Jump to content

User talk:Berean Hunter/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

IP Blocking even with my username and no way to appeal

Hello, my normal IP address has been blocked by you which I'm sure is a legitimate action however even-though I have a username I have used for 14 years and don't think I have been in any trouble, I cannot even edit my own talk page to ask for an exception to the block. I therefore submitted an appeal to the Unblock Ticket Request System and just checked my ticket appeal ticket and it has expired as I'm guessing no-one looked at it. I have therefore had to use my work VPN to post this message. Please could you add me as an exception to the IP block. Thank you Genesis12~enwiki (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Genesis12~enwiki,  Done.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Can I ask what the procedure is for users that this happens to? If I didn't have access to a VPN I can't see a way that I could ask to be unblocked. As I mention the ticket appeal doesn't appear to be working and I don't use Freenode IRC and as I couldn't write to my own talk page I was really stuck! I've looked at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Help:I_have_been_blocked but I can't see a way out of thisGenesis12~enwiki (talk) 10:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

UTRS is the normal approach but I see that your appeal automatically expired after 48 hours without any admin taking action. You didn't include any IP information and didn't request an IPBE. The request is vague so I can see why it didn't get a response. Requests that state that their IP is blocked but they don't give any info aren't actionable.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Seems Hunan201p = Tirgil34

The edits of these two recently blocked socks Special:Contributions/Lithuist and Special:Contributions/Elvanelva are very similar to Hunan201p's edits. Hunan201p = Tirgil34 for 99% in my opinion. Just like Tirgil34, Hunan201p tried to remove any connection/relation between Turkic peoples and East Asians (East Eurasians); e.g. trying to represent all Turkic peoples as a West Eurasian or European-like population, removal or misrepresenting of sourced content, censorship and etc. I think users @3family6, Krakkos, LouisAragon, Queenplz, Steve Quinn, and Tobby72: may agree with me. There is a strong similarity between Hunan201p's behavior and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34. Hunan201p may be a WP:GHBH case. He tried to establish himself as a trusted editor by hunting another sockmaster named Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WorldCreaterFighter. How Lithuist (a Tirgil34's sock) wanted the same thing as Hunan201p's[1]?! Or why the other sockpupprt Elvanelva is obsessed with WorldCreaterFighter's stuff? Even if Hunan201p =/= Tirgil34, WP:MEAT screams in this case. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know Hunan201p's editing patterns, I only got in conflict with them on the Genghis Khan article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Please see Krakkos' comment about probable meatpuppetry between the two users.[2] --Wario-Man (talk) 02:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
That would be something that you could consider filing in an SPI.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

51.7.41.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) blocked?

Can you please tell me why you've blocked 51.7.41.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? I've received an email from a user whose IP this seems to be, whom I'm well aquainted with. I seriously doubt that they should be blocked. Paul August ☎ 11:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok (as also explained in my second email to you) I’ve gone ahead and changed the block to "anon. only" so as to allow the user to edit while logged on. Of, course I still want to figure out why the user’s IP is blocked. Let's talk. Paul August ☎ 13:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Paul August, do you realize that you have modified a checkuser block without consulting the checkuser first? That is normally grounds for desysopping per policy, "A reversal or alteration of such a block without prior consultation may result in removal of permissions". Please go restore that block immediately.
Under normal circumstances, we cannot discuss what accounts that we have blocked behind IP addresses so usually, you wouldn't ask on a checkuser's talk page but in this case, the range is blocked because of BKFIP who is an LTA and that isn't an account name so I'm not violating the privacy policy by mentioning that. BKFIP was using accounts behind that range and causing arguments and his usual disruption.
Your friend has only just gotten assigned that address June 7 June 8 and it is a dynamic assignment. He hasn't encountered blocked ranges prior to this for the last three months so there was no history of problem. His proper course of action is to request an IPBE from his talk page and that is how I have been mitigating editors that may find themselves behind this block but still keeping BKFIP from using the range.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Btw, it is written in the block log and I've still not gotten your second email.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Mail?

Hi BH, did you get an email yesterday from me? Paul August ☎ 12:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Paul August, replied a moment ago.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Bell Cobra and Bell UH-1

My dad was a production scheduler at Bell helicopter from 1964 through about May 1966. Schedulers were using “just in time” concepts to maximize manufacturing tools and the production of specialized new tools, a concept from WWII. I was in highschool during this period. In early 1965, March or April, Bell had its first and secret meeting for what would be the 209 project. The effort set records, from an engineer proposal on paper in March, the aircraft flew in early October 1965.

The UH-1. 1969/70 I flew UH-1H Hueys in I Corps Vietnam. They all had M-60 machine guns on each side, as waist gunners and were swiveling and man operated. Only the designated Medivacs were not armed.

You have glossed over the UH-1H roll. Our crew on the M-60 did a lot to suppress the enemy.

My source is I have been there, done that.

Jim Ratcliff Lancer38@live.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C780:9810:F8C5:777C:5EB6:B931 (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Jim Ratcliff, I haven't edited the article for the Huey but I did recently remove edits made by a blocked sockpuppet and those included edits to the Cobra, SuperCobra and Apache articles. I removed a map of the operators. If you would like to edit the Huey article, please do but bear in mind that you will need reliable sources so that you may cite them for any additions that you make.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

86.24.216.121

86.24.216.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is back at the Danny Williams (footballer, born 1988) article - you blocked previously and they're back making the same edits... GiantSnowman 10:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

GS, blocked again.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! GiantSnowman 12:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXX, June 2020

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) 04:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Note

Hey. I just wanted to apologize. I know you pinged me to an SPI related thing with implications for Commons a while back and I think it got lost on my part. I don't even really know where it was at this point. I've been disengaged from the community for a bit. I could get into the details but I'm not sure anyone cares. I still hope to be allies cross projects. Just have patience with me for the time being. GMGtalk 00:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

ACC and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Никита-Родин-2002

Hi Berean Hunter. I noticed that you said the socks in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Никита-Родин-2002 were created through ACC. As a curious ACC user: was the sock's IP blocked/rangeblocked? Best, --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Mdaniels5757, they are getting the accounts created via the ACC creator's IP and then they are using the account behind an already anon-blocked range. I try not to block the ACC creator's IP. :) She seems to be putting requests in the ACC queue and if there is something that may be done about it then I imagine that either Amanda or Stwalkerster would be able to look into it and help.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Urgh, looking at the data held on the tool for the five accounts I can see listed on the SPI (without diving into the SPI archive), there's not much I can do with the current tools I've got. In theory, I can throw something together to try and stop this, but I don't want comment yet on how effective it might be. If you encounter any more of these (for this or any other user evading blocks) created via ACC, please let me know about it ASAP - the earlier I know about these the more likely I am going to be able to deal with things. @DeltaQuad: I'll email you with some ideas - if you could sanity-check before I spend the time to implement them? stwalkerster (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
stwalkerster, ygm. If you haven't already done so, I recommend watchlisting that SPI case.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Stwalkerster, another one made at ACC, right location, different UA. Check your inbox.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

FYI

I renamed a sock to Neveselbert (mobile) since it wouldn’t be hiding who it was and it’s unblocked on other projects. If either you or NinjaRobotPirate oppose I can reverse. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Is that the former AlbanGeller? If so, that's something that probably should be done a while ago, really. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, see m:User talk:TonyBallioni. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
No objections here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

IP 31.187.2.50 in RfC

Hi, re this block: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/31.187.2.50 This IP voted in an RfC survey[3] Should this be struck through? Thanks!BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I'v removed it, BobFromBrockley. Thank you for bring this to my attention.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

False lead in sock-puppeting investigations

Hi; I have a block on my phone's IP. I just wanted to point out that that block was misguided because it looks like there's a complicated and ongoing investigation. So I'm hoping pointing this out helps lead you to the real culprit. I don't even think I've made more than one edit on my phone ever, so after looking up what sock-puppeting is, I figure my phone was probably one of the IPs being abused by the puppeteer. It's not a huge deal, as I said I rarely edit from my phone anyway and obviously can still edit from my computer.

The block ID looks like it was #9799344 on 20:23, May 6th I think the IP listed is 2600:387:8:0:0:0:0:0:/48 ? which doesn't look like a real IP to me. Looking at the activity though I can see why that was blocked. I do see another unblock request too, which makes me wonder if this is like a usual dynamic IP address or something? I'm obviously not versed in this stuff but hopefully you are. IDK if that's the info you need or if you're not able to block the source if it's really wise to unblock the IPs being abused by it. As I said I'm really not fussed by a temporary block on my phone as long as I can still edit from my computer. I am primarily hoping that pointing this out to you helps you identify the actual puppeteer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.53.175 (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

. I already know why it is blocked.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

SPI question

I'd like to file an SPI request about this account. A common feature of several accounts is that they have a similar WP:COI, in addition to editing same pages, having similar unusual bias, etc. This presumably master account made this open disclosure: [4], and it was confirmed by the OTRS: [5]. Can I use these diffs in the SPI request, or it would be a privacy violation? My understanding it should be OK because the person made the open disclosure himself. My very best wishes (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello My very best wishes, you may use those and your understanding is correct. Interesting. I haven't looked deeply but as a source, it sounds like you might want to keep either the Fringe or Reliable sources noticeboard in mind as a potential place to discuss source suitability.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! I submitted an SPI request. I did not want it, but the user apparently resorted to using an IP with floating number (IP 31.187...) to follow my edits with "revenge reverts", and refuses to talk: [6], [7]. I am not sure what should be done: semi-protection of pages, blocking a wide range of IP addresses, or just to step aside and let them do whatever. Probably the latter. My very best wishes (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, I think this not only possible, but at least likely, and I added this comment with diffs [8]. My very best wishes (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • There is also this account you checked as a part of the case. I am not sure if this is someone's sock (most probably it is), but this is an obvious "disruption only" account based on their "contributions", and as such I think it should be blocked. My very best wishes (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Question about reporting obvious sockpuppetry

If I see obvious sockpuppetry, should I ask a CheckUser about it? Username6892 01:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Username6892, quite uncommon, but rather follow WP:SPI & provide evidence to support your claims. Celestina007 (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

You know, I don't think I ever did say this, so: thank you so much for helping me out ~2 years ago when I got blocked. :) Leijurv (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome Leijurv and I hope everything is going well for you. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Question

Can the user pages of editors who were involved in sock puppetry be resorted? Because both user pages of User:DocKino and User:DCGeist have been restored regardless of the fact that the person behind both accounts has been blocked. I'm not aware of the administrative rules for this specific incident, but since I've never seen this before, I wanted to clarify it with you.--Harout72 (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Harout72, the relevant instructions given to admins is at WP:SOCKTAG, under part III with "replace all content with..." It is normal to blank their pages.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Possible Ban Error?

Hi there! I just bumped the edit button while on my phone and as I was about to hit the back button I noticed I was banned. I pretty rarely edit Wikipedia so I was pretty confused, especially when I saw the reason listed was vandalism. The only things I remember editing are release dates and platforms for a handful of games and a grammatical error or two. The listed IP address was 107.77.173.0/24 Further details would be much appreciated!

Adolfnixon, that is for anon editing only and does not affect editors with accounts.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Mail Notice

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.

Celestina007 (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007 replied.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXI, July 2020

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, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Appeal

Hi, someone is appealing a CU block + webhost block. Could you please provide input? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

And there is a second one also ticket:2020070310007464 -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
AmandaNP, is the first ticket number correct? I don't see a CU block + webhost block...what I see is a colocation hard block on the range placed by ST47 and it is also globally locked as well. The account is not blocked and has never made a edit on en.wiki. I'm not sure how my name has been brought up.
On the second one, that range is hardblocked because of BKFIP and I had given some IPBEs to other editors that may be affected. That would be the strategy for that range to be effective squashing his efforts while allowing others to edit. Anon blocks didn't work and when I made that decision, he had been raising complaints on the admin boards against other editors and admins. The account that filed the OTRS request does not appear to be impeded now as they have made several edits since filing it. If they are still having problems then IPBE would be the way to go.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
So for the first one, the initial IP is the one you are looking at. If you look at article (email) #25, you'll see the new IP I asked them about as the first was resolved. Thanks for the info on the second one. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Replied and they should be able to edit.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Question (sincere) question

Hello Berean, Just want to know how adding a book to list of other books is a problem. It is simply there for people who do not know that there is newer information on the Zodiac case. If it were posted there by someone else it would seem like again, a list of books available, and this one is just another one with information about the case. It is fine what you have said, I just seek more understanding about it. I am not trying to promote anything other than information or knowledge. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosalind15! (talk • contribs) 19:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rosalind15!, What is the newer information on the Zodiac case?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi - the new information is about the most recent suspect and connections to him, circumstantial evidence etc. It appeared that there were just a few references so I added another one for the public to see. When one posts information and tries to share it via a reference or source that is what I was trying to do. Sort of an update to the case. What If? Golden State Killer, Zodiac SOLVED is about that new information - it was put out there last fall 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosalind15! (talk • contribs) 20:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I've moved your comment into this section for you. You can sign your post with four tildes ~~~~ and it will do it for you automatically.
What is the newer information on the Zodiac case? (same question because I still don't know what the new information is as you never said)
A problem is that the Golden State Killer has not been named as a Zodiac suspect. That comes under the authority of law enforcement agencies. The book you are mentioning is speculation about a relationship, right?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
The information is circumstantial evidence and is solid. Not speculation, but actual evidence of connections between the two. He has not been ruled out as a suspect. Law Enforcement (many) think he is the same guy. We are waiting to see if this is one of the crimes or personas he admits to June 29. Law Enforcement is waiting for the GSK cases to be resolved before telling the public. Again this is evidence based. Not opinion, not speculation - presenting facts.Rosalind15! (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
You can use the "edit" beside the title of this thread and then you can help keep this conversation together.
"The information is circumstantial evidence and is solid." Right now, you aren't getting it. There is zero evidence in my eyes. You haven't presented anything here whatsoever. With the name "SOLVED" in the title, what smoking guns are there?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
June 29 came and went and there is nothing about the Zodiac Killer mentioned, Rosalind15!. "Law Enforcement (many) think he is the same guy." Not the informed ones. The Zodiac walked heavy in his size 10 1/2 Wingwalker shoes with a stalking, lumbering gait like a bear and was called stocky. DeAngelo was light in his size 9 shoes and was described as athletic and nimble. Polar opposites and the science concerning the weight in the shoes makes that a non-starter. The shoe sizes also fit the height of the two different men which was described differently.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not over till its over by Anne Penn

The pleading of guilty of DeAngelo June 29, 2020 was to complete and satisfy the 13 murders, kidnap and rape that he d charged him with, plus other misc. rapes beyond the statute of limitations. He has not yet been charged with any further murders. The people have asked for a palm print and a couple of other things moving forward from DeAngelo. In addition, all Law Enforcement and others associated were officially told not to speak about these cases or others with anyone for the last few months. Including the FBI. So, DeAngelo will be sentenced in August 2020. After that, all bets are off on what happens next. The shoe issue you mention, not an issue as many a criminal has tried to throw off LE by wearing multiple layers of clothing, different shoe size and disguises. It is not over till its over. Wait and watch. In the meantime, my book is full of circumstantial evidence and LE knows all about that. They asked ME to send them my information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosalind15! (talk • contribs) 20:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

(by talk reader) @Rosalind15!: I'm concerned that, given the thread above, that you're an amateur trying to represent your self-published book as a source on Wikipedia. That's not allowed. Further, while you are within your rights to self-publish a book somewhere, Wikipedia does not allow your thoughts on the subject. No matter what actually happened, we need to stick to newspapers, academic journals, and serious books. If you want to edit Wikipedia you need to adhere to those rules or you'll be asked to leave. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Exactly what Chris said and additionally that is why I gave you the link to our conflict of interest guideline.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Username block

Gave this guy the banhammer...dunno if you know who this might be a sock of? bibliomaniac15 05:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

What silliness. Not you giving the sock the banhammer, though. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Ban mix up

Hi, I see you banned me although I’m not sure why — I do apologize for the mix up! I don’t post or edit here too often, only minor edits and on sports. I didn’t intend on anything malicious, just helping keep the pages up to date. My address you banned: 2601:740:8000:102e:94b5:886e:355f:eb36 I sincerely apologize for any issues that might've formed due to my phone carrier too. I’d like to make an account to avoid that issue, but that was banned too. Thank you for taking the time to read my appeal request. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:740:8000:102E:94B5:886E:355F:EB36 (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

No idea as I don't see a block anywhere with my name attached.
 — Berean Hunter (talk)

Page removal/takedown

Hi, in relation to the sockpuppeteer account of Alfie Gandon (now banned), I would like you to suspend the pages that he created. I am currently tracking the vandalism that this person has carried across a number of pages, three that are of particular note. Just wanted to touch base with you, thank you for your actions to date. StephenDedalus2020 (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

What did you have in mind?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Confusion

My phone is showing a block: 2607:FB90:0:0:0:0:0:0/32. No idea what this is. Still able to edit on line. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

By "on line" you mean logged in Littleolive oil? That block shouldn't affect logged in editors. As you can see, it is both locally anon blocked as well as globally anon blocked and the block log for that range reads like a lengthy rap sheet.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok I see. I've never seen anything like this before. I can edit logged in on my computer, but the block came up on my phone. I seldom if ever edit on my phone so didn't even try to log in on my phone. Should be fine. Thanks. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Range Blocking

Hi there. Thanks for the note on User talk:2A02:C7F:8C03:7900:BCEB:65E3:B36A:5E3F. I will say however I've never range blocked before, I'll take a read over the range blocking notes but I'm not sure if it'll have any larger repercussions. Canterbury Tail talk 14:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked your recommended range also for a longer period since it's a repeat (I figured there were definitely not a new editor but wasn't sure how to prove it out.) Thanks for the advice and assist. Canterbury Tail talk 14:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Canterbury Tail, you're quite welcome. I checked the /64 to make sure that there wouldn't be collateral damage before making that recommendation to you. There is one editor on it but with no account. TonyBallioni has a page on practical blocking of /64 ranges and it may be useful to you. Please also feel free to ask me or any of the others and we can double check ranges for you, if you wish, while you get used to it. Happy to help.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added that to my reading list. Cheers. Canterbury Tail talk 14:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Happy...

Wishing Berean Hunter a very Hunter happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very Hunter happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

IP Block exemption

Hi Berean Hunter, meant to say thank you for granting a 3 month IP Block exemption to my user accounts - Stinglehammer and EMcAndrew. This goes back to 11 June 2020. I just wanted to follow up as 3 months is only a stay of execution and I need to be able to edit Wikipedia as it is a large part of my full-time job as Wikimedian in Residence at the University of Edinburgh. To reiterate, I don't know why my IP address has been included on a blocked range beyond the fact that I recently changed internet providers in order to get a faster internet connection now that I am having to work from home and deliver Wikipedia editing training workshops via online video streaming a lot more. Please can the 3 month lift be extended or made permanent in some way as I will be working on Wikipedia editing workshops over the next semester with a variety of university course programmes and beyond as part of my permanent job here. My IP address is 146.198.22.3. I see the UTRS appeal page no longer exists but perhaps an administrator can access it if you require further details. Very best, Stinglehammer (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Stinglehammer. 146.198.22.3 is not blocked and none of the IPs that you have been using in the last three months are hardblocked. You have only edited from one anon-blocked range and that shouldn't affect logged-in users (it isn't my block). If you are encountering a hardblocked range, you will need to link to it because there doesn't seem to be any hardblocked ranges that you are trying to edit through.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Block on 51.7.0.0/18

Can you explain why, as a logged in user accessing the Wikipedia through a fixed-line major UK ISP, I am blocked? I can easily appreciated why anonymous users would be affected by the block on 51.7.0.0/18 but why does this affect logged-in users? Also, this block prevents me from editing my own (or other) talk pages and so I have had to resort to finding another way of accessing the Internet to post here. Finally, I have, to no avail, filed an unblocking request on UTRS under appeal key 31327dff1780559a7a01ad7b5494f433 but the interface does not allow me to enter a /18 subnet mask and so the system has wrongly assumed a /16 mask. Greenshed (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Greenshed, you should have requested IP block exemption. I have granted this for one month which is longer than the block is set to last. You should be able to edit now. Next time, if there is one, you should request IPBE.
That range is hardblocked because there is a long term abuser that was socking with accounts and causing a good deal of grief for other editors so the range was blocked to prevent further abuse.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting the problem. Appreciate your work in blocking long term abusers. Not your responsibility, but the instructions on what to do about range blocks did not seem very clear to me. Finally, is it not possible to identify editors who will be subject to collateral damage when a range block is put in place beforehand (and take IPBE action accordingly)? Greenshed (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome. You do not appear to have been using that range until well after I placed the block six weeks ago, Greenshed. How would we know about accounts that we do not see? :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Britannia SPAs

We have an SPA, SethRuebens who has been trying to import an apparently non-notable off-wiki authorship dispute into Britannia (TV series), recently joined by CantBbought. Both are editing tendentiously, and there's either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry going on. Can you take a look? Acroterion (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

It isn't clear, Acroterion. MEAT is possible.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I was leaning that way, it was a matter of time before somebody else got recruited. Thanks. Acroterion (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Lack of Sources

Hi Berean Hunter. You left a final warning for this user a little over a year ago--a recurring issue since the creation of the account, based on the various warnings on their talkpage. I reverted this edit last week, asking for a source in the edit summary. Their first edit since then was this. It doesn't look like they've once ever used an article talkpage, but the occasional posts to user talkpages suggest some competence issues. Grandpallama (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Grandpallama, the source is here (takes a minute to load and then you will need to rotate it...found on pages 6 & 7). It is very close to a copyvio and only changed just a little. Hmmm, I suspect that we may have someone who is closely copying sites. See the "[4]" in this edit? Looks copied and there are other sites with it but I'm not sure of the exact source. I'm not able to get one of the sites to load. Edits may need closer scrutiny but I'm busy this evening.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I'll confess I didn't go source-hunting, just observed a lot of specific detail added without a source provided, and a talkpage that (when I went to place a comment after the re-addition) had a decade of warnings about adding unsourced content. If there are also copyvio issues, that's obviously even more serious. I brought it to you as the latest admin who had given a warning about edit warring in material without providing sources. It's definitely not so urgent as to require immediate attention. Thanks! Grandpallama (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Oof. The first part about the slide trombone is pretty egregious copyvio. The second half about paying for the instrument himself is a better attempt at a rewrite. Looks like multiple issues at play. Grandpallama (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Am I blocked?

My IP address is currently 2607:FB90:0:0:0:0:0:0/32, but got blocked because my service prov. is T-Mobile. I’ve been blocked since March, and it expires in one year. But automatically getting blocked happens rarely. How did you know?148.74.247.125 (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That sounds like the confession of the decade...D'oh! ——Serial 18:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
See earlier thread for block on T mobile. Neither 148.74.247.125 nor their account is blocked.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, would appreciate feedback on the block. Thanks Fatherleetaylor20 (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, but will this affect Sprint users? Now that T-Mobile merged with it, and now they shut down Sprint a couple of days ago.148.74.247.125 (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Unable to edit or login

I have a global block in on lace. Please assist. Eikon81g@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.10.38.90 (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not the one to ask about global blocks and locks. You'll need to contact a steward to ask about that.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Range Blocking for 2600:1700:1113:B80:0:0:0:0/48

There is an editor who is using multiple accounts for disruptive editing, Special:Contributions/2600:1700:1113:B80:0:0:0:0/48. I have reported this editor last month ago to Ad Orientem and was blocked for one month. It appears the editor back again doing the same thing as before. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXII, August 2020

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) 14:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:THQ#What happens if others come on a page and delete or mess up sources and information

Hi Berean Hunter. Just letting you know about this as a courtesy since it seems to involve you. Perhaps you can clarify things either at the Teahouse or on the article’s talk page since this editor seems to be confused and frustrated by apparently some edits you made. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Already replied.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

An old friend

I can't make heads or tails who the master is of this user since i'ts not noted anywhere but it appears they are back and engaged in WP:TE. Praxidicae (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Possible socks

Hi @Berean Hunter: An editor has posted a message on my talk page, saying that he/she suspects two editors of being socks of somebody else. Its not something I usually deal with. scope_creepTalk 20:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Odd page

Hi Berean Hunter, I'm guessing you didn't really mean to do this: User:2409:4060:193:DCC1:0:0:0:0/64...? --IamNotU (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

IamNotU, that is correct and I have removed it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hardblocked range marked as ACC ignore

Greetings - I'm working with a new user through ACC who is trying to edit from the 70.183.112.0/20 range. The block is marked ACC ignore, but it looks like it's not set for anon-only. Do I need to have this user request IPBE? Thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you ElHef, you can email me details and I will consider the situation but no, I don't want to see new accounts created from that range in general nor given IPBE without close checkuser scrutiny.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Email sent. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

IP Block

I see you just closed my UTRS IP block appeal ... but I don't know why. I was using UTRS as disclosing the IP would out me, so I can't link the IP or block here. I'm not sure why that range is blocked, as I don't see any odd activity - nor would I expect. It's just a standard corporate ZScaler range ... so I don't know why it would be blocked - let alone not let registered users edit from there! Can you please let me log in through that range - obviously I'm not a risk here. Thanks Nfitz (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Nfitz, I sent you an email earlier today (seven hours ago). Have you not received it?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I hadn't seen that. It's literally impossible to turn off that proxy on the computer ... and trust me, I've tried ... and even worse when physically in the office. I can bypass it by logging in as a different user ... which is what I'm doing now, but it's grossly inconvenient, and ultimately means, I simply am not fixing stuff when I see it. Or I could use a different computer, if I can pry one out of my kids hands. It's a standard ZScaler closed proxy range used by major large corporations ... I'm sure the security holes in my own IP, which I mismanage myself, are far bigger. :) While I don't see that such blocks are good for the project, and don't see any abuse - I'm only asking that my own account be let through - I don't think I'm a personal risk. Nfitz (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
There has been abuse on Wikipedia by accounts using that range. That said, I've given you IPBE for one month.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Zodiac Killer

The reason I included him in the kidnappers category is because the Lake Berryessa attack included false imprisonment of the victims, which the category also encompasses. JJARichardson (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

JJARichardson, while he tied them up before killing them that does not constitute kidnapping. What is your source for calling it a kidnapping? Also, this edit is incorrect because the Unabomber was never considered as a suspect (he was never suspected of committing these crimes ever) but they looked at him and eliminated him which is not the same thing. The source cited in the article goes against him being a suspect. Source describes detectives as "Still skeptical at best..." and "Some of it is pretty farfetched, but there are enough similarities for us to at least look at it..." which is a far cry from naming him as a suspect. Do you have a non-forum, published source that law enforcement named him as a suspect?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
From Suspect, "In law enforcement jargon, a suspect is a known person accused or suspected of committing a crime."
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

"Cool blacklist"

Hey there, re: this, OK, I misremembered--it wasn't Komail that I was thinking of. But isn't there some sort of keyword blacklist? Or an article title blacklist? I feel like I added something to one of these once. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Found it. Thanks for letting me use your talk page as a mental sounding board. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
For article titles there is also WP:SALT but the blacklist that you are using is better at preventing permutations of the title. I'll send you my bill.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Question

I contributed in the past to a page that has been deleted [9]. Here is my concern. The user who nominated the page was blocked for sockpuppetry [10]. "Another" user who voted there was also blocked for the same [11]. Same account nominated it for deletion first time [12]. That was inappropriate in my view. Here is my question: is it possible just to recreate and improve this page, or this would better go through Wikipedia:Deletion review? Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

My very best wishes, it would be better to go to DR because there were established editors that also !voted to delete in addition to the socks.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
OK, thank you! My very best wishes (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

R-73 (missile)

@Berean Hunter: could you please take a look at the R-73 missile page? An IP has been trying to make this edit. The content that the IP has added is not mentioned in the supporting reference. For example, the IP added that "Some local..... while some others stated that they saw two parachutes" words. These words like "some" and "two parachutes" are not used in any of the two cited references ( National Interest.org and Asia Times). Plus for some unknown reason, the IP is repeated deleting this quote from Asia Times "Meanwhile, locals on the ground reiterated that no Pakistani pilot bailed out along with Wing Commander Varthaman."

Similarly, the IP has added words like "Some" in front of aviation experts and two unsourced lines "and the main body of the R-73 missile, which Abhinandan is said to have fired, was missing" and "However, it has also been pointed out that as the R-73 is a homing missile, it might have exploded on a close pass, without striking its target head-on." None of these words and lines are mentioned in any of the cited references.

I would really appreciate your help if you could a take a look into this matter. Thanks 82.178.61.254 (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I've restored it to the version before the edit warring.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Berean Hunter Thanks. 82.178.61.254 (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Berean Hunter, the Asia times article states that the missile might have exploded on a close pass. Also, note that this IP edited the article as a different IP before, from the same location. Could you reinsert the missile explosion part? Or, if you wish to restore the old version, could you restore it to the revision by Mx. Granger, before this (dynamic) IP started the edit war. 183.83.146.190 (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not involving myself in the content dispute. Editors should discuss this and try to resolve it on the talk page of the article. More editors that edit the article should be able to lend assistance.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I am not asking you to involve yourself. I am simply saying that could you revert it fully, to the version by Mx. Granger. It was when this IP started edit-warring. Right now, he tricked you into doing a half-revert in his favour. 183.83.146.190 (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Always the wrong version. Go to talk page and discuss.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I have done so, but I doubt if response will come, this is a rarely edited page. Thank you for protecting the page, but I fear it may have gone awry. 183.83.146.190 (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Table

Hey, I saw your removal of the one editor at the unblock table. That table actually hasn't been updating; it looks like it's been 3 days since it last ran. Not sure what's going on as the bot's still updating other tasks like the UTRS table. With AmandaNP inactive right now, not sure it'll be fixed anytime soon. only (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, only. At least the UTRS portion is updating. The glass is half full. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 08:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I hope you don’t mind

make it official Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Confirmed plus one.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Sleeper Check for UAK

@Berean Hunter and Ivanvector: Hello. Can you please run a sleeper check on 190.193.224.0/19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)? The "UnderArmourKid" LTA has been vandalizing again within the past month, and I have a very strong hunch that the CU tool should be able to pick up recent activity on this range (even if it is just IP socking). Given the behavior and the breaks between vandalism on this range, I believe that he is still using this range at this time. The range should receive a multi-month block if he has been abusing it recently. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

If you have accounts then you could request a checkuser in an SPI case. Any IPs should be filed in a case for behavioral consideration.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 07:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I've opened up a new SPI case at this LTA's SPI page. I've listed every single account I could find dating back to May 2020. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hotline

Hey, please always disable email--User:TwelvePerson just sent me some weird stuff. I think he's into doing things with horses? Drmies (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, these days, I request global locks via the checkuser email list which is what you should do with this account and any others that you find. Last year when I blocked that account, he had not been abusing email to my knowledge so I didn't block that. I'll send you an email with a bit more about this.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thx! Drmies (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

81.101.15.25

Hello, Berean Hunter. Last month you blocked this IP address after I reported it at ANI. I'm starting to think that the person behind the IP may be evading the block as 86.153.51.16.

The IP that is currently blocked briefly edited as 2a00:23c6:5496:8800:e511:94b3:1350:8afa (the behavioural similarities make it obvious), while ...51.16 has also edited as 81.96.78.16 (likewise). Both ...8afa and ...78.16 have edited the article Stephen La Rivière. What makes me a bit more suspicious is that when they last reverted me, ...51.16 restored edits that ...8afa made weeks ago at the start of July.

There is a pattern to the IPs in that they repeatedly make changes to articles based on WP:OR interpretations, whether it's switching people's nationalities or deleting/changing sourced content and adding worse-sourced/OR alternatives, e.g. here and here. It's disruptive but I'm not sure what to do about it.

Do you agree that these addresses could be linked, or am I barking up the wrong tree? SuperMarioMan (Talk) 23:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

SuperMarioMan, it isn't clear to me if they are linked but I've semi-protected the article for 2 weeks so the issues concerning the sources could be addressed on the talk page and see if the IP editor engages in some communication instead of just reverting.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Thank you. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 21:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
SuperMarioMan, blocked 3 months.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Reporting 2600:6C56:7800:4180:70BD:AE4A:5614:B87A

2600:6C56:7800:4180:70BD:AE4A:5614:B87A (talk · contribs)

Back in January of this year, I have reported the editor who is making unconstructive edits without explaining why, and you blocked him for six months. It's seems the editor is back again and continue to make questionable edits in articles just as before [13] [14] [15] [16]. I don't know if this editor from the /64 range, but the edits looks kinda similar and they are mostly in hip hop-related articles. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts, blocked.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2020 (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. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Ford Motor Company

How dare you protect a talk page when there is a move discussion in progress! 35.141.137.229 (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

It was easy with all the IP socking going on. How did things work out for you?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

IP Block

Hi, Could you please give me details on why @AlbaClara08 92.184.96.0/19 was blocked? thanks! Tanyasingh (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tanyasingh, is the account yours? Pursuant to the checkuser and privacy policies, checkusers do not discuss IP addresses that may belong to someone else and because of the same policies, we do not disclose details on checkuser blocks other than to say that the range has been used abusively and has been blocked to prevent further abuse.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I see! No, it is not my account.. But since the person who the account belongs to has been blocked, could you please let me know how can they reach you to discuss this? Tanyasingh (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

As you can see, that range is anon-blocked which means that someone with an account may still edit. Tell her to use her account...not the new one she just tried to make but the one that she used last November and January.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
By the way, are you familiar with our Conflict of Interest Policy? It applies to you and her and several others that you are editing with.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Technical question

Thanks for finding the sockmaster at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mingling2. Is it true that the only reason you found them was because they made a recent edit to their talk page? And if they didn't make that unblock request you wouldn't have found them? If so, is it possible for there to be more sleepers? VR talk 13:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome, Vice regent. The answers are yes, yes and possible but not apparent. I looked at behavior of different accounts in their ranges but didn't see any other than previously blocked socks and the ones that I confirmed. It may be possible that he has socks on other ranges but that would not be apparent to any checkuser looking at the case so if you are asking whether it would be worthwhile for another check right now, I would say no. I would say that with all of that time from the last reported socks on the older case, to the first on the current case, he likely has sleepers that will surface with time.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Lizzo image

Hello. I see that you have blocked 24.101.191.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). You may also be interested in WP:ANI#Irrelevant image. Certes (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I had noticed the image addition.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Investigation

Concerning the sockpuppet investigation, what exactly are you talking about? I don't recall any of this and you're mentioning something about there being more than just the same IP addresses. This all seems very convoluted to me.Astrohoundy (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

That page says I can respond in that section, so I don't see why I can't. I'm responding in that section. Either state that I can't respond in that section, or let me respond, but don't say I can comment in a section and then revert the edit. Astrohoundy (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

If you touch it, I'll be reinstating a block for disruptive editing. It is an archive from 2013. Only SPI clerks and checkusers edit archives and only to a limited degree. You and your sock account or meatpuppet were what that case is about.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah well. I don't believe you need to touch anything else for the next week since you couldn't listen...and that's why I believe you were socking or encouraged a friend to meatpuppet.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue Issue CLXXIII, September 2020

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) 12:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

DUCK of globally banned LTA King kong92

193.119.118.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Edit warring IP sock. See the revision history of this page[17] as well as other pages they edited. Apparent WP:DUCK of the LTA King kong92. Plus, this IP range is notorious. See the previous SPI cases. Puduḫepa 08:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Situation remedied.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

New User User:Leang19 may be (seems likely to be) sock of blocked IP (User:212.241.98.39)

I believe a new user, User:Leang19, may be a suckpuppet of a blocked IP editor/engaging in block evasion, User:212.241.98.39, previously blocked by you (link to the blocked IP user here: [[18]]). User:Leang19 has recently made a similar/very similarly worded edit (to those made by the IP) using many, if not all, of the same disputed/questionable sources. I reverted them with explanations in the notes (also mentioning the possibility of their being a sock).

For comparison see:

Edit by Leang19: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Traditional_African_religions&diff=978172260&oldid=977570411

Older edits by the blocked IP: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Traditional_African_religions&diff=924187732&oldid=923931878

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Traditional_African_religions&diff=924197880&oldid=924197105

Skllagyook (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Page protected and situation remedied.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Please unblock me I have to give information about https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Isma%27il

I am decedent of muhammad ibn ismail i have found lots of correction on your page of muhammad ibn ismail. His burial place is in navsari,Gujrat,India.And I have lots of infomation about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:C8C1:48C9:E06B:4E0E:247C:FEA4 (talk) 05:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 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 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Protection of Sexual slavery in Islam

G'day

thanks for your attention to Sexual slavery in Islam. You commented Persistent sock puppetry... can you elaborate? Andrewa (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I can! For the past two months or so I've been filing SPI after SPI against users socking the page. user:Balolay, User:Koreangauteng, user:Epelerenon, user:Mingling2 and user:Episcopa are all sock puppets who have participated at Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam. The last one even voted in the RM that was recently closed (at the time the RM was closed they were not confirmed to be a sockpuppet).
An unfortunate consequence of this protection is that an IP who has been active in discussing the article since before me, now can no longer discuss and indicated this at Andrewa's talk page.VR talk 00:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Curiouser and curiouser. If it comes to any further formal closure I am sure that the closing admin will be able to consider that IP's arguments. So it's not too bad. Andrewa (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • What if an IP who has participated on the talk page makes an account, gets autoconfirmed and wants to re-join the discussion, but not necessarily reveal their IP? Is it allowed to do so? VR talk 16:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • VR, if it would leave the impression of socking by supporting, or arguing a certain position then it would be socking. If an admin were to count an IP !vote and an account !vote as two separate !votes then it's socking. If the IP editor chooses to associate the account and the IP then that would be okay for them to rejoin. Protection expires tomorrow so they would do best to wait. (Sorry for missing your post before).
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/36.77.93.87

Thank you; there seems to be a cluster of new South Sumatra, Palembang IPs on both the Bangalore and Ford Motor Company RMs, exhibiting same style. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Links?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 09:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Ford first:
Bangalore:
Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done Okay In ictu oculi, I have blocked several ranges of the sockmaster from Indonesia and struck some of their !votes and placed a couple of protections. The first diff that you give above is from Florida and unrelated to that sockmaster but it is from someone else who is socking (the now-blocked yo-yo below).
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for efficiency and energy. No specific diffs on this new Indonesia IP as yet, going through edits first. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/180.249.244.242&offset=&limit=500&target=180.249.244.242 In ictu oculi (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
36.69.63.48 is also him, In ictu oculi as well as many others in that range. Both ranges blocked.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Fajkfnjsak

Hi,

Fajkfnjsak just posted two fairly insulting messages on my talk page from this account Perfteg5 and this IP 2600:1009:B14B:D647:DDF8:AD39:B033:28E3 [19] [20]. I was hoping you could block them as well and revdel the posts. (This relates to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fajkfnjsak).

Thanks!--Ermenrich (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked account. The edits don't rise to the level of revdel really. I would just ignore him.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Know How

why you block me?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.193.250 (talk)
If you were blocked, you wouldn't be able to post here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Do I file a new Sock request?

If I notice a new sock which the investigation resulting in a block but the investigation still not concluded, do I initiate a new investigation request? Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I filed a new SPI. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Sheldybett

UTRS appeal #35034 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, I left a comment in the appeal.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

For your Knowledge

Hi Berean Hunter, i want to this discussion in to your notice because you are involved in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KevinThomas71293/Archive.

I found some evidences about User:C1K98V of being sock with User:KevinThomas71293. User:C1K98V re-created The Casino (web series) which was previously created by User:KevinThomas71293. i can also see C1K98V's enthusiasm of contribution towards ZEE5 shows and movies, is a clear indication C1K98V is connected with the subjects and a paid editor. C1K98V's contribution for ZEE5 and Alt Balaji's are Bebaakee, Churails, The Casino (web series), ALTBalaji. C1K98V randomly adds 'Keep' comment on a page deletion discussion of ZEE5, again this page created by User:KevinThomas71293. C1K98V also contributed on User:KevinThomas71293's Draft:Lalbazaar. DMySon 05:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

DMySon, you should file an SPI report if you have good evidence. Also, you should compare the versions of The Casino to see how similar or dissimilar they may be. Simply recreating an article by name is not necessarily an indicator of socking.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Berean_Hunter/Archive_14&oldid=1187363222"