Jump to content

User talk:Berean Hunter/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Some minor assistance needed

Hello again Berean,

Could you block this IP for at least 24 hrs? He's being a top nuisance by ignoring multiple requests to cease adding unsourced OR info to this particular low-patrolled article, though I've asked him so many times by now to stop. [1] The article is entirely unsourced to start with, but he's changing already unsourced dubious material with even more totally unsourced ludicrous material. Multiple times i have asked him to stop through edit summaries, and through multiple warnings and requests I put on his talk page.[2] To absolutely no avail as you can see. I'm sure a block will make him understand that what this single-purpose bot-like IP is doing, is plain wrong on all grounds. Thanks in advance. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: he seems to have stopped. If he resumes, let me know.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Berean Hunter, he resumed some minutes ago through a different IP on the same range reinstating the same unsourced stuff. Seems to be one really annoying individual that clearly doesn't care at all. [3] - LouisAragon (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
And here again... I've seriously made at least 10+ reverts for the same disruptor... It really needs a block, if you happen to read this anytime soon. Some other users have reverted him too by now, but he keeps continuing. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
@LouisAragon: Real life been keeping me busy; sorry for missing your post for the last several days. I looked at this earlier and was waiting to see if he was back today and checked a few times but he was a no show. I imagine that he will have a different IP next time. Semi-protection is the plan.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey, no problem man! Seems he left it for now, which is alright. I'll let you know next time for semi-protection, etc. Bests and take care. - LouisAragon (talk) 04:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Arankwende

Hi Berean Hunter (nice talkpage, by the way! love the fencers), just letting you know that I've unblocked this user. Now that they've edited I was able to run a CU on their account, which strongly suggests they live several thousand miles and a number of international borders away from Sherlock4000 and his related sockpuppets. Given that this editor was only included in the SPI on the basis of a single, non-disruptive and policy-compliant edit, and given that their Wikipedia career predates Sherlock4000's by a couple of years (Arankwende's first edit, since deleted, was in 2006), I believe it's appropriate to give them the benefit of the doubt. If you diagree, drop me a line. All the best, Yunshui 雲水 12:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. For clarity, I believe there is an SEO/PR group at work on that article. These failed block appeals seem to confirm MEAT. Hat tip to Kuru for finding this account via deleted contribs. I don't disagree with your unblocking and giving the benefit of a doubt though.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

SPI clerkship

I have, as you can see, been an editor for something over nine years and an admin for over eight. I am, I feel, in good standing; my only block ever was an error by a recently appointed admin which was quickly rectified. I have, as you probably know, made my main Wikipedia activity suppression of vandalism and preservation of existing articles, although I have created a sizeable number of articles in the past. I would like to be trained as an SPI clerk; while it is fair to say that I would like ultimately to possess checkuser ability, I recognize that this is not granted lightly or to many editors; but I would nevertheless like to be considered for SPI responsibility. The Wikipedia page instructs hopefuls to contact any Checkuser, so here I am. If you feel another CU should be asked, then OK. I do not have as much time available, perhaps, as some editors, but my activity is obviously available for your inspection. I would appreciate your comment. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Reading list

On the last page is a link to add your name on the current waiting list for candidates. It is not order-based and candidates may be chosen at any time. You should begin working cases as an admin as well as observing others. I think you certainly have the qualifications to be a clerk. The checkusers will discuss and evaluate you collectively and when they have reached a decision then you would be made first, a clerk trainee and later a full clerk if all goes well. I'm not a checkuser but have been a clerk before I became an admin in 2012. I would encourage you to add evidence to cases and comment to assist others. The reading list will give you a good start.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@Anthony Bradbury: It occurred to me that you might not have known that I had replied to you so I'm pinging to be sure. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I had seen your reply, and my lack of acknowledgement was rude; I apologise. I intend to follow up on the info provided, but for the next 4-6 weeks I have little spare time, so will do it when other things in my life quiet down a bit. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 10:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
No problem and no need to apologize. I understand how real life can be. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 21 July

Articles

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Coconuts31

I have no idea what this editor is thinking with most of their non-article edits and this is no exception. Are they admitting to being a blocked editor? Or something else? --NeilN talk to me 00:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: yes, they are the blocked sockmaster, Cdctmom6712 and trying to say that they have now turned a new leaf and compliant with Wiki rules. Their behavior is consistent with the blocked master and their second edit after they created their account was to ask why was Twinkle missing (which they were used to seeing) without understanding that only autoconfirmed accounts can see Twinkle. Bad tagging and bad warnings are their usual modus operandi along with not making much sense. They apparently found their way to the sock case without any notifications either on their talk page or pings within the report. The report closed on a technicality.
There is something else fishy here. The filer in this section is not new and I believe that we either have a good hand account or someone else's sock turning this one in. Good hand/bad hand would explain knowledge of the report. Both editors are supposed to be "new" and edit in the same areas and went through the Wikipedia Adventure. The edit summary here uses "Rv" on their first day as an editor and also "...fixed 5 typos". Compare to the other account's summary on the same edit, "Fixed 5 typos". On May 7, a confirmed Bambifan sock created this article which somehow Wikiman (account created May 8) found on May 22 and tagged for deletion citing WP:NFILM (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GoAnimate: The Movie).
@DoRD: Are the diffs I supplied above with summaries "fixed 5 typos" sufficient for a CU check for good hand/bad hand? If that comes back as negative, this might be worth checking against Bambifan101.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Oops, I just realized that DoRD hasn't edited in weeks (hope nothing is wrong). @Ponyo: could you be of assistance here? Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Everything in the Cdctmom6712 SPI archive is stale, however Coconuts31 is  Confirmed to WikiMan20152014. Hope this helps. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Ponyo. That is exactly what I thought. I'll be blocking them indef.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015

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 Nick-D (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokyogirl79 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 27 July 2015‎ (UTC)

Content dispute

The issue is about the article Nart saga and the etymology section which was improved by user:Bouron with Iranian/Indo-European[1] and Mongolian[2] options. The one-purpose account Krakkos and his earlier proxy ip's 188.158.78.79, 74.96.169.227, 96.255.251.165, 175.179.5.45 incessantly reverted the Mongolian etymology and the possible unprobability of the Iranian/Indo-European etymology since at least 22:09, 1 September 2012 with the following rv reasons:

1. nonsense[3]
2. per WP:fringe... ip is a sock[4]
3. Wrong. Source does not say such things like "problably".[5] -> this comment is aiming to claim a one-possibility etymology based on a simple POV.
4. undid ban user[6]
5. there is no "probably" in the source.. this was added by Tirgil..[7] -> in fact it was added by the ip 91.148.159.4 with the reason: "precisely the etymology of the word is debated, actually" (see: old revision, as edited by 91.148.159.4 at 14:08, 16 December 2009)
6. not in source[8]
7. another new sock of banned editor, how many times you try this?[9]
8. New sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34[10] -> what I decidedly reject.

Whoever this person is, he or she can't get with the simple fact that there are different possibilities of etymologizations. This can be only logical since John Colarusso (an expert on this issue) "...appends that Caucasian myths have common parallels within Indo-European, Turkic and Mongolic traditions."[source]. With regards, 89.15.238.153 (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015

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 Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Hillary_Clinton#Infobox_heading_survey closure

Since the discussion at Talk:Hillary_Clinton#Infobox_heading_survey has been closed as no consensus, and your locking of the page in the midpoint of the discussion has lead to the impression that this was the "right" version, I leave it to you to restore the status quo ante per WP:NO CONSENSUS. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be resolved now.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Help Me!!!

Hi Berean Hunter, Please unblock ip range from 42.83.86.0/24 is blocked by Berean Hunter is not a sockpuppet of Najaf ali bhayo. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.228.156.75 (talk) 07:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is. I see your current range has been blocked by another admin.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2015 (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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralizationsAreBad (talk • contribs) 15:39, 26 June 2015‎ (UTC)

Consistency of military ranks

You can't have it both ways. Either ALL of the ranks referred to in a section use abbreviations, or NONE of them should. Frankly, it shows more respect for the generals involved, and reads better, to spell out the ranks involved than to use the abbreviations. The abbreviation format in the article also looks amateurish. No modern historian uses it.

Roy Jaruk (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, no. If you read the style guides, you would see that you use the long form once and the abbreviation thereafter. You are incorrect on your other conclusions. Many historians will default to using last names only with no rank at all. So there is:

At least you said it was good faith  :)

Berean_Hunter,

I saw your revert, since CU's can't connect an IP to a named account per Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser_and_privacy_policy it stands to reason that non-CU can't do it either. I won't revert you, however, I will request you self revert. Thanks KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 17:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

When the user started editing with just their IP address, it became public information. There's a big warning about that somewhere. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm an SPI clerk and familiar with the policy. No one has done anything wrong here. I'd suggest that you ask the general question at ANI whether the inclusion of the IP within Diannaa's statement constitutes a breach of the CU policy. I contend that it does not. The discussion is certainly better than reverting and to have it answered at ANI will educate others so it is a good exercise. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIV, September 2015

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 Nick-D (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your actions at SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anarcocapitalista1981.

I've added another one, with diff evidence, 106.186.31.122 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), DIFF. — Cirt (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

And one more please: 106.184.4.164 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), with DIFF. — Cirt (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Yet another one, that's three (3) more: 106.184.2.207 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), with DIFF. — Cirt (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I've reopened the case but I've got to take care of some things in RL before I can have a look. 2-3 hours probably.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

IP is requesting an unblock. I've restored their user talk page history that they had previously page blanked. Check out the other user talk pages of the other blocked socks. They also had tried to page blank warnings, from multiple different users and an admin as well. Just an FYI, — Cirt (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

'However' and that SPI close

Regarding this, please see this by Strunk & White (scroll down to the word 'however'). Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I suppose that I'm guilty because I have had my old copy of the Elements of Style for 30+ years but have the habit myself of using 'however' in that way. I'm under the impression that it is more common usage even if considered bad style. See the thread below, "Duck case" point #2 as an example. For the purposes of the sock case, it strikes me as too common to delineate between editors and isn't telling enough.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, there was all the other evidence besides the improper use of 'however' for duckiness, but I know you all have to be careful about blocks. Regardless, I think one of the most telling things that this particular user was socking is that he hasn't edited for over two weeks. Since the SPI was filed, just a couple edits here and there. Prior to that, he was editing practically with a vengeance - and I mean that literally. Very pointy edits, hounding, and so on. Few of his edits were ever truly helpful for the sake of being helpful and encyclopedia-building. He was constantly fighting with others (mostly me) whilst doing everything he could to point out my flaws and bring up things from my editing history that were less-than-honorable. My guess is he was a sock of another account that had been blocked and the IP accounts reported on the SPI was an error in judgement on his part that gave away his ruse. I believe he hasn't been back with the named account to avoid scrutiny and keep the possibility of more evidence piling up. He had admitted several times to me when he started hounding my edits that he had edited here previously - and he refused to say whether that was with another account or an IP editing casually. No, I think with that admission plus the evidence I provided, he got nervous and has bailed. Since the SPI closed inconclusively, he may be back with the named account or he just may resurface with a new account. Time will tell, as it always does. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Duck case

Just wanted to tell you about a case that looks like WP:DUCK:

  1. Based on the original evidence as filed by LavaBaron, case looks quite strong just on behavioral evidence alone, looks like case of WP:DUCK.
  2. However, unfortunately both the connected parties (IP and user) showed up at the case page to post literally walls-of-text-postings that seems an attempt to obfuscate and confuse at the SPI.
  3. The interesting thing is these postings by Zeke1999 and 99.170.117.163 -- sometimes coming within mere minutes of each other -- seem to actually provide an even stronger case of WP:DUCK. see for example history link at the SPI case page, itself.

Thought I would come post to you, here, as the SPI case page itself is just getting to be walls-of-text for the (likely) socks to post at repeatedly almost ad nauseam.

Good luck,

— Cirt (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I've spent a good deal of time looking this over but unable to reach any conclusions yet. I'm going to take a break from it and look again later. The IP comes across as being much more WP savvy and I see enough differences that has me leaning towards them being different users. Meat is a possibility.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Take a look at the editing times in defense of each other. Very very very close together, basically on the heels of each other, you see? — Cirt (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Example within 41 minutes of each other posting. — Cirt (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
That is the only one that I've seen that was that close. I've got lots of open tabs related to the case and looking...
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh okay, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Update: Even closer, 13 minutes apart, same issue, same topic, same goals: 20:36, 28 September 2015, and 20:49, 28 September 2015. Even the edit summary is weird and DUCK: "comment for Zeke1999". — Cirt (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Even closer, three minutes apart, same issue, same page, presumably same goals: LavaBaron's edit (02:18, 29 September 2015) and Cirt's edit (02:21, 29 September 2015). Must be a duck! Sockpuppet? Meatpuppet? Or probably just coincidental? I have not replied there with an opinion on which (if any) of the suggestions presented as "possible cause" with which I could agree. Definitely not option 1 (my intentions have not been to confuse anyone); maybe leaning towards 2 (although any "amusing and entertaining ride" has not been by design, so the "just for the fun of it" would not apply); and 3 seems iffy, the "protest" is also in part due to seeing multiple comments where "the IP" has been referenced as doing this or doing that without a more "civil" approach, e.g. "may have", "appears to have" so forth, instead phrased to state false claims concerning conduct as if those were a fact - "'the IP', oh, we know they can't be trusted!"). In other instances paraphrasing what I (and others) have written to mean something else (or push POV), like on an edit of the SPI referencing my post on this page, where LavaBaron stated "which they are choosing not to use at this time" – that is not what I wrote, and can be interpreted as having a significantly different meaning than an account which has "never been used". (I was reminded of having previously registered an account when posting earlier on here, after asking if registering could help, e.g. with possibly avoiding what could appear to be, or may be, a systemic bias against IP editors). Ooh, I thought of something else which I found a bit odd. I noticed when reading comments (by LavaBaron) where the use of "Wow" was placed in response to a couple of my comments (I didn't realize those had such a "Wow" factor). In one instance "Wow. Just. Wow." in reply to my post (I wondered, "Why?", "What kind of comment is that?") and another where LavaBaron changed an initial post (on this talk page) from "Huh?" to "Wow" - which I thought seemed unusual and wondered "Why?". I think the answer could be along the same lines of LavaBaron stating "the IP" (mistakenly) as if knowing for certain (convinced of or preconceived notion) that the other editor and I are the same, because I noticed when earlier reading back through the threads on "Fringe theories" that the other editor had used "Wow!" in a reply to LavaBaron (here). Thus, I am thinking perhaps the "Wow" useage in replies to my posts are LavaBaron presuming (incorrectly) that the other editor and I are the same. That's funny. (should this go under the "Fringe theories" board?) What I perhaps find most disappointing is there does not seem to have been any helpful advice from any involved editors/admins, just accusations or more "evidence", although I do look at what Cirt wrote (choice 3) as potentially helpful in one way (defending passionately against false accusations might convince others of "guilt" even when that's not the truth). I've also noticed how many "disputes" go on around here (in viewing boards that I would have never looked at otherwise and thinking "well, this seems fairly 'normal' for Wikipedia"). Oh, and I noticed there must have apparently been 546 edits done in ~3 minutes (between LavaBaron and Cirt's posts, IDs 683247343-683246797), that's fascinating! :-) Anyway, have a good day, sorry to take up your space (and time, but you don't have to read if you do not wish to do so). 99.170.117.163 (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
For the time being, I'll have to say inconclusive leaning towards them being different people as above. It would be good for other editors, admins and clerks to also investigate the case. They may stop if they see that I'm looking as listed here. I suggest making sure that any evidence is placed in the case. I'm going to step aside for now.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Added, as requested, at DIFF. When taken all together, looks like WP:DUCK to me. Especially the edit summary of "comment for Zeke1999". — Cirt (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into this, both. They're now block-shopping me at ANI so I'm going to remove myself from involvement in the issue for now; not sure it's really worth risking a block as these are both lightly trafficked articles. A little promotionalism in this case isn't really the end of the world, I don't think. LavaBaron (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment:←(thanks for that, Cirt, I learned how to do it from one of your edits! Also a note: I was right, ended up with "edit conflict" due to time spent between first starting and clicking save page - luckily, I had copied the post to notepad before clicking) Hello, sorry if this comment could be taken as "intrusive" on the discussion and that such a "fuss" is being made about this, especially the time involved by other editors and/or admins, which I seriously and sincerely mean (and, yes, admittedly, my own time too). Note (or unrelated side-comment): while it's on my mind - interestingly, at least to me, this is not the first instance of having visited Berean Hunter's pages. I had done so previously, probably after seeing an edit made and curiously going to check out the user page, and among other (positive) impressions was delighted by the fencing graphics, wondering "how was that done?", "would be interesting to learn" etc. (back to my more pertinent thoughts) This entire matter is troubling, bugs the heck out of me in some ways. What started with an innocent minor edit (two more subsequently) on a page (Frank Gaffney) (uggh, I always seem to get the edit IDs backwards and have to switch them like I just did after a preview now, there has to be a better way or maybe with practice it will sink in..?), those done independently and coincidentally a little over a day after an edit by Zeke1999, has snowballed into multiple directions. While I can and do understand the concerns raised, I can truly state those are incorrect, as I really am not the same editor as Zeke1999, nor do we have any knowledge of each other (on WP nor anywhere) except starting with that first edit. Maybe part of the "problem" is how I can tend to be too verbose(?), if so, sorry. In part, this is due to feeling that I must defend myself against false accusations, therein is a "troubling" part of the affair. From my vantage point, there has been and continues to be what seems like a lack of GF (notably on the part of LavaBaron, to the point of appearing uncivil, not just towards the accused editors - myself and Zeke1999 - but also against other, more experienced editors). It's sad. A positive aspect, again from my viewpoint/experience, is there are things that I am learning about on WP that I may otherwise have not, e.g. reading the WP:DUCK and related ("witch hunt" *chuckle* sorry, no offense intended, just one of my many thoughts!) pages. I just do not know what to say (uhh, yeah right!?)... What I mean by this is what can I do to prove the claims are not true?? (that includes the "Meat is a possibility" theory, btw)  Please excuse if this seems disjointed, I am trying to be as concise as possible, but also want to express what is on my mind about the matter as it comes to mind. (taking awhile to write, with my "luck" will be an "edit conflict" when clicking to save, wouldn't be the first time - LOL) Something I noticed (one example), when looking at the links provided by Cirt (thank you!), is on the edit histories for Zeke1999 and I (aka, perhaps notoriously, "the IP"), I see where the aforementioned editor (Zeke1999) made an edit on page of the diff at the same time(!) when I made an edit on another page. (yay, positioned the IDs correctly this time!) Surely those cannot be the same person? I mean, seriously? Maybe I should register, would that help? Err, actually, I have an account, which has never been used, registered in 2008. And, (maybe I should not say, least not without first noting a "disclaimer"... there was no "nefarious" intentions, nothing wrong done to my knowledge, certainly not intentionally, never ever ever), the "history" of this IP is not my full history. I have used other IP addresses going back years before registering. I tend to edit "sporadically"... And, for inquiring minds (or "what's the next tangent in the 'conspiracy'?"), an explanation for previously using other IP addresses (never concurrently) is quite simple (why am I starting to feel now that anything I write has to be defended? bluntly, this sucks!) includes having had different ISPs or changes in service (e.g. dial-up, DSL) or editing from other locations than primary thru the years. Enough, thanks for your time, it is appreciated! And, I am very sorry you, either of you, have been drawn into this mess. Sincerely, (another note: oh, great, looks like Cirt has added something somewhere else, noticed when doing preview after having to paste in what I was trying to post earlier, so now I have to go over there and provide my side or defend myself there too? lovely, not!) 99.170.117.163 (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Wow. I don't even ... LavaBaron (talk) 02:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • As stated above, I'm going to step aside from this case and cease investigating it for now. There is no need to continue here. I suggest to all parties that both you and WP will likely benefit if you channel those energies into constructive work on articles. Doing good work on articles always reflects well on editors.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Excellent advice, Berean Hunter, and agreed! (besides, having written similar myself in one or more posts, how could I disagree?) Despite any (mis)perceptions of looking like a case of WP:DUCK, a more likely answer is something different, which is supported (btw) by comments Cirt made. I do not think there is enough "clear and convincing evidence" and you seemed to agree, thankfully. (I know for a fact there is no relation with the SPI editor). What I think (know), instead, starting with the initial erroneous accusations (perhaps due to an unintended logical fallacy by the accuser, possibly post hoc ergo propter hoc or similarly cum hoc ergo propter hoc, a "false cause"), incorrect claims of being a "sockpuppet", repeatedly posted on multiple boards/pages commencing after the SPI was filed, resulted in a case of "tickling a sleeping dragon" – Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus! And, later mentions of "walls of text" seemingly dismissed my thoughts or not caring what I had to say on the matter. Among other feelings, this tended to cause some anger from me, and "it's always best not to poke the bear." :-D
Something else I've noticed, one impression anyway, is that there seems to be plenty of this type of "disagreement" (or whatever else) on Wikipedia; how this can seemingly or does tend to cause editors to spend as much or more time "debating" (et cetera) than what or why most want to be here or would prefer to do. In glancing at and then perusing in some instances, various disputes and parties involved, it's glaring to see the change in their edit histories at the onset and during those instances. So, indeed, your advice is superb! Maybe an essay on the subject (or is there one?) would be good to have on WP (not that it would stop all instances, some are likely very necessary, e.g. cases where there is actually misbehavior and so forth requiring intervention). Oh, funny (how my mind works if nothing else, no offense by this), your name could be an anagram of sorts... with some (or this one as an example at least) cases, where suspicions leading to "hunting ducks" could instead be the "Hunter en-Bear" (the Hunter inside the Bear, i.e. being brought "inside" the subsequent developments of the bear having a reaction to being poked, heheh). Thanks, Berean Hunter! 99.170.117.163 (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Why?

With due respect, but I wonder why you blocked the voice Italians of Ethiopia in the exact version promoted by the banned vandal user:Til Eulenspiegel?...please, can you correct the issue? Thanks.--MilwaukeeJourn. (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article because I see socking going on. Established editors such as Marchjuly may still edit that article and I fully expect one of them to correct anything that needs corrected. You can request this edit on the article talk page as a new editor. If you are going to edit that article, I suggest that you let those editors know that you are the 64.xxx IP editor (who has the appearance of IP hopping). The version that I protected is not set in stone, I merely left the issue for the editors there to remedy.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Sincerely, I am a bit "surprised" by your answer....anyway, I will do as you suggest (I have always used IPs from Mc Donalds restaurants until now). Thanks the same.--MilwaukeeJourn. (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Since I was pinged in this thread, I guess it's OK to comment, but will do so at Talk:Italians of Ethiopia#Falsifications done by Ethiopian nationalists - Marchjuly (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Just read it and agree. Thank you for doing that.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
No worries. I slightly tweaked it, but the gist is the same. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with Marchjuly. Sincerely the first reversal was done by user Tileulenspiegel on my IP (64.134.155.25) addition with improvements ([4]) posted on 09/30/15. So per WP:STATUSQUO the good idea of reverting back should be done with the version of 64.134.155.25........and not back to the one promoted by the banned Ethiopian. But Marchjuly seems to forget ALSO that the tone was started to be offensive since the accusations of the Tileulenspeigel's socks: he accused me to be "fascist" only because I added a US journal reference about Dum Dum bullets....and I personally hate Mussolini and his regime because of the damage he has done to us Italians since 1936 (Fascists even deny their use of gas, and spent -in a stupid way, since we needed it- many millions of our Italian money to built a huge road infrastructure of which now practically nobody in Ethiopia is grateful!!) In other words, I felt offended and reacted consequently. Indeed what makes me sad is the understanding that a banned guy gets what he wants: I am going to stay away from Wikipedia articles on Ethiopia & Africa for a while! Regards, --MilwaukeeJourn. (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe that the revert has been implemented as you were requesting. For clarity, I was maintaining my impartiality on the issue and therefore hold no opinion concerning the content dispute.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully, this has all be resolved. For the record, I only suggested reverting back to that particular version because it seemed to be the most stable and the best place for other editors more knowledgable about the subject matter to begin assessing and cleaning things up. I didn't suggest doing so to give the "banned guy what he wants" or any editor in partcular what they want. It also did not click in my brain that MilwaukeeJourn and 64.134.155.25 are the same person for some reason even though that is kinda revealed above. I also didn't forget the edit sum of the other IP, but still don't feel that responding in a similar way was the best way to try and move forward. Typically, tit for tat is not the way to get things done on Wikipedia. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, no more problems thanks to serious & very good admins......Now let's focus on improving the article (IMHO this is the best course of action!). Regards to all of you. --MilwaukeeJourn. (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Question concerning the fencing graphics

(Please do not take this the wrong way) Whenever I look at your page – besides thinking the fencing graphics are really cool (I'd seen similar in a few, very few and far between, instances on other user pages, different graphics though) – I noticed when scrolling to the bottom of the page, how those can obscure the text. This is particularly noticeable when trying to read what is there (or add a comment). Is there any way of which you are aware where those can be moved out of focus (temporarily)? It could be entirely or mostly to do with the browser I am using though, I will try to see if any difference on another one (or tablet). Cheers! 99.170.117.163 (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen what it looks like on a smartphone or any small device. On my 22" Acer flat screen running Firefox on Ubuntu, the fencers are mostly out of the way and it only takes a minor scroll to see the last character or two. I also frequently rescale my font sizes on the fly using CTRL + or - which changes things a bit by moving the text rather than the fencers. I actually find the left fencer is a good marker to highlight my location where I'm reading. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
They obscure some of the text for me, too. I think I'll use them on my Talk page. Who wants to read what people post on one's Talk page anyway? Maybe the obscured version will be an improvement.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Insofar as viewing on a smartphone or tablet, neither have I (and no thanks! *grin* applies to all pages, btw, not singling out this one). Along a similar or same vein of thought of "small device", what you wrote illustrates a key factor. Also, when I wrote "browser" above was not the best choice of words (not exactly or only what I meant). Sure, viewing on different browsers could or would (likely) display somewhat differently, certain elements in the least, but that is not the explanation. I had tried adjusting magnification or "zoom" as well – it's not only "font size" though, rather everything rendered is affected when using "CTRL + or -" on IE and I think is default on Firefox too, but there is an option on Firefox to specify the "zoom" to change only text size ("ALT"→"View"→"Zoom"→"Zoom Text Only"). Of more significance is screen size and resolution, larger monitors (must be nice! *smile*) having more "real estate" and typically set at higher resolution (of course?) can result in display items appearing smaller in size (having more room). On this smaller monitor I am currently using, it is set at 1024x768 resolution. As a test, I temporarily increased resolution to maximum supported by graphics card and monitor, i.e. 1280x1024. At the higher resolution (on this 17" monitor), the graphics do not obscure nearly as much of the text (albeit everything decreases quite obviously in size, notably text becomes overly small to read). I've kept this in mind when making adjustments on layout, e.g. if resizing image "thumb" due to disliking how it displays or affects page presentation, then adjusting "zoom" level (to simulate how others might see at different resolution and such, trying to be perceptive of that) before saving. And, yes, I definitely see what you mean about the left fencer being a "good marker" when reading. :-)
Perhaps similar applies where Bbb23 sees text obscured (ooh, maybe placing a jumbo graphic centered on page could accomplish "improvement" mentioned?!? If so, don't tell anyone I suggested it! *chuckle*). 99.170.117.163 (talk) 07:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I was just going to post something similar. While unique, they are very distracting when trying to read the content of your talk page and they can cover the bottom right quarter of the screen. Is there any way that an editor can scroll past them, so they aren't always on the screen? Or maybe they are more suitable to your user page rather than your user talk page where the primary goal is communication, not creativity. Liz Read! Talk! 10:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to give this a bit of thought for coming up with a fix...I'm thinking that transparent gif, or span/div may be part of the solution but with a lack of coffee in me that is the best I can muster at the moment. ;)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Uh, oh, did I start something? Either of those might resolve it. I'd thought transparent gif when viewing previously. Another idea, two thoughts off top of my head (then, while coffee is great, what I need is some sleep): a "cheat" if it works, perhaps place "blank" space (message) area at the bottom of page, "hidden" text with "do not edit below this line" to allow scrolling down beyond where images partially obscure text at very bottom of page; or, swap the images out, move the two together to left side and flip them (mirror) placing a single smaller size (maybe reduce one a bit, i.e. 3 sizes) and put it on the right. :-) 99.170.117.163 (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Looks like they moved up to the middle of the page which is better. If you could shrink them, that would be ideal! Thanks for responding. Liz Read! Talk! 20:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
How's that Liz? Hehe, on a different talk page someone recommended increasing them but I've notched them back a bit.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Looks good, I agree with Liz. Your superb transfer parry seems to have done the trick in moving "offending blades" to another line. :-) The decreased image size helps too. If desired, could perhaps even move a bit more away from center as well (increase horizontal seperation), e.g. if a div (err it is, I see it's part of footer now after looking) can decrease "right" and "left" pixels to move closer to edge of page (or for that matter a negative number could be used, if wanting to give more "room" by having right-most figure partially off of the page edge). 99.170.117.163 (talk) 06:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

IP socking

I think the voluminous IP socking alone merited that indef block (there were several more IP socks than you posted, even). Just wanted to say that, as Adjwilley didn't mention it in his COIN comment. Softlavender (talk) 05:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I presumed that I probably missed some of them but I knew that I had enough to pursue resolution at COIN and set things up for an SPI case which I think will be eventually filed. I doubt that we are done with him.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

66.87.122.224

As you've probably noticed, this IP (who has now admitted to being McGath) continues to remove the reference to her book or, alternately, revert it to her preferred (spammy) version. I've left a rather detailed COI message on her talk page that I hope she will heed. Cheers, DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I see that it is now on the article talk page. I guess that it is time to let other editors join in for a consensus. maybe.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
The current objection appears to be lack of 3rd-party sourcing for the book. Isn't it true that a book can serve as its own source for the sake of a simple mention of its existence? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I think they would suggest that a third party ref would imply either critique or academic vetting. It will be interesting to see what people think.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sock of Catcreekcitycouncil

Chinatownyo is undoubtedly a sock of the above. Why? Who else would undo a two year old reversion of content on Agoura High School? here. The one thing all the many users that added that content in 13 were they were socks. Quack! John from Idegon (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

We usually like them to edit a bit to set a pattern and rarely make a decision on a single edit. But you could also be right. If he continues then you may want to file at SPI to get it on record. Thank you for being watchful.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Inquiry

Are you an administrator @ Wikipedia? Tapered (talk) 06:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tapered: Yes.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
At which forums did you post asking for comments on the Ecole Massacre plaque for the M-14 article? Tapered (talk) 12:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Please ignore. Found the info in small print. Tapered (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Please have a look @ my additional comments on the M-14 Talk page. Tapered (talk) 04:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

A range block of yours

Hi Berean, I've changed this block to allow logged in users edit as there is significant collateral (I just did a CheckUser). Hope that's okay with you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully that sock gas wearied of that range. I had checked the IP range for IP contribs that I could see and he was quite active since January with multiple IPs in that range. I presume that you are seeing multiple accounts that I can't see. Hopefully, he won't re-emerge. I have been monitoring requests for unblock looking for collateral but hadn't seen any.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Socks

Hi, Berean Hunter! Thank you for looking into this and this. I'm wondering if there is any way to know if these IPs are the same person? The edits and timing seem right (with the exception of no wrestling edits). If coming to you directly is not the right avenue for this, I apologise in advance and would ask that you please tell me who/where to go to instead. Bye for now.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @Bbb23: as well because I remembered he also looked into this case.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Which case? Don't make me figure it out. :-) There are so many.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Ha! Sorry! This one (you corrected it for me because I didn't file it properly).Cebr1979 (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Good for me; that'll teach you. :-) If you want to know if the IPs are Nmk12, I wouldn't be permitted to disclose that to you. If you want to know if they're behaviorally connected, then you should reopen the SPI and present your evidence. Unless Berean wants to deal with it on his own.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Uhmm... Hmm. I didn't necessarily want to know if the IPs were Nmk12 (at least not in the sense that I felt my personal knowledge would gain from it or anything or whatever... not sure if I'm wording that right?), I meant more in the sense of 'Are these IPs being used as unregistered socks?' I get what you're saying, though, it makes perfect sense that you wouldn't be able to disclose that so... (allow some seconds to think please... lol)... If I re-opened the SPI with these IPs included and they ended up being blocked as a result, common sense would reveal that they were Nmk12 whether I wanted to know or not! How about this: I have filed for some of the pages to be semi-protected (1, 2, 3/3.5) and (as of tomorrow) am heading out of town for the weekend anyways so maybe I'll just leave it for now and see what the situation looks like when I get back (probably Tuesday)? That work?Cebr1979 (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Common sense? Never heard of it. This is Wikipedia. A behavioral block doesn't state that x=y. It states that x is probably y. A CU may tell a CheckUser that x=y, but the CheckUser is not permitted to publicly disclose that. Carry on.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@Cebr1979: I don't know if that is the same editor so you may want to follow Bbb23's advice and file the SPI case after you get back from your trip. That will get the IPs in format for investigation and blocking considerations. I note that they aren't responding to the inquiries and warnings of multiple editors which is likely to get them blocked...maybe they will will respond then. If they are a run-of-the-mill sockmaster then they are probably getting kicks out of this squabble which spilled back to a WikiProject discussion board. You and Flyer22 may be inadvertently feeding a troll or if this were a new editor then you would likely create confusion and the appearance of disorganization. You both may want to reserve these disagreements for your own talk pages rather than IP talk pages.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: @Materialscientist: Hello again to the three of you! I have a quick question regarding sockpuppet investigations: The page states they "investigate whether two or more Wikipedia accounts are being abusively operated by the same person." Do IPs count? An IP isn't really an account so...? I've been dealing with this for days and days now and, given the editing pattern and pages being edited, I'm pretty sure this guy is the same as all of these IPs but, if only abusing one "account" is going to be a technicality that gets the whole thing ignored, I don't wanna be wasting my time filing something that's gonna go nowhere. Thanks in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You can open an SPI with a named account master and suspected puppet IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thank you.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Shuppiluliuma

Thanks for merging all the Lord of Rivendell SPIs under Shuppiluliuma. However, I can't seem to be able to access all the older Shuppiluliuma SPIs, the ones from before 2014. Athenean (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it is fixed now. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

SPI clerk

Hi Berean Hunter, is there no chance that I will become an SPI clerk? You removed me from the list. I would like to take training along with the group. Please reconsider your decision. That meltdown was a mistake and I apologized everyone for that on my talk page today and explained my actions. That was only bit off incident in my wiki career and will be the last. That's not real me. Thank you - Supdiop (T🔹C) 16:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I personally can't see that happening anytime within the next year or two but since nothing that we do (typically) is unilateral then you may ask at the talk page in a new section and see how others may respond. I don't mind having this questioned.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Berean Hunter, I will ask on the talk page. - Supdiop (T🔹C) 17:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Minor barnstar
For recognizing that this would be a special sort of horrifying torture given the context. And the edit gave me a good chortle, so thanks for that as well. Indubitably (Lara) 18:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • You and me both. But this is Tool we're talking about, so don't hold your breath for a timely release. They hope to be finished this year, but considering their history, that seems unlikely! Still, another album means another likely tour, and I've yet to see them perform live! Indubitably (Lara) 18:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I managed to get my hands on about 20 hours of different concerts that they did but ended up deleting it all after watching. Fan-based video leaves much to be desired. I was surprised that Maynard is usually in a costume (like Peter Gabriel in old Genesis) and he was at the back of the stage facing the opposite direction and usually with very little lighting. I reached the conclusion that he has perpetual stagefright. I wonder if his time in the army had something to do with it. You can still find those videos if you know where to look.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Ashtul

Hello, I was wondering about your recent indef of User:Ashtul. Am I missing something obvious in the SPI case when I can't see where it was decided these were actually socks? Nobody has posted there for over a month, and apparently Ashtul's data was stale? Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Data was stale for a checkuser but I made an analysis on behavior after examining both accounts' contribs.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
There were many similarities but here is a simple one to see; compare this edit summary with this one.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to explain. Those edit summaries seem more of an Israeli accent than necessarily the same person, and if you look at the combined articles without noticeboards and user pages of people active in the topic area, you get less than 10% combined out of their total contribs. But honestly I didn't come here to argue about your decision, it's just that you didn't note why you were closing the investigation so I was wondering.
As a side note, SPI is often used in this topic area by editors to get rid of their political opponents, mostly because you often don't need hard evidence and there's no appeal. So now there's a precedent and any editor with an Israeli accent editing the Susya page can be eliminated easily via SPI as an Ashtul sock. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Accent? I see it as wording choice:
  • Ashtul "reenter text removed without explanation"
  • Settleman "reeneter text I enter which was removed with no proper explanation "
...but this is just a single piece of evidence. Somehow, I doubt that any of my 40K+ edits that I would have just one summary begin "reenter text...". :)
We don't always state what our evidence is within a report. Sometimes this is because of BEANS and sometimes it is because we may bring it forward upon block appeals.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course you wouldn't have a summary with "reenter text". That's what I meant by "Israeli accent". How many summaries would you have with "restore content", though? Check your last 500, there's more than one. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Probably but that would only matter if I was being compared to another editor where that is also one of their summaries. One of the reasons why I brought this evidence up here is because someone states in the report that summaries were dissimilar and I didn't entirely agree. The case wasn't based on this single piece of evidence though. If he files an appeal then other admins can review the case.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Again, I didn't come here to question your decision. I had Ashtul's talk page on my watchlist, saw he was blocked, had a look at the SPI and didn't understand what happened. I'm sure you acted in good faith and I was just venting about SPI. Thanks for taking the time to answer. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome and no worries. Sometimes that happens. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Ruger Mini-14 RFC

Greetings. I'm putting a Request for Comment on the Ruger Mini-14 Talk Page regarding the debate about the Ecole Polytechnique Massacre image. In relation to the RFC, I'll be reinserting the image so that commenters can see it in context. Please leave it there for at least 2 weeks to see if comments accrue. Tapered (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I've also posted a notification of the RFC @ the point of view noticeboard. Tapered (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Jkwinter

Note that I've re-instated the block on Jkwinter (talk · contribs) here. Please feel free to reverse this action without consultation if there's a compelling rebuttal. Kuru (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

After looking at their contribs, it doesn't seem that they have changed their editing at all. Good block.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXV, October 2015

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 Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Joaquin Phoenix

Thank you for your message. I haven't been on in a while. I have forgotten what I edited Joaquin Phenix page and you didn't at least cut and paste on your message, it would've helped lol. Once I know what my edit was then I can cite a reliable source. So if you're able then please let me know. I try not to edit what I don't know to be fact. Thanks hope to hear from you soon. Sincerely, Miss Panda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss.Panda.1979 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Miss.Panda.1979: you will be hard-pressed to find a reliable source for the edit that you made. River was the older brother of Joaquin and not the younger.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Rothly Bladje

I'm puzzled. I don't see what you said happened.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23:, It is here. It also helps to see this version of their userpage and this is also related to this thread.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
So, let me see if I have this straight. The Jolly Bard wasn't renamed to Rothly Bladje. Rather, Rothly Bladje admitted that the two accounts were the same person. Do I have that right? (Before I posted this message here, I thought of the possibility of a rename, but I couldn't find any evidence of that.)--Bbb23 (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes. His contention is that he isn't the banned user for whom the case exists. He admits to socking but that was to get around being blocked.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
So, to be precise, I found two accounts to be confirmed (also anagrams), and that finding plus the admission leads you and others to a finding I never made. :-) You know, I could still check the guy if anyone wants me to.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh hell, I was just looking at his Talk page since last I looked. He's admitted it again. He somehow thinks that's fine. It's all wikidrivel. I've revoked his Talk page access. I don't see why any of us has to listen to him.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I figured that you might have chosen to do a CU if you felt it was warranted. He sounded like he was refuting the original CU finding and only CUs are in a position to discuss potential margins of error with their results. Betcha a dollar that he will be back. ;)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I also saved a bunch of e-mails: from the guy himself; another with off-wiki evidence; and from the steward I asked about a global lock. If Bbb23 you want them to archive them along with the rest of this guy's data on CUWiki, lemme know. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Tex249

Hi there; you have blocked this user as a sock of mdh249. The similarity of names is obvious, and the timing of edits is perhaps persuasive. Given the checkuser result reported in the SPI, is this a safe indef block? Not arguing, just asking.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 10:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I left a comment on their talk page. My decision was behavior-based which I felt was more compelling than naught.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Your Talk page

Three Fencing champions are all over your talk page, which doesn't allow us to read properly. --The Avengers (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yup, they stop me from operating your TOC properly. :( ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Huh? I don't have a problem with getting the TOC to work for me.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Your fencers linking to AN/I are directly over the TOC for me: [5] :( ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
You can take them to the left margin and allow the page to be free from their stunts.The Avengers (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I emailed Salvidrim! a screenshot as I see it and those fencers are quite small and in the margin on the left side. Maybe Salvidrim will post my screenshot so that you and others can see what I see. Without knowing exactly why, I'm inclined to blame Microsoft. :) They are notorious for not adhering to properly-derived standards and have a history of mucking things up. I use Ubuntu Linux with Firefox. The GNU Linux community generally adheres to standards much more closely.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I sent you a slew of screenshots back. I actually looks better on my phone XD ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Email must be running slow because I haven't received it yet. Is it possible to post my screenshot to wherever you posted yours? You have my permission. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Sent 20 mins after your e-mail. I'll resend it now. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
These are all over the place! Insanity for anyone trying to design in HTML/CSS, too. Clearly the industry hasn't wrapped its head around this problem very well. Back in '95, I remember going back and forth to different size monitors and browsers to preview things and it could be a nightmare when shooting for uniformity and consistency. The pdf format has retained its job security today.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
This is what i see . http://postimg.org/image/5kusio3zn/ The Avengers (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
That is very much like Salvidrim's first posting of a screenshot - Win 7, 8 or 10? I'm not sure what the fix is. I'll think on it...maybe position the TOC to the left. That still won't help what it seems to look like on Salvidrim's phone. I like the fencers but I may have to pull them if they are going to be in the way that much. I can't help but think this must make for more problems elsewhere on Wikipedia.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry I just got your message. Just thought it was a good idea. Will not do it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:80CE:C470:A8D4:E0B6:687C:80A8 (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world including WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Cheers. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Content dispute

Hi Bearen Hunter, I'm really sorry to bother you again but I didn't get any answer since 2 months. Unfortunately my investigation was archived a while ago. As I have pronounced the issue is about the article Nart saga and the etymology section which was improved by user:Bouron with Iranian/Indo-European[1] and Mongolian[2] options. The one-purpose account Krakkos and his earlier proxy ip's 188.158.78.79, 74.96.169.227, 96.255.251.165, 175.179.5.45 incessantly reverted the Mongolian etymology and the possible unprobability of the Iranian/Indo-European etymology since at least 22:09, 1 September 2012 with the following rv reasons:

1. nonsense [3]
2. per WP:fringe... ip is a sock [4]
3. Wrong. Source does not say such things like "problably". [5] -> this comment is aiming to claim a one-possibility etymology based on a simple POV.
4. undid ban user [6]
5. there is no "probably" in the source.. this was added by Tirgil.. [7] -> in fact it was added by the ip 91.148.159.4 with the reason: "precisely the etymology of the word is debated, actually" (see: old revision, as edited by 91.148.159.4 at 14:08, 16 December 2009)
6. not in source [8]
7. another new sock of banned editor, how many times you try this? [9]
8. New sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34 [10] -> what I decidedly reject.

Whoever this person is, he or she can't get with the simple fact that there are different possibilities of etymologizations. This can be only logical since John Colarusso (an expert on this issue) "...appends that Caucasian myths have common parallels within Indo-European, Turkic and Mongolic traditions."[source]. With regards, --89.204.139.132 (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi how are u doing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.77.191.58 (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Tex249#Blocked as a sockpuppet

See my post at the bottom. With the CU result being unrelated and the voluntary promise not to edit the one topic he's edited thus far, would you give him some WP:ROPE? M249 is a popular gun after all. We can be remain doubtful and unconvinced but I think it's worth giving it a chance, even though I would not be surprised if we end up reblocking down the road in a more conclusive way. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: You can go ahead and unblock per ROPE. I'll try to be optimistic that this editor has better things in store for their contributions.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Bowhunter pending changes

Bowhunter does not seem to have experienced much vandalism in the past year. Pending changes protection was applied by you in January 2104. Is there still a need for it? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:4060:393:581D:3D36 (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there any reason that you are not logging in to edit from your account?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
You've been a shining light for a very long time. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Stan.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

SPI closed?

Hi, Berean Hunter! I saw that you closed and archived an SPI on users Mugshots/SirYoureWrong, but I didn't see the reason or what the outcome was. (Maybe I just don't know where to look!) I know that checkuser found the accounts 'unrelated', but (if I'm understanding correctly) that doesn't necessarily mean there's definitely NOT sockpuppetry involved, only that it can't be proved via checkuser. I thought the behavioral evidence was pretty strong. I think it's likely moot since the puppet seems to have stopped editing, but I wanted to try to learn more about how SPIs are handled and whether I should continue to collect any evidence if the suspected sock starts editing again, or if you closed it because you're quite sure (for whatever reason I might not be aware of) this wasn't a sockpuppet case. I'd appreciate any advice/info you can give me! Thanks! valereee (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Valereee. I have indef blocked one of the accounts as NOT HERE and I find that it was an account created to treat Wikipedia as a battleground. I was tired last night and would have done better to close with "Closing as inconclusive with no action taken at this time. Please refile if there is further evidence of socking." I would like to have seen more evidence through continued behavior before necessarily reaching a conclusion that definitely connects the two accounts. You are quite right to have your suspicions and no one would see them as unfounded allegations. The report was well-written, btw. It just wasn't quite enough to tip the scales for me.
As an aside, I had neighbors from Mansfield and was served Five way frequently...they ate it at least once a week and I began making it about fifteen years ago. One critical ingredient that seems to be missing from the article is sour cream. Scroll down in this page to see a photo of plated Five way with it. I'm surprised to see that neither the article nor the talk page/archive mention it. Now, I'm headed into the kitchen to make six quarts of chili to be served to family tomorrow; I already had that planned before reading the article today...and it isn't going to be Five way style.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Berean Hunter! I'm totally open to there not being sufficient evidence at this point, and I appreciate your time! Re: Cincinnati chili with SOUR CREAM? I don't know what those wrongheaded folks up in Mansfield have been getting themselves into, but down here in Cinci that would get you run out of town on a rail. :D valereee (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

disruptive deprodding reports

I'll ping you here if I notice any unblock anon doing this. Do we have a list of related IPs? I think there are at least three I've noticed so far, two of them blocked. Perhaps a category of some sort could be used to link them, or a centralized discussion page? Is there an anon-vandal-listing central place like for SPA investigations? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

These IPs are him. If you find another range then I'll look into that as well.:)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Phil Spector

Not a problem. I won't make any more edits or contributions to the Phil Spector page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9FC0:58:3C38:A4BE:488D:2A94 (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

COI Issue

Hi Berean Hunter,

I was hoping that you can offer some advice on a COI issue. In August, 2015, I asked one of my team members to create a wiki page for our newly appointed CEO, which she did successfully, with proper references and it was published without issue. All was good. There was a COI, bc I worked for the CEO and she worked for me, but the wiki Gods were good and published the page all the same . In reviewing the page we noted that a category was missing in the info box which categorized our company type. Having three wiki authors in our department, we all stated our reasoning as to why this info box should be changed.

We were unknowingly canvassing (rookie wiki mistake). This single error caused a sock puppet investigation and my colleague was not only warned, eventually the site we created for the CEO was removed. Had we not made the canvessing error, I believe that the page would still exist on the merits of its contents. We have since let the dust settle, not arguing with the sock puppet investigator , but wanted your advice as to how we should approach requesting that this page be considered for republishing. Our CEO, David L. Richter runs a global, publicly traded construction management company (7th largest in the US) and his contributions and positions held within the construction industry are noteworthy. I would be greatly indebted to you for any advice you can provide. Thanks! Jpaolin (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jpaolin: Here is the remnant of the article so that one of you may salvage that material and move it into your sandbox (click edit on the old version then CTRL-C to copy. You then use CTRL-V to paste it into your sandbox). Once you have done that then read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Richter but do not try to write anything there as it is an archive. You are reading because you need to understand the reasons that they chose to make it a redirect. Failing the general notability guideline is what is asserted. You will want to address these concerns very well in your sandbox copy. You may want to ask one of those that commented to look it over at that point to see if the issues have been addressed. If they think so then your next step would be to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for creation which is an article incubator of sorts and other Wikipedians will try to assist you there. No promises that this will work but that is the right method. You may not be able to find enough independent reliable sources to make this work. Be forthright about having the COI to those that are assisting...they appreciate honesty and abhor deception. I had recognized that you (collectively) were new and making mistakes but the honesty is why I didn't block everyone. I see Stuart, Bethann, Keelsh01 and yourself. Are there any other employees that are editing? The unannounced appearances of others wouldn't bode well for what you hope to do. Really, only one of you should do this and avoid getting in discussions or areas where consensus may be formed. If there is a second AFD, only one of you could participate to avoid meatpuppetry.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Berean, your advice is very much appreciated. Yes, Stuart and Bethann are employed by Hill. Keelsh01 is no longer employed with Hill. I am not aware of other internal wiki authors, I need to check on that (4900 employees). Jpaolin (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jpaolin: Sorry, I should have been clearer. The only employees that I would be interested in knowing about are those that intend to edit the article on your company, Richter (if that flies) or your competitors...the latter being a very bad idea. If they are Wiki editors and editing about movies, sports teams, their favorite beverage, etc. then it doesn't matter...and you probably shouldn't ask the masses of your employees. This is about editing with a COI.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Understood. Going forward, Bethann will be the only editor (from Hill) for the David Richter article. Bethann and I may make edits to the Hill article on occasion to update statistics. We also may make factual contributions to other articles relating to Hill, referenced of course. Stuart tends to only comment on industry related articles. I will communicate a wiki protocol to the rest of the Hill team. Jpaolin (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1035 of
Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda!
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Grant

Hi Berean Hunter. More opinions are needed on the Ulysses S. Grant talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwillhickers (talk • contribs) 20:04, October 23, 2015‎ (UTC)

Blocking of plot tag bomber

I saw that you recently blocked User:BlackGator, User:Slivertiger779 and User:96.5.241.159. This is an editor with an obsession with plots and plot templates dating back roughly one year, previously bouncing around from numerous IP addresses. Some of these addresses can be seen at User:NinjaRobotPirate/Plot blanker before both myself and @NinjaRobotPirate: gave up listing them, since it seemed like every day a new IP address came around. Since you made the blocks, four new IP addresses have edited in ways similar to this editor, User:74.245.51.233, User:70.209.24.189, User:70.209.50.87 and User:2600:1006:B166:9039:56B6:A9DD:18EB:18F4. The first three geolocate to the same area of Florida as others listed on the plot blanker page and with the school IP address that you blocked and the IPv6 addresses is in the same range as listed on the plot blanker page. I think the blocking of the two more stable user accounts and the IP school account has opened a can of worms since this user clearly will not go into the darkness quietly and will instead revert to their IP-hopping ways. Aspects (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely tricky to say what to do with this IP editor. He's incompetent, disruptive, or maybe even both. The static IP and sock accounts made it easier to track him, but they weren't making very constructive edits. Like Aspects said, I'm very tired of tracking this user. It's a never-ending battle of Whac-A-Mole. One thought I had a while ago was to come up with an edit filter, but I don't think his recent edits have been disruptive enough to warrant that. He used to engage is massive blanking sprees, but now it's mostly just tag spam. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@Aspects and NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you both for bringing this to my attention. After some study, I have made some blocks to slow him down:
  • 74.245.51.233 static IP hardblocked 3 years
Rangeblocks
I checked across these ranges as well as several others and these seem to be his most used. I see almost no collateral damage in the anon edits of those ranges that I blocked...they look to be him. In other ranges it either wasn't clear or he hasn't used them in a while. Your documentation efforts paid off here. :) I encourage you both to look over the range contribs for which I have supplied the links above to see some of his other IPs. When you see him, it may be good to check his range to see how heavily he uses it as well as evaluating whether innocent anon editors are also using the same ranges. I note that he never engages in discussion on tags but has on other things as evident from above searches. As this block log seems to indicate, he started off as a hoaxster and vandal.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I may have started the report, but Aspects did most of the work. Like he said, I became demoralized at the seeming futility of trying to keep up with such endless disruption. This should help, though. One issue: I can't access the range searches. Maybe they're admin-only? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Make sure that you have javascript enabled on your browser and then look under "Advanced" in your gadgets control panel. Make sure the box is ticked where it says "Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms (uses API), as well as wildcard prefix searches, e.g., "Splark*"." You may want to have Navigation popups enabled under the "Browsing" section further up the page for easy checking of diffs.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. That did it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

user:NotAlpArslan massive vandalism

Hello, this user <<NotAlpArslan>> keep vandalizing the article about the <<Berbers>> by changing the data related to the number of berbers around the world, by deleting the source that I provided <<Native Peoples of the World: An Encyclopedia, Ed. Steven, L. Danver, M.E. Sharpe/Mesa Verde Publishing, 2013, p.23 >> that confirm that there's 36 million of berbers around the world. This user also changed the number of berbers in Morocco and Algeria by putting ridiculous and totally absurd numbers without any convincing sources, he also deleted the 7 seven sources that I put that confirm the population of berbers in both countries. Even after I asked this article to be put on << semi-protection >>. Please can you block him or do something to this disturbing user. I spent a lot time searching for theses sources. Thank you Tsarisco (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I've protected that article so that other editors may evaluate what is going on and help decide. It may take time for other editors to comment.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@Tsarisco: I was about to do the same thing. Please do not refer to edits you disagree with as vandalism. NotAlpArslan is on the edge of being reblocked for doing that very thing. --NeilN talk to me 01:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter Hey thanks for your action, this user <<NotAlpArslan>> also reported me and acused me for harassment,even if I only talked to him one time to tell him to stop modifying the article..— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsarisco (talk • contribs) 02:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015

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 Nick-D (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Just curious

Hello BH. At the AN thread where you asked NeilN why he didn't think the IP was the same editor was it because he had posted "The IP is clearly NotAlpArslan." I'm curious because the first time I read it my eye saw it not AlpArslan and I had to do a double take to read it correctly. It reminds me of the Tshirt that reads "Let's eat Grandma" - "Let's eat, Grandma" - commas save lives. The situation gave me a chuckle - I am posting this in the hope that it does the same for you. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 00:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. My eyes were repeating that same mistake and I was misreading that NeilN thought he wasn't. Sorry Neil...damn socks!
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I hope my little Abbott joke straightened the misunderstanding out :) --NeilN talk to me 00:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Can a guy get a schoolblock up in here?

Could you address this active and reported offender (212.173.124.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS))? Thanks! BusterD (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, man. Have a good day! BusterD (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Meru, Malaysia

Hi, Berean Hunter, I noticed your edit and comment. What about Pandan Jaya and so many others? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lotje, we are working on removing the refspam as listed at ANI and proposed for blacklist. I just blocked another range currently spamming it, too. ;/
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Great to have people like you running around here. Lotje (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Smile

Hello Berean Hunter, 7&6=thirteen has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Stan. Let me give you one of these. I've had them and they are very good. I had the 6% version and not the 10.7%. You can't taste any alcohol in it. Excellent.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
And thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible sock?

Talk:Osias Beert. Please take a look. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Will look shortly...still removing links (down from 494 to 253 currently) this spam.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
good luck! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Apologies

You pinged me at ANI (I think) and I never got around to responding. Is that dead now or can I still help? Doug Weller (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Dead now. :) He's indeffed now.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Looks like a month block, not indefinite. Doug Weller (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct. It's a Freudian slip in this case based on where I think they are headed.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protect of one's Talk Page

Thank you for the recent range block. Can you also semi-protect my own Talk page and possibly other subsites, please? This ever-hopping IP has called me "imbecile" there, just to spite. Not that I am offended, but it's getting tedious to tell it to desist yet again. Zezen (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Semi'd for two days.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible sock

I see that you blocked User:69.1.22.120 yesterday. Today, User:76.6.107.236 made these edits to The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina. For comparison, see these diffs from yesterday. Would you take a look and see if you think it is the same person? Billcasey905 (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Billcasey905: Sorry for the late reply. Yes, they are the same. I've semi-protected the article for one month to deter the IP hopping which is more effective than playing whac-a-mole and blocking all the IPs. He may show up at the talk page(s) though.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, and understand about the reply. Busy time for all of us. Billcasey905 (talk) 23:18, November 28, 2015 (UTC)

Question about earlier Tirgil34 investigation

Hi, Berean Hunter. I'm probable problably late in adressing this, having returned today from a long wikibreak after som interesting relevations appeared. My question is if you when closing the 26 June Tirgil34 investigation was aware that there were two ongoing investigations, and that the earlier investigation had several Checkuser checked  Likely and  Possible accounts requiring administrator attention? Krakkos (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember, sorry.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Bio on Beverly Cleary

Please fix the misspelling of Beverly Clearys children on the upper right corner of the page. There is not a second "l" in their last name. I realize it is stupid that it bothers me but I think Ms. Cleary deserves the correct spelling. Thank you. Laura — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.92.137 (talk) 00:17, November 30, 2015‎ (UTC)

I've done this but in the future I would encourage you to be bold and make corrections yourself. We welcome that around here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

ACW sources

Ok thank you. I am trying my best on looking up sources I believe sources is super important to give on what kind of information it came from. I just feel like that every time if I put up something on Wikipedia. I keep finding sources so they won't think that I stole it from others.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eight nation alliance fan102 (talk • contribs) 04:51, November 30, 2015‎ (UTC)

@Eight nation alliance fan102: Here are some good sources for American Civil War editing written by a now-retired editor. There are others but these give a good start for you. By the way, you may be interested in our Military history project...this is a good place to ask questions and get help.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok I'll start there. Thank you for your help.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eight nation alliance fan102 (talk • contribs) 05:14, November 30, 2015‎ (UTC)
You're welcome.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

MENSA + talked to like a dweezle dont mix

Berean, I gave links the man could have looked at -- I just gave them again Paul La Violette is a hugely respected and renowned scientist, not a "book author" and WIKI has no page on this? I said, OBAMA sent a letter, because he DID, and your person Weller couldnt be bothered to learn that... So, I dont like to be talked down to, and "holy crud" is not a rude expression, its called astonishment. Perhaps Mr. Weller might rephrase his attitude by saying "please show a link re OBAMA's letter" instead of "I cant imagine why you think that" like a [interject pleasant word of choice].

)

One more slight thing to consider, Berean -- when anyone, even a Non Mensan, stops by and gives you THEIR time to update your pages to proper snuff, and your robot rudely wastes their typing time, this is mind boggling to believe wont upset the contributor. A Thank You belongs in the comments when the person BOTHERS to tell you of the error, dont you think?? After all, where would WIKI be without good info such as I provided? (Possibly back in 2006 re the birth of bosnian pyramids, by chance?). Oy Vey. Letterhead330 (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Have a nice day. Letterhead330 (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Letterhead330 do not continue to call someone "uneducated" because you are starting to harass when you do that. There is no need to demean someone here. Try sticking to the subject and use logic, please.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Berean said: "do not call someone uneducated because...." Okay. I educated. Weller did not absorb or verify. I provided links. Next time someone tells me black is white, should I use Ignorant, or is that too, harassment? I always thought uneducated means lacking taught facts, but maybe Im wrong. Please advise me of what word to use when teaching someone a new fact and they reject wanting to hear about it, or claim back that an properly informed person is wrong without making sure theyre well-informed, first. :) Im very open to suggestions and not meaning to be rude, but what would you say? I would say scoliosis in my neck makes typing hurt, and to have a spam bot erase before Ive gotten to the credits, for not PUTTING credits, is rather absurd...and then to have the credits rejected, because theyre on the net, is even more absurd, as this is now a very-internet oriented world. :)Letterhead330 (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to note that the letter in question was from a third level staff member in Reagan's Executive Office, no accolade or praise in it. At that time he was a pretty mainstream scientist. That was long before LaViolette wrote Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion: Tesla, UFOs, and Classified Aerospace Technology. So yes, I can't imagine why Obama would have written to him. In any case he doesn't claim expertise in archaeology or geology, the two relevant disciplines. Oh, the 'credits' were YouTube videos. Doug Weller (talk) 11:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Just found something written by LaViolette on the Bosnian Pyramids - you might find it illuminating.[6] Doug Weller (talk) 11:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Dominator's topic ban

Hi Berean. Although I understand completely your reaction due to this user's strong POV and the political background you referred to, my opinion is that Dominator was not warned adequately under AA2. He may have a strong POV but he did not edit-war neither does he appear to push his POV with PAs as is usually the case. He does not seem to be a sock and he also tried dispute resolution. Is there a way to reconsider the ban? Dr. K. 03:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

IP editing

Since 13 Nov, when I (quite unnecessarily) declared that I'm editing logged out for the time being, I've made eight edits using the account. Seven were to my account's talk page. The eighth was to an article's talk page and was intended to be made logged out, as I said there. So I don't see the problematic overlap that you refer to. Also, not that I care much that some people might know what city I live in, I don't think it's considered proper for you to publicly reveal my account's IP address. When a different editor did that, an admin suppressed it. Finally, if were to be unfairly accused of socking, and I wasn't indeffed for it, it might be just the final straw I needed to finally divorce myself from this insane asylum. So I'm not going to worry about that. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to prevent you from running afoul of the policy and don't want you accused of socking. You received a 3RR on Oct. 20 on your main account and then you switched to the IP and kept editing the same article/talk page which is indeed IP socking if you don't let the other editors know. Because you received an NPA warning that you blanked, that also belongs to your main account and there could have been consideration for your block there. When you edit legitimately using an IP, it must be on different articles/talk pages than you normally have edited unless you make it clear who you are. You are operating with a faulty understanding of policy. It is easy to screw up and find yourself inadvertently avoiding scrutiny in practice. Any blocks that you earn as an IP would also be repeated on the main account...anything otherwise would be the default definition of avoiding scrutiny.
Are you trying to avoid that IPv6 sock that was giving you trouble? I was hoping to have quashed that...at least their IP edits.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to be accused of socking, either. But, as I said, that would have a silver lining and I would probably be better off in the long run. The Wikipedia addiction is strong, and I sometimes lack the will power to do what I know would be good for me. I also believe Wikipedia benefits a little from my participation.
I don't know how my removal of that particular NPA warning is a problem. Many editors do that as a mattter of course, whether there is in any merit to the warning or not, just to thumb their noses at the editor issuing the warning. As far as I've seen, that practice is entirely within their prerogative per user talk guidelines. I don't do that (I don't get many warnings), but that was objectively a combative and hypocritical warning, an abuse of the system, by an editor who makes a habit of that, and in a more perfect environment that editor would have been subject to sanction. Removing it immediately was not only within my prerogative, AFAIK, but was more than justified.
If there is a policy that says I am required to state my reasons for editing logged out, please direct me to it; I confess to not having read every bit of the applicable policy. No one is the best judge of themselves, but I believe I am acting in the best of good faith, and always have. That's all that matters to me, and I believe it should be all that matters to Wikipedia. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
See also this admin's comments about this. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I saw that when he wrote it. :) YGM.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
After reading more policy I'm considering returning to my account. I take it I would then be required to avoid every article I touched while logged out? (Some of it was article talk only due to semi.) Or is there a reasonable level of prior activity that would be acceptable? (email rec'd and is percolating) 72.198.26.61 (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Going forward...

As you may have noted in my response to your WP:AN, I am not interested in any future conflict. With that in mind, I think something should be made clear, to avoid any future difficulties. You posted to AN seeking affirmation that you weren't "involved". While you're admin colleagues feel you weren't, I disagree.

  • You knew full well that you and I have had lengthy conflict in our past. All our past interaction has been conflict, we have never collaborated.
  • You also knew that I had complained about your interference with my ANI, which was basically scuttled, in part at least, by your actions.
  • You knew I questioned your block, repeatedly, meaning I disagreed with it, yet you refused to respond.

As editors, it my preference that we try to avoid each other. This will be my only post here, and likewise I would ask that you not post on my talk page either. As an admin however, I feel that unless you see something urgent, you should refer any administrative actions towards me to another, neutral and uninvolved admin. Just as I feel you should've done last week.

As I've said, I'm not challenging your block as I feel there is little point in challenging almost any blocks. I simply wish to move forward, and not have any further disputes, especially ones along these lines. That is the reason for this request and I ask that you respect it. I bear you no ill will and I wish you well in your future endeavours. - theWOLFchild 00:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban

Hold your horses cowboy! You need to issue a warning first. Plus, you cannot judge me on my convictions on the lie called the "Armenian Genocide" and that they were only massacres. You don't see me vandalising articles, do you? If you ask me, you are the partial and biased one who interferes in matters concerning scholars and historians. You need to remove the ban immediately. -Dominator1453 (talk) 06:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban placement

Actually not done correctly; per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions when you notify the editor of the ban you're also supposed to tell them what the appeal procedures are. Seems like there should be a template for that, seems like there is for everything else. NE Ent 03:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@NE Ent: that editor should not attempt an appeal at this time because it is a matter set before the community to review and decide at the current block review at AN. It would be out of process for any admin to fail to recognize that is going on. If he remains blocked by community decision when it is closed then he should get the appeals procedure. Parallel reviews are improper. Admins should voice their opinions at AN.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the block -- the ban was under WP:AA2 WP:AC/DS right? You're expected to reference the appeal procedure when you place the ban. NE Ent 03:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
That raises some interesting questions about the block. Not having been informed about the proper appeal process, the editor appealed the wrong way and got indeffed. Plus even if the community approves the indef and the indef remains, the indeffed editor can still appeal the indef block. So why can he not appeal from now? Dr. K. 03:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Same thread. It was initially a TBAN review at AN which is #2 of the appeal procedure. In other words, I filed his TBAN appeal for him right after I placed the ban therefore he should not have attempted that either while that is going on. I intentionally didn't want him starting concurrent appeals. I don't know about the template but I would have given him a link if the ban was upheld for his 2nd attempt.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
But the editor didn't know that the TBAN review at AN was part of his/her appeal, since he was not informed of the appeal process. The problem becomes more complex due to his indef which resulted from his mangled appeal attempt. I think if he was informed of the proper appeal steps he may not have made the mistake which resulted in his indef. Dr. K. 03:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
The very first link that I gave him explains what a topic ban is and that page has WP:UNBAN which is the procedures for appeal. :) He ignored that link and had to be told by the next admin to read it (WP:TBAN).
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. I guess it is a matter of degree of how explicit an appeals notice should be and how carefully one has to read the fine print. I believe that if the risks are so high for an editor, a template should be made available to the sanctioned editor which will highlight these points to a higher degree. In any case, have a good night and thank you for your hard work. :) Dr. K. 04:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Deleting items associated with the "Dishes created from scraps" category

Hey there, I am part of a collective trying to compile a list of dishes with a similar background narrative of having been hastily thrown together from different odds and ends. We have created the "Dishes created from scraps" category for this purpose, since we believe this category may be helpful for others, as well as beneficial to our research by allowing others to contribute dishes with similar creation narratives to it. It appears you have systematically gone over the category and deleted references to it from the few dishes we have listed so far. If you object to the terminology please feel free to change it to something you deem more suitable (in the spirit of Wiki), but please don't just delete these changes with comments like "No." This is both hurtful to our research and rude.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.66.223.86 (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

My "No" was answering to the fact that nachos aren't made from scraps and neither are buffalo wings. The one who is being rude is the one suggesting that my honest and stoic answer is rude. In view of your flawed judgment, you should mind your own manners and don't be telling other folks about theirs. Adding that bit on the tail end of a post is a sure way to get off to a bad start when trying to collaborate with others.
There is nothing sourced in any of those articles which states that they were made of scraps so adding that category isn't justified. Moreover, I'm not the only editor that has reverted you. If you really want to assert your position then you should post on the talk pages of the articles and start a discussion. The only way buffalo wings might get that category would be from a restaurant point of view but not from the view of regular folks. You buy one chicken and you have two wings...nobody makes buffalo wings with two and regular households don't buy five chickens such that they have ten wings left over as a scrap product. When people buy wings from the store to make, it is packages of that and that only...no scraps. Nachos are primarily bought that way and no one makes them from scraps either, not popularly anyway. Some restaurants make their own but those also aren't from scraps or leftovers. Your category name would probably need adjustment to be in line with sourced article content. Whatever the name of such category, it would have to contain the word "may". A Shepherd's pie may be made using some scraps. They are almost never made entirely of scraps as other non-scraps must be added. I rarely use scraps or leftovers for them but usually make them up all from fresh ingredients. I suggest that you choose your wording more carefully when naming a category. Before posting on any talk pages, I suggest that you improve the articles with good referenced content (no food blogs, books are best) so that you might have a justified position when discussing categories.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
A measured and reasonable reply. Not to mention Haggis and hot dogs (depending on how you feel about eating pig lips and other unmentionable leftovers). <{:>{)> Merry Christmas. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Hehe, I can eat haggis but it will have copious amounts of brown sauce (usually HP sauce) all over it. At the games, I usually go for Forfar bridies as a preference. My Scottish blood does not make Jugged hare more palatable however for the same reason that I will pass on the Black pudding. 👻
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
In Poland it is Kishka. In Philadelphia there is Scrapple (not Scrabble). This is akin to Greek Gyros. The peasants wasted nothing. Which is why Otto Von Bismark had his famous quote about two things you should not be being made — laws and sausages. Not to mention Lutefisk, which is deliberate, but I would say is an acquired taste. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Unhappy sailor

Hello. I made major improvements around Mehteran (an Ottoman military band), Mehtaran, and Mehtaran, Iran (not giving links because the current links are stupidly wrong) and found nothing better than asking help -courteously- to an admin or patroller or whatever, whom I saw in the page history, for fixing the records (page history), who -instead of speaking to me and trying to understand what I did- literally "destroyed" everything I made with lots of work and care. Now one article is under a "wrong" (not my personal opinion, simply it was wrongly typed when opened) title, another article is being asked to merge with itself (!), a link to Fatih, Istanbul is being used instead of Fatih (the Conquerer) and many other corrections have been buried under the ocean due to the negligence of a sailor. Please take everything back to how I had done, for the sake of a better Wikipedia. IPs do help, if they are let to do so. Thanks. --141.196.213.217 (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You should post on the article talk page(s) to begin a discussion and explain the changes and why you think they should be made. It may simply be a misunderstanding which is easy to correct.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you. Although it was only three letters the difference, I was put off by the user's complete refusal to discuss their reasoning to me. I hope I don't get a mention on the "Lamest edit wars" for this! '''tAD''' (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Your welcome. Nah, there are so many of those that it can be hard to compete with them.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for Milhist historian and newcomer

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Kudos for solid and consistent defense. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For your very appropriate action! Good job! —МандичкаYO 😜 17:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

ANI notification

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Punitive_block per Ricky's comment. NE Ent 10:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I've mentioned your name a dozen times but it's better to just say here that I wish you would have reverted and given a little more time before the block, but I do agree you acted within policy and agree the comment was over the line. It isn't a matter of right or wrong, just my opinion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

While the block was overturned after a couple of hours, I appreciate you noticing the diatribes lobbed at me...it's been going on for a while despite my efforts to make peace. An apology would have been nice or at least a note saying the insults would not continue. But just knowing that someone noticed the hostile remarks makes me feel a little better. I'm not one to bring my own problems to ANI. Thanks for trying to help. Liz Read! Talk! 00:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Not just Berean, Liz. A lthough I have never blocked anyone for inciviity in my entire admin career yet, Beariean just beat me by seconds to blocking SagaciousPhil. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. Hopefully, it won't be a problem again.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I still cant get over the fact that none of this needed to happen. There is sadly no assurance that this blow up of a situation wont repeat its-self later down the line. Best of luck to you Berean, Im sorry you had to go through all that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. With concerns having been logged, I would like to think that this may be the end of it so that we don't have to revisit later. Time will tell.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
It's water over the dam.
The priority here is to "Fix the problem; not the blame." WP:AGF applies to all concerned. Sometimes we all react before we think it through. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

testing ping

User:Berean Hunter Seemed to work. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi Berean Hunter. Would you mind taking a quick look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sinclairindex? I hate to jump the SPI queue there -- and I'm not certain if it's proper for me to ask (please let me know it it isn't) -- but we're dealing with a rather massive kerfuffle of a hoax involving several hundred articles. And I, Tokyogirl79 and others are waiting somewhat for the SPI results before our next move in tackling the clean-up. Thanks. CactusWriter 15:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Thank you. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
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.

Father Christmas (computer worm)

This is really neat. A DYK is coming on it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

It's that time of year....

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic)
Time To Spread Some Happy Holiday Cheer!!
I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season.

What's especially nice about the digitized version is that it doesn't need water,

and it won't catch fire.
Wishing you a joyous holiday season...
...and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

Atsme📞📧 03:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Pure pun-ishment. [7]

Block of 119.160.64.0/21

Hi Berean, could you please change this block to anon only, there is a fair amount of collateral. Also could you please use {{rangeblock}} so 'good' editors are directed where to go. Thanks, :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done I assume that you mean dropping that on their talk page when we know who is caught behind one?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

WorldCreaterFighter

WorldCreaterFighter, whose IP 92.236.36.173 you hardblocked for three years, seems to have returned socking on Wikipedia. There is a case awating administrative action here. Krakkos (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

ANI section involving you

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LjL (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Starship9000

Just out of curiosity -- should the master be tagged as well? Thanks, GABHello! 03:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Since these accounts are globally locked now, I'm not sure that it would matter. We often don't tag the master as part of denying recognition and also some of the checkusers don't like the practice of tagging the main accounts. You may get more opinions on that at WT:SPI.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Question about WP:DUCK

Hi Berean Hunter. I see that you are active in dealing with WP:SOCK so I am wondering if you could take a look at Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2EE3:A590:35AD:ED10:8909:BF54 see if this is a case of WP:DUCK and enough for a SPI. A little background: Malcolm at Midnight (Series) and Hermelin: The Detective Mouse were created today by User:90731fly. The former was tagged for speedy deletion and the latter was tagged by as a possible copyright violation by CorenSearchbot. Both the tags were removed by 90731fly here and here, but I readded them and left edit sums plus a message at User talk:90731fly#Speedy deletion nomination of Malcolm at Midnight (Series) explaining why. IP 2602:30A:2EE3:A590:35AD:ED10:8909:BF54 was created just today and the first two edits were to the aforementioned articles to remove the two tags. It could be just a coincidence of course, but it does seem, at least at first glance, that the two accounts might be connected. Any suggestions on how to best proceed with something like this. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Good catch. I have hardblocked 2602:30A:2EE3:A590::/64 for one year and blocked the account for one week. He has been using this range for a year (search range) and IP socking. You may file a SPI report if you wish but this may be better left as is for now and then revisit if he socks later or if you uncover further evidence of socking when reviewing those range contribs that I've linked to. You may discover other accounts or other IPs.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for checking. I did not realize the use of multiple accounts had been so widespread and going on for so long. The new IP account was just created and only had made a few edits. I am wondering if Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B055:3E4:A974:C8A6:220B:1AA6 which has just been created is the same person. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
With only one edit, it is hard to say. We usually need to see a pattern. That single edit is also the only one in that whole /64 range.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Understand. Thank you for taking another look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

As soon as protection expired sockpuppet attacks continued

Hi, you were involved in protecting the article Visa policy of Russia article and also I believe chasing down the sockpuppet for block evasion, the one that attacked that article and also the Visa requirements for Turkish citizens article. As soon as the protection expired today however the same thing continued (for now in the first article as the second one is protected until January). Could you please extend the protection for this one as well? Thanks.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I've added PC1 to both articles and granted you the reviewer right so that accept or reject changes. This should keep the sock changes from going public. I saw where Katie had already semi-protected the pages.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

IP range block help?

Hey Berean.. I remembered your help at Sergecross' page with an IP hopping bandit. I was wondering if you could assist with 149.62.243.250, 149.62.243.254, 149.62.243.251 and 149.62.243.253. Possibly others, but those three appear to be active right now in vandal activities, with the IP change fairly quickly between edits. Is a short range block possible (and appropriate)? -- ferret (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Your Threat

I don't understand. I left a comment on the SPI that I opened and you reverted it. I know of no policy it violated. Seeing as, despite your threatening edit summary, I have no idea what policy you think it violated: Please quote something clearly relevant from policy that explains your threat and revert. Thanks!--Elvey(t•c) 06:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Elvey, you can not do as you wish at SPI and you aren't going to bully anyone there. Your reverts are taken as disruptive and you need to cease. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases, #4, "disruptive conduct may lead to removal from the case pages. Experienced users (usually clerks, administrators, and Checkusers) will make final decisions and any formal findings, and whether an administrative action is needed."
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
It's interesting that you're perfectly willing to connect User:90731fly and User:2602:30A:2EE3:A590:35AD:ED10:8909:BF54 and perform account and IP range blocks, in the section immediately above, while despite a smoking gun, two of the IPs I reported were not blocked, and no range blocks were done either. I fail to see how these two very different outcomes could possibly reflect a consistent application of policy/norms. Do they seem consistent to you? Why/Why not? Why are you threatening me for asking reasonable questions. How is that disruptive? What do I need to cease, exactly? --Elvey(t•c) 06:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
And what reverts are you talking about? You did NOT revert a revert of mine. You seem both confused and very hostile.--Elvey(t•c) 06:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  1. The inconsistency is that I haven't investigated your case and won't look further until tomorrow. I investigated the above situation.
  2. Your note that you tried to get in out of process on a clear SPI page could not be allowed to stand because there are scripts which look for headers on this pro forma format. Loose comments like what you tried are not allowed. This is disruptive because you did this out of not accepting what you have been told so far by Vanja and Mike V.
  3. You are trying to compel a checkuser to perform that act and they have tried to answer you but you don't seem to accept it. No one may force a CU to do that. Period. They are volunteers. They don't jump when you say so.
  4. I have asked you to step away because you are shouting "CORRUPTION" in edit summaries and trying to increase drama in an SPI case. You need to calm down and approach with a level head in a day or two because if you keep it up you will likely end up blocked.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 07:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  1. OK
  2. Was not aware of such scripts or of anything that made my comment out of process. You claim to know why I did what I did, but you don't and it's not appropriate to claim to know what's in another editor's head. Agreed? But, I have ACK'd your message telling me to stop. Stopped.
  3. I get your other points here. But no, I'm not trying to do that. I'm trying to have a conversation, but Vanja and Mike V. seem more interested in telling me I'm wrong, and defending their initial judgement at any cost, even arguing from authority, than in listening to what I have to say and trying to reach a point of mutual understanding.
  4. Yes, there's been some drama - I'm pissed at the dismissive and inattentive comments I've received. I have every reason to be. But I've been civil nonetheless. Good news - I feel that I'm being listened to more now, and a day or two break is a good idea. I don't expect anyone to run a CheckUser if the policies and practices don't call for one. But if the policies do call for one, I expect a reasonable request for one to be handled reasonably. But earlier on, heavy handedness, and a bunch of dismissive and inattentive comments weren't that. And I expect my edit summaries not to be misrepresented. This is core policy: "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, .... to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions." They were stubbornly NOT responsive to my repeated good-faith questions about 73.162.132.47. You should be able to see that. --Elvey(t•c) 08:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
You said you "won't look further until tomorrow" - so I was expecting you to get back to me. I believe the socking user I reported has been editing using several other IPs and has been editing more recently than the 13th. You ["https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/169.230.155.123&diff=695317626&oldid=695316169" Reverted 1 edit by Elvey (me), saying: "Do not restore comment or you will be blocked."] But Policy states, :"If you believe someone is using sock puppets or meat puppets, you should create a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations." Does your threat extend to reporting this new activity by editing the SPI or not? Does it extend to marking the admitted and suspected socks as such? --Elvey(t•c) 16:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Bzuk. May the season be merry and bright for you and yours as well.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Berean_Hunter/Archive_8&oldid=1094567326"