "What if I want another username? So what? That's my decision." You weren't talking about a legitimate name change but rather illegitmate socking.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixing my user talk page

Howdy. Thank you for this. Hopefully it will help fix the archiving.--Rockfang (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that is the issue. I left comments at Misza13's talk page and hopefully someone else will also look. I'll start monitoring it and working on it but it may be slow over a period of days. I wish that there was a way to manually invoke the bot.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

POV Accusations

PLease do not refer to my contributions as POV.It is rather irritating,especially if it happens every time I edit Hunting,as seems to be the case the way with you. Please try to distinguish between vandals,biased people and unoffensive editors(like me)to some degree.Rwenonah (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Rwenonah, thank you for contacting me. I have left my concerns on the article talk page so that hopefully everyone may discuss and reach some form of consensus.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

And thank you for the heavy lifting

See User talk:DoRD#Thank you! --Shirt58 (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hamish Ross

Why didn't you indefinite block the IP's and they can still be used to edit on wikis after their short bans are over. I am only saying this in fear of another attack which is possibly more likely since one of the socks has been blocked because of me. Regards Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

IPs are never indefinitely blocked as that user will not always remain there. Your talk page was semi-protected, right? If so, IPs should not be able to post to your talk page at all. It is temporary but should help.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh right that now makes sense. Yeah my page is protected until mid August so hopefully be then I shouldn't be such a target for Hamish Ross. The only problem is the IP's were also posting on other talks especially EggCentic directing messages to me. Although this has died down as CUTKD fled. Many Thanks, Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Opting in

Hi, Berean, no one's commented, and at the moment you must be very pleased at the outpouring of support, but is there a reason why you haven't opted in for edit counts? Most who run do. Gives people more detail about your history. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Jesus, that was a lot of work. I updated the Talk page to reflect the counts now that he's opted in. I hope I did it right. Why isn't there a way to have it update itself? Sigh.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CUTKD

Just saw your comment there - tbh it seems a bit of a waste of time having that SPI open when everything was resolved in the Hamish Ross SPI. My fault really - I should have withdrawn it once the main Hamish Ross one was open. Egg Centric 16:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries, it is archived now.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Belated thanks for the advice...

... on the mark-block script. It is useful. However, I wanted to let you know that I knew full well that those users weren't blocked yet. I was deliberately holding off on blocking each sock until I had checked their edits and reverted everything that I could not personally vouch for as valid. With this particular banned sockpuppeteer, blocking the socks isn't particularly urgent (he typically discards a sock after a day or two, and sometimes after only a few edits, so blocking is only useful for the active ones -- and the autoblocks on whichever IPs he's actively using). Rather, the goal in finding his socks is to get rid of the valid-appearing nonsense that he likes to propagate throughout the encyclopedia, including finding previously undetected socks so their nonsense also can be expunged.

I'm happy to see that you are finally an RFA candidate, and I was glad to be able to add my support. --Orlady (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I know what those house pets can be like. :)
Yes, you had a lot of work with that one and did a good job. When some blocks have been issued but others aren't yet blocked, I may summarize the results for the sake of any patrolling admin as it makes it easier for them to see what remains. If it is clear that they won't be blocked, I don't bother. It wasn't unique to this case and I wasn't expecting you in particular to be responsible for it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, but I like to try to clean up after my pet socks (as well as my house pets). --Orlady (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

SPI

I notice that you are an active participant at SPI but are not (yet) an admin. Firstly, thanks for this, and secondly, how does an editor go about becoming involved or a 'clerk' in these investigations? Ankh.Morpork 22:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi AnkhMorpork, Thank you. You can post at the bottom of this page. There is currently a waiting list there. Please note that any editor may help provide evidence and comment so if you would like to help, you can try your hand at patrolling cases. We always like the additional help.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
And what does patrolling comprise of? Looking through the users contributions and highlighting relevant diffs? Ankh.Morpork 22:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
You can see it in this section and you may want to read the whole page since you are curious.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

User Fastballjohnd

You were a participant in the ANI discussion[1] about what should be done in regards to this user. I'm just letting you know that he may have created yet another sockpuppet account. I have opened an investigation[2] and have asked for a check user to be done. This message is a heads up. If you have any reply for me, write it here or at the ANI . I will keep a lookout....William 14:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree this is him and have endorsed the request.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Going out on a limb here ...

Gratz on your impending promotion, and very happy to see it. - Dank (push to talk) 16:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked yet as I'm getting on later than I expected. Thank you very much for the congratulations. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it is safe to say that as long as you don't go nuts and call Jimmy an asshat on his talkpage, you are getting the bit. Well, that would probably get and lose you votes and be a wash, but still. You have had it entirely too easy this week, and I'm saddened that you haven't gotten to enjoy the normal drama that is RfA ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Heh, I haven't had time to call anyone an asshat if I had wanted to. :) Been trying to get time freed up today to be here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Confusion

I wonder how many RfA commenters were (like me) confused into thinking you were the above editor? : ) - jc37 18:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I took some pause myself years ago when I realized that I had created a name that bore some similarity. Hopefully it hasn't been too confusing. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I also wanted to thank you for removing the shading from your signature. It made it well-nigh impossible for me to read on this comp. - jc37 19:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I had noticed that it rendered differently on different OS's and browsers. It even rendered quite differently on Firefox on GNU/Linux than it did on Firefox for Windows. Glad you can see this better now.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Told ya ;) I think the arrow is ok as long as it isn't over the name though. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Not a reflection on you, just a general thought: I think we should disallow shading in signatures per WP:ACCESS... - jc37 20:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on passing your RfA. You might interested in looking at the New Admin School or the admins' how-to guide before you get started with the mop. For words of caution, see the village stocks and the essay "Don't delete the Main Page"; without my handiwork those two pages might not have been created. Maxim(talk) 20:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations! Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Will read carefully and thoroughly. Thank you both.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

U can haz mopz!

Congratulations, Berean. There was never any doubt in my mind that you were an eminently suitable candidate for administrator, and it seems that the community unanimously agreed with that assessment. Now get to work already; there's lots of stuff to do at WP:SPI, WP:SCV can always use more hands, and I'm sure there are backlogs around you can hack at.

What, sleep? Didn't you read the fine print? Muahaha! — Coren (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Congrats! Now get to work! ;) but seriously, congrats. You're awesome and you'll be such a wonderful admin. Best wishes! Feel free to ask me if you need help with adminny things. Keilana|Parlez ici 20:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you and will do...:)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

If it weren't for the honor . . .

Time to mop up
Congratulations. Now go do something useful! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much...will try. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for your support...

I would like to thank everyone for your support and the kind words which I find humbling. I usually spend time observing and appreciating the work of others and I admit that I have been surprised that so many have taken note to remark in the RFA and give their appreciation.

I would also like to note that I was honored to have run simultaneously with several excellent candidates who will make for great administrators. I saw that there was clearly a good mood shared by many for the successes of this week and happy to see such positive spirit.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

American Civil War Military Strategy

Dear BH - Where is the article on military strategy for the the Civil War? I can't seem to locate it - it exists, does it not? 36hourblock (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello 36hourblock (ominous name :), I don't know of a singular article exiting on this subject and I imagine that it would be quite an undertaking if it did. Most of the strategies are actually addressed in the articles on campaigns and battles...sometimes in the articles on leaders. Perhaps the most significant article on ACW strategy itself that I know of would be the one on the Anaconda Plan which was the primary Union strategy in place.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

An undertaking, I agree, but can we create articles that deal with the general subject, and design one for Union Strategy, the other for Confederate Strategy? As a source, the following is a fine place to begin, on overview by McWhiney:

McWhiney, Grady. 1965. Who Whipped Whom? Confederate Defeat Re-examined. (Originally published in Civil War History, XI, No. 1 (march 1965) 5-26). Essays on the Civil War and Reconstruction Ed. Erwin Unger. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. New York. 67.59.92.60 (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Congratulations on passing RfA! WikiPuppies! (bark) 22:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both!
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Congrats and a question

Hello BH. I would like to add my congrats on your successful RFA. It is well deserved. And now to my question. You already endorsed my SPI here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pé de Chinelo last week. Do you have any idea how long it will be before it is acted on? I ask because the sock has begun editing again by making the exact same kind of genre change edits that are one of the hallmarks of their disruption on WikiP. Just to vent a little - it takes a minute or so to file a AIV report and those are acted on quickly (usually) - it took me the better part of 45 minutes to make sure the SPI was as thorough as I could make it but it is now it is just short of two weeks and this editor is still causing problems. It seems like an inverse proportion of work to results :( Other than bothering you with this is there something else that I could/should have done in this situation. My apologies for dumping all this on you but I thought I would ask since you are somewhat familiar with this. Cheers and again congrats. MarnetteD | Talk 18:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. Just wanted to let you know that MuZemike did close this case with a block tonight (my time) - I don't know if you have any feel from your time in clerking SPI cases that this has become the norm as far as response time is concerned but if it is I would just like to pass along that my experience is that a returning sock can do more damage that an IP on a vandalism spree. Thus, I wish they could get closed down a bit sooner. Do you think that there is a spot other than the drama board of AN/I that I might express this without seeming too negative. If not then please don't bother and best wishes with the mop and pail. MarnetteD | Talk 04:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
My apologies for the delay in your case. I can't give you a specific reason why this one took this long. The SPI cases need more patrolling editors and admins, especially the later, We have clerks and checkusers but the whole caseload of SPI isn't supposed to rest on their shoulders alone. SPI investigations is role-based and the primary shortage is the patrolling admins that are to review the cases. Those do not come from wihin the established SPI dept. (clerks & CUs) but rather from the admin community at large. It is also worth noting that non-admin editors which patrol cases can and sometimes do help as well.
If you would like to raise the question with the folks involved in SPI then post here and you may get other viewpoints. You may want to link to this thread.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I don't file SPI's very often so I don't have a good feel for how things go there. Your explanation helps and I may use the link provided to just to give them an idea how it looks to an outsider when I have more time. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Congrats!

One size fits all, sorry.

You have certainly earned the bit by your years of dedicated and good natured contribution. Your clean sweep certainly was well earned, and perhaps started a whole new era of a kinder and gentler RfA althought I doubt it.. I'm very glad you allowed me to co-nom you. Now get to work, we have socks to block at SPI...;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you...no hat? Thanks to both. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
No hat, but you had 160 in unanimous support, putting you at #26 at WP:100, impressive indeed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations! --j⚛e deckertalk 21:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the team. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Cheers!
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Amphibions

Hi Berean Hunter!

An editor continues to add the identical content from the charade on the Amphibian article (and Reptile article), however, this time onto the Skink article. I believe that this editor is the same editor, as the previous ones that have been blocked for this disruption. What should be done next? Thank you, -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 06:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, problem solved! Regards, -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 06:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Congratulations on passing RfA. You will make an excellent Administrator! Doug Coldwell talk 11:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much! :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Meetup

This might be interesting.[3] If Drmies, LadyofShalott and others attend, I would be very interested in you and I combining for a long day no-nighter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Possibly but it is too soon for me to know if I could attend. I've got a couple of different scheduling issues that I won't know about for a while yet and will have to wait and see. I've watchlisted the page to follow along.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Congratulations on your new admin-ness :) SarahStierch (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Yum! Thank you very much and the same to you as well. I see that you've been breaking in those tools, too.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Protecting Amphibian

Just a heads up, I believe you accidentally removed the move protection from Amphibian. It seems like there would be no reason to move that page (at least not without discussion), so perhaps you could add it back? Millermk (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Good catch, I've restored the move protection as it was before. Thank you for pointing that out.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Your block of User:Iamthemuffinman

Hi Berean Hunter, thanks for getting involved here. Personally I think the block on Iamthemuffinman was unnecessary as they had stopped (and AndytheGrump kept going). Last one by Iamthemuffinman was at .00 minutes ([4]), but the last one by AndytheGrump was at .03 minutes ([5]). And the first userspace attack was by AndytheGrump ([6]). While I agree that Iamthemuffinman used the worst language of the two, I'd ask you to reconsider the santion you imposed. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 13:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

And then there is the addition on my talk page ([7]) by AndytheGrump. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 13:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
This was a 24 hour block which is mild considering the level of attack language. It is unacceptable and we need to be sending out the right messages that it isn't going to be tolerated. As for Andy, I'm hoping that he calms down before he gets himself blocked.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree, but blocking one party and not the other is where my problem was (but I understand where you are coming from), especially since both parties had attacked the other after level 4 warnings. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 13:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
It seems that is how it has ended up after all. I was hoping to keep the disruption down and people from escalating drama. I appreciate your efforts in trying to stabilize the situation also.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment and your efforts as well. I'm creating a sort of timeline on my talk page of what happened, if you'd like to have a look. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 14:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
It does show Andy was provoked and that may help mitigate his block length. I also took Andy for his word and believed he has good reasons for his suspicions which is why I didn't block him.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't remember exactly what happened (one you can see on Iamthemuffinman's talk page and the other is at Talk:Phallus) but I've seen these two in disagreement with others before (though not with each other I believe). Which is the reason I was involved with this in the first place - I still had Iamthemuffinman's talk page watch listed. With Andy my only problem was that when you have been warned twice (and the other side has stopped) you really should give it up. Anyway thanks for your help :) Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 14:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wnnse Restarted

Hey Berean Hunter, i thought to inform you about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wnnse which i have restarted in light of discovering a new sockpuppet. I have given all the information and details on the sockpuppet investigations page. I think you should have look at it. Thanks! TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Now blocked and tagged.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

In case you missed my ping

I've volunteered you a bit, detail on my talk page in the "Question" section. I will be happy to do the same for you in the future when needed, but this is a situation that requires your particular skill set. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I do not know what was purpose of this [8] and all other related activities. The guy admitted that he is the same person. He openly edits the same pages and very easy to detect. But Hanzo was never a vandal. To the contrary, he created several hundred articles and made at least 80,000 edits from all accounts. He usually does "gnomish" edits with obvious improvements and better sourcing. I had no problem working with him even on the most controversial subjects, although we had some disputes and he fixed my edits on a number of occasions. It might be a good idea if Sjones23 just left this user alone and let uninvolved admins to look after him. My very best wishes (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
    • To My very best wishes, that edit was what I believed to be good faith, but unfortunately, it was an unintentional violation of WP:NPA while trying to restore HanzoHattori's name, since he was technically banned. And for this minor incident, I apologized for what I did because I did not intend to violate the policy in doing so, I knew what I did was wrong and I have already promised that I would not attack anyone since I am a very civil and fair person by nature. Anyway, I appreciate your concern, and since I am trying to get the situation resolved with a fellow admin, we just have to have patience and see what we can do to bring it to a positive resolution, that's all. :-) Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Looking into this and will reply tomorrow. You miss a good deal when you're off wiki for a couple of days and have to catch up on reading....
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

@Sjones. Sorry, I did not mean that anyone had any NPA problems. @Berean Hunter. As someone who initiated this ANI thread several years ago [9], I strongly doubt in validity of the banning discussion, giving the history of at least four editors involved, although I can not elaborate this point as something which truly belongs to the past. Thank you, My very best wishes (talk) 05:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

@My very best wishes. No hard feelings. I do not have any problems with the no personal attacks policy, as I have always followed it very clearly and NPA applies to everyone here. And, as such, I maintain a fairly strict policy advising against all personal attacks. Despite my concern over HanzoHattori/Niemti ignoring policies and recommendations even after he was banned from the project, I have already decided to disengage with the user in question until we come up with a resolution. :) Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward

After looking at this, my suggestion is that the various parties cease with the current lines of dialog as they don't seem to be very productive and focus on article work. The diffs presented do not constitute blockable offenses; I don't see attacks or particular incivility. Evidence would have to be more clear cut than this.

Niemti, you have asked for a chance to edit again as a member of the community so it would seem that you would want to be careful in your words and work to build collegial relationships with other editors especially those working in your areas of interests. You may well expect to have a few hurdles in your way as you chose to sock for several years which has caused some editors to rightfully lose trust in you...you will have to work to earn that back. You did not follow #1 in the offer but even as that may be ignored, #2 & #3 shouldn't be. If you promised to avoid incivility which was the chief cause of your ban, I haven't seen it and would prefer to hear you reinforce this. I would advise using a greater degree of self-control and ignoring things letting them roll off your back. This would help you with regards to #3 in the offer; don't give folks a reason to object to your return. Again, focus on editing and avoid controversy to rebuild editor trust.

For Sjones and others that may be watching Niemti, I'd suggest that you try to work with him and allow him the fair chance he has been given to return.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Berean Hunter, thank you so much for the very helpful response. I always maintain good faith and allow users who are unblocked another chance they have been given to return per the WP:ROPE clause. I did not intend to break Wikipedia protocol in doing so. I cooperate with users who are unbanned very well, though it can be very difficult at times. I'm glad we could resolve the situation about this, and your thoughts are always appreciated. By the way, are these comments towards me acceptable, since I wanted to avoid conflict before you responded to the situation? Other than that, I agree with you that we should just move forward and I will be always willing to give him another chance at being civil and being cooperative with us unless he becomes abusive. :-) Best wishes, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll jump in and say that they appear confrontational, but not unacceptable. This is where one of the best aspects of editing the largest encyclopedia in the world comes in to play. The two of you can "walk in the other direction" and have a very low chance of getting into a confrontation again. If this happens, there is a good chance that 6 months from now you two might be editing something together with no memory of the fact that you were once in this dispute. The only way for this positive, and not all that rare, outcome to occur is if you both pretend all that just happened didn't actually happen. I'll expand on that and say that if you have his talk page watchlisted, you should take it off. Ryan Vesey 18:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
All righty, then. Consider the situation resolved for now. Thanks for your time looking into this. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I was hoping Niemti would read this but last I looked he managed to get himself blocked. :/
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Only 48 hours. You might want to leave a note on his talk page. Given the most recent block, and trusting that the issue is not brought up by Sjones23, it might be appropriate to say that unprovoked continuation of this discussion would be a violation of #2 of the offer and will lead to a block. Ryan Vesey 19:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, I forgot to mention that Niemti was involved in an edit war at the Sakura Kasugano article over possible original research there. That one has resulted in his block over at AN. Anyway, considering that the situation has been resolved already, I think we're about done here. Thank you so very much for your time, everybody. It was the best I could do. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Just a note to Berean: I did follow-up and click the link that led to this discussion. As I willingly declared myself as "involved", I did not however look into the current block that Beebs applied. I assume that there actually was an edit war and/or violation of 3RR. Personally I hope that moving forward that N will keep his head down and edit in a quieter fashion; as I did invest myself in offering him a second chance. I did however think it proper that I express my appreciation to you for taking a look at the situation. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  23:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. I didn't fully look into Niemti's newer block but just noticed that it had happened. I'll look closer today.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

These two SPI's may be related based on this older blacklist case, and the more recent case here. not sure at how you combine cases at SPI, howerver it would appear there is some connection between the two. Cheers.--Hu12 (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

This edit seems to have added Berean Hunter to the Runtshit sockpuppets category, which is obviously unintended. Looking at the relevant edits, I am certain that the suggestion of a link is correct. The target of the abuse (an anti-Zionist Jew), the nature of the abuse (allegations of antisemitism, sourced to highly partisan and unreliable sources) and the style of account names, are all characteristic of Runtshit. I believe they should be merged, and a CU needs to be conducted for sleepers and other so-far undetected accounts. RolandR (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that this is him and will take care of the merge in the morning; will look into the CU request also. Thank you for catching that Hu12 and a good call on Roland's part for the behavior.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I'm going to postpone doing this as some of the scripts or their servers aren't working correctly at the moment. Fallout from this morning's technical glitch. Will do when that is corrected and functioning.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
This is now resolved.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
All of the accounts previously indeffed and tagged as socks of James Paolen have now been retagged as socks of Runtshit. But the account previously assumed to be the master was blocked for just 31 hours, and is no longer blocked. Obviously this should be indeffed too. Could you do this? RolandR (talk) 11:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Done. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser

Well it does avoid him wasting admin time with frivolous unblock requests, but as I said I don't mind either way. 2 lines of K303 16:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

We have more admins than checkusers. :) I don't mind if a checkuser is performed but we have to ask for the right reasons in the reports as policy mandates this.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cdctmom6712

Re: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cdctmom6712 ... is it worth doing a CU on user:Cdctmom1986, or is the quacking sufficient? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Heh, quacking is sufficient. I also see User:Cdctmom1099 is another, I believe. We may want to list these in the report then tag them.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't deal with the SPI processes enough ... can these be added in the body of the existing reported accounts, or should it be done by adding a new section below the existing report? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Nevermind, I see you already added them - thanks! :-) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

A question I have often wondered about

Sorry to have created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cyberhawk 5 the wrong way round. Bit how does one decide which way round is the right way? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Oldest accounts are always named as the masters. It is under Advanced clerking on this page.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Which makes perfect sense, thank you. I wonder why Twinkle doesn't work that out and solve the problem automatically. TW doesn't give folk much of a clue either, I fear. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
In that case, the socks currently allocated to Runtshit should probably be reassigned to Fumigate, who I believe was the earliest named vandal (some three months before Runtshit). Unless we want to name the real puppeteer. RolandR (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
If it is very long established, it is probably best left alone. At the present, there are 1413 socks in the category for him and we can subtract about 250 as IPs. That would be a lot of tags to correct. :) For Tim's case above, it was an easy call.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

SPI Continuation request

Hi, Due to the recent aggressive personal attacking behavior of the accuser, I had made some remarks here to continue the SPI. We expect other CU's comments, Thus I believe some more time is required for this closer. Kindly un-close this SPI. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I've reopened it for further review.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

99.251.150.62?

Hey, Berean Hunter, if you don't mind my asking: what's the deal with this IP? I saw his post on DB's page, then looked at his contribs, and I'm now thoroughly confused as to what's going on. Any insights? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

For the time being, I'm considering this a sock that is impersonating GabeMc to stir up trouble. Like you, I doubt that this is actually him.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I started an SPI to hopefully figure out who the puppeteer is. It might be someone actively editing. Ryan Vesey 18:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Hehe, I've got a lot of tabs open and was trying to sort that out. Dennis may also be able to shed some light on which sock it is. I vaguely remember and trying to find...
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
While archiving all our closed investigations, I noticed that you've closed tens of sockpuppet investigations in the past couple of days. Your efforts make the process tick over in a timely manner, and prevent a return to the enormous backlogs found in the days of yore. I believe this deserves to be recognised, and I hope you enjoy your Tireless Contributor Barnstar :-). Thank you so much! AGK [•] 17:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you AGK, It is good to know that I'm having a positive impact there and hopefully we can keep that backlog down. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Explain your motives

Regarding this:are you now prepared to"move to correct master", to use your words? And would you explain why you took my name from a stale SPI in which no evidence of socking was found and used it in this one? Radiopathy •talk• 00:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, yours was the name already attached to the case. I merely connected the dots to know which case this IP sock was related to. That is why I clarified the way I did. The IP was the one under scrutiny. I see that the case was moved to the IP name and closed.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. It was further clarified by User: Coren that neither myself nor another user were involved. Strange times here. Radiopathy •talk• 01:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Manning ANI

Thanks for your help You are right on the ANI. I didn't notice the discussion until just now I am making no claim against him of edit warring and I even revert my edit until such time as the discussion is complete with a consensus.TucsonDavidU.S.A. 01:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm now in agreement with User:Srich32977 in regards to our edits on Bradley Manning He explained it on the discussion on talk so I now understand his reasoning and will leave my self revert as is and will not revert him anymore on this point. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 02:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

SPI

Take a look at [10] and see what you think. I'm pretty strongly thinking it is the same person, and I have some experience in mediating there (and none editing there). At the very least, I'm convinced they are editing from the same geolocation, based on my experience with BigzMMA (which I was involved with there) and this current user, based strongly on their focus, but think there should be another set of eyes on it. I also tend to trust the judgement of the reporter, who has a very good track record both picking out socks, and saying when two claimed socks weren't related. Now 37 intersects. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Will look...
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Wineville Chicken Coop Murders page reverted

Thank You for your help regarding the 'Wineville Chicken Coop Murders' page. I noticed that an administrator, perhaps you, has addressed my concerns and reverted the page back to its original Historically correct status. Thank You again for your help.

Beaconmike (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't me. :) I was looking and thinking about it but someone else did it. I replied to the rest on your talk page.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

So that means...?

So what does that mean I'm off the hook or is there more stuff to go through? Tulisa Marshall '♥ Click On Me 20:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The case isn't finished. Checkuser request was simply declined for technical reasons so now other editors and admins review the case and may discuss or take action.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Well could you kindly tell that bloke who was accusing me; to kindly get a life, he has and this ain't no lie, gone all through my edits and reverted them and tagged me as block evasion and accused me as that hooch, I personally think it's him and he's seen me and thought "I'll do this," to take the heat away from him, I wouldn't mind betting all the other people have edited the pages and accused them of the same... Tulisa Marshall '♥ Click On Me 21:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I would advise waiting and having some patience for the case to bear out. You should also avoid making insults or being uncivil as that would not reflect well on you during this process. It may be a few days or a few hours for the case.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if that came out uncivil, I just don't like being accused of stuff I've never done and I'm sure most people would feel the same if they were in this position? So how would I find out about it. Tulisa Marshall '♥ Click On Me 21:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
How many of these can I give at once? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

About erroneous e-mail sent to you

Berean Hunter,

Thanks for notifying me about the bad e-mail. I wasn't trying to send anything to you or the other e-mail addresses that were listed. This is the only bad e-mail to have occurred so far so maybe it's just a glitch rather than something ominous. TL36 (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thank you; I'll delete it then. I would change my password for the yahoo account if I were you just in case someone has compromised the account.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Trans women and MOS

Can you go to WP:MOS and read the paragraph beginning with "Any person whose gender may be questioned..."?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point that I'm familiar with this and just stated earlier that it is a stupid guideline and the community screwed up. That is the point of my argument. If the only ones calling a person by their post-notability identity are LGBT rags and Wikipedia then quite summarily, Wikipedia screwed up. Mainstream sources are still using the historically correct name and identity and not what we have. We are supposed to be following sources not making up whacked guidelines that set us apart from them. I've made the statement that current media stories have not embraced his identity change although they did address it. After saying that he had an identity change, they went right back to calling him Karr and they still do. Wikipedia and LGBT rags are the exception to this and it reflects poorly on Wikipedia. Can you prove otherwise regarding current media treatment? I'm not asking for an Associated Press guideline (which I'm also familiar with); I'm asking for how this particular subject is reported. Common name policy trumps MOS guidelines.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
You're saying it's stupid. Can you show me what you want the guideline changed to?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, at the moment I would like to see this play out as an example before progressing further. This is a good case where the failures of the guideline are apparent. That said, bullet point #2 of MOS:IDENTITY should read something along the lines of:
"Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's gender at the time of notability as reflected within the prevalence of mainstream reliable sources. Identity changes thereafter should be dealt with chronologically but should always follow the conventions used with prevalence in mainstream sources."
This may need tweaked but is designed to follow historical accuracy as recorded in sources (the right way) and removes the doubts and confusion that results in the editor having to make a discretionary call which is then easily challenged (the wrong way). Actually, bullet point #1 should also follow the sources.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Please go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of style if you want to know what other Wikipedians say. Please also note that this has been discusses many times before, including at Archive 128. Georgia guy (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
You're preaching to the choir. Let me show you that I'm not a stranger to this ongoing discussion and was participating in it. Nothing in my position has changed. MOS is only a guideline and that is backed up by an ArbCom statement. We don't have to change the guideline to see the Reich page moved to Karr based on policy.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible issues

Hi, Berean Hunter. Sorry to bother you, but can you please take a thorough look at this ongoing AFD and this ongoing RfC at WP:VG? On the RfC, we are trying to gain a consensus on whether we should use "Top X lists" to determine notability for a video game character if it has significant coverage from a reliable source. Unfortunately, it seems that Niemti has been incivil, refuses to get the point, has been engaging in disruptive activity to prove a point as well as tag bombing and modifying other users' comments (which is strongly discouraged per WP:TPO) in these discussions since the last discussion ([11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]), even though we have tried several times to give him the fair chance to work with him and help clean up his edits, as I respect the community's decision to unban him because of Niemti's good faith edits ([17], [18], [19], [20], [21]). I find these issues rather puzzling, as Wikipedia is not a battleground. I have already contacted PresN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), another administrator, about the RfC and posted a note there). Given the fact that we might have run out of options (which I feel is a shame), and that I don't want to cause stir up drama over at ANI or AN, can you please give some helpful advice on what to do about this matter? Thank you, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not clear where he is being incivil. I've done a fair bit of looking and I realize that you are in content disputes with him but I don't see things being all that bad from my perspective. Maybe I've missed something here. If you feel that it is that bad I would suggest following dispute resolution options or posting in one of the public venues for wider community input. I note that other admins are in the discussion and I know they know how to get uninvolved assistance if it gets too heated.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay then. I believe the issues don't look too bad either, but I only wanted to make you aware of the situation and keep you updated. By the way, I was mostly uninvolved with the Charles Johnson (James Bond) article, except for its AFD. Also, I used the RfC as part of a dispute resolution to establish a consensus to determine a video game character's notability to see if it can be included as a separate page in the article guidelines (as noted in my proposal), but I, along with Sergecross73 (talk · contribs), felt that the discussion was getting us nowhere fast due to the apparently frustrating side-arguments and possible rants getting to me and to other users, so I contacted PresN about the RfC and posted a note on the RfC asking for other uninvolved users/administrators to participate as indicated in the difference in my last comment. I don't want to get blocked for edit warring over content disputes, which is forbidden, and I was only trying to help. Also, I have tried seeking community attention by posting the RfC notice at the Video games WikiProject, the policy village pump and the proposal village pump in hopes of getting others involved per this discussion on Sergecross73's talk page. For now, I've posted {{Uninvolved}} on the top of the article guidelines' page. Other than that, we'll see how these issues turn out. Thanks for looking into this matter and also for your comments on this situation. Best wishes, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

SPI

Hi Berean. What's the normal process for getting a CU check done after an SPI was filed without first requesting one and where it later may become necessary, and what is the prescribed method of drawing a clerk's attention to it? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, after a case is filed, any user may change the status of the case by adding a CU request if they can justify it within the grounds for checking. The procedure is here. Simply changing it to that CU request status is all that you have to do; it will be seen.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Berean. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry i dont find how add a comment there

Sorry i dont find how add a comment there. do i did that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsravan4 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If you notice that there is a link on the page that states "Click here to start a new topic" which will let you start a new section if that is what you are wanting to do. I've also left a welcome for you with some links that you may find helpful.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Another Kblott sock

96.42.251.190 is another sock of Kblott. [22] ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I have a strong reason to believe that Kblott is a bad hand account for User:DocKino, what do we need to do a CU? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I figured he probably was when I reverted him this morning. For the DocKino aspect, I would file a proper case at SPI unless you have evidence that can't make it into a report (if that is the case let me know). Make sure you have comparison diffs; you are much more likely to have a checkuser take your case. I've blocked the IP for a month.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. To clarify, (I am a SPI rookie) what types of diffs constitute evidence? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
You may want to read this and this to see what may be expected. Better if you see the checkusers' own words.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
What if I think Kblott has a double master, but both editors have been inactive for over 30 days? Is it worth putting all the diffs together if the two suspects are inactive? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Checkuser data is valid for 3 months...as long as they were editing within the last 90 days.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
What happens if the accused parties refuse to respond to the allegations? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
If your evidence is convincing, it won't matter. Lots of SPIs occur in absentia. In some cases, it is best not to notify the accused such as prolific masters or those that don't need to know per BEANS.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all the helpful advise. Is there any chance you might help us put the pieces together, or at least tell us when the pieces don't fit? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

And another. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Another. I suppose this falls under the legal definition of harassment, doesn't it? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this has most certainly crossed the line into legal harrassment and cyber-stalking IMO. And it justifies a CU or two. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I would leave the legal language out of it. I see your talk pages were both protected already. Just be aware that if you revert or tag other IPs and non-confirmed users, they can't write to your page during the protection period.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I just meant that this is serious enough to do a CU or two, especially when you consider that the IP is almost certainly using a proxy, so "outing" them really isn't an issue here IMO. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Yet another. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Blocked.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible wikihounding. Thank you. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Gettysburg: Talk

Hello, Berean Hunter. There was a big 'to-do' about the removal of the word 'defintive' from the Casualties section, the word 'defintive' was TEMPORARILY removed, and the word 'defintive' re-appeared on the 'Battle of Gettyburg' page. Isn't any discussion of the appropriateness of the word 'defintive' rendered irrelevant? That's why I actually removed it.--Donaldecoho (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Not irrelevant...finished maybe. :) We leave the older threads so that if someone needs to review the discussions for some reason they are there as a matter of record. They will be archived with time.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Even though we don't interact at all, but from the work you've done at most areas of Wikipedia, including WP:SPI, especially on the Investigations you've done on this troll, I say you are a truly remarkable admin Berean Hunter. Take this as a token of appreciation and keep up the good work :) Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 14:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Your block of Память

Entirely without merit I am afraid.

Perhaps you might like to monitor some of the anti-semitism (especially that directed against Islam) on the Russian wikipedia? That would be more useful. 80.90.43.9 (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC) [bc01d2f06150fc31f34b6d93c3afe9d8569e0884]

Archived at http://www.webcitation.org/6ADP4yafq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.90.43.9 (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
This was a checkuser-confirmed block with no doubts. The checkuser's words were "Unmistakably him".
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Deathcorekid666

Kinda saw that coming. :-) I reverted a couple of little edits that user did also. Kumioko (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he knew it was coming, too. I'm sure that it is someone we know. 8^D
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Dude723

I see that the talk page of Dude723 (talk · contribs), a recently-blocked problematic user with a penchant for posting fake articles about TV shows and films that exist only in their imagination, was recently edited by HelloWorldTestAccount (talk · contribs) shortly after Dude723's block. Could they be related? -- The Anome (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that HelloWorldTestAccount picked the names of who's pages to edit by trolling ANI. A checkuser looked into it and was able to figure out who this is and caught more of their socks.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Apology and question

Hi, Berean Hunter. I apologize if I caused any trouble if I wikihounded Niemti, as he claimed on WT:AN#Possible wikihounding. I was only trying to correct related problems on multiple articles (even obscure ones) and fix violations of relevant policies and guidelines, and were not intended for revenge or causing distress towards any user, as I am a civil and rule-abiding editor. I was only concerned that the user in question left what I assume to be hostile and confrontational claims about me "wikihounding" him (as indicated in his most recent edit summaries), which I felt that I clearly did not intend to do so as I have tried to avoid interacting with him. However, I am also concerned that these accusations are seemingly personal attacks towards me and is trying to provoke me, and also the user clearly indicates in the WT:AN discussion and this discussion that he holds a grudge over a perceived slight, and this is Wikihounding, which I do not tolerate. Can you please tell me your thoughts on this matter? Thank you, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Since the matter is currently at ANI, I'm going to let other eyes view it and offer their input. Fresh eyes on this may help lead to a resolution where none has worked so far.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay then. :-) Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks like it now has attention. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I have made a proposal to "focus on other article work for a while and we should have Niemti follow #3 in the standard offer, have him use a greater degree of self-control and ignoring things letting them roll off his back and want him to be careful in his words and work to build collegial relationships with other editors especially those working in his areas of interests". I would also want to have administrators comment on this matter as well. Is this proposal acceptable? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but per this discussion. I think we should take this to the arbitration committee about this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, I offered my advice on how I should help Niemti out as well, but I don't want to take the bad-faith-assuming advice by best wishes. Your responses would be very much appreciated. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea why Sjones decided that my advice was "bad-faith-assuming", but whatever. If he does not want to follow my advice and would like to continue following and reverting N. as he said [23], this is certainly his choice. Fine with me. My very best wishes (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I only wanted to get advice from an administrator about the situation, and I intend to follow it. I have announced my decision that I should just collaborate with N and help cooperate and mentor him. What are your thoughts on this matter? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure what is your idea of collaboration and cooperation, but your refusal to talk with him [24], blindly reverting his edits without talking [25],[26], and complaining about him at numerous talk pages certainly do not look as collaboration to me. My very best wishes (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, I did not want him posting on my talk page, and I have no problem working with N and helping him out on the latest issues. The reversal of the Ninja Turtles edits ([27] [28]) were well within WP:NFF and WP:FUTFILMS guidelines. I will be keep my patience until Berean Hunter has responded to this situation and see what he thinks about this, and I intend to be guided by what Berean says about this situation. I know it's very frustrating, but I am asking to see what he thinks about this. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm still holding out for more editor and admin input at ANI if it is forthcoming or that it may be resolved in some fashion. Is it possible to work this out between you? That would be the best possible outcome, I believe. Barring that, I'm not wanting to comment on this much and let the ANI take its course as I think that outside views are valuable here. I'm not ignoring this case but rather listening to others' input for the time being.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I think I will work this out between myself and I wanted to seek advice from various administrators about it as well, while I am waiting for a more positive solution to work out. Thanks for your comments. I appreciate them very much. I think outside views from other users and administrators are helpful as well, but I have agreed with Bbb23's concerns that I am hesitant to endorse sanctions as I am free to edit what I know is constructive. :-) Best wishes, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I just realized that according to the recent ANI discussion, Bbb23 and I felt that Niemti's "wikihounding" case was not substantiated after all, and the discussion probably was a misinterpretation of policy according to Sergecross73, since both Niemti and I have different theories and interpretations of our policies and guidelines and we have not broken any policy or done anything warranting any sort of discipline. As such, I do not choose to edit articles by searching his contribution history and do not watch his talk page. As what Betty Logan pointed out to me on her talk page, just because I get involved in disputes with him simply because you watch or edit the same articles does not mean it's isn't wikihounding. Does that make sense? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat, but then again I'm just getting coffee in me. :) I was under the impression that all of you were reaching a resolve. If you feel that it has then let the ANI thread die down and archive so that both of you can go on in peace.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Yep. It's my decision if I should stay away from Niemti so things do not escalate to anything that actually belongs at ANI. I take issue with Niemti being condescending with his comments to others in general, I don't especially think it's constructive. It's usually more of a "That was kind of rude" reaction than any violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. :) Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Just to keep you updated, the ANI discussion was closed, as no action was taken and the evidence was inconclusive. I know Niemti actually did not want any sanctions in the first place, but I am free to make my decision whether I should stay away from Niemti or not, and also to do whatever I think is constructive. As what Sergecross73 pointed out to me on the ANI, I think we should just not argue between us. If I should revert Niemti on the same article, I can take it to the talk page or drop a line at an appropriate WikiProject to get opinions. After all, I believe Niemti's condescending behavior in his comment to others is hard to follow according to me and Sergecross73. By the way, I tried to help Niemti out with the redirects to Japanese bandit on the Ishikawa Goemon pages, which was a simple series of errors, also on ANI, and it was resolved very quickly. Does this make sense? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
You made it work. Genius is in the brain of the doer, and the eyes of the beholder. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Cheers. I'm still bothered by why it was doing that to begin with...
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Empty SPI archive

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Turmerick. And can you see any reason to leave talk page access to Maryester, who claims to have made half a million edits and that I have claimed to be a Jew but am really an anti-Semite? Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Their 2nd unblock request has been denied and they haven't tried a third yet. There really isn't a need for them to have talk page access at this point; if they want to question checkuser results, they can do so via email.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Fast work

That was fast work handling User:Sperry55‎. Thanks Rjensen (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. That kind of thing is just disruptive in addition to being copyvios.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Berean. Sorry to disturb you, but can you please let me know if following other users around obsessively is considered "wikihounding", including articles that I have never edited before, while trying to help work on several articles that the same user edits?

My problem is that I was willing to help improve The Cabin in the Woods and help get it up to GA status, in which some other users are trying to improve, and started a discussion there as well as raising the announcement on on the relevant Wikiproject's main page. I did not intend to violate any policy or break Wikipedia protocol in doing so. The reason why I trying to expand the article and get it up to GA status was twofold, I am interested in expanding film articles to a significant degree and I am a member of the film article Wikiproject. In the GA discussion, I am concerned that although I apologized to a user who thought that I followed him around (as I did not truly intend for this to happen), explained my actions and was willing to offer some advice to the user while maintaining my civility in the same discussion, I assume that his response toward me was what I believe to be condescending and confusing as well, since I feel that I do not intend to follow any user around obsessively while trying to improve various articles and I did not mean to cause any disruption in doing so. Wikipedia policy states that checking a user's contributions are for collegiate and administrative purposes, and it should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress or out of revenge for a perceived slight, the correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles and it can cause disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. As I felt that the discussion was getting out of hand really quick, I felt that I should move forward by getting back to work on the article and ignoring the user in question. My question then, if following other users around obsessively on articles is considered "wikihounding" and also if the user's response is condescending and confrontational, should I avoid interacting with the user more if possible while I am trying to improve the article and let others help as well?

I understand that admin shopping or block shopping is unhelpful, and if I have done either of those things myself, I would like to owe you an apology in advance, as I do not intend to seek a block in the first place. I would very much appreciate hearing from you about this. Thank you, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


How much longer is this going to go on? Quite frankly, it's long outlived its shelf-life by now. — Ched :  ?  00:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
It is time to drop the stick and walk away, as not doing so is going to make you look worse than you perceive him to be. It isn't always about wrong or right, it is about getting along, and moving on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Very well, then. If that's the case, I sincerely apologize. Also, to Ched and Dennis, thank you very much for your helpful comments. I appreciate them very much, and I personally feel that this has gone far too long as well. So with that said, I understand that it is time to drop the stick and walk away from the carcass for good, as I feel that this is the best and fair option for me to take. After all, as Wikipedia is about getting along and moving forward in a collaborative and encyclopedic environment, it is not always what is right or wrong. As such, let's consider this discussion resolved, so that everyone should not be bothered about this again. :-) Best wishes, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Real life has been keeping me busy and I haven't had the time to keep up on this so I apologize for the late reply. I see the matter appears resolved and have nothing to add.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Anton88be

A couple of days ago you blocked this user for abusing multiple accounts. It seems as soon as the block expired they are right back at it: User:12sorensen45, and edit warring to add controversial material about ethnicity/nationality in various articles without engaging in talk page discussions. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is him and have blocked both accounts.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, it is much appreciated. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

your email to me

i never read -- much less commented on / edited -- the article on "machine gun."

nice try, though. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.68.101 (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that was someone else at the same IP address quite a while ago. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Something strange

is happening in here. Please see [29],[30], [31]. What do you think? My very best wishes (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to refrain comment for the moment owing partially to a lack of time but also as inconclusive from my initial inspection. I may not be available over the next day or so and if something becomes untenable, you may consider filing a case if you think there is sufficient evidence. Sorry that I couldn't be of more help at the moment.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
They look to me as multiple throw away accounts (e.g. one could compare edit summaries [32] and [33]), but whatever. I do not really edit in this area, just thought this needs be reported. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Beer and barbecue

The key to properly smoking ribs is having enough beer and good friends.

Had a blast last night, I'm glad you made the drive to join us. Got a good 4 hours sleep, and back to cracking on Wikipedia. Already ate a couple of left over ribs for breakfast. We need to do that again some time, see if we can invite up some other NC editors and do a barbecue themed meet-up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely! I had an excellent time and finally glad to meet you in person. There was good company and good food. (Note to Talk page stalkers: Dennis can cook barbecue ribs that are competition-worthy and I've had the pleasure of enjoying the leftovers this week...The chicken was excellent as well.). I'm now entertaining thoughts of getting a smoker.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Glad to share my Texan barbecue talents with you, and thanks for the compliment. Here is a link to one that looks similar to the one I have (except a foot shorter), although I haven't seen it up close. [34]. There are a few simple and easy tricks to using a propane smoker, but it is the least amount of work and mess. Wouldn't go back to pure wood now if you paid me. Had mine since 2008, shown right. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Mouth watering (talk page stalker) Looks delicious. DB I can hear Hank Hill saying "taste the meat not the heat" as I read your words. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD | Talk 02:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Range block

Hi. It looks like someone is caught in a range block you set - see User talk:Guglani1. It's not something I know much about, so I'm not sure what to do about it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is one that needs a LOT of attention, but can be worked on piecemeal fairly easily. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Piecemeal describes my free time right now perfectly...what little there is of it. I'll look and see what I might be able to do. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, no welcome message? Poor to me. :) ColeFan111 (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for tidying up after me at SPI. I think you've settled in really well as an SPI clerk and are doing a great job. Dennis has grumbled a bit that the clerks get very little guidance, so I just thought I'd let you know that in a situation where there's a registered user and some IPs, you are quite right that CU will not usually directly confirm that the IPs belong to the registered user, but will if it seems worth it check the registered user in the background, so that they can block the range they are operating from. In the case of WitsBlomstein, he was editing anonymously from three ranges that are now all blocked (Tim got one and I got two), which should slow him down for a while. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback; that is very helpful. I was trying to get him to state what he was after but his response to my question seemed to indicate that it wasn't a rangeblock. "This is likely a sock for a named account. This is not fishing, as it is established that WitsBlomstein is a sockpuppeteer, this is looking for additional accounts." I also took that to mean he was looking to connect to an established account rather than look for sleepers. Although I would have agreed at the time that the guy is clearly a sock, I could say the same thing about two dozen other editors that I see regularly in my watchlist but just haven't figured out who they are yet. I know they are socks. :)
I may have also been overly prudent about CU requirements after seeing justified critique earlier and was particularly thinking of his last line. I considered that my one and only mistake that I was going to allow myself to make concerning CU requests for a while (couple of days anyway :).
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
It aint' easy being a clerk, that is for sure. Having to read the minds of the socks AND the CU is a full time job. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

SPI case

I saw your comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lucy-marie, and I wondered how to go about asking for a checkuser on Eff Won to see if he's DeFacto. I have to say that now I'm fairly convinced it's DeFacto and not Lucy-marie, and I'm not sure how to go about changing the SPI. Thanks in advance, Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Under the date section you will see {{SPI case status|}} ...you will want to change that to {{SPI case status|curequest}} and then give your evidence in the comments area. I had seen your comments on your talk page yesterday which confused me because it looked like you did think it was DeFacto there but not on the case page. I'm headed back out the door and it will be several hours before I return. Hopefully helpful,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a great help. We've had a lot of trouble with both DeFacto and Lucy-marie, as they're both very active sockmasters and they have many similar traits. It's not the first time that several of us have been bouncing around on each other's talkpages trying to figure out who's the sockmaster of the latest troublesome sock. Thanks again, Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 08:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

User page protection

I noticed you just protected Hot Stop's user and user talk page indefinitely. Since most of the IP's harassment has been toward me, could I get some of that as well? I made a request for indefinite semi-protection of my talk page at RFPP but only got two weeks for some reason. Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I semi-protected his user page and header indefinitely but only one week for his talk page. Talk pages aren't made indefinite because IPs and non-confirmed users have to have a way to communicate with you (I believe this to be true but at the moment can't recall where this is written). I would be willing to semi-protect indef your userpage at your request, however.
Another option to consider would be if you created User talk:Evanh2008/IPtalk and left a clear message on your regular talk page and edit notice that if users find themselves unable to post to your talk that they may use the linked subpage to leave you a message. In that case, I would consider semi-indef on your talk page provided the subpage remains generally unprotected. This would keep troublemakers off your main talk page and you'll care less what they are scribbling in a less-seen page. I've seen this practice in the past.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the info and the clarification; I wasn't aware that standard procedure didn't allow for indeffing talk pages. Right now I'd rather not create a subpage for IPs, since that would most likely just encourage him, so I think I'll leave my talk page as is for now, and put in an RPP only when it becomes necessary. Cheers! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Block me

Block me, this is one of my unlocked accounts. Brooks53 (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Austin & Ally

Hi, Blue & Black colour is not compatible as you did on List of Austin & Ally episodes page, Blue & White is better please read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:78.183.91.26 September 2012. Turn it white back. Plus, don't RV everything without check it. Like you did on this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ICarly_(season_6)&diff=511385844&oldid=511383300 edit; it was unsourced. Thank you. 88.238.239.217 (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I revert socks on sight and don't do requests for them.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

SPI

I have just blocked User:Yeknom Dnalsli. You may wish to check his history and add it to any current or archived SPI cases. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Have noted it and closed the current SPI case. Thank you Kudpung,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

68.3.67.81

Hi. Regarding your message, the recent edits for which he/she has been given warnings on his/her talk page do not appear to warrant them.

In the first edit, 68.3.67.81 adds the subject's birth name to the Infobox, adds a Ref section with reflist template (although granted, there are no inline cites in the article at this time), adds a link to the Welsh Wikipedia version of the article (which while small, does exist), puts spaces after the equal signs in the metadata, and adds the subject's diminutive nickname to the opening line of the Lead.

In the second edit, he again adds the spaces, removes the spaces in the External links heading (which I do myself), and re-adds the unsourced nickname.

The only thing I can see for which he should've been warned would be adding the unsourced nickname, but in that case, a simply WP:V/WP:NOR warning would've sufficed. And besides, the entire article is missing cites, including the main paragraph, and the last sentence on his personal life. So what exactly is the basis of Altaïr's reaction? Nightscream (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Oops...misunderstanding here. I'm not responding concerning the warnings the user received but rather that I notice that this appears to be the same editor that was blocked months ago returning based on a comparison of the editing. I was wanting to make you aware.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Burton-on-Trent

Hello Berean. Back on August 24 you helped with out problem editor by applying a range block. Unfortunately the person returned today using this 90.199.99.87 (talk · contribs). They have stopped editing for the moment so there is no way to know if they will retrun to this IP or another one tomorrow. I wanted to let you know that I started this page User:MarnetteD/Burton-on-Trent Vandal to try and keep track of their IP hopping. Please feel free to add to it if you wish. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 22:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I've watchlisted this as well as the VCV page you have linked. If When they come back let me know and I'll look at another rangeblock as a possibility.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
he's back from his most recent block and right back to his old tricks. Considering the response I got the last time I reported him at AiV, I am loathe to repeat that, but he needs to be stopped. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Rhode Island

Can you restore R.I. indefinite move-protection (sysop)? I think you removed it by mistake, and it will expire tomorrow ([35]). Thank you Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. You're right...the move protection reset was a mistake. Thank you for pointing that out to me. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

974 British Airways bombing attempt

As you have been involved with the User:Ryan kirkpatrick sock puppet investigations, I think it is best that I ask your assistance in an investigation of User:josh600 as a possible sockpuppet of User:Ryan kirkpatrick in the authorship of the above article. Petebutt (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

josh600 does not have any deleted edits nor am I finding that the above article has ever been created. What am I missing?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Let's try 1974 British Airways bombing attempt by 600josh. :)
You should file an SPI case using the form on the page. I've deleted your previous attempt because it was not in an acceptable format. File with Ryan kirkpatrick as the master's name and then list your suspect along with the evidence why you think it is him. If you request a checkuser, make sure that you have diffs from the socks as that is required.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I,malmost certain it's him, but this sockpuppet has not been around long enough to do much yet. Is there a wait and see list?Petebutt (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Note

This is too funny for words. I'm about as Jewish as the Pope. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

And now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to Temple, to get a new yarmulke, a new prayer shawl, and the revised edition of The Complete IP-diot's Guide to Anti-Semitism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, he's tilting at windmills and is in good need of a beating by the clue-bat.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

User 75.80.134.142

Sorry to bother you, but several Articles on my Watchlist were edited by this User and I went to their Talk Page and noticed that this User has been repeatedly warned and previously blocked. The main problem is the User constantly adds Categories to Articles that are inappropriate even after being repeatedly warned about it. I randomly checked 10 of this Users edits in the past week and 9 out of 10 were either reverted by someone else or needed to be reverted by me. I don't mind going through this Users edits (of which their are very many) to check which ones need to be reverted and fix them; as long as the User is stopped (as I can't do this indefinitely). I would assume Good Faith by the User, but they've been repeatedly warned and have continued. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingQueenPrince (talk • contribs) 03:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Heads up

See here. S-protection for WP:AN is in order as well. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, Materialscientist has taken care of the IP. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I think he is doing a fine job of displaying what he is about and convincing others to ban him. Maybe we should leave the next one so folks can see. 8^D
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Typo?

Shouldn't the block notice at User talk:173.77.173.111 say "for one year", not "indefinitely"? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 07:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That was on purpose. The IP address itself has been blocked for one year but that editor has been indeffed. I'm sending a message to the editor. If he happens to be editing at that address in a year, we'll revisit the address block.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

TruSkoolHooligan

Hi. You recently blocked some sockpuppets per the result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheMetallican. 2 of the sockpuppets, BEATWEAKer and TruSkoolHooligan, are also active at Commons where they continually upload copyrighted material in violation of the Commons policy against such. Do you have the ability to block those accounts at Commons as well? Or if not, do you know how I would go about reporting them at Commons? I don't have nearly as much "behind the scenes" experience at Commons as I do at en.wiki, and don't know how or where to report these 2 accounts as sockpuppets:

--IllaZilla (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I have also found another Commons account that is a likely sockpuppet of TheMetallican: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:CaptainSpaulding1978 --IllaZilla (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I've notified a Commons admin to look this over. I'm heading back out the door at the moment and will follow up later. Thank you for letting me know,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, what's the problem in supplementing an article with material from a different one? There is no copyright on it and that sort of thing is done all over wikipedia.Noodleki (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyright meant copyright in your case. Replied on your talk page.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChuckWahYu

Hi, Thanks for closing this. Perhaps you got interrupted while doing so, because I think the sock didn't get blocked. Cheers! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

He's blocked. Check this.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
That's the sockmaster. The sock is not blocked... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Sure, he's blocked. You are placing the user in the box as the one who performed the block...the sock goes in the target box. The performer box is used like this.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Duh... Sjeez, I feel stupid (it's not the first time I make this mistake...) Sorry for bugging you unnecessarily! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Berean_Hunter/Archive_5&oldid=1144457564"