Jump to content

User talk:Berean Hunter: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 102: Line 102:
The first time you made the edit it was bad enough (because you didn't actually review the edit you were undoing, which was simply reverting a badly laid out edit made by IP address [[Special:Contributions/95.40.157.6|95.40.157.6]]), but your second edit was even more egregious, because even when another user (i.e. me) comes across the page 2 months later, realises that your last edit only added junk to the page and undoes your edit, instead of actually looking at the edit the new user made or their edit history, you immediately revert their edit, accuse them of being a sock puppet and lock the page.
The first time you made the edit it was bad enough (because you didn't actually review the edit you were undoing, which was simply reverting a badly laid out edit made by IP address [[Special:Contributions/95.40.157.6|95.40.157.6]]), but your second edit was even more egregious, because even when another user (i.e. me) comes across the page 2 months later, realises that your last edit only added junk to the page and undoes your edit, instead of actually looking at the edit the new user made or their edit history, you immediately revert their edit, accuse them of being a sock puppet and lock the page.


Here's the link to the relevant section of the page before I made my edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Underweight&oldid=919693903#Appetite_stimulants], and after you undid it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Underweight&oldid=919713831#Appetite_stimulants]. As you can see, by undoing my edit all you have done is add unformatted junk to the end of the appetite stimulants section. Next time preview your edit before making it.
Here's the link to the relevant section of the page after I made my edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Underweight&oldid=919693903#Appetite_stimulants], and after you undid it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Underweight&oldid=919713831#Appetite_stimulants]. As you can see, by undoing my edit all you have done is add unformatted junk to the end of the appetite stimulants section. Next time preview your edit before making it.
[[Special:Contributions/218.214.175.194|218.214.175.194]] ([[User talk:218.214.175.194|talk]]) 04:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/218.214.175.194|218.214.175.194]] ([[User talk:218.214.175.194|talk]]) 04:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:40, 6 October 2019

| Berean Hunter | Talk Page | Sandbox | Sandbox2 | Leave me a message |
This user believes in equal pay for women and doesn't understand why it should be any other way.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕))

@This user can be reached by email.

The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've now applied indef EC protection to the article. The last protection was by you for one year. Not sure why I'm letting you know, but if you disagree, please say! This appears to be the latest sock, judging by behavior. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good call Ed, I endorse the EC protection and the sock is confirmed.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP

diff, diff, diff - reverted my recent edits for no apparent reason - appears to be targeting me. Atsme Talk 📧 16:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The irony - I initially thought editing dog & equine articles would be peaceful and fun. 8) Atsme Talk 📧 16:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Whitman

Back in July 2017 you removed something I added concerning CSI Miami I was actually watching the programme at the time I added what I did and it was the character Calleigh that spoke of him I'm sorry if I breached any rules by adding what I did but it is also mentioned about that particular episode by murderpedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moondustcloud (talkcontribs) 17:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moondustcloud, I responded to you.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

checkuser question

Hey, Berean Hunter! I saw user Asbosaurus is blocked for being a puppet of FightingForRight, and that you'd marked it 'likely' a sock. Are you allowed to tell me if that means they were actually editing from the same IP? The reason I'm wondering is that the writing/complaints seem different to me, and the timing on the Asbosaurus account almost seems like they made that first edit and then wandered off, not realizing for nearly six months that they'd been blocked. --valereee (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

valereee, in this case I do not have any documentation other than the checkuser log to base this on now as things have gone stale. Asbosaurus was using a now-blocked proxy in the southeastern section of the same country as FightingForRight which is not in Mark Shouldice's country. They were not using the same IP and Asbosaurus's actual location was obscured by the webhost. Asbosaurus's current post (non-proxy) is using the same ISP as FightingForRight was using. Although both editors are in the southeastern section of the same country, they are not in the immediate vicinity of each other. One of FightingForRight's IPs after I blocked is tied into a very large organizational network. There are scenarios where the distance could be explained such as logging into one's employer's proxy. I don't have the full picture in front of me as FightingForRight is stale.
I note that Ian.thomson states that he has evidence of meatpuppetry here so he may be able to shed more light on the situation.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: I've emailed Berean Hunter the evidence that Asbosaurus was a meatpuppet recruited by Mark Dice (which was what I meant by that comment). WP:OUTING is why I don't just link it here but he uses the username elsewhere to congratulate Shouldice on an earlier video. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, BH! Ian.thomson, oh, I have no doubt both ended up here because of Dice's attempt to recruit fans. I just was wondering how sure we were that it was actually socking, as I don't necessarily think the simple fact someone came to WP because they watched one of Dice's videos is enough by itself to define someone as a meatpuppet. Someone could in theory watch the video, hear the recruitment attempt, come to the Dice talk page out of curiosity, and still be a well-intentioned newbie. But if there was clear evidence of socking also, I'm no longer interested in trying to see if the person is actually a potential well-intentioned contributor who just happens to watch Mark Dice videos. It sounds like the socking evidence is -- just as Berean Hunter mentioned at the case -- "likely." The locations are possibly close enough to each other that they could be the same, and the coincidental timing is there, too. I just kind of feel bad for asbosaurus if he's not a sock. How would you even prove that you weren't? --valereee (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More sockpuppet promotion/advertisement?

Someone called Technitium A.K.A. Shreyas Zare seems to be using Wikipedia to promote her business. IP diff list: [1], [2], and [3]. I undid the crap the best I could, but then I saw that you blocked the IPv6 IP. If you come to the same conclusion I have, please block all of Technitiums sockpuppets. 185.213.154.168 (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The particular contrib that you have linked is about a year old and not the reason why I blocked the IPv6 range. Since this is dealing with IPs, I suggest that you post the issue to COIN. I haven't researched the issue thoroughly and not convinced that linking an open source project that I think is FOSS is necessarily commercial. COI may be explored with a COIN posting.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. Can you confirm if CharlesHolston is a sockpuppet of the IPs listed above, i.e. does it use the same IPs or originate in Mumbai, so I have more information for a COIN posting? 185.213.154.168 (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a CU, I don't comment on the association of IP addresses to accounts because of the checkuser and privacy policies but I will say that if that account is tied to that IP then it would only be sockpuppetry if 3RR is cumulatively exceeded between them or an attempt at deception was otherwise attempted. Timing suggests that the account has made its edits after the IP was last active so it could be a good faith joining of WP rather than a clear effort to sock. Time and further investigation at COIN may result in something different.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I suspected that such policy existed, which is why I phrased my question with can (not "will"). The account has now been blocked for sockpuppeting. Is there still a point for me to research and do this COIN thing? I don't want to waste time on pointless bureaucracy. 185.213.154.168 (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would be a waste of time and you never know what someone else may turn up during an investigation.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bardrick

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Longtime editor editing while logged out regarding this editor. You previously applied the rangeblock to Special:Contributions/84.13.176.0/21 based on an email I believe Doug Weller forwarded to you. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...is at DRV, and this is your pro-forma notification. —Cryptic 22:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cryptic. That was from a confirmed sock and now deleted.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hi, I have sent you an email. Thank you, Mimihitam (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You accused me of being a sock?

Yesterday I undid an edit of yours to this page [4], where you undid an edit of a sock puppet, who undid a badly laid out edit (2 months ago), and now today I come back to the page to make a new edit and I find that you've accused me of being a sock puppet and locked the page so that I can't edit it. Why would you do this?

The first time you made the edit it was bad enough (because you didn't actually review the edit you were undoing, which was simply reverting a badly laid out edit made by IP address 95.40.157.6), but your second edit was even more egregious, because even when another user (i.e. me) comes across the page 2 months later, realises that your last edit only added junk to the page and undoes your edit, instead of actually looking at the edit the new user made or their edit history, you immediately revert their edit, accuse them of being a sock puppet and lock the page.

Here's the link to the relevant section of the page after I made my edit [5], and after you undid it [6]. As you can see, by undoing my edit all you have done is add unformatted junk to the end of the appetite stimulants section. Next time preview your edit before making it. 218.214.175.194 (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]