This is an archive of past discussions with User:Berean Hunter. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beraen Hunter, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
It wouldn't hurt to have others looking on for the time being to make sure everything is okay with your editing. Image licensing in particular. — Berean Hunter(talk)11:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Hey you, why did you delete the following message from both the archive and the main page and were should I post it to get my concerns adressed?
Hi everyone. I came to this article after I saw that Number 57 was pushing the speedy deletion of the Swiss Monetary Referendum because it was created by a sock puppet. I left Wikipedia long ago when I couldn't keep track of all the WP:x terminology, feeling it became a haven for petty bureaucrats but at the same time recognising the need to moderate the content in a way I simply wasn't interested in. Anyhow in this case (and I don't know if you have such a WP:X term) it seems to be a clear case of shooting the messenger. Either way, not here to discuss that article per se but it is related. So I come here, following the trail and I see that hundreds of accounts have been removed because they edit in a similar way, not because of the actions that they take. Can you guys explain to me how it can ever be considered right to ban people because they "add templates and portals and edit in a way similar to a well informed Wikipedia user who we have previously banned".
Further more, whether or not this group of people really all belong to one person or one organisation it seems that most of what they have added to Wikipedia in the end gets accepted. Like some university hospital, university professors, swiss referendums, swiss places of interest...Even if they are promoting the country are they really doing such a bad job with it and why are you so concerned as long as they dont use multiple accounts in talk pages to push their agenda? The later which would be the reason why sockpuppetry is frowned upon and not the using multiple accounts to edit different articles. The little ferry (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Hey. I think it's kinda silly since it concerns a specific person but if you want please edit my ^ text above there so article links to the sockpuppetinvestigation it concerns and so that number 57 links to the user it concerns so that people can at least see what Im talking about, thanks. I don't know how to edit that. Then Ill post it and then you can delete this if you wish but I still hink it should be posted in the specific discussion. The little ferry (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Okidoki so it's posted now you can delete this. Please do share your thoughts on the subject at hand too since you were the one who got involved first...with me I mean. The little ferry (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
He might not have the same address today...hmmm, do we have any single place where this has been documented? This would help in formulating rangeblocks as well as backtracking and monitoring. It seems like I filed an SPI with an account name but I'm not remembering it at the moment. — Berean Hunter(talk)14:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
My apologies for not including the IP! It's Special:Contributions/2001:44C8:4006:934A:1:2:2175:19D6. Fortunately, they haven't returned to revert from the same IP, or any IP to this point, on that same article. I can't remember if you told me who the master was, but if so, it might be in your archives. You might start an LTA page to track the IPs, and I'll add the ones I find as I find them. - BilCat (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
You reverted my correction of Stuart's command (it was previously shown as a corps, I corrected to division, and you reverted it, saying "Technically correct but the recognized common name is still Corps. Being that nuanced doesn't help the reader here." I respectfully disagree. That's like saying our goal is ignorance. Of course it makes a difference what size command it was. CsikosLo (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
What? Because of that nonsense, they block me. I did not know it would be a problem. I used it for something else, not for Wikipedia. BRFZ1 (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand. You are not blocked but the range that you were using is blocked and has been since November. You apparently did log into Wikipedia with that proxy enabled. — Berean Hunter(talk)17:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
2-minute block
Hi there. Just wanted to ask you why I was blocked and unblocked 2 minutes later yesterday (29 April 2018 20:12 UTC). Was there an error, or is there something I need to be aware about? Thanks. --NaturalRX12:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
This case. I accidentally blocked the last six accounts because I didn't uncheck the boxes in the SPI script that we use and when I saw the error, I unblocked. Your account is listed as a possible there because you share the same ranges (technical evidence), article interests and have interacted with some of them. For completeness, this is laid out for behavioral evaluation. — Berean Hunter(talk)13:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the clarification. Let me know if there's anything I can provide to vouch for my innocence. I definitely interacted with that user but had no suspicions there was any sockpuppetry going on. --NaturalRX13:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
User rights
Hello Berean Hunter! It has been a few weeks ever since you blocked/unblocked me. Is everything ok with my editing? If it is, please restore my user rights.
Best wishes:GreatLakesShips (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Please open a new case for enwiki data per new cu-l data. I was busy IRL yesterday and seems no steward did something, so I'm doing a check with new data. However, I would avoid making unnecessary noise by granting myself CU on enwiki (We don't have CU by default) which will become... WikiDrama season . While we are authorized to exercise our permission on any wiki when we need to investigate on cross-wiki matters, bureaucracy made us to be more cautious. — regards, Revi07:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
PS: loginwiki data is restricted to "account creation", so it may not detect sleepers. — regards, Revi08:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Please can you look at this UTRS appeal? As it's a CU block I just want to check what to advise them. It would appear to be an innocent person caught out by an IP being blocked by CheckUser. Am I OK to tell them to create an account at a friends house/library?--5 albert square (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Can you believe nearly a year has passed since our last discussion? Was thinking about you, and hope you and your loved ones are doing well. Atsme📞📧00:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Nothing recently...I've taken lots of photos prior to recently but nothing I'd call "good". The convenience of my iPhone has spoiled me, but I have since recognized the problem. Some call it "lazy". *lol* Atsme📞📧01:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Berean Hunter,
I'm trying to learn more about Wikipedia policies and practices, saw your work at SPI, and was hoping you could teach me a bit. While doing some RC patrolling I came across a user Turtles12345 who had edits extremely similar to the IP 24.46.251.151, both adding some nonsense about Henry Clay's pet turtle, and seeming to work in tandem. All pretty small-time stuff, and have only 4 edits between them, so even counted together wouldn't cross the (ordinary) threshold for AIV. (Though I know some admins will block after 3 or 4 edits for a vandalism-only account.) I saw that the "when not to request a checkuser" expandable table part of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guide_to_filing_cases indicates not to bother requesting a checkuser for accounts that are vandalism-only or have only a few edits, which matched my intuition that a full SPI would be overkill. In cases like these, should I report to AIV because the use of a sock is offense enough, or wait until they cross the normal "vandalized after 4th warning" threshold? If the later, should I treat them as combined, or not? Should I place a template (like {{IPsock}}) on the page, even if it there's no investigation to link to? I hope this isn't too many questions! I appreciate your help. MarginalCost (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi MarginalCost, use the standard four warnings but treat as combined...changing accounts/IPs does not reset their warning levels. The IPsock template is more for IPs where the sockmaster has been fairly persistently at that address. This doesn't look like that would apply in this case. — Berean Hunter(talk)12:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Indef block of Leijurv
Hey, Rcgldr (talk·contribs) (who worked in the same area as Leijurv earlier on some math articles) and I have concerns with the indef block of Leijurv. What's the reasoning behind indef blocking? This was a first offense by a user who thereafter expressed remorse, the sockpuppet report was admitted by the checkuser Bbb23 (talk·contribs) as being subject to flaws with many people from a school IP address, with the user noting that other classmates were interested. Note: please do not get into some of the other users brought up, as these get into doxxing and the user expressed concern about that. Email me if you want to discuss those in detail. Ben Creasy (talk) 04:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
"...as these get into doxxing..." Are you doxxing? Who are you implying is? There has been no doxxing that I'm aware of.
I had placed new evidence on their talk page concerning two accounts created explicitly for block evasion and sock puppetry which I confirmed. Those accounts are Nappyruing and Wrestsimon. I also pointed out that Leijurv had been editing while logged out, "Also, you claim to have no conflict of interest, however I can see where you edited an article while logged out about someone close to you and it was an effort to whitewash that article a little. There is a trail of those logged out edits that are older than the CU tool shows that reveals that has been going on for a while and those edits are more brazen such as to remove cited controversy." His blanking and refusal to account for these accounts and logged-out edits are a good reason to leave blocked. He has the ability to file another unblock request via UTRS. In his last one, he did not ask to be unblocked and did not account for the newer evidence. He did acknowledge that his block "was not in error". His blanking and last request leaves issues that only he could resolve. — Berean Hunter(talk)11:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
To clarify Ben Creasy's commment, Leijurv had contributed to the Reed Solomon article back in Dec, 2013, an article I have been working on. The article was missing two key decoding methods which I've since added, and his edit suggested there may be yet another decoding method which I have been trying to investigate. I'm curious how Leijurv was identified as editing while logged out, since the block history indicates that the ip involved is a school ip shared by many students. Rcgldr (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Hey Berean Hunter - are you keeping in mind the email from Leijurv on Feb 2? It includes statements such as "I was wrong to contest the block" ... "have circumvented blocks by creating those two new accounts you mentioned". They also go into detail on why they'd rather not discuss certain other accounts used from the same IP publicly. I can tell them to submit another UTRS request, but any other feedback that you have on further steps they can take would be welcome. Ben Creasy (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I have been blocked
good morning, I discovered I have been blocked for promotion and advertising on Wikipedia, this is not so. I would kindly appreciate it if I am unblocked.
Timmylegend (talk) 07:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Your block log is clean and since you can edit here, you are obviously not blocked. I believe that you may have been using a blocked network. — Berean Hunter(talk)13:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Interaction Timeline V1.1
Hello Berean Hunter,
I’m following up with you because you previously showed an interest in the Interaction Timeline. The Anti-Harassment Tools team has completed V1.1 and the tool is ready for use. The Interaction Timeline shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits.
The purpose of the tool is to better understand the sequence of edits between two users in order to make a decision about the best way to resolve a user conduct dispute. Here are some test cases that show the results and also some known limitations of the tool. We would like to hear your experience using the tool in real cases. You can leave public feedback on talk page or contact us by email if the case needs discretion or you would prefer to comment privately. Otherwise, I'm always interested in hearing your other thoughts and ideas about the work of the Community health initiative projects. Best regards, SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Help us design granular blocks!
Hello :-) The Anti-Harassment Tools team at the Wikimedia Foundation will start building these granular blocking tools in a few weeks and we've asked WMF designer Alex Hollender to help us make some wireframes so the tools are intuitive to MediaWiki users.
We have a first draft of how we think this tool should work. You can read the full proposed implementation here but here are the significant parts:
Granular blocks (page, category, namespace, and file uploading) will be built on top of Special:Block. These blocks will function as if they were regular blocks and allow for the same options, but only take effect on specific pages.
We will add a new checkbox for "Block this user from the whole site" which will be checked by default. When it is unchecked the admin will be able to specify which pages, categories, and/or namespaces the user should be blocked from editing.
Granular blocks can be combined and/or overlap. (For example, a user could be simultaneously blocked from editing the articles Rain, Thunder, Lightning, and all pages inside the Category:Weather.)
Only one block is set at a time, to adjust what the user is blocked from the administrator would have to modify the existing block.
Block logs should display information about the granular block
When a blocked user attempts to edit an applicable page, they should see a block warning message which include information on their block (reason, expiration, what they are blocked from, etc.)
If a category is provided, the blocked user cannot edit either the category page itself and all pages within the category.
If the File: namespace is blocked, the user should not be allowed to upload files.
We like this direction because it builds on top of the existing block system, both a technical and usability wise. Before we get too far along with designs and development we'd like to hear from you about our prosposal:
What do you think of the proposed implementation?
We believe this should be an expansion of Special:Block, but it has been suggested that this be a new special page. What are your thoughts?
Should uploading files be combined with a File namespace block, or as a separate option? (For example, if combined, when a user is blocked from the File namespace, they would neither be able to edit any existing pages in the File namespace nor upload new files.)
Should there be a maximum number of things to be blocked from? Or should we leave it up to admin discretion?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A controversial “young theory” contends there is no gap of missing years and that Jesus began his ministry as a teenager.[1] As a known child prodigy, teaching in the temple at the age of 12 (Luke 2:41-52), it is unlikely he would have spent most of his life working in the trades. Although conventional wisdom states that Jesus started his ministry at the age of 30, his given age in the Gospel of Luke (3:23) is generally translated to read, “he was ‘about’ 30 years of age”; however the Greek “hOsei” can be translated to read “he was ‘as if’ 30 years of age”.[2] Additionally, the birth date of Jesus can be interpreted to be as late as 14AD, since Luke’s statement (2:1) that Jesus was born during a census period as decreed by Caesar, allows for a birth dates ranging from 28BC, 8BC, or 14AD.[3]
1.“The Missing Apostle II, The Hand of Christ" by R.F. Sands, ASIN: B074RD467Z, published 8-10-17, DM Cramer Publishers.
2.Greek text, New Testament, Scriveners Textus Receptus 1894 http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NT
3.The Deeds of Augustus, census periods, Item 8
The imposter theory (or missing apostle theory) [1] proposes a different individual was arrested and crucified; this allowed Jesus to appear afterward and for the apostles to claim a resurrection. Lebbaeus Thaddaeus is a proposed to be likely candidate, as he was listed prior to the crucifixion in Matthew 10:3-5 KJV, and after having been arrested and crucified instead of Jesus, Judas (not Iscariot), the brother of James took his place as the 12th apostle in Acts 1:13 KJV.
1. “The Missing Apostle” by R.F. Sands, ASIN B01BXTIU76, published 2-18-16, DM Cramer Publishers.
Hi Berean, I think I understand why my edits were deleted. I reviewed the conflict of interest concerns and I hope the following changes address that (I admit to confusion regarding being transparent about a conflict). I am also not sure if I am raising this in the proper venue. Or should I just edit the info again? thanks for your time and help, Rfsands (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Berean Hunter,
I saw you making some edits recently, and was hoping since you're online you could help clear the backlog at WP:AIV, where there are currently 28 outstanding reports. Thanks! MarginalCost (talk) 05:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
hi berean, yes, i can see now how i'm entering original research and self-citing. i'll work at finding ways to corroborate the insertion, thanks for your time, r.f. sands — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfsands (talk • contribs) 22:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
The account was created after Nemroyo has been indeffed by an admin due to his persistent/long-term disruptive edits
Same POV editing regarding Syriac and Chaldean Christians (changing "Syriac" to "Assyrian", despite the identity of the Syriacs is disputed, as mentioned in here)[2][3][4][5]
The anon deleted the same content with the same dishonest edit summaries: [6][7]
Also, the suspected sock ip was active when the suspected sock account was also active (See their editing dates). Both their editing topics, POVs and activation dates suggest that they are related to each other as well as to the indeffed user. Based on the concerns above, CU would be an appropriate action. Other similarities can be mentioned, if needed. There are plenty! Thanks. 98.234.105.26 (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Would you unblock my ip address for editing this page please?
The edits I made were to correct known misinformation coming from the banks to confuse new users. I am happy to work with you and provide higher quality edits, with smaller changes at each edit, and with much better citation. I want this page to settle into a neutral and balanced page.
How can the Interaction Timeline be useful in reporting to noticeboards?
Hi Berean Hunter,
The Anti-Harassment Tools team built the Interaction Timeline to make it easier to understand how two people interact and converse across multiple pages on a wiki. The tool shows a chronological list of edits made by two users, only on pages where they have both made edits within the provided time range. Our goals are to assist users to make well informed decisions in incidents of user misconduct and to keep on-wiki discussions civil and focused on evidence.
I was in Wikipedia at work yesterday, and during my break I wanted to make a minor edit to an article. It was a small matter: in the article on The Gadget Show, in the list of current presenters, I wanted to change the name of Georgie Barrat (currently plain text) into a link to her own Wikipedia article Georgie Barrat. But when I clicked to edit, I found my work IP address 82.1.219.0/24 (these are computers in the City of Westminster network) had been blocked by you, presumably because of misuse by A. N. Other. I'm a registered user, and the box related the block said it wouldn't apply to me, but I couldn't see how to get round the block.
If you wouldn't mind adding the double square brackets round Georgie's name, that would do the current job, but is there a way for me to get round the block if I need to make a small correction or tweak anywhere else? I do have a clean record in these things, having made a few dozen corrections, though another user did once undo a change I made to someone's name: I work for the register office at Westminster, i.e. the births, marriages & deaths records dept., and had noticed one extra forename in a birth registration that's missing in the birth info in the article on the person in question. But because I'm an old man, not particularly IT-savvy, I don't know how to add a reference to back up my change, especially as I don't even know if a reference to a document that's not available online would even be acceptable. This other user (who had originated the article, and is presumably alerted when changes are made), told me she wouldn't accept the amendment without a reference. So I've left Wikipedia without the improvement in accuracy that I would have wanted to provide.
Anyway, back to my first question: can you help me?
174.82.95.183 (talk·contribs)
Did you remember this report in March on a IP for making unnecessary and unexplained changes like these [8][9] in articles. It appears once again the editor is using another account for disruptive editing, it's clearly the editor is just here to be disruptive. Here's are the recent edits [10][11][12]. I let you know if this continues. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Berean Hunter. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 20:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC). 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.
Hello, and great thanks for fighting spam. Remaining uses of this one appear different (although I have not visited the site or tried to look if it's popular). It could still be refspam, but I'm less certain, so just a note to check this one more closely. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 15:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello again. While reverting some links from the latest domains you added at the poke page, I noticed that this one had more links, used as citations with information. However, I at the same time noticed some evidence of apparent COI: for instance Special:Contributions/193.203.50.18 adding a paragraph sourced with it at various articles. [13] I imagine them editing Wikipedia.[Humor] So what I wonder is if it's a valid source enough to leave those additions alone... The COIBot report is also interesting: apparent spam and some whitelisted or trusted editors (but I check one that I recognize, Sro23 for instance, and it was just the revert of massive changes to an article. If you confirm the 40 or so instances should be removed, I'll help to remove them. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I'll take a look tomorrow I think, as I work my way down that list. Actually, MER-C may be the one to look. I believe from what I have seen that he might be familiar with this spamming. I do believe that this is going to be worthy of a massive addition to the blacklist when it is all over. — Berean Hunter(talk)00:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
PAKHIGHWAY
As per your earlier finding,[14] I started the SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bk2006, which was closed by Bbb23 as "waste of time",[15] though I disagree with this because the SPI was about identifying the original sock master so that if PAKHIGHWAY socks again or requests unblock, others can look into the conduct of his original account. What do you think? Capitals00 (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
What is to be gained by looking into the conduct of his original account (assuming that to be true)? Since the last editing was 2009 for Bk2006, there is a good chance that his editing habits would look different. I think that it may make more sense to compare PAKHIGHWAY to any new accounts since that deals with what is happening now. This is true whether Bk2006 is PAKHIGHWAY or not.
It would appear that UTRS bot is not notifying admins when input is required :)
Anyways, you are the blocking admin for the IP concerned in the above ticket which I have manually placed on hold. It is a CU block and I'm not familiar with the sock master. Could you please take a look?--5 albert square (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello Berean Hunter. It has been quite a long time since you blocked and unblocked me. Ever since then I have asked you to return my user rights. Could you please reconcider it?
GreatLakesShips (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
I am writing on behalf of my fourteen year old son who is frankly distressed at his continued lack of user rights. I understand that there was an issue with multiple accounts and copyright. I am given to understand that this has now been resolved despite these errors being made in youthful naivety, so could you please explain why the user rights have not been returned to GreatLakesShips? I would hope that you could rectify this situation in the very near future as a keen student of history and shipping has been severely knocked by your lack of reply to his messages.
What does "severely knocked by your lack of reply to his messages" mean? His comment "Ever since then I have asked you to return my user rights..." makes it sound like there have been many requests but there haven't been. I stated my reasons when I replied in April. Two weeks later, he requested them but he shouldn't have asked so soon after I answered and my lack of response was intended as a clue. I had given my reasons and a two week wait wasn't what I had in mind. Have there been other requests that you know about? That is the only one that I recall went unanswered.
What is he unable to do without those rights? How is not having them impeding him? I'm given to think that the rights being discussed aren't understood so I would like to hear what you/he understands them to mean. — Berean Hunter(talk)16:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Yep, confirmed sock of Amfithea is trying to get SoWhy to help them. Because of cross wiki abuse, we may have to get the stewards at meta involved to globally lock some accounts and IPs (ranges?) and delete the sock creations. Ajraddatz has dealt with this particular case and may be able to help out. After failing to revert the socks at ro.wiki, I posted for help. I also posted at Vituzzu's Italian wiki talk page for the pages created there but he hasn't edited in several days. — Berean Hunter(talk)15:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Locked the account. It's hard to clean up elsewhere because these pages have been controlled by this guy for years. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I was looking for the currently unavailable NeilN and noticed you replied to a recent post on his page. Would you please direct me to a better suited party or look yourself at the activity of User:IIlolII here? This user appeared yesterday, launched into a series of rapid, mostly minor edits on a disparate half-dozen pages, then settled in at the mentioned page, which has remained the sole focus of attention since. I have tried to engage this editor in discussion here and overtly initiated collaboration here but without constructive response. Last time around, I tried for a full two weeks to communicate with or work around what turned out to be a sock puppet for a banned disruptive editor. This time I hope to direct my efforts more wisely. Thanks for your attention.
Hi,its a serious matter of concern that my account [16],[17] had been blocked in the name of some another user whom i didn't know and neither i had ever met him.
However,when I checked some of the pages that i had created its quite shocking to see the tag and name of someone else.I had also posted the request for the same on the wikipedia twitter page @Wikipedia you can check and verified it about all my details.Sorry,for posting the message without login but i don't have any option.And i hope that i would not suffer because of someone else mistake.Please,kindly look into the matter of concern.
You are blocked as a meatpuppet. A histmerge tag had been added to a sock's article with "requesting history merge from draft, with heavy blocked sock activity" as its edit summary. You pulled that tag off of the sock's article with a misleading edit summary "correcting edit". You also created that same sockmaster's article, Draft:Sheen Dass and you created Bhumika Gurung also. That is a few examples of seeming collusion. Working with someone? — Berean Hunter(talk)19:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi,you had made wrong judgement of something.Sorry,but i would like to say all the drafts whether Draft:Sheen Dass,article Bhumika Gurung had been created by me only.Its just the fact that both the actress belong to same country and same occupation.So,its necessay that few content would likely to be same.I known many had created draft or article earlier but I created the article with my own content without violating Wikipedia rules,and the television shows they did would neither be alter nor be changed I hope you understand.I had submitted the Draft:Sheen Dass and after rejection at once I corrected the Draft and then just resubmitted it.But again article didn't meet the notability guidelines so i left it.
Now talking about this, correcting edit" .Sorry to say but I had created this article after asking the fellow wikipedian ponoy and after the user suggestion I created the another new draft that's was all my personal work.And the content would remain same because neither the actor nor the shows the telecasted on the channel would change.I would like to say that I had copied the whole of my draft and then pasted because article creation was needed but one Wikipedia user suggested that i can move the Draft with using move button and the user had already done that.
Besides all this I would only like to say that I am neither a sockpuppet nor user having mutiple accounts.All the articles that I created was all created by me without someone help.I also request Wikipedia that they should create some privacy safety that next time if anyone join should not be unnecessary blocked in the name of other users.I hope that person would not suffer because of someone else or wrong judgement.
Thanks!
To Wikipedia for providing opportunity to edit.
Hey, just wanted to say THANKS! Almost every webhost unblock I've seen lately has contained an IP (tho, mostly an IP with the VPN turned off, but that's to be expected). Good idea! SQLQuery me!04:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome. I haven't been around this week to do much spot checking but so far today, it looks to be working well. I'm seeing first requests with the proper information. — Berean Hunter(talk)14:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
unrelated
I'll leave it up to you, whether you want to hit the next /18 range with a block. What that a-hole said was bad enough. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I was just assessing that range but I'll leave this one for now. If he keeps using it, I'll get that one, too. Thank you for your quick action. — Berean Hunter(talk)21:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Berean Hunter. You have new messages at Efa's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi, can you please readd the page protection admin only edits to this as just now , when the pp was lifted, a registered user upe, now blocked, immediately started editing it and is probably one of the many sockpuppets involved. Also, can you add the same admin only protection to the talkpage as it has become a circus, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
An Urdu Wikipedia sysop made a request on meta god IPBE for a wide CU block you made for spamming: [18]. Would you mind having a look at the request for local IPBE? TonyBallioni (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I didn't. If your account was blocked, you wouldn't be able to edit here on this talk page. Since you could edit and the only thing you've done on en.wiki is leave this message, it doesn't appear to be much of a concern. — Berean Hunter(talk)16:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually internet is censored in my nation so I have to use VPN. This is funny, two people reverted me. I wasn't the one who added it and it was added dats ago. 23.91.108.10 (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Nazi trolls
I don't know what prompted you to check 80.111.0.0/16, but one of the accounts spewing Nazi-conspiracies on Barbara Lerner Spectre is from that range. If there's anything you can do, anything I don't know anything about, go for it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Message: Can you advise on this please? It just says CU block so I'm a little unsure. Is this a CU block for the sockpuppet that used this range back in 2015? Can I do anything for this user?
Amanda and 5 albert square, this report is completely false which explains why UTRS gets fed bad info for the underlying blocking admin on many reports. According to that, I made a checkuser block back in 2015 even though I wasn't a checkuser. Here is the real block log where it shows that my last rangeblock was to expire in 2016 and the first checkuser block was made by KrakatoaKatie. I've never seen into that range with the CU tool. I identified this bug back in July and filed at phabricator. That bug has affected us since 2014. — Berean Hunter(talk)22:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.
I tried to edit without logging in
I tried to do a quick edit this morning but it appears that you have blocked me.
Sorry to bother you, Berean Hunter but I have a question regarding adminstrators
I have been on Wikipedia for a long time and editing articles anonymously and not logged in while editing. I have been thinking about becoming an administrator but I cannot find a simple guide on becoming one. What are the benefits of being an admin and how do you block users (not that I want to block anybody without good reason, but I want to make Wikipedia a safe and better place.) Also, how long does it take to be an administrator and where can I sign up after I create an account? I would like to work in the UTRS as well.
Step one is to have an account. From that, you can gain experience but it will take time. Don't try to sign up after getting an account as that would be shot down immediately. Becoming an admin shouldn't really be a primary goal. — Berean Hunter(talk)14:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
You sended a message I can not find
Hello Beran Hunter I received an info that you contacted me on my talk page - but I see nothing. I am reverting at this time in the article The Bang Bang Club (film) chances by a new editor. Now I see that you in the Revision history did a rollback. Best.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 05:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Fonte de regaz
Thanks for the checkuser run regarding Fonte de regaz. I've been playing whack a mole with this person over the last year, and I appreciate these socks being knocked out early. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Berean Hunter. I wonder if I could trouble you to give a behavioural assessment at SPI regarding what I think is a resurgence of a sock family you've dealt with before (thereby curtailing some deeply troubling WP:CHILDPROTECT violations which have now resumed with the newest probable sock). I previously reached out to Sro23 about the same matter a couple of days ago, but I think my timing was poor and they have not been back on project to see the request. Given the serious and disturbing nature of the issues and behaviour involved, and what feels to me like a very transparent case of continued socking, I think an admin should have a say sooner, rather than later. If you have the time, that is. Thanks much. Snowlet's rap05:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
ferret, the /43 range does not pick up all of his edits. A /40 seems to but previous history on this range suggests that it may be the /39 range to get full coverage of assigned IPs. Notice that it catches this IP where the /43 didn't. I know that you were looking for a smaller range that would leave the comicbook editor alone but I don't see that as possible. If you block, we can refer that editor to ACC. — Berean Hunter(talk)10:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
This is the school principal speaking. Hello, so I was blocked for no reason at all. It was probably due to someone else's actions. This computer has been affected and even as far as the whole school. So I need to know why it was blocked in the first place. 168.8.249.165 (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello great sage of the ranges. 167.128.111.204's school block probably needs moved up to 167.128.111.196/26. Is that adequate? It may be a little wider. Every edit I checked in this range seemed to fit into the school's registrations and vandalism patterns. -- ferret (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bit reliant on the Wmflabs calc tool, I'm afraid :) Thanks for the wider range. With existing blocks already there, I'm going to move the block higher, as they slip to new IPs quickly. -- ferret (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I see now the whois tool shows the range info as well when looking at single IPs. I'll start utilizing that while I evaluate in the future. -- ferret (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
ferret, you may also find this tool useful. For the current range, it shows that no one has been editing any of the other wiki projects and it shows which single IPs are blocked in that range. If other projects are being abused, you would want to ask for help from the stewards if you don't speak the projects' languages. — Berean Hunter(talk)21:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Please pay attention to the page Visa policy of Russia. In 2015 You protected the page. The page hasn't been attacked in a long time. Protection was introduced a few years ago. The page dont needs continued protection. How to cancel this restriction? Can you help? --109.252.45.173 (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
According to the protection log, the last protection that I placed on the article expired in January 2016. You are editing the article as are other IPs but other editors are reverting you (page history). As such, pending changes should remain. — Berean Hunter(talk)18:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't see the logic. In your opinion, the restriction should remain, because my correct edit was twice canceled by users who do not understand the visa policy of Russia. They were wrong, not me. It's nonsense. The page does not need any additional protection. If you are worried about the protection of visa articles, then why the other 399 articles do not have this protection.
IPs can edit that article. Why do these edits have to wait for confirmation from users who do not understand visa policy?
Today, the ip user made an edit to the Visa policy of Bosnia and Herzegovina page. This edit removed some of the information. It's vandalism. This edit has been canceled. That's right. To prevent this from happening in the future, please set the exact same limit for this article. Based on your logic, it will be fair and correct. --109.252.45.173 (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Dear Berean Hunter,
I do understand where you are coming from and it does make sense, however I believe that my edit was simply making the page more appropriate for certain audiences. I am a school student researching for an assignment and I did not find that certain word appropriate so I made the change to censor the swear word. If you still believe that this is making a change that is not valuable then I will not change it however if it is okay I would like to change it for the better so it is more appropriate for a larger audience.
Hi, you have blocked me from editing anonymously. This is very annoying because when I find errors on wikipedia pages that I don't actually want to tie my professional representation to I normally edit them. I've already wasted way more time this morning trying in vain to find a way to just leave an anonymous note on a talk page or something since I'm being prevented to do free labour for the common good. How do I find out why I'm being blocked? I apparently need to know this to appeal.
I realise you probably can't tell why I'm being blocked because right now I'm logged in. Catch 22. How can I contact you while I'm not logged in?
Hello Joanna Bryson, you can email me from your account with the email address link in the box at the top of this talk page. I would need to know what IP(s) that you are talking about so that I could look into it. — Berean Hunter(talk)12:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Barbecue in South Carolina
There is literally no reason to not have a page, despite your indulging of conspiracies that I have a conflict of interest (which is false, I am gaining nothing form this article. This should either be a page or apart of the Barbecue in North Carolina page, but you have rejected both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.12.44 (talk) 17:34, October 28, 2018 (UTC)
Simply add the mustard sauce to the North Carolina page and rename it "Barbecue in Carolina". You said it yourself that the mustard sauce is distinct, but you have rejected any attempts to name it its own style, therefore it should be apart of the North Carolina article.
Also note I proposed this months ago, before creating the south Carolina one which you deleted only to have you write an over the top response that shows a clear bias in this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.12.44 (talk) 17:40, October 28, 2018 (UTC)
Unblock declined
You just decliend an unblock request on a block that should never have been issued. The block ignored WP:BANEX The blocking Admin may soon face an ArbComm trip for failing to address [[[WP:ADMINACCT]] so you may want to reconsider and read all the page comments that outline how this user was invited to comment at the AN by Richie and is entitled to comment on the IBAN violation. You also need to WP:ADMINACCT now for perpetuating a serious mistake. No one will be safe reporting an IBAN violation if they can be blocked for providing evidence of the violation. Legacypac (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
ADMINACCT? Since when does one get into trouble for choosing not to undo another admin's action? I have my reservations about unblocking and I'm also a volunteer and cannot be forced to unblock anymore than I can be forced to block. Did you fail to read where I said that they could have emailed their evidence? MaranoFan may ask for an appeal at AN and there folks may chime in...MF would be the one to do the asking. As for Arbcom, I'm quite sure that you will get shot down for not trying other routes of resolution such as AN first. — Berean Hunter(talk)22:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello, Berean Hunter. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 21:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC). 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.
The Account Rpriv2000 has been blocked could you, please, tell me what was the improper use as cited below?
Thanks, Russ Hamer (Rpriv2000@yahoo.co.uk)
[Re; My IP address (146.90.91.251), has been blocked by Berean Hunter.
The reason given by Berean Hunter is
Wikipedia Checkuser.svgThis network has been used improperly by someone on your network. It has therefore been blocked as a precaution to prevent abuse and damage to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russhamer (talk • contribs) 21:53, November 5, 2018 (UTC)
That account is not blocked and hasn't made an edit for three years. The range is blocked because of long term abuse. If Rpriv2000 is your account then you should log in and indicate your new alternate account on your userpage per the requirement. You shouldn't have any problem editing while logged into your account. — Berean Hunter(talk)22:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
New possible IP range vandal
Hello! You helped me before previously through WP:ANI with a suspected IP range vandal - 90.174.2.0/24. I noticed some similar activity with another IP range, even to the wordage that the IP address used as seen here and previously here. I believe the IP range is the following: 84.78.20.174/18. I would greatly appreciate the help. – The Grid (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Berean Hunter. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I want to ask one thing, if you can answer. I am worried about guys who attacked my Chinese wiki user page like China interfered with US elections. If there are really many different people but there are the same editors, what should I do? If they develop a group in the future, it is like the Chinese Wikipedia administrator election is controlled by a specific group.--Tr56tr (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I think listing the articles in the SPI case would help. That way, we can do a better job of helping you and then you wouldn't have to try and do it all by yourself. It is also hard for editors to know who is who when dealing with IPs. Sometimes, you have to let the wrong version of articles sit for a while without repeatedly reverting. I wish that you would have started by filing the SPI case first. — Berean Hunter(talk)11:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Because he will appear on the page he edited, I will cancel his edit, making it difficult for him to hide himself through multiple accounts, because his ultimate goal is to keep his own editor.
I have observed several suspicious accounts, and recently I will use google to investigate his cross-wiki activity.--Tr56tr (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Berean Hunter. Hope all is well. I was wondering if it's possible to request an unblock of User:MX-public, an account I've used when I'm editing in public areas. I may visit The University of Texas at Austin campus libraries sometime in December/January to read offline sources about a draft I'm completing. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. MX (✉ • ✎) 19:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I've noticed on a few pages I've edited that there is/was a lot of edit warring on the pages that were edited by User-4488 and Tr56tr. Both of them are blocked as socks, and both have some constructive edits that should be kept but others that should be reverted. Kinda confused on who to revert. Would I revert back to the revision before all this socking business started? I don't want to blindly revert all of their edits and end up unintentionally causing damage. Ving Jol-ik (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I think he may be introducing himself, but he is afraid that people know that he is introducing himself. So he said Discard own message. The real question is whether he is User-4488 or Tr56tr.--1.165.215.206 (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Right. It seems that you are both wasting time and effort that you could be doing something more productive. The history on the Battle of Chamdo is just a small example of unproductive edits as of late. Between the two of you, I suggest that you produce a list of articles that are in dispute and then we can go from there...unless you guys want to keep socking and chasing each others edits down. I'm starting to think that some form of article protections may occur and then the two of you wouldn't need to chase each other around. — Berean Hunter(talk)13:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
GAB, Johns17ba is the oldest, a 2012 account. One of the ranges was being used by Morning277 socks in 2013 making a connection to that sockfarm possible. — Berean Hunter(talk)11:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Thomas.W, Bingobongo22 is more than 350 km from Benniejet's normal locale, same country and the device isn't one that I've seen him use. Possible though. Hanhanmushroom/Souserera are in a different country/continent than Bennie. Ugmalux is technically indistinguishable to Hanhanmushroom/Souserera. To be watched. — Berean Hunter(talk)11:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Proxies? Hanhanmushroompushes Italy as a great power, just like Bennie, and posts in the same broken English as Benniejets and all previous Bennie socks. Bennie has used at least a dozen socks, eight named socks plus a number of utterly obvious OP-socks, on Talk:Great power (see my post about sock edits near the bottom of the talk page) over the past month alone, using multiple socks in paralell, interacting with each other, and supporting each other, on the talk page, which is far more than the number of "legitimate" users that have edited the talk page during that time period, and apart from Hanhanmushroom there's not a single other user there supporting Bennie's views. Hanhanmushroom also showed up right after another sock, that had been very active on that page, was blocked, which is how Bennie usually works, creating a new sock as soon as the previous one gets blocked... - Tom | Thomas.W talk11:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
(was looking cross wiki) Ugmalux contribs at fr.wiki indicate this is the same editor..."...A Rising Middle Power" Blocked the accounts. I didn't find that they were proxies...not sure if they are colocation webhost or not. I have blocked based on behavior and applied a few protections. — Berean Hunter(talk)12:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
When I tried to edit without logging in I saw this message
"Editing from 51.7.0.0/16 has been blocked (disabled) by Berean Hunter"
I am using just one static ip 51.7.37.170 that was assigned years ago by my ISP.
Probably the blocked range will include numerous other individuals that are completely unrelated to each other; possibly they share the same ISP wholesaler.
Hi Kxjan, Though they say static in reports, it is confirmed that the same blocked LTA used these IP addresses recently and they seem to be dynamically assigned. I didn't look further than a few months.
A different sockmaster has been using 51.7.31.77 recently.
I can see other socks in the log that look to be dynamically assigned IP addresses in that range as well. That block will expire in two days but if the socking resumes then it will likely be anonblocked for a longer duration. You can still use your account in that range right? — Berean Hunter(talk)21:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
David Caramelli
Hi Berean Hunter! I'd like to recreate the page "David Caramelli" because after controlling the reasons because it has been deleted I think I could do it. I am not banned of course and not blocked. Being Caramelli an important italian scientist in my opinion we could keep it here. The text could be the same. May I do this? --Ricce (talk) 09:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC) P.S. (sorry for my bad english. I am Italian. Here is my italian page: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Ricce)
Hi Berean! In more details? As I was saying I'd like recreate the page because Caramelli is on of the most important italian scientist living today. Is this not enough?--Ricce (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Is there an article about him at the Italian Wikipedia? I have looked but have not found one. If there is, please provide a link. If the article has been deleted then I need to see a link for that.
I'm just going to write the article on David Caramelli in It-Wiky, as soon as possible i'll send you the link. Thankyou anyway for your help!--Ricce (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Ruthven, does the Italian Wikipedia have that conflict of interest policy? I ask this because the deleted David Carmelli article states "He is the Director of Department of Biology and Full Professor of Anthropology at the University of Florence." and Ricce's Italian userpage has (Google translated into English) "...I graduated in biology and work (for more than thirty years) at the University of Florence." This seems to constitute an apparent COI. Would you look into this at it.wiki? Where he has written, "...in my opinion we could keep it here" makes me think that something has been deleted there or that he may be trying to avoid COI on it.wiki. For background, this article was deleted as a product of undisclosed, paid sockpuppets. I think Ricce should clarify his part in this and why he is trying to create this article. — Berean Hunter(talk)18:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
un tuo conoscente/collega/amico sa che hai familiarità coi computer e ti prendi l'onere di scrivere o migliorare la voce su di lui o sulla sua azienda;
lavori per un'azienda, un ente pubblico o privato, una biblioteca e vuoi migliorare la voce dell'organizzazione per cui lavori;
which google translates to:
an acquaintance / colleague / friend knows that you are familiar with computers and you take the burden of writing or improving the voice about him or his company;
work for a company, a public or private body, a library and you want to improve the voice of the organization you work for;
@Berean Hunter: Hi! it.wiki has a COI policy, the very same you've found: it:WP:CSC. The user with a CoI must declare it before editing. Once that is done, the object of the article has to be –of course– notable. Also consider that it.wiki is somehow more selective than en.wiki, and there is the tendency to speedy delete articles that look like a resumé (for many good reasons). I do not have much time in these days, but I'll be happy to help you with this. I'll dig a little in the SP investigation below on the it.wiki side. Thanks!! --Ruthven(msg)09:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I deleted the article on it.wiki, and wrote to the user. The long list of links in the article, and the tone used, looked like that a promotional intent was behind. I am waiting for clarifications, in particular from the CoI point of view. Cheers --Ruthven(msg)08:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
You edit-Comment was "rm sock edit" - I don't know exactly what you did or intended to do, but the first reference is now broken and changed as well. I hope you could check again. Thx a lot ...SicherlichPost01:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello Berean Hunter,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that
Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"
My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk08:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I have reported [28] back in August of this year that an editor making unexplained and unnecessary changes in articles [29][30][31]. It appears the editor is back again and still doing the same thing but with another account [32]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
I guess you will delete this message and block me directly, but my question is very clear, you are the user checker, but you use your own right to protect a sock puppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.233.224.46 (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
If you feel that it is right, I have no power to stop you.But there is no denying the fact that your behavior is actually choosing one side. And he will think that you will help him because he thinks you think he is right, so he will continue. But he is not always right.
The damage will appear in the future, he will continue his previous editing mode. He also used UserDe to report that his sock puppet is a sock puppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.233.224.46 (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
When you get a chance
Hi BH - when you get a minute will you take a look at this SPI case? There is also a potential undisclosed COI. Author has failed to respond and has beeen quite insistent on creating what appears to be his/her own BLP. Atsme✍🏻📧13:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Atsme, I have to go in a few minutes but my advice would be to let the MfD finish. Whether socking or IP socking occurs may help shape the course of things. The amount of tolerance for new editors making mistakes like logged-out editing may begin to run thin for this editor soon. Socking in the MfD or yet another creation afterwards would likely tip the scales. If another tag gets pulled by an IP then an admin should consider a hardblock. — Berean Hunter(talk)14:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
It's a few days away
HappyHolidays!
Wishing you much joy & happiness now and every year!!
Merry Christmas - Happy Hanukkah‼️
When does New Year’s Day come before Christmas Day?
Hello Berean Hunter, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, 7&6=thirteen (☎)17:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Hope you enjoy the Christmas eve with the ones you love and step into the new year with lots of happiness and good health. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year! GSS (talk
I came across some vandalism by Special:Contributions/302yanela_zulu and noticed the vandal edits consisted of some variant of the the phrase "block Berean hunter" (here, here, and here). @Dawnseeker2000: fixed the vandalism and I issued warnings, but I thought it might be a sock you blocked previously.
Anyway, I thought you might want to know if you need to add it to any open investigation.
Hope the holidays are going great for you otherwise!
I disagree with your reversion of this article, left and right are ambiguous and therefore worthless. As you can see from Port_and_starboard these are all common aeronautical terms with the express intent if resolving this ambiguity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DracoDan82 (talk • contribs) 22:59, January 16, 2019 (UTC)
DracoDan82, They are common terms within the industry but not to the uninitiated. It has not been explained or linked anywhere else within the article. I was choosing Layman's terms over jargon for the wider audience. If you think that it is ambiguous, I suggest placing the parenthetical "(port)" beside the left side to make it clearer. — Berean Hunter(talk)10:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry on Kansas City articles
Hey Berean, thanks for dealing with User:Midwestman1986 and associated accounts. I first encountered this user back in December and created opened this investigation. It's still open, is there a way to delete it or merge it with yours? I'm currently working on reviewing the vast number of edits associated accounts have made, and undoing what damage I can. The Kansas-Missouri border war is always kinda simmering on Wikipedia, but this case is by far the worst I've seen. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Grey Wanderer, the Kansascitt1225 case should be merged with the other one and the clerks should handle that for you. You may want to notify the Commons admins of the SPI case and show them the accounts which have uploaded so they may make determinations. — Berean Hunter(talk)10:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey I hate to add to your clearly overflowing plate...but...if you find the time could you look at the recent additions to this case, you did such a thorough job before. Also a question, can Admins see other users thank actions? User:Mountainhikeyclimbin abuse of the thank button for my edits is good evidence they are controlled by the sock master. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey Berean. 49.148.128.0/17 is currently blocked following the last SPI on Raymondskie99. He recently joined the Discord server and began revealing some of his recent editing, and rose suspicions by repeatedly messaging several admins. After looking into it, it became clear who he was... I know he's been editing from 49.145.242.8 and 49.145.246.68 so far, and am still digging. Looks like his range shifted. He also edited from 190.116.178.27 which is odd but matches behaviors, and he claimed to have created the Ditto article. The topic areas are the same as always, including articles created by past socks, video game characters, a focus on Street Fighter, etc. -- ferret (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
PH geolocate but different ranges: 130.105.167.5, 182.18.225.81, 182.18.225.29 -- ferret (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Possible overlap with Bertrant101: 49.145.241.33 -- ferret (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I'll stop here, you're more than capable and better than this at me to determine if anything useful could be done on these ranges. -- ferret (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
ferret, I cannot associate IPs with accounts so this is not an acknowledgment that these belong to that master but I can tell you that the following are proxies.
For what it's worth, the user has admitted the socking and claims they will now try for standard offer and stop. They do protest that two of the blocked accounts were not them though, but FireStorm28, if it matters. Appears plausible, but either way the socks are blocked. -- ferret (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
You recently blocked the latter account indef for sockpuppetry, at articles including many related to AT&T and WarnerMedia. (There does not appear to be an SPI I can reference nor add to.) See if you don't agree that both behavioral evidence and choice of articles to edit strongly suggest that the former account is also a sock. General IzationTalk 19:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Berean Hunter! I noticed that, recently, you blocked user BBMatBlood over IP socking, and later account socking. I had a lot of discourse with this user before, and I suspected them of IP socking multiply. E.g. they voiced their support for an IP's edit and later gainsaid being the editor behind that IP.
This was especially suspicious given that both targeted articles of companies with high monetary value (WarnerMedia, Take-Two Interactive (+ Rockstar Games, 2K Games), and associated subsidiaries and parent companies, ...), made similar edits (including warring over Otter Media's exclusion fron WarnerMedia's subsidiary list), and frequently shouted "UPDATED." whenever inserting CNBC news snippets to anything.
The IP in question is 78.16.82.179, do I assume correctly that these were, in fact, the same person? If so, I fear the pages I mentioned and those related to them could become subject of sock editing by this user. You locked up WarnerMedia alrady, but Take-Two might also need protecting. Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 13:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) @Lordtobi: The IP specified has not been used to edit since October 2018. While it may have been used by BBMatBlood (I am not a CU; only a CU can determine this, but cannot tell others what they find), it is not reasonable to assume it is now being or will be used by them again, unless and until it edits disruptively. You may want to keep an eye on it, but I doubt that anyone would preemptively block it at this point. General IzationTalk 14:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Duly noted. I was just wondering since I couldn't find an SPI case on this, but I guess that's uncommon for IP socking. Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 15:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Lordtobi: A checkuser would not likely file an SPI report about IP socking but I have given General Ization a new, confirmed sockpuppet for the master in the thread above. If one of you would be kind enough to file the SPI report then if he turns up again, you will have the case on file. — Berean Hunter(talk)16:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Berean Hunter. Thanks for checking the latest case of socking by Deucalionite. You blocked the master indefinitely although they had already been blocked indefinitely since 2009 (and since then they have socked with many confirmed socks). I do not know if you noticed that so I am leaving this note here. Cheers and thanks again, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Gino Kenny, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. PatGallacher (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I came across Draft:Get Me A Shop and noticed that the creator was CU blocked. I'm trying to determine if that article would be G5 eligible. Could you take a look for me and delete it if it's eligible? Thanks! Kb03 (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
It was in a sandbox and was moved into draft space less than 20 min after I blocked. I've deleted as G11 and that is an undisclosed paid editor that had created a sock. I'm not certain about the master as more than one use the same ranges. — Berean Hunter(talk)21:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Just curious...do you remember this case? It goes back a ways. I stumbled across it because of this attempt by the now blocked LavaBaron. I have always wanted to learn more about socking, how to recognize it and what steps to take if suspected. I got into trouble once for daring to even mention it but as it turned out in that particular case, I was at least correct about one of the two. Regarding Zeke's case, I still believe now, perhaps even more so, what I believed back then about Zeke1999 being innocent of socking but all I had to go on was the sincerity expressed in his responses and the exchanges I have read. I was far more convinced that his accuser User:LavaBaron was the guilty party in that case. As it turns out, BlueSalix and LavaBaron were investigated and determined to be one in the same. It appears LB was projecting his own wrong doings onto poor ole Zeke who caught hell based on suspicion. I did not study any of the other blocks imposed on him for other issues which I have no interest in. I am now wondering if it is better to AGF under the concept of innocent until proven guilty or is the customary practice to block suspected socks based on strong suspicion a better option as a preventative measure for the sake of the project? Atsme✍🏻📧19:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Generally, each case must be considered on its own merits and it depends on what is at stake. I don't remember that one well enough to know what else happened but the blocking admins might. — Berean Hunter(talk)20:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Question regarding one account restriction
Hey Berean Hunter,
With regards to the conditions on my standard offer (diff), I've thought of a bit of an issue. In order to pursue some technical tests over on Test Wikipedia regarding this, I will need to create a second account without +sysop to test the edit filter (some of the filters I have in the works use user groups and edit count as an automatic threshold to identify non-abuse). While the one-account restriction is on English Wikipedia, I believe now that logins are unified, an English Wikipedia account will be automatically attached, thus meaning I can't go ahead with my tests without violating the conditions of my standard offer. You said in the diff above that I could appeal the one-account editing restriction in a year, which is three months from now, and I plan on doing so (to split out most of my AutoWikiBrowser contributions like I did on my old account because it's difficult for edit analysis and it stops every time I get a talk page message), however, what I'm querying in this message is, until then, would it be acceptable to create an account which will not make any edits to any project other than Test Wikipedia for the purposes described in the second diff?
Yes, that is alright to create the test account, StraussInTheHouse. After you create the account, make your next edit to your userpage here to identify it per WP:VALIDALT. This should also make it stand out to any CU or steward that happens to find themselves in your ranges and hopefully prevent any confusion. Good luck with the tests. — Berean Hunter(talk)08:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Why did you undo my edits to Greek government-debt crisis? Just to jog your memory I edited the page to reflect the historical consensus, which is that extensive worker benefits for Greek state employees helped balloon the deficit, contributing to the debt crisis. How is this inaccurate? And how does this "constitute vandalism"? Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.29.175.94 (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I notice you blocked 103.214.223.46. This and 49.181.231.154 and
Pacificus all seem to be sock puppets from the same source. Why: same editing content, though not current. Hmains (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Hmains, Pacificus is Unrelated to those IP addresses (wrong continent). They have, however, IP socked elsewhere though.
Could you please take a look at this UTRS request? It's a CheckUser block and I'd really appreciate some input. You blocked the user. Is this user likely to be the sock that you blocked the IP range for?-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
PS: They are currently active as an anon [60]. The same location with the sockmater. Moreover, just a few hours before the ip’s edits on language, Jahmalm were editing some pages regarding languages and after the ip’s edits, Jahmalm linked the same article on a page[61]. Blocking (to prevent further block evasion & disruption) and rollbacking (to discourage further sockpuppetry) the ip would be an appropriate action too-they have been socking for a long time and it seems that, that was among their favorite topics [62] Thank you in advance.186.156.25.147 (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
This should go into an SPI report for proper record keeping and to allow any admins the ability to take action. I don't know if it will be me as I have a few things that I'm looking at and not much time. — Berean Hunter(talk)19:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Confirmed to Mendyli and Mickysandly.
Done Looks like the sockmaster to me.
Atsme📞📧 00:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Possible
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Any CU interested in a new rabbit hole?. GABgab 21:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Gino Kenny, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. PatGallacher (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Just curious...do you remember this case? It goes back a ways. I stumbled across it because of this attempt by the now blocked LavaBaron. I have always wanted to learn more about socking, how to recognize it and what steps to take if suspected. I got into trouble once for daring to even mention it but as it turned out in that particular case, I was at least correct about one of the two. Regarding Zeke's case, I still believe now, perhaps even more so, what I believed back then about Zeke1999 being innocent of socking but all I had to go on was the sincerity expressed in his responses and the exchanges I have read. I was far more convinced that his accuser User:LavaBaron was the guilty party in that case. As it turns out, BlueSalix and LavaBaron were investigated and determined to be one in the same. It appears LB was projecting his own wrong doings onto poor ole Zeke who caught hell based on suspicion. I did not study any of the other blocks imposed on him for other issues which I have no interest in. I am now wondering if it is better to AGF under the concept of innocent until proven guilty or is the customary practice to block suspected socks based on strong suspicion a better option as a preventative measure for the sake of the project? Atsme✍🏻📧 19:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Unrelated to those IP addresses (wrong continent). They have, however, IP socked elsewhere though.
![[13]](https://www.carid.com/ic/static-pages/about-us/our-team_0.jpg){kind=link}