User talk:Berean Hunter/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Out of line

I am new to editing on Wikipedia. However, if you do not like Donald Livingston as a source, then it is for you to explain why he is listed as a source on another Wikipedia Civil War page. Clearly the information was in the audio. You clearly did not bother to listen to it.

My experience today has found three of the five pillars of Wiki in disrepair. Pillars are generally seen as a foundation on which something rests. Because I am new here too, I wonder what sort of foundation Wiki has, given the treatment I have receieved.

The second pillar is about neutrality. My offering was to counter a series of statements not merely representing bias, but complete bigotry towards the South. There was plenty of valid blame to throw around concerning the Civil War, but unless you are really able to PROVE that the South alone was guilty, then you should not only consider this wiki, but how your response represents pillar 2.

THe third pillar proudly proclaims that content can and will mercilessly be reedited. While I understand that this may include those who approach information in a sloppy manner, as you have done, your resort to jargon to defend your sloppiness speaks to intolerance of differences. Admittedly, you did not threaten me concerning what I posted, but you set the tone for me, a new user, for the next message which was a threat. This is why overall I see that the 3rd pillar is in need of repair. Because reediting is not so much something that can and will happen as something to cause those who disagree to be eliminated from dialogue.

Part of the Fourth pillar concerns being welcoming to new comers. I believe I have spoken to that. Also, there is the notion of accepting that edits occur in good faith. How have your actions concerning my post reflected good faith? You denounced my source and obviously did not listen to the audio. My posts have been deleted or edited concerning 100% of my actions today. You may see nothing wrong or fundamentally disrespectful concerning your part in this, but I do not believe the 4th pillar is really working for Wikipedia today.

Does an object continue to stand strong when 3 of 5 pillars are not in good repair? Audeamus42 (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC) 09/23/17.

(talk page stalker)The 4th pillar first says "Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and don't engage in personal attacks. Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others." Your edit summary "Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and don't engage in personal attacks. Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others." clearly is denying that to an editor. You tried to use an Islamophobic source in another article. Mises.org fails WP:RS as well for many things, although possibly not for Mises. It certainly can't be used to make statements of fact. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

You keep saying that you are new but I don't believe that at all. One-day-old editor accounts do not try to lecture established editors about the five pillars as if they know what they are talking about. New editors don't try to groom their responses to cue on longstanding issues surrounding community concerns since they wouldn't know what those are. On your second day here, you have accused someone of "Irresponsible use of twinkle." in an edit summary but a new editor wouldn't really know what Twinkle is let alone what constitutes irresponsible use of the tool. In that context, making such an accusation looks like gaming the system to me.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Please accept your responsibility for engaging in the damaging of the 4th pillar. For me, good faith means supplying detailed reasons for reverting edits and not short highly judgmental statements. WHere is good faith when my edits are challenged, no matter the subject, every single time? Where is the desire to avoid disrupting Wikipedia when editors run down the one edit I made before joining wikipedia? Please explain what integrity you have to pass judgment on the bulk of a huge site such as Miese.org. I do not stand by everything at Mises.org, but I'd put its integrity up against that of wikipedia any day. Especially important is that when I deleted text on a article because there were no citations, the revert edit contradicted that fact. See. It is all one way.

@Berean Hunter I am new, believe it or not. I know nothing of longstanding issues but given my treatment here over the last two days I am not surprised to learn of it. I am a neophyte in this world. I have gone to wikis over the years. As a student I was always warned not to use them as a direct source, but didn't look any further into what it was supposed to really be. When I did become a member and began to be attacked for anything I did, I looked deeper at what wikipedia said that it was. It has always been my view to look to those in charge to determine the ethics and reality of an organization. The looking at the foundations combined with looking at the tremendously harsh criticism directed at me reveals a huge gulf between reality and what wikipedia says it is. I am sure that there must be a lot more to it as the existence of this gulf does not on the surface make any sense to me.But I assure you that I have no deeper understanding aside from life lessons (I believe I have received them though not every one of my dictators here acknowledge that such lesson even exist.). I can click on a link and get a good idea of what a twinkle is. When reverts started showing TWs, I thought that it might be pertinent to me. I do not know if it is or is not, but I understand technology well enough to throw that out there because tremendous amount of criticism focused on me did not otherwise make sense. I am reasonably bright, but no tremendously so. But it looks like I got it right, doesn't it. I am 61 and have encountered people all through my life. I've learned to rely on my intuition a lot more, though doing it is still new to me. That is why I hounded my wife with nearly all the messages that I sent for a big part of these two days. It was very difficult to believe that wikipedia is the way it is. I do not know if you guys should be ashamed, but you should certainly change wikipedia to reflect what it is instead of looking at it through rose colored glasses. I wanted to be wrong about that. I really did. That's why I cued in on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audeamus42 (talk • contribs) 21:13, September 24, 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that you drop the idea that you are being persecuted especially since you are the one that seems to be rocking the boat. No one is twisting your arm to write what you have written and no one is forcing you into areas that are controversial. From what I have seen, you ought to stay away from those areas.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Comfycozybeds/Pillowfluffyhead

So obviously a sock after that incursion into the CU/OS comments, but I was scratching my head thinking who it might be! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

We get lucky every now and then. He's been short-sheeted. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocked editor possible using multiple accounts again

You have blocked this IP for disruptive editing and failure to engage earlier this month, but if you look at the article, Hurricane Chris (rapper) recent page history, it appears the editor is using more accounts to edit Wikipedia, while the edits are not too bad, but however, the edits from these IPs looks suspiciously similar to the IP who been blocked. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's him. I've hardblocked his /64 range for one month for block evasion. Thank you for reporting.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome, I let you know if this editor try to be clever again. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion about Per-user page blocking

Hi there,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building User Page (or category) blocking feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you voted or commented in the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey about Enhanced per-user / per-article protection / blocking.

You can leave comments on this discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Some links broken in a closed SPI case?

Hi, I saw you on the list of clerks, and tried to find anyone who could make a clerical fix. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TEntEn4279/Archive. Though you weren't involved in this one, I was browing through and noticed that some contribution links didn't work. ([1] says that the account is not registered). In my opinion the case should be renamed. The underlying account is currently at User:ZEdzEd3168. In the first line of the archive, the account is referred to as TEntEn4279, which surely can't be right. As you can see from the bottom of the case, that should really be User:TEntEn2479, in the comment by User:Callanecc documenting the block. (In that user name, the '2' and the '4' are reversed). The page at User talk:TEntEn4279 (the incorrect name) has been redirected to User talk:ZEdzEd3168. Some of the sock tags may be mixed up also. Leaving a ping for User:GZWDer who filed the latest round of the SPI. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, Ed. I believe I have it sorted and the case is now here. Please let me know if you see anything that doesn't look right.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVIII, October 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at Australian involvement on the Western Front in 1918 and in post-war New Guinea Op-ed: TomStar81 on the October Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 23:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Persistent IP-hopper you range-blocked before

I see at Special:Contributions/49.237.214.146 that in July, you blocked a range with the note "Block evasion: IP hopper falsifies refs intentionally...becoming LTA". Sadly, they're persisting. There's a misleading factoid (about GDP in bits of London) which that IP and several others keep inserting inappropriately at List of OECD regions by GDP (PPP) per capita, Economy of London and London, which is where I found it and editors discussed it at Talk:London#Harper9979's edits to economy figures in the infobox. That discussion lead to Ddstretch blocking Harper9979 indefinitely and I cleaned up the other articles.
Today 27.55.104.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 223.24.93.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) reinserted the factoid at List of OECD regions by GDP (PPP) per capita (it's particularly inappropriate there, in among OECD stats). They geolocate to Thailand, as do all the other IPs that have inserted it there (58.10.55.70, 58.10.55.105, 58.10.55.215, 183.88.62.169, 49.237.178.5, 49.237.154.86 and 110.171.182.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which was identified as a sock at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harper9979/Archive) and in Economy of London (110.171.182.13). London is often part-protected; most of Harper9979's edits there[2] were to add the factoid.
I don't know what to suggest. I don't really want to raise an SPI (I've been trying to spend less time on WP) and this is nearly all about IPs anyway. I guess part-protection of List of OECD regions by GDP (PPP) per capita or Economy of London might help, or maybe an edit-filter for the ref - but that all seems extreme. You'll know better. Can I leave it with you? Please? 92.19.24.9 (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the one article for two weeks after removing the likely sock edits but someone needs to get a conversation going on the talk page. That person is trying to communicate with you through edit summaries. The person I blocked (Special:Contributions/49.237.0.0/16) wasn't using edit summaries and was related to this, this and that. I'm not sure they are the same person.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the semi-protection. I agree this doesn't seem the same person you blocked, though it might well be the same person Ddstretch blocked. Still, per AGF and your prompt, I've tried to explain on the talk page why the factoid shouldn't be inserted. I hope that helps, but maybe your action's already made the point more effectively. 92.19.24.9 (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

E-mail

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

RadiX∞ 21:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss the soon to built, Interaction Timeline

Hi Checkusers and Checkuser clerks,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building the Interaction Timeline feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you use similar tools such as the Editor Interaction Analyser and User compare report during sockpuppet investigations.

You can leave comments on the on wiki discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Confused

Hi, you changed the status of Shirley shi's SPI to Checked without reporting any CU findings. DoRD had stated his CU investigation was incomplete. Did you complete the CU? Did you find anything? Cabayi (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Given that the others are around the world, it is implicit that they might be meatpuppets but not socks unless those were open proxies. I'm not sure that there is anything for a checkuser to do with the case but since you've pinged DoRD, he can give you his opinion if he's inclined.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I had the impression from DoRD's comment that he'd be returning to it at some point but I can see it'll need to be a judgement based on behavioural evidence rather than CU. Cheers, Cabayi (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Suspicious username

We have here 故意滥用傀儡怎么能不永久封禁, whose username translates roughly to "How can you abuse a puppet without a permanent ban," "How can the abuse of the puppet be permanently stopped," etc. I know this may be unorthodox, but is there any way you could run a check, based on this pretty strong prima facie evidence? Thanks, GAB^gab 02:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• 故意滥用傀儡怎么能不永久封禁 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 这账号肯定是傀儡，不信问亚叔或兰叔 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 拖到机器人存档就是胜利 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• GAB, these are likely.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the check, this is certainly weird stuff that I can't connect to any older master (pings aren't working, either...) Best, GAB^gab 02:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Waheedkals (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)  Likely
• Aerivo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)  Possible

Waheedkals supported another sockmaster in an edit war as an IP just prior to creating his account. Blocked that account.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

100% talk page stalker comment, but these socks are active on zhwiki. You might want to inform their local CU team about them. I've locked the first three as  Confirmed from the Meta-Wiki results. The Aerivo account is  Unlikely given the nature of the deleted contributions on idwiki, and the presence of other obviously good-faith accounts on the /64 range there. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Mys 721tx, you may want to run checks on zh.wiki based on the above information.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I found the following users. I did not found Waheedkals and Aerivo among the results. Otherwise, the three suspicious ones are confirmed. -Mys_721tx (talk) 05:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

A46563343 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

GVgg"+y (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Vanished user 1929210 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

中国白磷监督局 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

宇宙公司老板王二麻子 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

拖到机器人存档就是胜利 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

故意滥用傀儡怎么能不永久封禁 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

紧闭的恋之瞳 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

这账号肯定是傀儡，不信问亚叔或兰叔 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

逆襲的小天邪鬼 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

🌚 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I am that long-term abuser from Chinese Wikipedia. Generally, proven sockpuppets will be blocked permanently in a few hours on Chinese Wikipedia. However, to my disappointment, even I abused socks so seriously, administrators on Chinese Wikipedia didn't take any actions. I'm unhappy unless an admin can block me indefinitely and admitted that I am a vandal on Chinese projects. As for English projects or meta, they're not my target -- just an unexpected effect of SUL. By the way, "故意滥用傀儡怎么能不永久封禁" means "Why not block the user who's abusing puppets permanently". --175.167.138.56 (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

About Nfitz

Hi, sorry for dropping by, I just wanted to double check something. I agree with everything about the block except for maybe the rationale (even though you were clear on how the assessment were made). There are many reasons to block this editor, which includes cluelessness, time sink, failing to hear nor getting/disrupting with the point, yes, but NOTHERE in this case can be fairly controversial I think. I was wondering if it's better to solicit some opinions at AN before unilaterally blocking an editor that has been here for 12 years with nearly 10k edits for NOTHERE indefinitely. Just an thought, feel free to ignore. Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 03:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Alex, KrakatoaKatie hasn't responded in this thread yet. The ping bug is supposed to be fixed and I'm guessing she never got my first ping. That should happen first. Next, in my explanation, I state "Your device also presented itself with different credentials (you can explain that, also)." and I have gotten a second opinion from another checkuser to make sure that I interpreted the results correctly. Nfitz has not explained that at all. I'm about to head for bed as it is nearly midnight here but those two things are a good start. After those two things have happened, we can go from there.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Nope, that ping isn't listed anywhere in my notifications, so this is the first I've heard that he was blocked. That AFD was an absolute violation of his topic ban. Though I endorse the block (indefinite does not mean infinite), I agree with Alex that an AN thread for a community ban vs. unblock would be a good idea. Nfitz is wasting everybody's time.Katie^talk 19:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I think Alex Shih is hoping that such a discussion would have the opposite outcome, KrakatoaKatie. Me? I would expect a series of extremely verbose and increasingly bizarre excuses, perhaps including but not limited to insomnia causing sleep during office hours, power cuts and the dog eating someone's homework. It's fair to ask for a review at AN but someone is going to have to be ready to guillotine the discussion. - Sitush (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sitush: I am not sure what outcome you are implying. I just think with all the disconnect between editors and admins, a collective decision (a community ban or reduced block) would be in the best interest for everybody. Alex Shih^Talk 03:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, then. I was under the impression that you were reluctant to see Nfitz censured for any potentially prolonged period and that you had similarly been so in a previous incident involving them, mainly because of their lengthy period of contributions. I can't explain why things have deteriorated, except perhaps the insomnia issue (I sympathise - look at the time I am editing now from the UK, ie: UTC+1) but there is a pattern of severe deterioration and, as you note, a long list of potential reasons to block. When the menu becomes that long, it probably doesn't matter which dish is selected. - Sitush (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Tirgil34's WP:DUCK

• Chinara2017 (talk · contribs)

New user who copied Tirgil34's edits[3] from Issyk kurgan to Issyk inscription.[4] --Wario-Man (talk) 09:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked, but this should be listed in the SPI case.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I asked you because the previous SPI case is still active. Can I submit a new SPI case when the previous one is open? --Wario-Man (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Just list the account using the {{checkuser|1= }} template in the current case...this is easiest.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Block review

Hi Berean Hunter. I have drafted a block review of Nfitz to be posted at WP:AN. Whenever you have time, would you mind taking a look to see if the review request looks reasonable? Thank you so much! Best regards, Alex Shih (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Alex, that looks fine.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, thanks for your help on Talk:Colchicum. The article is now properly sourced. 143.176.56.102 (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Tryptofish found good sources.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

University College London Ban

Hello, Berean Hunter!

I'm a first-year history student at the University College London. To my dismay, I've recently discovered that the entire school's IP is blocked from editing Wiki.

As someone who has noticed repeated errors in information and lax writing on many pages relating to Ancient Rome and the Social War, it pains me that I cannot do my part to edit them.

My purpose in writing is two-fold. I'd like to this school-wide ban to be repealed and I'd like to inquire as to what presumably egregious offence was committed on the part of this school to warrant such a blanket punishment.

I look forward to your reply!

Best regards,

JoshLyman — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshLyman (talk • contribs) 19:30, October 28, 2017 (UTC)

You'll be happy to know that now that you have an account, JoshLyman, that you will be able to edit from the University while logged in. That solves your problem and the same applies for anyone else at the University. The reason why it was blocked was to prevent long term abuse which had been happening for some time and the officials at the school are aware of the situation.

Welcome to Wikipedia.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Don't they need to apply for an IP block exemption if they want to edit Wikipedia from the Uni network? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, it is an anonblock. Remember that he was primarily editing as an IP. I don't remember him using an account on that range.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

OK. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet JournalmanManila reappear

Hi @Berean Hunter:, remember JournalmanManila and his sockpuppets, I think s/he reappeared again as user:Skyrim9 and user:Reign05. While user:Pricedelink and user:Keroscene777 are possibly also another sockpuppets although I'm not quite sure. His insistence on Philippines inclusion on Hindu-Buddhist articles such as Ramayana and breaking WP:3RR (although he wait for 24 hours) here is kind of reminiscence of what JournalmaManila would do. Thank you in advance. Gunkarta  talk  10:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Gunkarta, please file this in an SPI report. It is better to keep all of these details in the reports for future reference. Place make sure to supply some diffs as evidence. I've only got a few moments of time right now and others may get to it first.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Shivamevolution

Hey Berean Hunter,

This appears to be a sock from the Shivamevolution group, is editing other unprotected pages now (I semi'd some of the earlier targets), but with the same Hindi poetry focus, and the two articles have a history of paid COI editing too, and should likely go to AfD again (one was deleted at AfD and then DRV permitted re-creation with an option to AfD again). Likewise this ip too. Since the SPI is still awaiting a clerk after CU action, I'm not adding it there but bringing directly to you to see if you can do something. Sitush is away I think, if not, he may have something to say. Could you take a look please? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• N1197L is  Possible because they geolocate to the exact same area but have different UAs. SpacemanSpiff, you may want to get that into the report and then it may be decided based on behavior.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

SPI (as usual)

Looking back at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoguryeoHistorian, I strongly suspect there might be an older master. However, since I haven't extensively dealt with ethno-nationalist sockmasters, I was curious if you might have an idea. Thanks, GAB^gab 16:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Satoshi Kondo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is  Technically indistinguishable to GoguryeoHistorian

 Technically indistinguishable to WorldCreaterFighter are:

• Verakhu (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• OrenburgNative (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• MasterChai (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• PeopleTaking11 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• WayneMacleod1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• DrKoraKora (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 Likely to WCF:

• Lynch Kevin de León (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

GoguryeoHistorian  Confirmed to WorldCreaterFighter who shares many of the same target articles and on the same IPs that geolocate to the same place and are not proxies. GAB, you may want to broaden that rangeblock. Look through full range to identify other addresses not blocked. Akocsg's case should be merged with these. Also, I believe that some thought should go into Kumasojin 熊襲 that may be related and I'm fairly sure that NonoHIDE98 = WorldCreaterFighter.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much... this may get messy. I've indeffed and tagged Satoshi Kondo, GoguryeoHistorian, Verakhu et al., and tagged Lynch Kevin de León. TheKumasojin 熊襲 IP looks to be in a different location, but not that far away, geographically speaking. However, NonoHIDE98 is clearly related. GAB^gab 19:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

GAB, the CU tool indicates that Lynch Kevin de León (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is "(Globally Locked)" but I'm not finding this at meta and I also looked within the edit view in case this was listed as hidden prior to locking. I can't find it and it doesn't show up here in the contribs view the way that it normally would. DoRD can you point to where this was locked? This may tie in other accounts.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Note the lack of a global account for that account. That means that a steward did the global version of block/suppress, so even OSers can't see the details. CU can still see the local account, but if you want details about the lock, you'll need to find a steward or ask on the CU list. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

GAB, neither of those cases rings a bell with me (unless I'm missing something...?) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you DoRD, I have posted for the stewards here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, geez... and it looks like NonoHIDE98 is older than WCF. (Is it possible to just hist-merge SPI archives?) GAB^gab 18:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Given how long he has been known as WCF, I would leave it under that name, GAB.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my inclination, too - just wanted to double-check. GAB^gab 22:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and make these merges - how would I go about merging archives without it turning into a huge mess? Thanks, GAB^gab 17:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

You already appear to have merged GoguryeoHistorian into WCF and there is no archive for GoguryeoHistorian so that part looks finished, GAB. It looks like you could close the case, someone archive it, and then do a normal histmerge. Be sure to have everything copied for backup first, I like to copy paste all of the text into an editor to preserve it if all else fails. I have many open tabs during that process and it helps to have the histories of the main case pages open as well as their archives so that you can compare at the end of the process.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm curious how you spot sockpuppets

An experienced editor seeking UPE sockpuppets

Is it mostly an automated process or what? Is there some explainer available? I'm intrigued by how you all managed to find close to a dozen sockpuppets in this investigation[5]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Will try to respond later if other talk page stalkers haven't covered it first.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Some experience with dowsing helps. Also once one sees many signs of PR in the same article or related articles, one has a good clue where to start looking. Sometimes technical evidence like editing from one or more proxies can indicate it, but usually it's the other way around -- content leads to the socks. Some of this is also covered in Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry. Precocious edits might be one of the strongest signs especially with somewhat experienced sockfarms engaged in UPE, but not yet experienced enough to cover their tracks well. They are under the gun for time (time=money for these operators) and take shortcuts in the process of establishing a plausible edit history for a sock. IMO a tiny minority of sockers have managed to pull off a "long game", but you do see several in the WP:LTA index. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

In addition to what Bri has said, the checkuser tool helped in this case. It doesn't in every case, though. I don't know if you have noticed, but the sockmaster in that case, logged into every single one of those accounts the day after I blocked them and blanked the notices one after another. That is good behavioral confirmation.

<Now, for the not-so-serious; in his best Blackadder voice>

• Well...I'll have you know that contrary to popular belief,  CheckUser really is magic pixie dust and only available in really small tins with a no money back guarantee and for a limited time and with limited availability, I'm afraid. It helps if you know where to steal find it. The Wiki Magick Foundation has generously supplied the inquisitors with a private stash so that the headsmen shall have job security.

• If dowsing doesn't work then perhaps dunking will. Our minions in the dungeon have been hard at work to possibly bring back a few oldies but goodies, however the tapes were leaked and the secret experiments have been exposed. Seen here for the first time, two such experiments that grew out of discussions from the Village Pump. Just look at those admins enjoying their work. I think that's Kudpung in the green shirt pulling the sock's rope...yes, I'm quite certain that's him. Ye Olde Sock of Baldrick...Exposed (occurs at 39:30 onward). Ooh, now that's fun....rewind. I can watch that over and over again....almost as good as the real thing. Of course, we still have the traditional ways of dealing with socks.

• I believe they were trying to have this ready for trials on this year's ArbCom candidates but now, with all the scandal, we'll have to come up with something else dastardly to throw at them. We shall have to consult with the angry villagers to see what ideas they may have. Their involvement has been known to bring great pleasure and joy...and perhaps they can tell us where all the bloody socks have gone.

</Sir Cotton Mather Blackadder>
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Berean Hunter. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

range block - expansion needed?

A few days ago you had done a range block on user:172.56.0.0/16. It appears the user is evading the block (see The Great Indoors (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

I've been doing individual blocks for block evasion; but I was wondering if you had notes that may help in expanding the range block, or identifying a secondary range. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Barek,
• Editor 1

Affected Articles:

• Female
• AT&T Mobility
• Danitra Vance
• Kate McKinnon
• The Great Indoors (TV series)
• Slender Man stabbing
• Linda Perry
• Sara Gilbert

• All of the above done with a very distinct UA within the two ranges making these an exact match. Semi-protection as opposed to rangeblocks may be the way to go. Ranges are busy and took a while to consider. There are multiple known sockmasters including three different LTAs operating but not enough to justify anon rangeblocking based on what I see.

• Editor 2 that left a note on Ad Orientem's talk is
• 172.56.36.39 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.56.37.119 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (on both days)

...and an exact UA match to 172.56.3.115 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) that edited Acquaintance rape. This is a perfect match to this banned user's UA used by Smooth alligator on Aug. 18. Note that this relates to this banned user but also I'll say that this user which is also banned is likely the same based on behavior. I'm not alone in making that conclusion as it is shared by some at the WMF office. This banned user no longer receives a reasonable expectation of privacy here due to abuse.

• Editors 1 and 2 are using different devices so any comparison there must be based on behavior. Both editors are found in both the 172.56.0.0/16 and the 172.58.0.0/16 ranges.

• Pinging Flyer22 Reborn who should be aware of the banned editor here.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
• Hi Berean Hunter, could you do a check user on user:Regiis Rosis? This is a new account who suddenly showed up on my talk page to discuss issues involving monarchism. They seem to have a remarkably good grasp of wiki editing. And their user page seems to use language similar to my own. None of which by itself would disturb me. But as noted above I recently had to block some IPs of Smooth alligator, who was a sock of Sarsaparilla. Smooth had a strong interest in neoreactionary subjects and I think they saw me as a kindred spirit. It's entirely possible that I am just being paranoid and that maybe I am not the only monarchist on here. But my sock detector is flashing a warning signal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ad Orientem, your sock detector is working well.  Confirmed as they are using a phone on the exact same ranges as Sarsaparilla socks.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

For clarity, "they are using a phone on the exact same ranges as Sarsaparilla socks" should read "they are using a phone (different UA) on the exact same ISP and similar ranges that geolocate to the same region as Sarsaparilla socks." zzuuzz, would you please take a look for a second opinion? Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, if you like. I'd almost forgotten how much I dislike that T-Mobile range. First, I'm not familiar with either of these users. I'd probably have to do a lot of trawling to catch up on the second user here, however, at this point I'd agree with your latter statement. I'm not seeing the smoking gun. Apparently an email has been sent, which sounds intriguing. I'd also point to the UA and IP editing history, which seems quite consistent and would probably have drawn attention sometime. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ah. Sad but not surprising. On a side note I am wondering if the blocked user:PerfectlyIrrational that I ran across when tagging a template (Template:Southern nationalism sidebar) created by one of their socks (user:DrawingLol) for CSD might not also be Sarsaparilla? These accounts are already blocked but as they appear to have the same areas of interest perhaps they are all one in the same and should be reclassified as such. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Hi. (@Barek:). Just a random comment about these ranges. They're huge ranges with lots of good faith editors on them, and also more than a few banned editors also on them (in addition to any mentioned so far). Any /16 block is going to hit a lot of collateral and templated reasons are really helpful. What I've found is that users will usually be assigned to two /23 ranges, one in 172.56 and one in 172.58. Then there are the IPv6 ranges, and typically one or two IPs in 208.54/17. The assignments often last a couple of weeks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping, Berean Hunter, and for your work on these cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mkd07/Archive

Back?[6] It certainly isn't a source we should be using.[7][8] Doug Weller talk 09:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller, that is a perfect duck based on behavior.

• The en.wiki links are:

• historyofmacedonia.wordpress.com (*|search current)
• macedoniantruth.org (*|search current)

...which shows use of one of them in Marsyas of Pella. Also see spam report 1 and spam report 2 for reference.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. So who should do the honors? I'm about to go watch tv with my wife and probably wouldn't be able to do it until tomorrow, although I may do some editing on my iPad while watching tv. Doug Weller talk 19:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocking or filing the case? I can round back to this sometime today...football game starting and prepping a stew in the kitchen.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Case filed and sock blocked.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Minor detail regarding something you said technically…

FYI It is possible to be logged into Wikipedia on multiple accounts in the same web browser and certainly on the same OS. For instance I run this account on standard Safari 10.1.2, and have had at the same time my vaild alts Lord High Permanent Senior Undersectretary to L3X1 and Hypn0toad logged in 2 separate tags in a Private Window (Apple-equivalent on Chrome's Incognito, which works a bit differently). If I had the accounts and the motive I could run up to 5 accounts at the same time. And regarding what happened, even though I am disappointed, I want to say Thank You for doing what is right. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 01:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

L3X1, help me out and link to whatever you are referring to please. I've stopped one big case to work on two others and been searching ranges for too long. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Dr Strauss's recent deceptions. Sorry about that. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Concurrent editing with invalid alts would be much the same as logging in/logging out to avoid scrutiny. I do understand what you mean, though.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIX, November 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on late 1917 naval warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 13:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Will be emailing you about a sock matter

I will send you an email about this because, although I have identified the sock on Wikipedia in subtle ways, this is better discussed off Wikipedia due to the sock's cues I'm familiar with and due to "you can't accuse without evidence" drama. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

If you didn't get the notification that I emailed you, I just did. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Update: As you can see on my talk page, I've asked others about this matter as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver Isaacs

I'm suspicious about some of the WP:SPAs commenting at this AfD. You already blocked two from CU, but I wonder if there are more? Or at the very least, I'm sure that some are WP:MEAT accounts. There are related discussions at COIN here and here. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Drm310, here is the SPI case to see that part of it. :) If you can help with it, you are quite welcome. We enjoy having more eyes on cases.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Aha, I knew I wasn't the only one with suspicions. I'll make sure the one open COIN thread has a link to the SPI if it doesn't already. Thanks! --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

• 2A02:908:B36:A1C0:C7D:520F:6F02:C816 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The ip is sock of banned long-term abuser Tirgil34. The same location & ISP, same topics & edits. Please see the sockmaster's post on a non-Wikimedia site regarding Kortland: [9] and the edit by the ip-sock: [10]. Obvious WP:DUCK. 5.3.218.31 (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I am no longer working cases related to Tirgil or any other Turkish subject. Evidence need to be placed in SPI cases so others can look at it. I don't want to be tied down to that case and so I'm washing my hands of it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

If i am remembering correctly, the ips become stale within 7 days, so filing a SPI case for ip socks does not seem a good idea. Thus, in order to get quick feedbacks, i prefered to report the sockpuppetry to CUs who are familiar with that case. But i can report it to an another admin, if you are busy. Thanks. 5.3.218.31 (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Returning sock

Hullo there Berean Hunter, some time ago you blocked this sock of A Nobody. He's back again using the same IP. Could you please swat it? Thanks, Reyk _YO! 23:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Also this one in the same range. Cheers! Reyk _YO! 06:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

•  Done
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

RR Account

You must be tired of hearing from me. This is the new account of Regiis Rosis, previous account noted on my talk page. - Rosarum et Veritas (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Cheers.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

SPI/Oluwa2Chainz

I must say I have quit a few things against the just closed SPI against Oluwa2Chainz. 1) The SPI was started and concluded without the accused getting a note whatsoever that they're been suspected for sockpupettry. 2) There was no where that editing pattern of Kaizenify was on anyway similar to that of Olwa2Chainz. 3) Oluwa2Chainz is blocked on Commons for SPI and uploading copyrighted images the former he vehemently denied, I don't understand why he was blocked on this wiki also without giving him a chance. 4)With over 500 main-space articles, Oluwa2Chainz is not an editor that deserves the sweep under the carpet SPI.

What I do understand is that Nigeria has a very small amount of Dedicated editors and except you can prove without reasonable doubts that these editors are socks, then you should be cautious of what you block editors for. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

1) Oluwa2Chainz accused his own puppets and certainly knew about the case because he was pinged three days ago. He pointed to three stale accounts to relate them to prior to the case being filed. It didn't work.

2) Multiple intersections of Kaizenify on the same IPs with the other socks and Oluwa2Chainz is a really good cue. Kaizenify's user page stated that he was a photographer. Another one of the socks that I blocked was Imagekraft, whose user page also stated that they were a photographer. Sixteen minutes after an unblock request was declined for this editor as an anon IP (and I can't show you that but other CUs can see it), they logged into the Kaizenify account and filed this unblock request and then about a half an hour later, they filed one with Imagekraft. All that on the same day and same IP as Oluwa2Chainz. So then for another coincidence would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dayo Israel where I would describe Oluwa2Chainz as playing good hand "delete" and the other account, Kaizenify is the advocate account. That is exactly what happened in this AfD also. One of his own socks replies to his "delete" with references. These folks share the same IPs.

3) "Oluwa2Chainz is blocked on Commons for SPI and uploading copyrighted images the former he vehemently denied,..." and the two accounts above claimed to be a photographer...coincidence? "I don't understand why he was blocked on this wiki also without giving him a chance." That is a repeat of your number one question but his chance now comes after he has been blocked. He can defend himself...he'll be given an opportunity.

4) Shortly after finishing the case and blocking, I emailed the technical results to the checkusers' mailing list so that they would be able to see the information for themselves. My opening sentence was to tell them that I had blocked an established editor so I am not trying to have a "sweep under the carpet SPI."
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Preciooous three years!

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Gerda. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations on an award well deserved. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:SchoolcraftT

Hi BH. When you get a minute could you take a look at this and let me know if you think the IP is a sock of User:SchoolcraftT? I know we don't generally run CUs on IPs, just asking for an outside opinion here. I don't have enough personal experience to be able to make a judgement either way. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) They do share creative spelling ... victium, acoumpaning, sence (Schoolcraft) vs hasent, appriciated, historey (IP). Suggestive but probably not enough for DUCK by itself. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, behaviorally, yes with like IPs recorded in the SPI case, also.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

your opinion please...

Since you blocked IP addresses mentioned in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Renamed user 49274c4c204245204241434b that individual has made use of two more IP address, each to leave a single complaint, on my talk page, that I have lapsed from WP:OUTING, in my defence from their wikistalking: [11] [12].

Do you think I should start another SPI? Do you have the authority to apply the same block duration to these two additional IPs? If so, is there any other information you think you would need before you go ahead, other than my confidence these two messages constitute the same kind of disruption as the individual at Renamed user 49274c4c204245204241434b had been devoted to?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Another edit targeting my contributions, using a very similar edit summary to earlier reversions.

These three IPs are: 24.114.78.19, 24.114.37.220, 24.114.77.185. Geo Swan (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Geo Swan, I do not want to comment on the IPs but I will say that you can ignore their complaints to your talk page.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for your promptness. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

My independent opinions on the block of members of my usergroup that I know in real life

Let me start by saying this isn't about you. You are doing a great job here and I respect that. I understand that whatever Checkuser produces is normally followed. However, since there is a possibility that an innocent editor could be blocked then I think it is worth revisiting. Personally, one thing I don't like is when an editor is being penalized for an activity he is innocent on. I have gone through this case and tried to see things from both defense and prosecuting perspective and it seem to me that one (or both) of Oluwa2Chainz and Kaizenify could be completely innocent. If there is a chance that they are innocent then I think it is worth to get unblocked because these are editors that have dedicated so much time and resources to the progress of Wikipedia. As a member of Wikimedia Usergroup Nigeria myself, I can state categorically that Oluwa2Chainz and Kaizenify are different editors, I have met one of them physically in one of our meetings, and have had conversations with the other on-wiki on numerous occasions. I also want to state that the way ips are assigned in Nigeria make them seem alike because of the few telecommunication companies we have that provide affordable access to internet. I have attempted to know my ip on the popular ISPs in Nigeria, and they always seem to fall within the same range when am using the same network. We actually have three that most people use to access the internet.

To make me understand this situation better, and if it is within checkuser guidelines, I will like to know the following clarifications:

1. Is this a case of ip in the same range (but not the same) within a 24hr period or the same ip within a 24hour period.
2. Was number 1 above found between Oluwa2Chainz and Kaizenify or between one of them and those vandals?
3. If you ignore the supposedly checkuser link between Oluwa2Chainz and Kaizenify, will that make any of them free of sock violation? Regards. Darreg (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

1. Shared same exact IP
2. Not vandals. Undisclosed paid editors believed to be socking and quite possibly Coal Press Nation.
3. Checkuser evidence cannot prove innocence. Meatpuppetry means that different editors work together illegitimately. No one has said that two different people are the same.

Recently, I had reason to look into a different Nigerian IP range and it did not have the problems associated with the one in question. In fact, I didn't see any problems in that range. The range you are talking about was blocked by another admin before I ever looked at the case.

This will help to have the blocked editors answering questions. You cannot necessarily answer for them. I understand that a modem has been passed around among editors which would explain some of this but that means that someone who shared that modem probably shouldn't receive it again. Is that modem something that Wikimedia Usergroup Nigeria has control over? Is there a common meeting place that has the same access point?

For clarity, I never ran a check on Oluwa2Chainz or Kaizenify. I ran a check on the accused puppets and they popped up in that. My name isn't in the CU log for Oluwa2Chainz.

Nothing is set in stone here. If there has been a misunderstanding, we would like to get that worked out but we need to try to have some questions answered to prevent future problems. Oluwa2Chainz originally pinged me to his talk page but then reverted and sent an email to another admin. That admin sent an email and I replied.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I understand you better now. It is not unthinkable that Coal Press Nation could be present at a meetup. I was involved with him on-wiki then, and actually attempted to make him request to get unblocked. He seemed quite desperate in creating articles for musicians for reward, possibly money. It is worth investigating especially since both accounts were created after the block of Coal Press Nation. I left a msg with User:Versace1608, I remember he was the one that discovered his COI-editing/paid editing in 2014. What makes this confusing is that socks of CPN continued to create articles for upcoming artistes, while both accounts were active. I'll wait for more evidence before I am sure on who is who. Darreg (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Range block, not anon-only

You placed a block on Special:Contributions/49.146.0.0/20 for block-evasion. That block is not anon-only and appears to be affecting Stricer1990 (talk · contribs). This looks to me like a case of an innocent editor caught up in a range block, so I'm pinging you to see if you think it might be okay to change that range block to anon-only. What do you think? --Yamla (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Yamla, I have made that an anonblock so he should be okay now.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much! --Yamla (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Range block advice/review

Berean, if you would be so kind, could you glance at my block on Special:Contributions/2804:7F0:A090:0:0:0:0:0/47? I calculated the range with the new Xtools calc with about 10 of the last IPs the LTA used. A review of the past year of contributions seemed to match 100% with the user. Please let me know if it could/should be tighter. I'm definitely not an expert at this. -- ferret (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Minor note: The LTA also operates under 177.79.*, 177.47.*, 177.65.* and 187.113.*, but the activity from those is much lower and it looked like any sort of range block would have greater impact. -- ferret (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ferret, your block is good. The first time that you start to catch someone else is the /42 range (scroll all the way to the bottom two). Your /47 catches them all and should be good enough. Well done.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ferret, to be clear, I have not ran a check but from this comment, "I'm going to block all the logged in accounts as socks of him" would indicate that you have very good grounds to make that a hardblock. It indicates that he appears to be the only one using that range at all. It's your call.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

This would be the "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" checkbox? It's too bad there's no way to know the exact association between the IPv4 and IPv6.-- ferret (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that checkbox. I don't know about the IPv4s because I haven't looked at those but the IPv6 you should feel comfortable with the hardblock. If there is an unblock request, CUs will have another look.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- ferret (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Mentioned in passing at ANI

Hi BH, I pinged you to this ANI discussion as you may have some insight on Geograf22 -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Report

108.45.138.63 (talk · contribs) I like to report this IP for making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, especially in the Syre (album) article [13] [14] [15] [16]. This IP also vandalized the album ratings template as well, by adding incorrect information and rearrange the reviews for no good reason [17] [18]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wik-102

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wik-102. Quick intervention is solicited due to the urgency of the issues.Regards:) Winged Blades ^Godric 13:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Berean Hunter. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Cause of death vandal

Hello Berean, Just to inform you that the "cause of death vandal" who you blocked in November 2017 has resurfaced as 86.174.164.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with the usual inaccurate changes; from exactly the same area of the UK. Can I leave this with you please? Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Since writing the above, another admin has blocked them - but only for 31 hours. David J Johnson (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Nudge us again when he shows up. Damn, those talk page stalkers are good. 8^D
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Will give you a nudge if it happens again. Many thanks and regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

TheREALCableGuy

TheREALCableGuy evaded its block as unregistered users editing Dragon Ball: Curse of the Blood Rubies and Fievel's American Tails. The editing pattern is pretty much the same. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 09:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that you file an SPI and place links as evidence. It isn't clear to me.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXL, December 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Halifax Explosion of 1917 Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 11:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

IP you blocked back socking

See [[19]] and the new IP. And this. Doug Weller talk 12:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Doug. Rangeblocked this IPv6 for six months.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Second opinion on JournalmanManila sockpuppetry case

Hi @Berean Hunter:, remember our conversation back in 1 November. It seems that another editor has filed an SPI report against JournalmanManila. However, it was stuck in stale status. Probably because other than prime suspects, the petitioner mistakenly also filed other users that are not likely to be the sockpuppet of JournalmanManila, thus the admin deemed the case stale and going nowhere. I would like a second opinion from you to clear things up. Thank you in advance. Cheers. Gunkarta  talk  18:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Just several minutes after I post you this message, the case is closed, and the suspects are confirmed as JournalmanManila sockpuppets. Thank you. Cheers. Gunkarta  talk  19:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes things work out that way. Good to see that it is resolved.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to believe...2018 is right around the corner!

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic) Atsme📞📧 12:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
	Time To Spread A Little Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a Happy Holiday Season and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

• I always appreciate your stellar work with images Atsme and this is no exception. I hope that you also have a happy holiday season and may the upcoming year be better for you than the last. Thank you for spreading the warmth and being your usual cheery self.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you and Season's Greetings to you and yours as well Bzuk. Stay warm by the fire and savor the snow cream.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail. So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 23:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you and Happy Holidays to you and yours as well, MarnetteD. I wonder if Hollywood will ever get around to making a sequel.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome BH. Not a sequel as such but the way this one turns the story on its head always cracks me up. Best wishes for your 1018. MarnetteD|Talk 19:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Legal Edits

Thank you for reaching out. I don't have an external relationship with any websites, I like legal movies and I came across the infographic and felt it should be linked to, and once I was on the website in question, I felt that other things such as the dean interviews should be linked to as well. I can appreciate how it looks suspicious but you I am just beginning my wiki journey and looking to contribute here in low visible areas where I can find my feet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.34.102 (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Cause of death vandal

Hello Berean and a Happy New Year. I regret to say that the IP Cause of Death vandal has re-surfaced yet again as 81.136.38.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with the usual unnecessary and inaccurate changes. Can you do the usual please, as this person will never learn. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLI, January 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at tropical medicine and Operation Market Garden Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on US Army doctrine in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 13:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

UTRS Request #20248

Hi, the auto-notification is not working again so I should be grateful if you would take a look at the question that I have asked on this appeal. You may also wish to be aware of the issue I have raised with the user. Just Chilling (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Just Chilling, I responded there yesterday.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a note to say that I appreciate your work with SPI. Montanabw^(talk) 18:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You are quite welcome and I'm glad to be of service.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Please don't mess up other editor's contribution to talk pages.

Thank you. ---- 91.10.17.164 (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't a contribution.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

That's a good one. Reminds me, I have to say, of certain arguments from racists. ---- 91.10.17.164 (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

...and yours reminds me of certain arguments from trolls.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Not eloquent, and not clear on what he was asking for, but it was (or could have been phrased as) a legitimate question. I’ve edited the article accordingly. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Minute of Silence article in English

My ip address range is blocked (by you) and I cannot be bothered to wait several days to make an account just for 3.5 words.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minute_of_Silence

"The program was started with the announcement "Attention, Moscow's listening and watching!" "

should read

"The program was started with the announcement "Attention! Attention! Moscow is speaking and broadcasting!"

The translation is all wrong, the meaning is totally lost.

Actual text citation: http://www.09may.ru/minuta_molchanija_text.htm Google translate first lines if you are unsure.

Source: i am a native speaker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.195.131 (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

SPI in progress -- question

Hi, I identified a couple more accounts that may be part of the same sock farm. Should I add them to the same sub-section, or start a new batch? This is in re: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dyhp612. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, add them to the current report. I may not get to it this evening but could look in the morning if another CU doesn't get to it first.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Similar pattern of abuse - sockpuppetry

You blocked 112.198.64.34 (talk · contribs) on 3 December 2017 for account log in abuse. This user 49.145.125.232 (talk · contribs) is exhibiting similar behavior and edited some of the same articles as the prior IP address. Given the quality of the edits and the article topics, I strongly suspect that this IP address is related to Jack DeMattos (talk · contribs), who has a history of contentious edits and has been previously blocked. Please take a look and see if there is any basis for further action. Thanks. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 09:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

btphelps, I blocked the IP range 112.198.64.0/18 because of multiple sockmasters but I didn't have that one IP in mind when I blocked. You would have a good behavioral basis for filing an SPI report but it would not be very actionable because all account and IP edits are stale and therefore no blocks or other action would come of it if the findings were affirmative. However, it could be useful for tracking purposes and filing the SPI case may help lay the foundation for future investigations or alternatively, someone may investigate to see if they could find that editor as a current IP or account and add it to the case.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Unblock

Please unblock my Ip from editing. I did not abuse, I will report for false asumption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.132.254 (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

You don't look to be blocked. If you were, how did you edit here?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

JC Gonzalez

Hey, there. I posted this on requests for undeletion, and I was told that I should talk with you about it since you deleted the article. I recognize that the article was created by a banned user, but the original article was just a translation of the Spanish version, which anyone could have done. I was working on cleaning it up yesterday, and I had been hoping to get back to it. Because I think there's a good claim to notability there with in-depth coverage of him from multiple independent sources: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. Cheers, -- irn (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, irn. I have responded there.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

A block

Hey there, just pinging you to this discussion as they've also stated on IRC now that they were told they were/would be unblocked and as you were the blocking CU, might be worth some input. See User_talk:PhoebeWalter#Help_me!_6CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Chrissymad, I've responded on their talk page. I don't know who told them they would be unblocked but I doubt it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for JC Gonzalez

An editor has asked for a deletion review of JC Gonzalez. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- irn (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

More spammers

• 08440828240 l o v e marriage problem solution baba ji in chennai tamil nadu (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 08440828240 husband wife problem solution baba ji in agra allahabad (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Kala jadu specialist baba ji 08440828240 delhi noida (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• L o v e marriage specialist baba ji 08440828240 nagpur thane (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Black magic specialist baba ji 08440828240 kolkata haora (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 08440828240 l o v e problem solution baba ji in bangalore karnataka (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Any way we could add these to the username filter? Thanks, GAB^gab 03:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, since these clowns went cross-wiki, pinging Ajraddatz - thanks... GAB^gab 03:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Locked all and globally blocked the underlying IP for all six. It might be worth blacklisting the number in the usernames; I've added it to the global title blacklist. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I was thinking of "baba ji," but I'm no expert on these things. GAB^gab 03:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Normally I'd prefer to make an abusefilter to tag them and use the commonalities in their usernames as a honeypot to find the underlying IPs. But in this case, I assume the number given is some sort of spammy number, so I think it makes sense to prevent them from making accounts with the number in their name. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

CU results for Albanian Wikipedia

Liridon, While checking for a different sockmaster on the English Wikipedia, I found that the following accounts are  Confirmed and active on the Albanian Wikipedia:

• Megiklea (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Alei&gi (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• AndyErgy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Burreli (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

They were all created together in a very short time frame on the same IP. Seeing that there are no checkusers on the Albanian Wikipedia, I'll leave this with you to investigate further and handle as necessary. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Berean Hunter:, for notifying me. As far as I see, all of them have created a new article about Natural Monuments that makes me think maybe there was a workshop, and these are new users who were signed up in Wikipedia at that moment. Anyway, I will check them in future, if it is a sock puppet, then I'll take action.--Liridon (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

A Block from You

Good day. I want to find out why I was blocked from editing Wikipedia. The pages I created were not promotional pages. I got information and decided to create a page for one of the most popular think tanks/policy organizations in Nigeria in order to enrich Wikipedia and I was blocked. Please, tell me exactly how my pages are promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BightName (talk • contribs) 13:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This user account, Bightname, has never been blocked from editing Wikipedia. See [26]. Nor has this account received any warnings about promotional editing. If you're referring to warnings you received on a different account, please specify that account. General Ization ^Talk 14:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I logged in to find out that my IP was blocked. Seems to be resolved now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BightName (talk • contribs) 15:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Block of KazMPIRE

Hi Berean Hunter - could you please expand on the block of User talk:KazMPIRE? I see you note in your block summary that it was created just after User:Tobikazm but I don't see that either accounts have any edits. Is this related to a specific sockmaster?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo, I've responded on the CU email list to show the UAs and other accounts that I had related them to.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of France

I started an RFC on the talk page, although I have no interest in the outcome nor do I edit the article. It was to deal with behavior issues and edit warring over one of the infobox entries. Once there is a clear consensus, it will be easier to police the edits. I'm also monitoring and policing the RFC itself, so I really need someone independent to close the RFC once it is complete. Not sure it will need to run a full month, but sure it needs to run at least another full week. I know you are familiar with the general topic and thought you might consider closing it. It's a pretty simple issue, just a divisive one, and since IAR applies, it is pretty much a straight up consensus issue. Either way, thought I would give you a heads up in advance. If you choose to not get involved, no harm.

On a side note, I'm cooking up a bunch of ribs on Sunday Feb 3, my girlfriend's daughter's birthday. We do the family thing every other week, three kids (24-33) and 5 grandkids. Life is much better now. You're welcome to come over around noon if you can handle the noise, would love to catch up. Don't need to bring anything. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes to both and thank you for the invitation. I'm willing to close the RfC and have read the talkpage threads.

Dennis, is that for Sunday the 4th or Saturday the 3rd. If you're cooking, I imagine that they have convenient reasons for stopping by around mealtimes on other days, too. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Ack, Sunday the 4th. That's what happens when I try to do math too early in the morning. I need to warn you that this is a pretty loud and blunt bunch, but I love them. And one daughter does manage to show up very often at meal time with her 5 year old. She's a sweetheart, though, so I don't mind. Always doing favors for her mom and I. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Picked up a mess of ribs the other day, and of course, now they are calling for snow on Sunday. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

That is the way it works. Murphy's Law. The last time they told me to expect a half an inch to an inch of snow, I got about eight inches. I had enough to cover the ground with a dusting a few days ago.

Go ahead and cook the ribs and you'll have excellent leftovers this week. :) I can come back another time. I enjoyed last Sunday's lunch...that steak was really good and I enjoyed meeting the ones that came to that.

Good thing I haven't bought the ice cream, Oreos, and all of that stuff yet or I would have that as leftovers all week.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you don't need to buy all that stuff, save the shakes for a week we have a more simple meal, when it's warmer, and I certainly don't expect you to go to all that trouble anyway. When I cook up ribs, they fill up on ribs. We might have a birthday cake, there are actually two birthdays that fall near Sunday. I'm guessing you will get invited back again, as long as you behave yourself....:D Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible socking

Hi BH. When you get a minute could you take a look at these accounts and see if they are related? I strongly suspect socking based on their disruptive editing targeting the same articles but I'd like to be sure before I drop the hammer. For now I have protected the two articles that they seem to be primarily targeting.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Reyserman55
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thorinesque
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Temperament2

Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ad Orientem, the following accounts are  Technically indistinguishable:
• Thorinesque (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• DropSync (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Reyserman55 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Temperament2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked them all. I see you also zapped an IP that had drawn my attention. Looks like this nest has been cleaned out. Thanks! -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible block evasion

68.116.139.24 (talk · contribs)

Remember this IP that you blocked for disruptive editing and failure to engage four months ago, it appears the editor has return with another IP address and continue to making unconstructive edits. The editor made these edits here and some of the content is unsourced too. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

How do you know that it is him? I can see some commonalities but can you match to diffs from a previous IP?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Here are the diffs from the previous IP [27] and the current one [28]. The editor have a bad habit of going back to articles to make unexplained changes, especially in Hurricane Chris (rapper). This could be another editor but the edits looks very similar to me. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

He hasn't edited since you've posted here so I'm not sure that blocking is needed. Waiting seems to be the best course of action since there isn't much to compare. He may also have a different IP the next time.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

You maybe right. There isn't much evidence to prove this is the same editor as before, but if the editor returning back to making unexplained chances in the Hurricane Chris (rapper) article, I let you know. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The IP made some changes in several articles without adequate explanation ([29] [30]). I still believe this is the same editor as before, in the past the editor keep going back to articles like, Views (album), to make unexplained changes like this here ([31]). Just recently the editor made these edits ([32]), these edits have also been reverted by follow editors, Ss112 and JustDoItFettyg, right here ([33] [34]). This editor clearly didn't learn their lesson. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you TheAmazingPeanuts. He's blocked now. Maybe he will start communicating one day.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Apology for violation editing

Dear Berean Hunter: sorry I edit any articles with errors with IP address and sock puppetry. I will not do it again and I have to keep using my account so I can be flawless. Maybe you can teach me how to rectify any articles we want.

22:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Rectify 54, Thank you for promising not to sock anymore. One more thing, please do not edit SPI case archives as you did here. Only SPI clerks and checkusers modify case archives.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

OVH Ranges

I have a list of non-blocked OVH ranges / Digital Ocean Ranges, if you're interested. I was going to work on blocking them later this week. Let me know if you'd like lists made for other web hosts. SQL^{Query me!} 22:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, excellent. Will you use ProcseeBot to automate the blocking? ...and yes, more lists would be great. Good work. 👍
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

No I've been blocking them by hand. What other webhosts might generate useful results? SQL^{Query me!} 17:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You may want to post that question at WT:SPI to get collective results. I block them when I see them.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

User:TaxAct2018

A new user who is making some of the usual rookie mistakes but who also seems to know more than I would expect from a newbie. My sock detector is flashing yellow, but only faintly. Sadly this job has made me somewhat cynical and I am seeing socks everywhere. Anyways if you get a minute could you have a look? Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLII, February 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Napoleonic Wars and Hawkeye7 on World War II Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on generalship in 1918 Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 07:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

For this explanation. Very salient as to the issues in that discussion. Also, hello from another North Carolinian. Don't think I've mentioned that before. :) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've known that they were trying to bark up that tree but was being patient assuming that they would get the point that everyone has been trying to tell them.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding Divulging personal information. The thread is WP:ANI#User:Berean_Hunter_threatening_to_divulge personal_information. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). TylerRDavis (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

your block of my bot User:ISO 3166 Bot

Hi Berean Hunter, I created that bot for the correction of ISO 3166 codes in the German WP. Maybe it will be necessary to extend functionality to Commons and WD later on (I know, I have to request a seperate flag there). I have the bot flag on German WP since 1st of February and the bot did her first changes. I have 2 edits on Commons before I got the flag on the German WP. I do not have any intent to make edits with this account on the en:WP. Nor did I. I remember I had difficulties to login to de:WP with my bot account, so I tried around a bit, maybe also logged in to en:WP (see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T185434). But even when I just follow an interwiki link to another wikipedia as the bot, the bot will be logged in immediately.

Thus your block puts my bot on the safe side and will prohibit incidental edits on en:WP. No need to unblock. But: With SUL, do I have a chance not to have this account somewhere else in the wikiverse? So what is the overall policy? Will my bot be blocked on all wikis it does not have bot permissions? best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC) (on behalf of ISO 3166 Bot)

Herzi Pinki, I saw that while reviewing the range for a different editor and blocked per normal bot name issues but didn't realize it's legitimacy elsewhere. I doubt that anyone else will be blocking on the other wikis. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kashmir2/Archive new IP sock

Editing as an IP at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Olsson (3rd nomination). Doug Weller talk 21:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Matrix 2

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:CBAN for Krajoyn

On Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, I have started a discussion of a potential CBAN of Krajoyn which you might have been involved in.

The discussion is linked at WP:CBAN for Krajoyn. Iggy (Swan) 19:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

HughD IP sock

Berean, looks like HughD it's not ok with being told to stay home. [[35]]. Disruptive IP editor from Chicago area adding the same content IMAParent added to the modern sporting rifle page. Could you lend a hand?Springee (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Springee, why do you think that this IP is from the Chicago area?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The 'alternate' geo locate link on the contributions page said it was. Springee (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha. Meanwhile the regular geolocate link points to Brooklyn. Thank you Springee.

I suggest that you file an SPI report and point that out because this needs an admin to make a behavioral call. As a checkuser, I'm not in a position to affiliate IPs and accounts but regular admins have more liberty in that regard. For policy reasons, I cannot confirm nor deny any connection here. Sorry.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't worried about filling yet another SPI. I just figured protecting the article and/or blocking the ip was sufficient. Springee (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

More Thai IP unsourced gun edits

See Special:Contributions/118.174.215.68. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Rangeblocked. That's him.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Btw, my "Thanks" option has disappeared. Any idea if this is widespread? - Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

They may be working on something...I did one earlier. I'm guessing that it is temporary.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I have since found Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Thanks not working. - BilCat (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Range opinion

See David Lee Murphy. 174.255.192.0/19 would cover it but a glance suggested it'd have some collateral damage. -- ferret (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

ferret, 174.255.192.0/19 would be too busy to hardblock but you could anon-block. Your guy has edited here since you posted.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Started off with a 2 week. -- ferret (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	I'm sure that JG CU meant you had about 305283052853 windows open. Bravo! CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Almost. Thank you.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Quick question

Would you mind taking a look at this. I had to briefly block a user because they've been going around messing with unblock templates and changing CU confirmed tags to the user that they think the actual master is. I'd prefer to unblock them quickly, but I suspected we'd be edit warring over tags. If you could help clarify the situation since the person they say is the master didn't turn up in your results, it would be appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Tony, that account that didn't turn up is stale and last edited in Jan 2017. They might be able to make a compelling case by filing an SPI and presenting evidence. They would probably need some assistance if you decide to make that suggestion.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I misread the years. The other account they are claiming is related is User:TGBCT1, and I can see some similarities there. If you'd prefer they do it through an SPI, I'll have tell them to run it that way. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Tony, TGBCT1 appears to be  Unrelated and in a different part of the world than Dylan Cerbone.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, enjoy your night :) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Traveller Sockpuppets

Hey there. I was wondering, does Jonathan Bland fit the same sockpuppet bill as the other Traveller related socks? Their edits seem awfully similar. Canterbury Tail talk 15:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

From a CU perspective, that account is stale so any decision made today would have to be based on behavior. I recommend leaving a message on their talk page and then if they reply we would be able to CU them. You could ask if they have any other accounts. After looking, there is justifiable reasons to run a check. I also note there is an SPA that is also around those accounts which is AmasaJoslin and worth watching. This appears to look like an admission of sorts. The Bland account cites COI and WP:EL in their fifth edit ever and yet no one has ever left them a talk page message. That name is a character in the game, right?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Marc Miller is the creator of Traveller along with Loren Wisemen and Paul Chadwick. The IP that posted on my talk pretending to be Big-Tachi from is from University of Chicago yet Marc Miller now lives in Winnipeg. I don't believe it to be Marc Miller, someone I have occasional contact with IRL, as their knowledge of Traveller seems to be not actually all that accurate. They appear to be someone who thinks they know more about Traveller than they actually do. Well thanks for taking the time, I think we can take care of it from here. While I don't have Checkuser privileges I can manage the rest of the administrative functions around this now that the CU's been done. Canterbury Tail talk 16:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiCone!

Hey there, I came across Jimmy_Alarice when they removed some CSD tags and noticed quite an oddity in their behavior. They recreated Sharhaan Singh as Sharhaan Singh (Singer) presumably to evade the black as it was a heavily targeted recreation by Virasatgaur socks as well as the much older SRZA002. They also recreated Diana Khan as Diana Khan (actress) shortly after the salt. There is a lot of xover with WikiCone! so I'm just wondering if in your opinion it's worth refiling that same SPI again given he wasn't blocked last time despite the technical evidence? They appear to only be recreating repeatedly deleted content. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Metadata shows an original photo uploaded at Commons with a Nikon footprint. That clearly looks to be a promotional photo and not taken by a fan on the street. He is certainly UPE.

• I've indeffed Proudpurian, Shivamroy22, Jimmy Alarice as UPE and likely socks. These blocks are behavior based and they have the same patterns although they may be different actual editors.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

user:Soccer Fan

Could you take a look in your magic eight ball? This might just be a new user but their pattern of editing suggests this is not their first time around the block. They were auto reported at AIV for tripping the edit filters. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see who I would be checking against for comparison. I looked for behavioral evidence and didn't find it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. They seem to have stopped editing for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

PAKHIGHWAY and Liborbital

Just read your comments on AE. My observations were nonetheless correct,[36] and Callanecc[37] may have assumed that behavioral evidence needed evaluation.

Liborbital is still socking like you know,[38] he is on verge of getting site-banned. Do you think that we should now merge these two SPIs treating Liborbital as the sockmaster? D4iNa4 (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't merge these as the situation is unclear. The IPs listed in the Liborbital case show VPN/proxy (example) so real location isn't necessarily known. PAKHIGHWAY does not appear to be using a proxy and is editing from another part of the world than the proxy so the technical info that I have seen wouldn't be the basis for merging. IIRC, there were at least three completely different parts of the world that came up in the checks for that case.

My results on the three socks at AE aren't equally weighted. The first sock is strongly supported by technical evidence. The second sock, I show behavioral evidence plus some supporting technical evidence from CU logs. The third sock cannot be pinned to a certain master with enough certainty at this point.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Xan Chenga

Hello Berean Hunter, I was patrolling and ran across the userpage of Xan Chenga whom you recently indeffed for socking. On his user page it says that he is an admin on the Japanese Wikipedia. When I click on his global contributions, though, it only displays edits from 1 project, en.wiki. I was thinking that because this information cannot proved and might be confusing or unhelpful to others (if its not true) that that bit ought to be removed. However, I wanted to know if there was any other way to find out if he is indeed an admin on another project. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

That sock is not an admin, it is User:Thepoliticsexpert. I  Confirmed Xan Chenga to SirGeorgeParker. I've removed the bit on his userpage.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Apollo The Logician

Hi. Apollo The Logician messaged me after the latest SPI using the IP 213.183.41.51. I thought it was a one-off, just for fun, but now I see he's continued to edit under that IP. Scolaire (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

...looks to be resolved now.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Great. Scolaire (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

user:CCabello

An editor has contacted me about CCabello and was wondering if they might be a sock of MaranoFan. I thought I'd let you have a look in your Magic 8-Ball and see what it says. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that this would be best placed in an SPI report with some evidence. The accounts in the archive are stale but a CU might be able to give a likely or possible result based on IP info. I did a look earlier to see if I found smoking gun evidence that would justify a CU check but haven't seen that yet. Behavioral analysis would be good since no one has reported in a while.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIII, March 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at a work by Daniel Ellsberg Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1918 flu pandemic Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 10:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Reverted your edits in Italy

Your edits in "Italy" article were reverted (Undid).You acted well, because last definitive data by IMF are only since 2016 as official reference reports.MrPreamble added in Government section some news with mistakes.1m2n3o (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

151.127.0.0/16

Just FYI, this range appears to be a DSL range and not a webhost, OVH customers are on a fixed IP, but there normally should be no proxy there. However I guess there's something going on if you spotted something with CU :). -- Luk ^talk 09:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Luk, that is confusing because I see that they do offer webhosting, colocation, VPS and cloud services. Perhaps easier if you take a look yourself.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know that site (nice find, I'll add it to my toolbox)! That's a weird result...

For example 151.127.19.90 looks like a normal residential IP but some other random IPs have the same score (and a similar OtherTheBox DNS entry). OVH is usually good at separating their hosting (Dedicated Servers) and ISP (OVH-DSL) activities... I wonder what is OvetTheBox exactlyand why it is on that /16... -- Luk ^talk 13:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I contacted them and apparently this range is used by both xDSL and overthebox customers. From my understanding, Overthebox is a backup DSL line for (small) businesses, so there should not be many anonymous proxies there and blocking individual IPs should do the trick :). -- Luk ^talk 15:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Block

Hi! Good Day,

Apologized for advertising The Voice Masterpiece Youtube Channel here as I violated the rules and regulations of Wikipedia regarding this. Hoping that the blocked thing will be removed as soon as possible as I will not repeat any mistakes here. I request for the removal of the block also because I am currently an official editor member to the article 'THE VOICE (TV SERIES)'. Thank you so much :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayeespino (talk • contribs) 10:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing that you have run into a blocked IP range somewhere but you appear to be able to edit now.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayeespino (talk • contribs) 08:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Berean Hunter! Thank you for message you left me recently. In answer to your question about my accounts I am able to work with one account, but when I created the other two it seemed like a good idea. But you are right, I don't really need three accounts. And again thank you for your message!

GreatLakesShips (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)GreatLakesShips

You are welcome, GreatLakesShips. I notice that sometimes there is an editor, LittleGreenLights that is adding images to articles that you have written. Would you happen to know them? Nthep has been trying to communicate with them on their talk page so that he may help them but they haven't ever responded.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

blocking

Hi, My router's IP address is 2.191.0.0/16 I learnt that you have blocked this ip address which technically means blocking my account. could you please help me to unblock my account, now I'm using a different IP to be able to contact you, sorry for my bad english. thanks in advance.--Rmashhadi (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Block of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/173.165.0.0/17

You recently blocked 173.165.0.0/17 which is a Comcast Business IP block. It is a rather wide block as those IP addresses are generally statically assigned to individual businesses in small /28, /29, /30 blocks. Please consider tightening this up a bit since you're also banning account creation from these same addresses. Imsaguy (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Have we considered the net-benefit of blocking vast numbers of addresses and "creating awareness" upon the larger community of how much Wikipedia suffers from vandalism? Were it me, I'd block a 100 million IPs and hope that the news discusses it, maybe asks the home office in San Francisco for comment. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I most particularly intended to squelch account creation on that range in addition to halting anon editing. The sockmaster that I was trying to stop uses accounts. The block is only for three months.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Lighthouse and museum categories

Discussion here Is there anything to be done, or do we have to revert these one at a time? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like this is now resolved.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

89.219.192.0/18

Hello, you have recently blocked [39] range from Iran, it seems a couple of users trapped in the block, I wonder if you could lift, as far as I see the range was misused but it is from big ISP in Iran. Mardetanha (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Mardetanha, I just re-checked and do not see hardly any edits from users beyond a blocked, prolific sockmaster. Aside from that master, one editor has a single edit to a userpage for a link to a website for themselves and it looks quite COI (in Farsi) and they have no article edits. There is another editor trying to spam a link with a false edit summary (someone else's sock). I see a few account creations but those have never been used here. I don't see any unblock requests from either anons or accounts in the check. The only other editor was the anon IP hopper responsible for this ANI thread. No one was using this range that I can see and an overall evaluation suggests that it should stay firmly blocked. Big ISP but I haven't seen a single edit worth anything coming out of it in my checks.

• Where are/were the unblock requests? What do they want to edit?
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I got an email from a good-standing fawiki user stuck in the block, I wonder if you could grant ip-block expemt localy then ? Mardetanha (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Possible sock

Hello Berean Hunter, can you please salt Uma Neha. Raj081238 who seems to be a sockpuppet of Proudpurian (talk · contribs) you blocked and constantly recreating/moving Draft:Uma Neha into mainspace under different titles e.g. Uma Neha S (Singer). Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 05:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Case filed. Salting might occur if they keep at it.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Reporting 2600:6C56:7508:8D6:0:8DAC:6075:391F

2600:6C56:7508:8D6:0:8DAC:6075:391F (talk · contribs)

Do you remember the IP that I reported back in February? It seems like the editor again making unexplained chances to articles with a new IP address [40] [41] [42]. The reason I think this is the same editor as before, because it's not the first time that the editor have made edits in the article, When It's Dark Out, by using different accounts in the past [43] [44]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

You haven't tried to communicate with him. He has had no posts to his talk page and he is only using the one IPv6 address which is not changing. You need to try that first.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I will leave a massage to the editor the next time he will made these unconstructive edits, but I don't see point of it, consider this editor have never responded to me or anybody else before. He just ignored the warnings and keep editing. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but that helps behaviorally. That is evidence.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I try to get a response from him twice [45] [46], but as usual the editor continue to make these unconstructive edits without explaining [47] [48] [49] [50]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts, I have blocked this IP for three months.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

URGENT IP Block

Hello Berean Hunter,

We are currently trying to have an edit-a-thon and I wanted to use Account creator to create accounts for new users, only to get this: "Account creation from IP addresses in the range 197.211.32.0/19, which includes your IP address (197.211.58.103), has been blocked by Berean Hunter". Please can you do something about this, to ensure smooth running of the event?

If there's any edit block, try to solve that too...as it will also affect the event. Please attend to this immediately if possible. We are in a fix.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Jamie Tubers, I have temporarily dropped the block for the day so you should be able to edit and they should be able to create their own accounts. How long will you need it as I plan to restore later.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hello,

Thank you. The accounts were eventually opened through the mobile network of one of the participants whose IP was free. Thankfully, the block didn't affect editing. The workshop is almost over, you can reinstate the block. Thanks again!--Jamie Tubers (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

UTRS #21075

Mertmetin96 (talk · contribs · block log) (who's in Turkey) is appealing a proxy block I can't find, but I don't have much experience with UTRS or IPBE (yet). As the blocking admin, please tell me what I'm missing :-). All the best, Miniapolis 17:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Miniapolis, all of his edits were stale therefore the system didn't have any info for you. I had to use the CU function within UTRS to find his proxy and I have commented within the UTRS request. You didn't do anything wrong. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It looks to me like he's caught between a rock and a hard place. WP is banned in Turkey (which explains the proxy editing), but if he's blocked for using a proxy his contribs wouldn't be high. I don't know what to tell him. Thanks for your help and all the best, Miniapolis 18:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

SPI Neapen

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Neapen/Archive

Can you please take a second look at user Arjunlemona and AdiiRam. The case has been closed but there are some similarities that connect them. AdiiRam's first edit was to create Draft:Sajith Raj and then Arjunlemona starts creating articles on films related to Sajith Raj. If you look at Draft:Kukkiliyar and Draft:Mera Ilaka it looks like created by the same person as per the use of external links, ref etc. and both made their last edit on 28th of last month. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 04:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

GSS-1987, I left a technical answer which is that they are unrelated from a CU perspective but I messed up by not leaving one of our statements that the case needed behavioral evaluation. I don't know if Vanjagenije decided that they weren't meatpuppets.

A COIN posting may be in order.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your responce, will post it on COIN soon. Thanks – GSS (talk|c|em) 17:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Done Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Sajith Raj. GSS (talk|c|em) 19:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

UTRS Request #21085

Hi, please see this appeal and a question that I posed, there. Just Chilling (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Just Chilling, I responded there.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

GreatLakesShips

Hi, he's visiting family and will be back at the end of the week.

Regards,

His Father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:9440:B371:C95B:50E9:B0EF:1AE (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. He has done excellent work so far and off to a great start as a Wikipedian. I look forward to hearing from him.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Just a formality, it doesn't look like you've been notified recently. –dlthewave ☎ 15:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

dlthewave, would you please produce diffs where I am editing in the gun control area. "...a topic which you have edited" No, I haven't edited in any of those articles...at least not recently if I ever had edits there. I do not interpret the above case to apply to all editors that edit firearm articles broadly-construed and I haven't been partaking in anything to do with gun control.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You recently edited the Criminal Use section of Ruger Mini-14 and have been active in discussions involving criminal use on that article's talk page since 2012.

I understand that "government regulation of firearm ownership" is open to interpretation but two recent DS enforcement actions 1 2 have affirmed that Criminal Use is within the scope of the sanctions.

As you know, a DS alert is nothing more than a notification. I use them fairly liberally when there is a controversial edit or discussion regardless of whether or not the editor has shown any problematic behavior. –dlthewave ☎ 23:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

"...have affirmed that Criminal Use is within the scope of the sanctions." No, they haven't but we can ask NeilN whether the edits that I've made fall anywhere near the scope of this DS alert directly. Criminal Use ≠ Gun control, so I'm going to want to make sure that we have clarity on the quoted portion so that you know that you cannot extend the scope of the ArbCom statement to mean something that it doesn't mean. Since you only gave these out to those that opposed you, it doesn't look good. It is no surprise that this response is similar to mine. Perhaps neutral editors ought to be the ones that issue those alerts when they think it applies. The admins at AE should have realized that the complaints brought before them are NOT a match to the Arb case.

The log reveals that NeilN appears to be logging AE actions that look incorrect. Neil, Factfindingmission was editing in a firearm article and edit warring. That does not have anything to do with gun control and you need to figure out different handling for him please. Nothing in his contribs have anything to do with gun control whatsoever...he was edit warring about sales and employee layoffs after the recent shootings which isn't close to the ArbCom case's scope. The gun control case does not give broadly-construed interpretation to mean anyone doing anything wrong in a gun article. Admins at AE need to send these misapplied requests to a different venue. Neil, I think you have some cleanup work to do. Please review the Arb case to understand the scope. "Locus and focus of conflict - The focus of this dispute is the history and politics of governmental regulation of the ownership of firearms. The initial locus was the gun control topic with a dispute within that article about whether government firearms policies in Nazi Germany helped facilitate the Holocaust. Related disputes have since arisen in Gun politics in the United States, Gun Control Act of 1968 and the biographical article on Stephen Halbrook, as well as other articles within the controversial gun politics category." and "For the purposes of remedies in this case, the scope of "gun control" includes governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues." That is not a catch-all for the current controversy related to the shootings. They are not related.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. First, gun possession advocates wish to highlight legal uses for firearms while gun control advocates wish to highlight illegal uses of firearms. That makes criminal use fit right into the discretionary sanctions scope you've quoted above ("social, historical and political context"). Second, Factfindingmission was sanctioned for constantly referring to other editors as Smith & Wesson employees who want to whitewash the article after being told to stop. Also covered by discretionary sanctions and expected standards of behavior. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

You do realize that someone placed a DS alert above (do you think it applies?) and are citing your actions as a precedent? So far, you are the only one to have made that kind of entry in the log and translated the Arb case as extending its scope in such a way to encompass all firearms articles. I can see that the other entries fit inline with the case scope. Not yours.

So am I a gun possession advocate or a gun control advocate? I don't ever recall arguing for either position or trying to highlight legal usage. If I were to mention target shooting because it is legal that would then include me in the interpretation of "gun control"? I believe in some crime articles that I might have highlighted illegal usage but probably not in a firearm article. Since I have already been editing there for years, am I now suddenly under possible Arb sanction territory? Aren't articles subject to DS supposed to have something on their talk pages with a warning? Are all firearms articles under this scope now? With such a chilling effect, just let me know and I'll remove them all from my watchlist immediately. I'm not one to argue politics and that includes gun politics. I believe this needs to be put before the Arbitrators for clarity of scope because I don't think they meant all firearms articles including those that mention crime or they would have said that...it would have been much clearer than what is written if that is what they meant. It's all recent activity surrounding the shootings that has led to this sudden interpretation. I didn't do anything but that DS alert has a very chilling effect. I'll go find something else to do today.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything about what you believe in. I'm saying in the real world gun possession advocates wish to highlight legal uses for firearms while gun control advocates wish to highlight illegal uses of firearms. This affects our article content. The notification is justified as my close here had: "Furthermore guidelines by Wikiprojects are suggestions, not mandates and any consensus achieved on project pages may be changed/overturned by a wider community discussion drawing in more participants from outside the project.". You are of course free to request scope clarification at WP:ARCA. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Your block of 197.211.32.0/19 to expire at 15:46 on 3rd April 2019

Hello, please in the last 24 hours, Surelaarrgh and SuperSwift have sent me messages that an autoblock from you is preventing them from editing even their talk pages. I can only assume more innocent editors from Nigeria might be affected by this autoblock. These Wikipedians are not so experienced, so might get discouraged easily, please if there is anything that can be done to reduce the effect of this block, please do. HandsomeBoy (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

One of them hasn't edited any wiki project since last July and the other has another range availble to them that they can edit but they need to follow Template:Autoblock to clear it out. The hardblock on that range was only dropped for a brief time this week for an event and then reinstated as seen [[User_talk:Berean_Hunter#[URGENT]_IP_Block|above]].
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Let me just add that we are all in different locations as at the time of the block (all four of us). This block is preventing a many ips from a major network provider from Nigeria from editing Wikipedia. HandsomeBoy (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Checkuser Apollo The Logician

Can you run a Checkuser on User:James blythe for me? He's a self confessed sock (here) of banned User:Apollo The Logician and I would like to know if there are more of them out there at the moment considering how prolific they are creating new accounts (which are ridiculously easy to spot for the most part.) Not sure if User:Sokopoko is one or if that's just coincidental. Cheers. Canterbury Tail 18:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

•  Technically indistinguishable:
• James blythe (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Sokopoko (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Luke Dillon the Dynamiter (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• No other accounts visible.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Got them all for this round, but theyl be back, and in greater numbers. They're turning into one of the bigger sockpuppeters. Canterbury Tail talk 15:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Gun use

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Gun use. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. –dlthewave ☎ 21:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Gun use essay

You recently deleted Wikipedia:Gun_use. This page was not created by a sock, it was moved from User:Felsic2/Gun use by a sock. Could you please reinstate the userspace version? –dlthewave ☎ 21:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

No. It was moved and fought over by HughD, a sock. He restored it after it was moved back to userspace once, so we will not repeat that. I will not facilitate a sock's edits.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

This should be dealt with by addressing the sockpuppetry, not deleting the essay.–dlthewave ☎ 21:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

He moved it on March 2 with the MargeDouglas sock and it was moved back. On March 9, sock of same, FlaTeen moved it back again. I'm not making it available again. We're not going to support a sock.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Dlthewave, how did you come to find that essay?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that would be relevant, but I noticed it under the New Articles section at WP:Firearms back in March. –dlthewave ☎ 22:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I was trying to work out the timeline after the first sock moved it. I think this addition that you mention above must be what got others' attention which started the multiple moves including one to a malformed url. It helped me find this response where it should have been a DENY from the onset to prevent a sock from orchestrating anything.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIIV, April 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the bombing of Darwin; recent books by female military historians Review essay: K.e.coffman on Wikipedia's representations of the Nazi German military Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Red Baron Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 09:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Explain what

What do you want to know? GreatLakesShips (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

LittleGreenLights is  Technically indistinguishable to GreatLakesShips. I want you to explain that. I have asked several times but you have never responded until I finally placed the CU results on your talk page. For example, I asked you a few weeks ago.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

How do you mean indistinguishable? GreatLakesShips (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I mean that the two accounts share the same exact IPs and useragents...i.e. you either are that person or you know that person.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure these can be added to the tab...

While you were out we had a few more HughD IP socks [[51]], [[52]], [[53]]. I assume there really isn't a way to deal with this other than report and revert. Springee (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

IPs should go into reports as those can be useful although you won't usually see checkusers commenting about them. "I can neither confirm nor deny" because of the checkuser and privacy policies.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Felsic2/Gun use

Thanks for restoring this, but it looks like you did a copy-paste. Or perhaps this got forked earlier and I'm just not following the logs correctly. In any case, I've gone ahead and also undeleted the old Wikipedia:Gun use revisions and histmerged them into User:Felsic2/Gun use to preserve the attribution history. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Roy, you !voted "Restore to pre-sock state" which is what I perceived the consensus to be. That is what I did. Your histmerge has reintroduced the sock edits. Was that your intention?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, yeah, I see your point. The current version is still the one you restored. My intent was to preserve the original attribution history going back to Felsic2's original work. Maybe what makes the most sense would be to revdel just the sock edits in the middle? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

That works and thank you for making the efforts to preserve the attribution. I forgot to add that before I went for coffee. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

IP addresses in unblocks

Hello! I got your email. I'm happy to discuss this here if you wish. Email's fine, too, but I think there's nothing confidential. I'm watching your page so will see your reply. --Yamla (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Would we save time and effort for those filing unblock requests and the admins that respond by changing the instructions to include their IP address if they file with the canned response for the proxy, colocation, and webhost blocks? Although we tell them that they forgot to include their IP, when I read those templates, I don't think that is clear. I think that a sample, suggested wording change from Template:Blocked proxy to something like this may help:

* "{{unblock|reason=Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. Please place your IP address and any further information here. ~~~~}} If you use this reply, please be sure to include your IP address so the administrators will be able to assist you. You may find your address here. If you are using a Wikipedia account and wish to keep your IP address private you can email the functionaries team or use UTRS."

Would it be possible to streamline for efficiency so that the admins wouldn't have to reply as much like this?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I added Template:Forgot ip. I literally couldn't find Template:Blocked proxy, presumably due to a lack of caffeine. I think it's a great idea. The only concern I have is that whatismyip serves ads. Making it officially part of the unblock template gives it more of an "official Wikipedia tool" sort of vibe. I obviously don't care myself, it's always the site I direct people to. But... should we be concerned? Also, I think we should change "If you are using a Wikipedia account and wish to keep your IP address private you can email the functionaries team" to point them to WP:UTRS. --Yamla (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the functionaries mailing list isn't preferable and UTRS is. Our emails on the former are sometimes subject to lengthy delays and UTRS would be much quicker and a better place to keep documentation together. Use of the whatismyip site may be a valid concern. Thank you for being a sounding board, also. You are one of the admins that I see having to constantly remind users to include their IP address and I wanted to flesh it out with others before presenting at WP:AN.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm sure it's frustrating for these users. Multiple back-and-forths, and they generally end up getting told the block is legit anyway. I look forward to your thread on WP:AN, I think this would be a significant improvement. --Yamla (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Spamming other accounts

Can you not spam other WIkipedia accounts? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veryfunkypants (talk • contribs) 15:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Berean Hunter, an administrator, warned you (not "spammed" you) against unconstructive editing a year ago, and now you complain? Bishonen | talk 15:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC).