User talk:Berean Hunter

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.

User Krish!

Hi BH, a while back Krish! was blocked for some behavioral stuff, then resorted to sockpuppetry, then, I guess while trying to take the standard offer, might have engaged in some minor editing while logged out. I told them that if they kept their nose clean for two more months, I'd consider unblocking them. It's thus been 2 months. Is there any way to check to see if they've been keeping up their end of the bargain? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• He has never accounted for the sockpuppetry in an unblock appeal. He needs to do this.
• He evaded his block and from the last thing that he wrote on his talk page, he still believes that this is permitted by policy. "Now coming to that edit which I made on 24 August 2019 (my only IP edit after my block and talk page access revocation), I meant that edit to be helpful an not as destructive only after reading the Wikipedia guidelines that said I could make a productive edit." (diff) He had stated this more completely here with "It was only meant for helping the editors involved i.e. a productive and helpful edit which Wikipedia rules allow and it's written here Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Evasion_and_enforcement: "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." He is incorrectly citing a clause that isn't meant for the blocked editor but for editors in good standing that may take responsibility over for blocked editors' edits. This is quite wrong but explains why he gave this response to Yamla. He still has key misunderstandings of the policies.
• When I restored talk page access, it was so that the appeal process would be made publicly (diff). That needs to be the case here. Last time, someone brought forth the block evasion because editors were allowed to see what was going on. A consensus of admins on his talk page seems to be against unblocking at this time and he was advised to take the standard offer and come back in six months. He is back in roughly two. The advice that I meant for him to follow when I allowed tpa again was this.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you. I'll try to clear up my mess with Krish. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Unblocked Request

I am blocked by open proxy, but in my country the Internet service company works like this, I would like it to be unlocked to continue contributing to the encyclopedia, my IP address is 192.254.99.49 and the account name is Polisofik, I am writing with a VPN because it is the only way to communicate with you. A greeting and good afternoon Polisofik (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Good evening, Polisofik. You must not be blocked if you are able to write here. At the time that I declined your request, you had only used Spanish.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Seeking an Expert Opinion

Berean Hunter,

While reviewing my talk page and going through notes left by my predecessors I noticed an address that had previously been checkuserblocked by you, [1], had resumed editing. Some of the edits seemed problematic (for example [2]), but I don't consider myself anywhere near knowledgeable enough yet to judge whether it is the same person, or if I should report it to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, so I was thinking you should have a look at it as an expert. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 05:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thank you very much. I've given that IP address a nice long hardblock. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

BLOCKING ME FROM EDITING

Hi morning , I have been blocked from editing an article or whole wikipedia for 24 days by you . I want to know why did you block me from and why you are not correcting facts in two articles which are very serious and presenting false . I am pointing about two article one is about Islamic calphiate in which in sub paragraph Ahmediya community which is a non muslim minority is presented as muslim. 2nd article is also about ahmediya community where they declared themselves as muslim by the author which wrong and misuse of copywriter and basic rights of actual and real muslim community and religion . I have full right to take suitable action including legal actions if these wrong facts were not corrected. Because by pretending and presenting somoen who is non Muslim as Muslim is actually digital robbery of their identity . If you need to know about difference facts and reality Bout this this minority group ' Muslim and th Christian. You actually need to read facts from history when first that ghulam Ahmed qadyani have declared himself as Jesus Christ Peace Be Upon Him. Also when he was defeated by one Paster in sub continent and then his wrong announcements about the death of that paster which was also failed . There are so many historical facts which are missing and need to corrects all these facts. I am hopeful to receive reasonable response and new about correcting the facts and rectification of mistake in those articles and lifting ban from my editing and rectifying facts on wikipedia. Thanks Imran — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.128.135 (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't get to decide someone's not a Muslim unless they say they're not Muslim. The Ahmediyya community doesn't say that, so we can't say they're not Muslim. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

You are not blocked from editing because you would not be able to post here if you were. Yes, you do have the "full right to take suitable action including legal actions" but if you continue making such threats, you will be blocked from editing until your legal actions are resolved. The Ahmediya movement is called Muslim by scholars of comparative religion although other Islamic sects often denounce them as heretics and sometimes persecute them. Wikipedia is scrupulously neutral about all sectarian religious disputes like this. If you expect that Wikipedia will state affirmatively that the Ahmediya are not actually Muslim, then you will be disappointed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

82.31.128.135, you would need to link to the articles that you are trying to edit or otherwise link to any blocks that may be affecting you. As has been pointed out, if you are able to edit my talk page then your current IP address isn't blocked.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

82.31.128.135, the article on the Ahmadiyya is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. It was made so because of a problem with persistent vandalism. If you click on the blue links for semi-protected and autoconfirmed users you will see what is meant.

Because Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, it is not reasonable for Wikipedia to say that the Ahmediya are not moslems, unless it is generally agreed that they are not (see WP:REDFLAG).

However, there is a statement in the article's fourth paragraph saying that "many Muslims consider Ahmadi Muslims as either kafirs or heretics...". You will notice that this statement has citations. There is also a short section Ahmadiyya#Persecution.

82.31.128.135, what would you want to add to this? (Bearing in mind the need for high-quality citations to back up statements that Ahmadis would probably object to.) Toddy1 (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for blocking sockpuppets. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• You're welcome, Bearian. :)
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Blocked message

Hi,I got this message

checkuserblock-wide}}: + colocation host (Wowrack.com) + LTA

What does this mean? I'm just trying to edit from my phone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:1:809:0:0:0:4B (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Probably nothing now.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Request for removal of talk page access

Hi Berean Hunter, Could you revoke talk page access on a recent block you've made please?

• Special:Diff/924871041 - IHTS pings me to notify me of their disapproval of a recent RM close I made
• Special:Diff/924871654 - I respond
• Special:Diff/924871964 - IHTS removes the response and asks me not to post there again

I'm fine with blocked users pinging me asking for clarification on an action I've made but the third diff shows that IHTS isn't interested in discussing the merits or demerits of such decisions and instead wants to ping users to criticise them and then claim ownership of the talk page. Blocked users shouldn't use the ping function as a means of venting, and looking at the page history it's clearly a continued abuse of their user talk page. I'm posting here because an ANI thread would just be drama-filled and I would have to edit IHTS' talk page with the pro forma, which they don't want me to do. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done StraussInTheHouse.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Class trying to edit

Hello Berean Hunter -- I'm a longtime wikimedian, helping out at a course at American University law school. Students are trying to edit all at once, right now, for class purposes. One student who is logged in with a real username to en.wp is getting an odd message -- can't edit from 92.38.148.0/23 because it has been misused. It gives your name as the user to contact. The rest of us seem okay. Could you unblock that IP address at least temporarily? -- econterms (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

No need now; somebody figured out how to log in another way. -- econterms (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Nichelle Rodriguez

You deleted Draft:Nichelle Rodriguez Under G5. This page was created by Lebronto23 on , 26 October 2019 at 06:31. The user was not blocked until 07:44, 3 November 2019, and was therefore not blocked at the time the page was created. G5 says This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others. and G5 goes on to say To qualify, the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion. In addition, that draft had been significantly edited by other editors, including AKinderWorld and, to a lessor degree, myself. It was also under discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Nichelle Rodriguez, where several editors, including myself and Britishfinance, had expressed the opinion that it should be kept, although the block of the creator was mentioned in the nomination. The deletion was therefore out-of-process, and I ask that you restore the draft page promptly. Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• I also ask that you promptly unblock AKinderWorld. Showing interest in a topic created by a paid editor (assuming that the creatore was in fact paid) is not meatpuppetry and does not justify a block. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• DES, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lebronto23 where I explain that the paid editor is part of a sockfarm here and indeed were already blocked before they ever created their account so G5 indeed applies. G5 does not wait for the actual sock account to be blocked but rather is based on the original block of the master.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I do not see anything in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lebronto23 even alleging, much less confirming, that that user is a sock of My_Royal_Young. Nor do I see any evidence that I find persuasive about AKinderWorld, except that that user showed interest in a draft originally created by an allegedly paid editor. I repeat my request that you restore the draft. If you decline to do so, i will request undeletion at WP:DRV. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Lebronto23 is most  Likely My Royal Young based on the fact that Lebronto23 and other socks are using the same IP address ranges as My Royal Young socks according to the checkuser logs, they share certain devices in common, and the fact that it is a very odd country to initiate a draft on Nichelle Rodriguez. As for AKinderWorld, I'm the one handling that, discussing with the editor and it is a checkuser block. Happy to share info with other checkusers but I'm not able to share it with you. If you want to contest the SPI findings, you may do so at the SPI and ask for another checkuser to look at it but trying to use DRV to challenge that finding is out of process. The SPI case has now been moved.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The block will not be challenged at DRV, and i understand perfectly well that I am not a checkuser, and I do not ask for privileged information. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lebronto23 did not mention any checkuser support for the block of AKinderWorld, unless I mis-read it. But if you say this is a checkuser block, based on non-public info, I can not challenge that. But the deletion is very much in-scope at DRV, and I will be opening that discussion with my next edit. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Re-readiung the MRY SPI I see that the account that created this page is now listed as a confirmed sock. I still think that given the MfD discussion and the edits by others this was a poor deletion, now I do not have strong enough evidence fro a DRV. I may recreate if i can find additional sources. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

"MfD discussion and the edits by others" do not favor keeping. You removed two things. The other edits were not substantial and adding to the article. Honestly, you would be helping the paid sock farm and the one who paid for the article to be written. Instead of seeing me as your adversary, please trust me that I have persuasive evidence that this article was written against the terms of use. I also have very persuasive evidence that AKinderWorld is not telling the truth. If you have a checkuser that you trust then I'll be happy to communicate with them. We shouldn't be rewarding paid editors or their clients by writing articles for them.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with the attitude toward paid editing present in the above comment. I concede that this is a technically valid G5 deletion, but that in no way puts the topic off limits. I feel that SPIs have in the past been far too quick to block based on dubious behavioral evidence, but you are claiming more than that, and I accept your statements in good faith. I will not raise the issue of the block on a community board. I do ask that you double-check your findings (as I hope you always do), but I have no independent evidence and the editor could perfectly well have been lying. The draft as it stood didn't have enough sources for a mainspace article in any case. I may not get to the topic, but i may search for additional sources, and if I find them, build a new article on them. If I do, the fact that there was once a paid editor on the topic would in no way discourage me from craeting a valid article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

If socks and a now-confirmed COI get blocked by our normal processes but you write their article anyway because of these incidents then you are assisting them. It teaches them to try anyway because they might succeed. I'm encouraging them to appeal to Arbcom now.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• I concur with Berean Hunter's deletion of the article under the circumstances. If the subject is of sufficient notability, and if editors are interested in having such an article, a new draft can be initiated without the taint of the previous sockpuppetry. bd2412 T 00:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Re: undoing my undeletions

Hey BH, posting this in public, but you're free to undo any undeletions I've done if you think it necessary, no wheel warring would be consider :) TonyBallioni (talk) 05:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

SPI cases left unclosed?

Hi. I notice you blocked/tagged everybody of concern in both Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Slowking4 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eric Corbett but didn't mark them as closed. I couldn't see anything else that was left to do, so I closed those both. Hope that's OK. Was there something else you wanted to happen with them? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

That's fine, Roy. Beetstra sometimes follows up on the former case but he will file new if he finds something.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

RoySmith I tend to revert/G5 their material. Fair use material can be questionable, and they have a tendency of recreating Sander van Ginkel material, bad translations and other erroneous material. And I feel that keeping their material is what encourages them. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Socking?

Hi. I am not Avaya1 or anyone else (except me). Also, why have you removed all of my edits from the Richard Kuklinski page? Sittingonacornflake (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Sittingonacornflake. Avaya1 has claimed to be socking with your account and the other account that I mentioned, PittsfieldPete in a UTRS request. When I did the check, it didn't look right which is why I was suspicious that he wasn't being honest and may be trying to frame both of you. I have reverted back to a version before the collective group of edits from all three accounts until the matter is cleared up. When it is, the edits may be restored. I have semi-protected the page in the meantime since it has become of interest to multiple blocked sockpuppets as seen in the article history. I want to hear from Avaya1 and PittsfieldPete. Note that KingofGangsters is another sock recently blocked in the edit history of the article as well.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Request for check unblock

Hello sir, I have request you to please see the unblock panding request by Consort-Plus. See here.

Your Regards name :User:Consort-Plus. Thank you 2409:4064:2593:E681:AC00:F5BC:30FD:F1BD (talk) 04:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)