User talk:Berean Hunter

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕))

@This user can be reached by email.

Question regarding one account restriction

Hey Berean Hunter,

With regards to the conditions on my standard offer (diff), I've thought of a bit of an issue. In order to pursue some technical tests over on Test Wikipedia regarding this, I will need to create a second account without +sysop to test the edit filter (some of the filters I have in the works use user groups and edit count as an automatic threshold to identify non-abuse). While the one-account restriction is on English Wikipedia, I believe now that logins are unified, an English Wikipedia account will be automatically attached, thus meaning I can't go ahead with my tests without violating the conditions of my standard offer. You said in the diff above that I could appeal the one-account editing restriction in a year, which is three months from now, and I plan on doing so (to split out most of my AutoWikiBrowser contributions like I did on my old account because it's difficult for edit analysis and it stops every time I get a talk page message), however, what I'm querying in this message is, until then, would it be acceptable to create an account which will not make any edits to any project other than Test Wikipedia for the purposes described in the second diff?

Many thanks,

SITH (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is alright to create the test account, StraussInTheHouse. After you create the account, make your next edit to your userpage here to identify it per WP:VALIDALT. This should also make it stand out to any CU or steward that happens to find themselves in your ranges and hopefully prevent any confusion. Good luck with the tests.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Berean Hunter, I'll do that. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

LTA

[1] Hope all is well! ——SerialNumber54129 13:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Cheers!
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow

That is a good one. Obviously concert footage + the Voice :P - FlightTime (open channel) 20:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I had to watch it several times before realizing it was a hoax. 8^D.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Your attention is wanted...

...at User talk:VAN DAnieL DannyPhantom I wobafgkrnSM. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Done
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

I glad someone appreciated it, anyway. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 16:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

IP question

Why did you undo my edits to Greek government-debt crisis? Just to jog your memory I edited the page to reflect the historical consensus, which is that extensive worker benefits for Greek state employees helped balloon the deficit, contributing to the debt crisis. How is this inaccurate? And how does this "constitute vandalism"? Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.29.175.94 (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

IP Berean reverted this edit which is vastly different from the one you claim to have made. MarnetteD|Talk 00:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

block

I notice you blocked 103.214.223.46. This and 49.181.231.154 and Pacificus all seem to be sock puppets from the same source. Why: same editing content, though not current. Hmains (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmains, Pacificus is  Unrelated to those IP addresses (wrong continent). They have, however, IP socked elsewhere though.

I've re-blocked the /17 range that 49.181.231.154 belongs to.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, there seems to be an industry devoted to keeping the Category:Far-right politics in Brazil empty. Or maybe just one editor. Hmains (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

UTRS 24200

Hi,

Could you please take a look at this UTRS request? It's a CheckUser block and I'd really appreciate some input. You blocked the user. Is this user likely to be the sock that you blocked the IP range for?-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

5 albert square, this request has already been closed so I didn't check.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Sock of Druckmaschine

Hello Berean Hunter. I think Jahmalm is sock of banned Druckmaschine.

1. Focusing on the same topics and making similar edits. Please see their edits.

1. Creating similar articles regarding villages. Compare Druckmaschine: [2][3] [4][5] and Jahmalm [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]

1. Editing same articles which are not known by many Wikipedia editors. See these articles for example [18][19].

1. Jahmalm moves pages accordingly draft pages created by Druckmaschine [20][21]

1. Both are from the same country and socked with the ips from the same county. Jahmalm’s main account [22] and ips [23][24][25][26][27]...

IMO, Jahmal is obvious DUCK of Drucksmaschine . They are probably related to this account and this case. 186.156.25.147 (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

PS: They are currently active as an anon [28]. The same location with the sockmater. Moreover, just a few hours before the ip’s edits on language, Jahmalm were editing some pages regarding languages and after the ip’s edits, Jahmalm linked the same article on a page[29]. Blocking (to prevent further block evasion & disruption) and rollbacking (to discourage further sockpuppetry) the ip would be an appropriate action too-they have been socking for a long time and it seems that, that was among their favorite topics [30] Thank you in advance.186.156.25.147 (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

This should go into an SPI report for proper record keeping and to allow any admins the ability to take action. I don't know if it will be me as I have a few things that I'm looking at and not much time.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLV, March 2019

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 on US Navy aviation safety and Australian war crimes trials

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) 10:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

SPA IPs

IP 37.138.235.128, 85.16.226.58 and 91.248.142.3 all geolocate to the same area. They are participating in an RfC, so if it is determined to be sock activity, can they be blocked and their comments removed? ^Atsme 📣 📧 12:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC) ^{Add WP:Harrassment, as indicated below. 13:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)}

Those are all me. My ip changes every day, nothing i can do about that. And given that i live in Germany(i.e. not the heartland of the english language Wikipedia), i have empty contributions every day. But i took part at ITN or DYK, look at this AN post months back, me. Just as a random example... so i also object to the single purpose account label. I could make an account, but i don't have to and so i won't. 91.96.118.79 (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

And also, could you please look at Atsme's behaviour in that RfC while you are at it? Massive battleground behaviour, misrepresenting and twisting of sources, making bogus arguments and just a general wasting of time. All that makes a very toxic atmosphere. 91.96.118.79 (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and of course feel free to run CU or an SPI, i have absolutely nothing to hide(not that you even need my consent but i would even ecourage you to check, just to get this joke over with). I have been called a sock on quite a few occasions before(been editing as an IP for years now, never much but ever so often), this is just a tactic to descredit my points and views and to not have to actually adress them. Trying to win a content dispute by other means by creating a chilling effect. Quite low but whatever i guess. One gets used to be treated like dirt lol. But my choice so i should not complain about it. 91.96.118.79 (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Sigh... now i am harrassing them? Could you maybe present some diffs that support that? Otherwise, unfounded accusations of harassment are pretty much just personal attacks. Anyway, more attempts at creating a chilling effect, more attempts at discrediting me etc. No, i am not harassing you by standing up for myself, responding to your accusations or by bringing up your problemtic behaviour. Besides this discussion, i have interacted with you by commenting 3 times on points you made in that RfC. Nowhere else, ever (except here then, obviously). Explain and please provide diffs how i am harassing you, otherwise please strike your unfounded personal attacks. This is nothing but sad and pathetic. 91.96.118.79 (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Atsme, for IP socking you would need to identify deception in an IP editor's behavior. Since they have owned their comments and aren't trying to IP hop to edit war or do anything deceptive then I wouldn't see this as a socking issue. My suggestion to both of you is to disengage from each other and let the RfC continue. In making comments there, stick to subject matter and avoid commenting on the other editor. There are (or will be) so many participants that this should give balance to the discussion so you don't have to face off with each other.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

They owned it only after I brought it here. The different IP addys make it seem like more than one person is commenting. I don't know of any PAGs that say this is ok - please point me to it, if you will. Once I realized multiple IPs were at play, I disengaged with this editor, and brought it here only to discover they are now harrassing me. The edit history on each IP shows it is a single purpose account, and I question if it's a new user. The IP either needs to register or disclose they are one in the same each time they comment. I will not be responding to any of their comments, but something has to be done to correct this situation. ^Atsme 📣 📧 14:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I think the problem here is that the IP contributions to the Fascism discussion have the appearance of being from different editors. No effort was made by the user to identify the comments as being from the same user, and in truth any IP could claim to be that user too, which just adds to the confusion. It has the appearance of trying to game the system, and in that sense could legitimately be construed as socking. - BilCat (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It is in the SOCK policy at WP:LOGOUT and WP:LOUTSOCK. Although not a policy, WP:IPHOPPER should also help explain. I agree that it can be frustrating to think that multiple people are commenting. In this case, they are all from the same area and you can discern that they are the same.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Was it not pretty obvious that i was one and the same person in all 3 comments? I certainly did nothing to hide the fact and you also never just asked me. Where was i supposed to own it even? If you want IP editors to always mark their edits specifically with indivual marks, that has to be made clear somewhere and defeats the purpose of not needing an account. Again the claim of harassment here... where and how am i harrassing anyone? To the SPA thing, read my first comment. And i am not a new user, never claimed that. Quite the opposite actually which i also mentioned before. If you think i need to register, please go to the village pump and start an RfC. 91.96.118.79 (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

And can we please elaborate on the claim of harassment or call it what it is, a very strong personal attack on me. Which the link to it actually makes clear as well. Wrongfully accusing someone of harassment is a personal attack. 91.96.118.79 (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The first 2 links apply to registered users, the 3rd does suggest ill-intent. There is no way for me to confirm that this IP is a registered user. The fact they are harassing me is what raises concern about ill-intent. Their behavior on the TP of the RfC is disruptive, whether they use 1 or 3 different IP addresses. It is very difficult for me to AGF under those circumstances. I won't disturb you further with this matter. Thank you. ^Atsme 📣 📧 14:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

And now Atsme removed two of my comments here, surely by mistake through an edit conflict but not fixing it is unacceptable. 91.96.118.79 (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought the edit conflict software did that, so yes, if it didn't place your comments under mine, then I've misunderstood how the feature works. Now that you've commented above, I don't know which edits to restore so go ahead and fix it. I'm done here. ^Atsme 📣 📧 15:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I fixed it manually. i was actually just about to remove my comment to show some good will as it was an obvious mistake and no malice. But alas, i was too slow.No worries anyway 91.96.118.79 (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)