User talk:Berean Hunter/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Dragunov sniper rifle

>>Hello, I'm Berean Hunter. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Dragunov sniper rifle because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, no problem. I just thought that it will be helpful for readers, because you can rotate 3d model by mouse and see how it looks in real life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.249.227.107 (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If the models were free then the links might be suitable but the site is designed to sell them. Since you have only added links to this site since July of last year, it seems clear that this is promotional with a likely conflict of interest. Now, if you are willing to make these models and upload them to Commons with the appropriate licensing then that would be acceptable.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Request by Website Owner

Hello i am Dr Adil Ramzan, the owner of http://wwww.medicotips.com . Today i was searching my site on google and was surprised to notice that my website is on the list of spammers in wikipedia. I don't know how and why that happen. I searched for links history in wikipedia and hardly found 3-4 links. If something illegal or suspecious has happened in the past, we are not responsible for that. Kindly remove our site from the spammer list, We will monitor regularly to check of illegal activities in future. Medicotips.com provides credible health information and it has got the certificate of trust from health on net foundation and also has the well educated and reputed editorial board. We clearly mention term of service, contact, privacy and advertising policy on our website. Kindly cooperate in this manner. I shall be thankful. Kind Regards. Dr Adil Ramzan, CEO Medicotips.com (39.32.163.98 (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC))

Backstory: Spam report & Sockpuppet report.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014

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 reviews: Wrap-up of some recent external reviews Interview: World War I editors Op-ed: TomStar81 on the outbreak of 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) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

A weird message ?

Hi, I just got this message from you i think ? Can you explain me pls what is all about ?

Thx, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crocos7777 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 16 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Certainly. You appear to be promoting the website uneed2know.eu which is against our policies. It appears that you have a conflict of interest.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Where ? show me pls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crocos7777 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure, your contribs show that you are primarily inserting external links to that site. That is link spamming behavior which is considered promotional.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey dude ! Who the hell you think you are ? Just because i DIDN'T use ALL THE TIME when i contribute to several articles even creating new ones, my log in to prove that I'M CREATING here, this gives you right to erase ALL my additions ? Those were just FEW additions from ALL my WORK ! That is NOT my work ! Is ...0.5 % from what i do here ! Who you think you are ? Admin ? Editor ? IF I will do the same on ALL your contributions, let's see if you like it a ? FIRST, ASK, second, DOCUMENT yourself, third -YOU ARE NOT "GOD" to do what you want based on ...."your intuitions" . You saw ...7-8 added links from ALL my work and you act like crazy ? This is SPAM ? Beside i DON'T HAVE ANY intention to promote ANY site, i even remove when i see broken links, etc !

So, STOP Judging and act stupidly ! You want to chace SPAM, LOOK HERE - these are websites with thousands of links in wikipedia and no one does anything from different STUPID reasons like - is a "notable source" - so WHAT ? this is giving rights to pages like "livescience" or "europeana.eu :https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=all&search=Europeana.eu&fulltext=Search

So, CHECK FIRST, act AFTER you have proves ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crocos7777 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

"Is ...0.5 % from what i do here !"....Really? What are your other accounts then because with this account you are strictly a spammer. Yes, I am an admin and one that will block you if you add another link to that site again. If you think that my assessment on your activities is incorrect then you may post to the external links noticeboard and ask for their input.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be an IP account from which they or a friend is editting. Removed the link per WP:ELNO. Bit of a boomerang, eh? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 17:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. If they keep it up we can blacklist the link so no one will be able to add it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked the spammer, their talk page access has been revoked due to continued NPA-violating garbage, and I've added the website to the local blacklist. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Kinu.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you back, Berean Hunter, particularly around SPI. ;) (tps) Anyway, to answer your question above: yes, they did have another account that happened to be making some of the same edits, so I blocked it. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Good work. Feels good to be back; I've got a busy schedule and plenty of projects coming up but I'm going to try to get back into the groove on wiki. From looking around, I'd say that it is as insane and chaotic as it ever was... :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking for help with a historic building problem

I was looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places and saw your name. Since it starts with B, that's why I saw it first. But you might know who can help me.

The problem is that a historic school has changed names. It is of course Wikipedia policy (or at least a guideline) that we use the current building name, in this case Central Elementary School (Albemarle, North Carolina). I have used names for buildings in articles I have written only to have the articles moved. So I knew the current name for this building was the best.

The problem is that the elementary school currently occupying the building was in another location for 82 years. Longer if you go by what the school was called for 25 to 50 years before that (I'm having trouble pinning down accurate sources). The other location has been vacant for seven years.

A Wikipedia article on this school would surely mention the history of the "school" during those 82 years and of course the 25-50 years the school existed before that. But the building the school now occupies is what makes it notable. An elementary school is not notable enough for Wikipedia. A historic elementary school is, though it is the building that is historic. The elementary school's previous building might be, but I thought it was just too far gone to save, unlike the historic building where the school is now.

I tried explaining this to another editor who wanted to help me with the article, but this editor is so confused he/she can't make productive contributions. I end up having to revert most of them. The last time, I got no repsonse from this person, and so far he/she hasn't said anything. But the last edit summary had incorrect information in it, and it is clear from that and the editor's talk page comment (not the article talk page) that he/she just doesn't understand. While it is all clear to me, I do have the knowledge of what is going on with these buildings. The article is inadequate if it doesn't explain the situation to this person's satisfaction.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, Vchimpanzee. I have been away for far too long but it seems that your problem has been solved at least for now. :) I've added the page to my watchlist although I'm still hit & miss on getting time to be on a computer enough for it to matter but hopefully other well-meaning wikistalkers will watchlist and/or improve the article as well.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been unable to improve the article further. I go to the school system office every few weeks and am told someone will contact me. One person left me a message and said the city owns the empty building and so I would have to ask them. One of these days I'll remember to ask them.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

As it turns out, someone with the city did have something and he's going to send it to me. Whether it counts as a reliable source by Wikipedia standards i can't say, but it may have documentation which includes reliable sources.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes persistence pays off. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Urgent help needed

Berean, I was trying to do a rather complex thing at SPI and I think I've screwed up. I'm not sure how to recover from it, so I've stopped as I don't want to make it worse than it already is.

Look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sibtain 007. I wanted to take just the current non-archive stuff and the history of that to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mamadoutadioukone. I think I successfully did that. It appears to be intact along with its original archive, which I didn't want to touch.

I then expected to go back and essentially put Sibtain back to exactly the way it was before the move, but the only choice I have is to revert what I did. When I try to restore it, it says there's nothing to restore, no revision history, zilch. I assume a revert will put Mamadotadioukone back the way it was, but I'm not even sure it will completely restore Sibtain.

And this was just my first step. Had this completed properly, I planned to do something else with Group 2 (these are the groups CUed at the bottom of the page).

I wish we could actually talk about this rather than message back and forth, but there you have it. Please respond as quickly as you can.

Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this a bit more. I think when I first moved, I should have kept a redirect. Then, I could have done everything I did to the Mama SPI but restored Sibitain without the redirect. If I'm correct on that, then would a revert of what I did put everything back to the way it was, and I could do it all over (sigh) but leave a redirect?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

(finishing a late dinner) I'll have a look...give me a few minutes...
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like you meant to create the new case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mamadoutadioukone but not eradicate the Sibtain case since none of the listed socks were tied to the master. I wonder if anyone looked at this case coincidentally. I think I got you fixed up by my last edit which left the path for anyone with the prior case to follow. I don't see any deleted history so you are good to go...no big errors. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not what I want. I want Mama to stay the way it was before I contacted you. I want Sibtain to be precisely as it was before I started - with all the original history intact. You made it so Sibtain doesn't really exist anymore except as a redirect. Sorry if I wasn't clear. That's what would be so nice about real-time talking. Sigh.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

There was no previous history after I moved the case to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trystanburke last time. Case history went there.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't think of a way to get this back the way to even as it was before I started moving. If I move Mama back to Sibtain, Sibtain will be okay, although not completely, because I've lost some of the revision history (I intentionally restored only part of it), and I don't see a way to get it back. But, even worse, Mama will lose its revision history. There should be a copy commmand like in normal stuff so you don't lose things if you don't want to. Unless someone has a solution, whatever I do will be a compromise and I will have lost something. The only things that are intact (thank god) are the two archives. Perhaps I should try the Pump to see if anyone there has a solution. I didn't think that Wikipedia did this sort of thing. I thought every step was kept somewhere so it could be put back.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec) It does look like the Sibtain history is deleted and co-mingled. I didn't see the Mama history as distinct. I would try reversing your steps to get back as they were before. At this late hour, I'm getting tired and admittedly might not be seeing the solution clearly...dinner made me drowsy. DoRD may see how to correct this.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm too tired too do much digging at the moment, but this sounds like a mess. You may need to bring in a histmerge expert like Anthony Appleyard if you hope to get it sorted out properly. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I was just looking at repair process for admins but I have to call it an evening here and will check back tomorrow.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No worries, as far as I can tell, you couldn't fix it anyway, and, besides, it's my fault, not yours. I've left a question on the pump. I was going to ask DoRD before you (no offense), but based on his contribution history, he wasn't around, whereas, luck you, you were. If there's no technical solution. I have an idea what to do that I think will incur the minimum loss. I'd leave the Mama page alone. Right now, it's precisely what I want. I'd copy and past the new case date back to Sibtain and repoint to the archive. I'd mention that some of the Sibtain revision history is lost, but some of it can be found at the Mama page, and that would, unfortunately, be the end of it. Hopefully, in your drowsy state (), you can follow this. I'll probably wait until at least tomorrow before doing it unless someone comes up with something this evening before I'm off to try sleeping.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

At this point, I won't take any action to fix this without pre-approval. When I look at the histmerge tool, if I understand it properly, it would allow me to recreate the Sibtain 007 page with some of its original history by merging the history of the Mama page into it. Because I intentionally did not restore the Sibtain-only history when I restored the Mama page, I still don't see a way to get that back. Perhaps Anthony, if he responds, will know. At the moment, I'm fairly stressed out, and, mostly, I'm hoping I'll be able to sleep tonight as I'm prone to insomnia anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Which page needs to be history-merged with which page? Please answer in User talk:Anthony Appleyard. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Sock

As you have blocked one of the accounts in question, you may be interested in adding comment, or taking action on my SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rhelen305 Gaijin42 (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I wish I had looked. :) I was writing up a report which I haven't finished/filed...I'll be along momentarily. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Why not block the stale ones as duck? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Not necessary since they are likely throw-away accounts and some may be doubtable concerning the evidence (not worth deliberating over). Those accounts are only germane if someone uses them again.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Nepal socks

Thanks for your cleanup on the Nepal socks. It was kind of jumbled because it took CU to identify which puppets went with which master.

As far as the IPs, the two that were included seem to be the only ones from which the problematic users connect. The activity from others in that class-C net has been minimal and some time ago, so it seems they might be statically allocated (fortunately). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for looking over those edits. There were some under other IPs that I wasn't sure about so it needed another set of eyes.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Jay Parini wiki revisions and sock puppetry

I believe that revisions made to the "Jay Parini" wikipedia entry by users "Chap490" and "Appe499", whom you have identified as potential sock puppets, were intended to undo vandalism done by user "Mike Searson". Appe499 added the following warning to Mike Searson's talk page under the heading "Stop Now": "Your obstruction to Mr. Parini's wiki page is vandalism. It is obvious you are doing this because of his CNN piece on gun control. Stop now so no further action will have to be taken. Thank you." I believe that these users are only trying to protect Jay Parini's wiki page from what appears to be politically-motivated vandalism by Mike Searson. Also, I am quite certain that the user accounts "Leoparini" and "Jersild" (also blocked as suspected sockpuppets) belong to Jay Parini's son and wife, respectively. Thus, I think that the culprit here is Mike Searson and not these other users. (Full disclosure: I am a former student of Jay Parini, and I have just registered as a wikipedia user to try to help clear up this mess! Any help or suggestions you could offer for how to proceed would be much appreciated.) Nick Spengler (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spengs321 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Amazing that you were aware of this issue, and who took the action, and created a username that closely matches the blocked users... Gaijin42 (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

So asking for a source is now considered vandalism? If you want to clear anything up add some reliable third party sources to your poorly written articles.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for replying Spengs321. Please read our vandalism policy so that you understand what does and does not constitute vandalism here on Wikipedia. I haven't seen where Mike Searson has done anything like that. If you can show me diffs as evidence then we can discuss further. In the meantime, you may want to go light on using terms like vandal and culprit as it may come across as uncivil. I believe that he has been requesting better sourcing and citations and the PROD and AFD editorial processes are what results when an editor thinks articles are lacking in notability.

Arguments carry their own weight standing upon logic as well as our policies and guidelines. When there are good sound arguments, you don't need concerted group tactics...often they cause more harm than good as in this case. "Chap490" and "Appe499" have been confirmed as socks by a checkuser.

My recommendations are to add citations from reliable sources to the articles in question so that you bolster their notability. I'm also going to leave you a welcome on your talk page which should help you learn and navigate Wikipedia.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your response, Berean Hunter! Your suggestions are very helpful. The articles in question are now semi-protected, I see, so as far as I understand it, I've got to build up my "street cred" a bit before adding citations. As for existing citations, it looks like the best way to avoid the "link rot" issue is by including full references, not just URLs. Also, I understand your point about vandalism, and I agree that most of Mike Searson's revisions do not fall into that category at all; most simply call into question the citations (or lack thereof) on these articles. The only worrying revisions are those made to the main Jay Parini article at 22:16 on 7 Sept 2014, where it appears that this user has removed links to Goodreads pages (I'm not sure why) and has incorrectly altered the names of the last two works listed (though maybe these latter alterations were just typos?). And in the revisions of 14:48 on 9 Sept, he seems to have deleted perfectly legitimate citations, which have since been replaced. Anyway, once I can start making revisions, hopefully this will all be cleared up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spengs321 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Spengs321 The goodreads links may have been removed under the auspices of WP:ELNO and WP:RS as goodreads is primarily user contributed content and not reliable as a citation, and as an external link doesn't really fall into the accepted EL criteria. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I removed a goodreads and a paperbackswap link IIRC. These are not considered reliable sources for a biographical article, nor would they pass muster in a college term paper if the standard I was held to is still in place. As for the other issue, I have a browser issue which makes my cursor jump and I accidentally deleted one character from a title of a book as I was editing. I believe this same editor pointed it out on the talk page and I fixed it as soon as I realized it. Linkrot is becoming a big concern on wiki, particularly as information gets archived, urls change, etc. I have seen perfectly good sources become dead in a matter of months in some cases. I went as far as to format a reference in the article to show how easy it was.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike, for clearing that up. I'll see if I can track down the full citations so that those references aren't solely based on potentially bad URLs. Nick Spengler 19:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spengs321 (talk • contribs)

Sometimes the Wayback Machine is helpful for cleaning up linkrot and allows the reader to access the obsoleted pages. You might try that.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Wayback is an excellent tool for that. There is a dead link in the article and marked as such, you might want to try that one, Nick.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

...and until you are autoconfirmed and able to edit semi-protected articles, you may place your citations, etc. on the talk pages.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Would you call this refspam?

Hello, got your message and understand it perfectly, sorry. It happens when you do not read the rules, it's my fault.

Anyway, would you call adding a reference like this spam: to: "Claims have been made that electric toothbrushes are more effective than manual ones as they are less dependent upon a patient's personal brushing technique." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_toothbrush) reference: http://www.electrictoothbrushking.com/electric-vs-manual-toothbrush-debate/ It doesn't contain aff. links and it's just a research about the topic.

When you told me to discuss in the Talk page you meant here, right? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MZZRRT (talk • contribs) 08:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

(Note from talk page stalker) At the site's about us, to be independent and reliable, I expected to find a statement that they do not accept payment from vendors. On the contrary, not only is there no such statement, but at the bottom of the page, "www.electrictoothbrushking.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com" [my bolding]. In fact, this disclaimer appears at the bottom of every page. All the review pages have multiple links that say "Buy the xxxxx on Amazon". Sounds like "aff. links" to me. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is ref spam. In addition to the good points above, I would expect good reliable sources to be professional journals or other forms of professional publications and not websites. Anyone can own a website and they are not vetted by scholars and editors as formal publications would be.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MZZRRT (talk • contribs) 09:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I was inadvertently signed out

Could you change the visibility of this edit. Please. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

(tps) I have suppressed the IP from the edit. In future, you might want to consider Oversight rather than posting your request in public. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't know about that. Learn something everyday. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sock - Steadyonplease

Just looked again and realised that Steadyonplease is a self-confessed sock of user:Drwho16 (see last unblock request on User talk:Steadyonplease), perhaps amalgamate the two and re-label the puppets? Nthep (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I believe them. It doesn't jump out as obvious when I look at editing comparisons. Do you think they are the same based on behavior?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I am only relying on the confession and I suppose that's no indication of honesty behind it :-) Do we have a catgeory for wannabee fantasists? Nthep (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hehe, maybe we should use the hidden categories for characterizing socks. I can't write what I think of some of them...those categories would get me into trouble.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Berean Hunter/Archive 7. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Mirror Freak 14:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014

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 reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at the military history of Austria-Hungary Timeleine: 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) 02:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Jack Dempsey

Thanks for doing that clerical stuff on the talkpage at the Dempsey article. I tried explaining to that guy how it worked, but he was convinced we were hiding something. LHM^{ask me a question} 22:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. This will let all of you involved in the discussion get back to your arguments.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Revisiting Noormohammed satya

Hi, after looking over the appeals on User talk:Noormohammed satya, whom you blocked a couple years ago, it seems to me that this person is answering in good faith, has a better understanding of policies and the reasons for the block, and might benefit the Wikipedia project if given another chance. But I won't unblock if you disagree. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Amatulic:, go ahead and unblock with my endorsement. I share in your optimism that Noormohammed satya will become an asset to the project. He may want to consider seeking a mentor to get started again on the right foot.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

165.139.179.185

Oops, I slapped a vandalism3 on this IP's talk but I see you've already blocked it. Thanks. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The English Language

Dialects, slang terms and colloquialisms are region specific and not only do I understand that but also very much respect it. The spelling and existence of certain words I will dispute passionately. If the Oxford dictionary does not have the word, and there are more than enough sources on line as well as my own personal dictionary then I have every right to correct such abuses of the language. I am sorry that you seem to think that there are various "types" of English. The English language was first used by the English nation, which is a little redundant and blatantly obvious but I don't think that people are aware of this. There is no such thing as "American English" because it is the exact same language, but the Americans choose to be arrogant, condescending, lazy or plain stupid enough to think that they can just change the spelling of any word they choose? Americans change words like flavour, honour, colour etc . . . There is no logical reason for doing this outside of the list I just put forward . . . If they do have a valid reason then perhaps they, or you, should attempt to explain why they don't change words like source or courage as well? Once again I put it to you that there is no logic in doing this. to quote an article within Wikipedia on this specific topic which you chose to contact me about: "Noah Webster popularized such spellings in America, but he did not invent most of them. Rather, "he chose already existing options [...] on such grounds as simplicity, analogy or etymology" Now that statements says a lot. To end off, if I choose to correct the spelling and legitimacy errors, that I come across within the guidelines the Oxford dictionary allows me to, I shall do so at will and at my convenience. Andrwme (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Andrwme:, if you make another ENGVAR edit, I'll block you indefinitely for being an ENGVAR single-purpose account which is a kind of troll that isn't here to work collaboratively with others.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Socked account

I admit that I did create ComputerTechGuy, but not Alex Hudson 99. AH999 (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Duly noted and I will take that into consideration in the future. That account isn't innocent so don't worry about tarnishing an editor's reputation there. I would be surprised if they ever use that account again.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Andrwme

Do you seriously have nothing better to do with your time than behave with juvenile intent? Blocking someone, who has a better respect and understanding of the English language, from making edits is exceptionally immature. I completely agree with Andrwme and their assessment of American English. Although, someone who does that appears to have too much time on their hands. On the other hand, they could very well be an English professor for all we know. I am not here to judge. We're all adults here. Handle the situation with tact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.236.28.33 (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

So, this was a good edit? I see your account is already blocked for socking so I'll add a hardblock to your IP.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection of several articles at the sole request of Alifazal

Hello. Your semi-protection of certain articles at the request of Alifazal has been interpreted by it as a license to continue and increase edit warring. (See the edit warring notice on his talk page, which refers to an ongoing complaint against him at 3RR.) On a second issue, is a request all that you need before you semi-protect articles? Do you require evidence of some sort of disruption? Refer to the diffs on Alifazal's talk page, where there is evidence that he has attempted to intimidate and insult users and routinely reports people for socking or takes them to the Conflict of Interest notice page whenever they disagree with him. If anyone has been disruptive, it is him. Please reconsider the semi-protections. 75.34.102.45 (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be in denial that your use of multiple IP ranges and hopping within those ranges is sock puppetry AND that you were edit-warring behind those IPs. When the semi-protection expires, if you persist in your behavior then the protection times will be increased.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux

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 reviews: Nick-D on Britain in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars Timeline: This month in World War I

NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!

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) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Gomu gomu no pistol

I have been asked by the User:Nick on IRC to contact you. He said on IRC "<+NotASpy> I suppose if you're really concerned, the user could be unblocked for meatpuppetry and reblocked for edit warring." "<+NotASpy> just ask Berean Hunter and I'm sure they'll oblige."

I feel strongly about the block you did on User talk:Gomu gomu no pistol , and many other users including Admins agree. I feel it was wrong to block him for sockpuppetry, it may be more appropriate to unblock him and re block him for edit warring. Please consider the toughts of all the users.--Mohsinmallik (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I would consider them if I was privy to them. Admins have no problem being vocal when they want so they are capable of posting here. You cannot proxy for them. Socking goes hand-in-hand with other policy violations usually. Creating an illusion of support and Avoiding scrutiny are part of what is going on here and it belongs to multiple accounts. Edit-warring is but one facet of the situation and it would be incorrect to distill it down to solely that.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

User:BengaliHindu

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The User has requested an Unblock ,I have posted it to WP:ANI.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Berean Hunter:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thank you Northamerica1000. I hope your Halloween was enjoyable.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Ahmed Hassan Imran and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, BengaliHindu (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

User block

One of my students, User:Lilitiana, was blocked from editing by you and I'm struggling to understand why since she appears only to have been editing her sandbox (at least from her account - a searched of the contributions from the blocked IP address turned up nothing). The student is part of the wp:Education_Program, and has an assignment due this week (see HMB436H—Medical and veterinary mycology - 2014). I'd appreciate if you could provide me a bit more information so that I can understand the basis for your decision as I'll need to sort out how to handle her course obligations. Medmyco (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Medmyco, Could you supply me with the IP number so that I can review this? Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing, its 142.150.48.0/24. Thanks for looking into this. Medmyco (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, from my block I can see that it is the result of this thread and my response to Drmies. You have an IP-hopping sockpuppet (this SPI case) which is indeed more active than there are good edits from other users on that range. You can review the cumulative edits for the range just for 2014 here. Given the high activity level of the sockmaster, I'm inclined to leave the block as-is. Otherwise, many editors must continually work to undo the resultant mess. Your IT staff may be interested in this posting so they can figure out who the problem child is and handle accordingly. That sock is the reason that range is blocked. Sorry for the trouble Medmyco...we love the good work that you are doing and love student editors as well. Lilitiana may need to find another network where she shouldn't have any problems.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the clarification. I'll look into it on my end. We at the university have a policy of pithing these people once caught. Medmyco (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Feel free to see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, → Call me Hahc21 15:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Precious

diligence of looking things up
Thank you for quality articles such as La Maison de la Magie Robert-Houdin, for "the diligence of looking things up and the enjoyment that comes from discovery", for fighting vandalism and explaining it, for caution and "Whatever is going on, I hope that things improve for you", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014

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 reviews: Nick-D looks at Nazi Germany's Eastern Front allies Op-ed: TomStar81 on the origins and legacy of trench 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) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh look I'm still here

Your threats failed to scare me off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastermuttsir (talk • contribs) 04:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You have been fingered

by probably a close friend as some one who can maybe help me with a US Arny uniform question. What era is the uniform Kit Carson is wearing in the lede picture from? Take your best shot. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CV, December 2014

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 reviews: Hawkeye7 on armoured reconnaissance and German scientists, Nick-D on time travelling historians Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the World War I Christmas truce 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) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Berean Hunter,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Nomination of Alliance Global Group for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alliance Global Group is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alliance Global Group (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015

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 reviews: Jonas Vinther on Hitler and Cliftonian on the Rhodesia Regiment Interview: 2014 Military History Newcomer Award nominees Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial Op-ed: TomStar81 on the birth of strategic bombing 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) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015

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 British Pacific Fleet Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the advent of chemical 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) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015

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 Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian Fleet Air Arm Museum Op-ed: TomStar81 on submarine warfare 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) 09:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Picture of DD Porter on Malvern

Dear Sir, Do you have a list of names of the Officers and Acting Officers in the picture with DD Porter & staff on the USS Malvern 1864? I am trying to Identify the man 3rd from the right. He may be my Gr. Gr. Grandfather??

Thank You! Sincerely,

Jeff Tobias tobias514@comcast.net 67.163.199.50 (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Some of the officers are labelled in the text here but I don't see the specific one that you are looking for.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Aidan Turner

I am Aidan's talent agent and he has requested that we update his picture. I can not edit his page as you have it locked.

If I send you the picture he wants can you replace the old one?

thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.223.0.1 (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

My protection expired in November. I'm unimpressed by your socking with Tinywings10 on the Patrick Whitesell article as seen in the editing history.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I just wandered over

to look you over after our recent discussion and liked pretty much everything about you . . . ... except I am sorry to hear about the cats. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm paying for it, too. I have three and one is just over 16 years old with hyperthyroidism...she has become exceptionally vocal at all hours of the day and night which is driving me bonkers. If her meds don't get this under control then I'll be needing meds myself. ;)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Cat downers? Yeah, why not. Carptrash (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Pauloperry

I'm new to SPI. What do I do when/if additional socks arrive now that this one is blocked? There are a couple other accounts that I also suspect are socks from the same astroturfing service, but did not have enough evidence yet. It's possible they will become more active now that the primary account they were using for this page has been blocked and they will probably become smarter to avoid the same mistakes they made previously that allowed for detection. Do I just file an additional SPI? Seems like I could be fighting the 50 cent party indefinitely. CorporateM (Talk) 22:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you would want to file again. I also agree with your assessment...cards are on the table forcing their hand.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request on hold

At User talk:Dariusz Szwed there is a request for an unblock, in relation to this range block, which you replaced in October 2014, and which is due to expire in a few days. I have checked the editing history, and it does not look to me as though the editor requesting the unblock is the one that led you to make the block. My inclination is to lift the block, or at the least to make it anon-only, but do you have any reason or thinking that is not a good idea? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• I now see that you have not edited for a month and a half, so I will go ahead and lift the block. If you come back and read this, and you do have a good reason why that was not a good idea, please let me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply James. In backtracking, I see that this was the reason. I can see that he had hopped through most of the range in 2014. So far in 2015, the IP activity has been low so maybe we managed to shake him from there and leaving it unblocked should be fine. After looking at the range contribs, can you see why I blocked it?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Also interesting that the poster in that was subsequently CU confirmed as a sock of FreeKnowledgeCreator.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015

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 reviews: Nick-D looks at the landing at Anzac Cove Op-ed: TomStar81 on the debut of poison gas 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) 06:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Great yogurt!

Based on some of the twisted Ngram logic that I've read today, I'm having a moment of fun:

Look, based on the Ngram even the misspelled version yoghurt is more popular than Hillary Rodham Clinton and clearly beating out Hillary Clinton is the winner by a mile, yogurt. The clear solution is to !vote in the next presidential campaign for yogurt and move the article to Hillary Clinton.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Jimmy Wales

Welcome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Rules_of_Wikipedia_were_violated_for_the_good_of_Russian_murderers And you must restore deleted edits for (Dmitry Medvedev). - Rome12345 (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC).

Article name and move to new title

Can it really be "Sint Maarten Heineken Regatta". Shouldn't it be Saint Maarten Heineken Regatta? If appropriate, could you change the name? Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Stan. Fwiw, this comparison may lead toward the common name being St. Maarten Heineken Regatta. I see that you've posted this at the help desk and the article talk page so it may be best to let the dialog run its course to gain more input. I do see the Sint being used in reference to the named event in some Google searches...looks interchangeable. The abbreviated form should be acceptable as in St. Johns River.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

User: Berean Hunter, thanks. Hope all is well. Just seems odd to me. 12:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, looks confusing at first. Interesting to bizarre article.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

What happened to your signature? I see that you're dropping it frequently when signing.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that too. don't know why. Could be human error. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Smhhalataei

Hey Berean Hunter,

I was looking at the unblock request of Smhhalataei and did some checking/behavioral investigating. From the technical perspective, I agree with Bbb23's assessment of Peacemaker11 being possible to Smhhalataei and based upon the behavior it seems more than likely. I also looked into 700ali, Peaceful110, and N.mashoof. These 3 accounts seem very likely to be the same individual. However, the group of accounts seem to be technically unrelated to each other. The two groups also have a very different grasp of the English language. (Compare: 700ali 1 2 to Smhhalataei 3, 4) Given there's only 1 account and a possibility of meatpuppetry, I'm wondering if an indef block might be a bit much given the situation. Would you be willing to consider reducing the block to 2 weeks with a stern warning the any additional accounts would lead to an indefinite block? I'd appreciate your thoughts. Mike V • Talk 21:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request

Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Hello hope you are well friend TeaLover1996 (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you and I hope the same for you as well.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Metalvayne sock

Hey there, looking through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Metalvayne I see you've had a fair bit of experience with this guy. Got a new one today; Whiskydemon, along with an IP 173.61.226.153. Created 23 March, same narrow focus on alternative & metal articles, inserting obscure sub-submusic genres such as doom & sludge metal and the like. Tarc (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tarc: While looking, I turned up Suprsilver but not sure that he is the same as what you have above...could be this master. This diff is telling. What do you think?

76.24.179.249 is also Metalvayne. I've hardblocked both IPs and Whiskeydemon as Metalvayne. The above account will be indeffed once he is placed with the right master. I abhor genre warring.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hm, Gunmetal Angel...can't say I've had the pleasure in tangling with that one. Thanks for the responses, it's amazing how much of a time sink these sorts of people become. Tarc (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow.

This was awesome. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Cheers. My adversary probably won't think much of it, though.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

New sockpuppet of Eleanor Dreadney

Hi BH, and thanks for taking care of the above case. The editor has since made a similar edit from another IP. Sorry to bug you with this, but I'm not seeing how to add an IP address to a suspected sockpuppet's list. Can you point me the way? Thanks in advance. Eric ^talk 14:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked that IP for a month and semi-protected the article. Don't worry about adding to the SPI report at this time; the case is already archived. Good catch.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Eric ^talk 14:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey BH, how would Mary Eleanor de Normandy manage to remove your block notice on her talkpage? Eric ^talk 23:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. That account is actually the master because it is oldest. I didn't notice before so I went back and moved the casename and archive to reflect that. I've left a note for her to not remove the block notice again. If you notice on her talk page that account had been moved from a previous account name so my notice may be embarrassing to someone in real life.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, ok, sorry I didn't pick up on that before. This sockpuppet chasing is new to me. Thanks. Eric ^talk 03:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi again BH- Think I've noticed another IP being used by the dreaded Dreadney, FYI: 114.121.128.49 Eric ^talk 14:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if this is LouisPhilippeCharles who uses proxies that geolocate around the world. FactStraight's opinion would be useful here on whether they could be the same. After blocking Dreadney's IP range, I get the feeling that they went shopping around for a new set of proxies but have only just begun to use these.

In the meantime, I'm also seeing another sockmaster using the same range of IPs that edits in an entirely different area. Much of the /22 range looks like sock edits.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I would guess Eleanor is not Louis:

• Like Eleanor's, Louis' topics were mostly European royalty, though covering a period a few hundred years later.
• While both were active across a multiple wikis (Louis, Eleanor), Louis edited across a broader range.
• Louis' edit summaries show a greater English fluency than Eleanor's few summaries have.

All the IP edits I've suspected of being from Eleanor's sockpuppets are showing as coming from Indonesian IPs, which I have guessed is Eleanor's home country. I have no knowledge of Indonesian, so I can't speak to the linguistic fluency of "her" edits there. Eric ^talk 17:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi again- Looks like we've got a couple more sockpuppets:

• Special:Contributions/Marie_d'Angleterre
• Special:Contributions/114.124.37.171

Should I be alerting you to this stuff here, or adding it to some investigation page? Thanks in advance for help/advice. Eric ^talk 21:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Eric:, you may want to go ahead and place this in a report; I've got my hands full at the moment and it may be a while before I could get to it. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll look into adding suspects to a sock case. Eric ^talk 22:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

General american

HI, sorry that i have edited this page, someone told me on irc that he can't edit and requested me to do the edit for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haytham-med (talk • contribs) 09:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I've noted your response in the case.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Creating an account

I can't seem to create an account . Can you review why this IP Address was blocked. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.58.249.24 (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

What specific messages are you seeing when you try? Is there a block number or autoblock number, block reason and who blocked it? Since I've checked against rangeblocks and found nothing, I'll need you to help me out.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Objections to close of SPI by clerk

Hello. I strongly object to this close by the clerk, it's very "unprofessional", and seems more like an attempt to show what power they have than anything else. Thomas.W ^talk 21:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

He is correct. He wanted you to produce the diffs from Mr. Hedlund's account for comparison to the others that you did provide. You have been involved in cases where clerks and admins may have went ahead and made a voluntary decision to investigate even though the requirements were not met. When that happens it is because they may expect to find the diffs as they look but those clerks and admins are going above and beyond their duties. The truth is that it is harder for investigators if they have to spend all of their time digging for diffs...that isn't their job. Cases move along much quicker when clear evidence with diffs are presented. Most editors have a misconception that investigation is in the mandate for clerks which is incorrect. Any editor may investigate and report. Clerks have specific duties.

We have a heavy case load at SPI already with a backlog. We need editors to help produce the evidence to make it plain enough to see the comparisons. Since you are already familiar with the master that means that you are the best one to describe the case. It should be written to those who are entirely unfamiliar. You want to appeal to a wider audience than just those who have worked specific cases in the past.

The case sat for 16 days and no one else took it up; he didn't stand in anyone's way if they wanted to investigate. I have to admit that if you had spoke to me as I have seen that you spoke to him, I probably would have closed it much earlier. Trying to call someone out in a report for their (perceived) inexperience is a bit bitey, don't you think? What is that old expression about catching flies...now was that honey or vinegar that works? :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

You can run SPI any way you want, but I'm not going to spend hours tracking socks just to be shouted at after filing a report, and then have the report dismissed like this, without anyone even looking at it. Thomas.W ^talk 08:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe he bolded the text to make it clear. People may have looked at it. I have looked at a number of them in which I haven't commented so it may not be obvious how many folks looked the report over. I had not personally looked at this case though. If you would like to add the requested diffs, I will reopen so that you can do this. The spending of hours tracking socks that you mention is why investigators would like for the evidence to be presented rather than having to fish for them...if you can make a clear case, it is best done by you. Adding a few diffs shouldn't take that long in comparison to spending hours tracking. Would you like me to reopen the case so that you can do this?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015

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 and Simon Harley on the sinking of the Lusitania 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) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

IP socking by Tirgil34

Hi, Berean Hunter. Thanks for earlier semi-protecting Alans, Scythian languages, Karachays and Karachay-Balkar language following IP socking by Tirgil34. Recently he has been targeting Asii[1][2] and Proto-Turkic language.[3][4] Could you semi-protect them too? Also, these IPv6 accounts both start with 2A02:908:E620:A260... and locate to Haina, Germany. Tirgil34 has been IP socking with IP's starting with 2A02:908.. since at least 2013.[5] Is a rangeblock possible? Krakkos (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

2A02:908:E620:A260::/64 blocked one month and protections added. Let's see how that works.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sorry to bother you, but it seems like he's IP socking again, this time with a Russian IP at Jasz people[6] and Alania.[7] Compare with these diffs.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Also, isn't this post by Barefact[15] (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uysyn) suspiciously similar to this post by the Tirgil34's rangeblocked IPv6 sock?[16] Krakkos (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

IP blocked and articles protected. Absent other proof of a connection, I would say that he did a modified cut & paste with Barefact's earlier comment.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Took 46.41.98.201 out for a month.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, I've added that IP to Tirgil34's LTA and SPI. IslamSh makes the same[17] edits as the above-mentioned IPs[18][19] and could perhaps be blocked as per WP:DUCK, although since he's already listed at the SPI this could be premature. I also added Barefact to the SPI as possibly engaged in meatpuppetry with Tirgil34, which require administrator attention. Lately various IPs starting with 176.219... have been accusing several users of being Tirgil34 socks at my talk page.[20] Earlier various IPs also starting with 176.219... were collaborating with Tirgil34 sock Greentent on Karasuk culture.[21] Compare this conversation between Greentent and the IP[22] with other conversations Tirgil34 has had with himself.[23][24][25][26][27][28] The two sets of 176.219... both have a similar talking-style with each other[29][30] and with confirmed Tirgil34 socks,[31][32][33][34][35] .[36][37] Could this be another IP sock range of Tirgil34? Krakkos (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm waking up slowly this morning and not processing things quickly yet. My coffee hasn't kicked in. :) I plan to look at this case and others later today but didn't want you to think that I was ignoring you. I'm only up for simple edits at the moment.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I'v noticed that the Tirgil34 SPI was closed some days ago as per WP:TLDR. Though i did indeed spend quite some time filing it, i guess the closing is for the best, as such a long list probably wouldn't have been accepted anyways. I do however still believe that a number of the listed socks should be checked. Is there any prejudice towards filing a new investigation with a shorter list of socks and more concicely presented evidence? I also suspect that Tirgil34 has been IP socking again with another Russian IP at Balkars.[38] Compare with an earlier edit at Balkars by a blocked IP.[39] Krakkos (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

He has probably already switched IPs now. I don't have an objection to refiling.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Self declared sockpuppet

Am I crazy, or was this account's very first edit a declaration to an admin that he's (the new editor not the admin) a sock? [40] Why wasn't this blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Isaacatm? — Brianhe (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Brianhe: I don't know why he wasn't blocked. He wasn't listed in the SPI case and RHaworth did not block. Is there something wrong with that editor's behavior now? If the editor is making good contributions and not engaging in any abusive practices then I wouldn't necessarily pursue this unless you think you have found him socking or doing something else that he shouldn't. After looking, I don't see anything wrong with the editor...looks like good contribs to me.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Case G-Zay

Hello, I've noticed you have mentioned me in the case G-Zay. I've been requested to edit the article (which I've did, and then reverted it 2 minutes because afterwards I didn't 'trust' the change) by a user with the exactly same nickname and IP as told by user Ahatzis. I hope that no further action is needed from my side (except that *always* asking before editing if in doubt is good practice - I'll keep that in mind for now), and that everything is hopefully clear, but I can't be sure about that of course. Southparkfan 15:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Nothing further is required on your part and thank you for disclosing what happened. That sockmaster didn't do you or the others any favors as he nearly had several of you blocked for meatpuppetry. If he is still hanging out in IRC, you should consider letting him have it for manipulating people that way. He should be banned from any Wiki IRC channels.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Dream of the Red Chamber

Hi Berean Hunter -- I appreciate your taking the time to patrol, and you are probably right much more often than you are wrong, but in your edit to Dream of the Red Chamber I think you got it wrong. The Edwards book whose addition you reverted as not being used in the article is cited twice (n. 19). In addition, it is discussed and recommended in Andrew Schonebaum's book, which is aimed at teachers, so in fact it is well worth keeping. Also I wonder if it's good policy to call an edit "driveby," and I apologize for doing so. Cheers! ch (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You're reversion is correct, ch. Usually, when I see editors dropping off works in Further reading sections, they are driveby attempts at promotion without those who are doing it so much as taking the time to improve the articles in any way. The editor's two contribs had that appearance to me. I checked the first article and saw that it wasn't cited or used there but did not check the second. I stand corrected on the second. Structurally, the article Dream of the Red Chamber might be improved by relabeling the current Reference section as "Notes" and then having a section, "References", for the general references below that as described in the layout guidelines. This would allow the works cited to be emphasized separately from the Further reading general works. Per WP:FURTHER, Further reading shouldn't contain cited works.."This section is not intended as a repository for general references that were used to create the article content." You may want to review the citation examples to see what I mean. Just a suggestion; I'll leave it to your discretion but it may help prevent future driveby reversions.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Helpful point, well made. Done (though I'll check the guidelines you suggest for further possibilities). Thanks!ch (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Eurovision block:

Just in case you are not paying attention to ANI: I think you should reconsider the IP block. Reversion of vandalism is a 3rr exemption and altering others talkpage comments illegitimately is a definition under talk page vandalism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I've just posted there. There was no vandalism and both editors know better than to do what they did.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Menstrual

Re: this - was there a suspected sock-puppet investigation? DuncanHill (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

No. He's used IPs and I'm still looking.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Which Ips and which articles? DuncanHill (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• This account (diff); Menstrual (diff), 110.142.90.64 (diff), Menstrual (diff), 101.171.42.162 (diff), 101.170.127.238

• I hadn't completed looking and keep getting interrupted in real life...sorry for the choppy start. There are others but I need to find them again. This yo-yo keeps edit-warring the images across several articles and I know it goes back a good while.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

People do forget to sign in. Not convinced the first account is Menstrual. DuncanHill (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It is disruptive editing because he keeps reverting without using the talk page..and making the appearances of other IPs; I don't buy the forgetting to sign in bit.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Your talk page

I use the "green on black" gadget to read Wikipedia, to reduce eyestrain. I find your talk page almost impossible to read - I have to rightclick and highlight to read anything which isn't a link. As I recall, this is something to do with you setting the font colour on the page. Could you perhaps change this? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

You've lost me. The font color looks like standard black to me.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It may well be standard black, but black text on a black background is not the easiest to read. I found the thread where I raised it before - Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_70#Green_screen_gadget.2Ftalk_page_problem. DuncanHill (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

How's that?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Much better, thank you :) DuncanHill (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Sunday

Mr Hunter, User:Steverci, User:92slim and Proudbolsahye all took "short leaves" recently, did you notice? Is there an Extremist Armenians Congress or some in-job training for their WP editors somewhere these days? Ah, one is in Baku, Armenia, I just saw. Thank you for being so keen to protect and develop Wikipedia. We IPs also help occasionally, not all of us are vandals. Have a good Sunday. --176.239.123.68 (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

You wanted some possible recent evidence of sock puppetry by @Tiptoethrutheminefield:? There you go. --92slim (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Tiptoe and blocked user @E4024: used the same IP at least once (as outlined by the user who archived the sock investigation, @Vanjagenije:), but it must take a big effort to do these kind of successive POV edits and yet try to save face. --92slim (talk) 05:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, for Steverci and 92slim, I had notice their parallel pov editing aims on the small number of articles they edit, often backing-up or restoring each others edits if they are reversed, and their similar "absences". However, I don't think they are the same people (Steverci doesn't do 92slim's obnoxious and offensive edit summaries) though they might be connected. But I think there is more than enough sustained bad editing behavior to get 92slim blocked, if someone wanted to catalogue his offenses. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

What a joke guy. Former alleged sockmaster accuses me of being "bad". Deal with it. --92slim (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Sigh - I suppose I'll have to make said catalogue. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You can incorporate a limited company for all I care. By the way, you did use several IP's, that's been confirmed. --92slim (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I did not. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The impression I get is that someone is trying to set Tiptoe up. See also this discussion, caused by 92slim's refusal to drop the stick, with continued accusations about sock puppetry. Thomas.W ^talk 19:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

This is about an archived sockpuppetry investigation, so no, no one is trying to set anyone up. Good one, though. --92slim (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Richthofen's head wound

Search for the book Richthofen" by A.E. Ferko, It has been suggested that he was wounded from behind by one of his own comrades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.147.110 (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You intentionally misrepresented the source that you cited here. Your reintroduction of uncited material in a different article is equally unwelcome. The source that you attempt to cite above is NOT a reliable source as seen here. I've blocked you 24 hours for disruptive editing...adding hoaxes is disruptive.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Mini-14

Greetings. What principle/tenet/guideline of Wikipedia do you think the Montreal plaque photo contravenes? Regards Tapered (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I've posted on the article talk page. The policy states "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter..." and the massacre isn't the subject of the article. Adding a list of names on a memorial plaque doesn't add anything to the article that helps the reader understand more about Mini-14s. It comes off more as anti-gun coat racking.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's see--the Montreal massacre isn't related to the subject of the article...oops. It is. Your bad. See my comments on the Talk page, please. Tapered (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Sholokhov

Please review User:Sholokhov recent edits to Talk:Mikheil Saakashvili...

"Question: Did CIA, White House and Pentagon managed to bribe Wikipedia to carefully censor the info so that wikipedia is becoming an effective Western propaganda tool ?"

When combined with his edits to the Talk:Assault rifle it's clear that he believes Wikipedia is nothing more than "western propaganda" and that he is unwilling and/or unable to be an honest editor.--RAF910 (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Honest ? Dear me, what is your definition of "honest" ? Honest mean delete the edit TWICE without reasonable reasons ?

RAF, if you don't want to be doubted, please refrain from doing the things which tempt other people to doubt you. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 06:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• The global contribs show that he pushes his POV on the Vietnamese wiki and is trying to come here to do the same. His contribs here amount to either a lack of competence or general trolling. After his very dishonest representation of sources on the Assault rifle article, refusal to listen and current treatment of WP as a battleground, I would argue that he isn't here to help. If he persists then filing at AN/I may be in order.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @RAF910: After what I have seen today, I've filed the ANI report.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

HarveyCarter

Down but not out. --Scolaire (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeffed and that talk page semi-protected for a month (IAR action) to curtail the socking.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That should do the trick. Scolaire (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation block arbitration proposed decision

Hi Berean Hunter, in the open Sockpuppet investigation block arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Your userpage image

I saw your userpage image and thought this would be amusing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I love that!...a case of Friendly fire...another Wikipedian derails an argument by shooting the other editor in the foot. It's all fun and games until you lose an eye.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It's multi-meaning. I now see the original images description says the two on the right are the same person. So, maybe friendly fire, or zapping one's alter ego, maybe boomerang, maybe betrayal, or just a silly image (the last one being my interpretation). Anyway, it is all fun and games till someone loses an eye....from behind. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Epic fail for sockmaster who answered using the wrong account.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Block notices

Have you seen this? Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Lauyulam I used to restore block notices as well until a couple of discussions at WP:AN determined that editors were allowed to remove them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I had not seen this. If they remove it, I'll let it stand. Although this doesn't apply in this case, if they are sockpuppets we would still restore sock tags and block notices per WP:REMOVED. This has been a perennial issue that has always been interesting. The edit-warring in the history is interesting, too.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk about habits to break - I keep on clicking the Twinkle arv link to report vandals to AIV after I've looked at their contribs during processing an already-existing AIV report. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Be careful with the positioning of tools, too. You may be used to certain things being laid out in a certain way only to find that things are reordered. Mass delete can be dangerous. :)

Have you installed Marked blocked script? That comes in handy.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

For the quick blocking of EconomicsEconomics

Plip!

Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 16:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I caught it myself and undid this before you made it to my page. I didn't realize that he was proxying that personal attack and thought he was the source of it. I apologized before the fish was reeled in. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Then deep fry your new minnow until golden brown, and serve with fries. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 16:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for having taken the effort to re-read it. --EconomicsEconomics (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Your block of Tiptoethrutheminefield

Please amend your blocking summary; I don't see any behaviour on his part that even remotely resembles nationalism, and the blocking summary is not a platform for you to denigrate the blocked editor. Alakzi (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

He is involved in nationalistic edit warring concerning Turkish/Armenian disputes, in fact he is an SPA for precisely those reasons. Try checking search results to see that this is common language here and not used for denigration at all.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

He is not involved in nationalistic edit warring. Despite his attitude - which is obviously wanting - he makes reasoned arguments, and all of his edits I've seen are concordant with the sources. His talk page reverts are justifiable, one being a puerile taunt, the second a nationalist rant, and the third the insinuation that he's a sock. You're, of course, aware that 92slim continues to provoke him, despite being repeatedly told to WP:DROPIT. Alakzi (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Please see my comments on his talk page.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that you've addressed any of my points, and I don't see how labelling him an SPA or saying that he's implicated in nationalistic edit warring is helpful. Why did you not even give him a warning? You could've said, "if you refactor talk pages one more time, I'm going to have to block you for disruption" - but no, you straight-up blocked him for two weeks. Alakzi (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've addressed them. He was previously warned and gave an IDHT reply. We will simply have to agree to disagree concerning his behavior as I do find that he is involved in the nationalistic edit warring. He had not appealed his block but rather left this personal attack so I believe we are done here since it renders your arguments moot.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not a level playing field; when you block someone, you establish yourself in a position of power. If they're berating you, it should be hardly surprising. If your aim's to make the situation any better, you must measure your words. Do not bluntly accuse someone who's clearly passionate of an assortment of behavioural and moral failings. You could've chosen to ignore the epithet, or let somebody else strike it out; by revoking their TPA, you've effectively ostracised an aggrieved editor. When he returns, he'll only be behaving worse. Alakzi (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) The nationalistic editor is 92slim, not Tiptoe. If you look at the edit history of for example Satala Aphrodite you'll find that 92slim is pursuing an Armenian nationalistic agenda, twisting what the sources say, making very "selective" quotes, piping links to Anahit, the Armenian "copy" of the Iranian goddess Anahita, when the sources say Anahita, with the "a" at the end, etc, while Tiptoe has been neutral and sticking to what the sources say. And 92slim has been repeatedly prodding and provoking Tiptoe, accusing him of sockpuppetry and so on, so this block is not fair. The one deserving a block is 92slim, not Tiptoe. Thomas.W ^talk 15:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm blocking based on observed behavior but this is not necessarily exclusive as a pass for anyone else's behavior. Some of the comments refactored have nothing to do with the above named editor and other combative actions are exhibited towards other editors. This removal affects two other editors and 92slim had only left a brief comment at the bottom. Andy had dealt with the post correctly. Tiptoe used "rv vandalism" as a rationale to remove and clearly it isn't. He is attempting to use his feud with this editor as justification for things that aren't justified. These comments which had been up since May 26 have an IP that 92slim thought was a sock but Tiptoe combatively enters to remove their posts with "not a forum and not a platform to insult or display your personal brand of stupidity". Tiptoe had not been conversing in that thread...so why does he get to control it with an inappropriate removal? What justification is there for removal? Per TPO, "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but its best to get their permission and normally you should stop if there is any objection. If you make anything more than minor changes it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note..." Additionally, "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." And "Off-topic posts: If a discussion goes off-topic (per the above subsection § How to use article talk pages), editors may hide it using the templates {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} or similar templates—these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors.....Your idea of what is off topic may be at variance with what others think is off topic; be sure to err on the side of caution."

He has been edit warring contentiously to remove comments he wants removed. He isn't a neutral party at all.

• 18 May Removal 1 "deleting as off topic and not a forum. Talk page is already too long and full." added back by the posting editor, 92slim wasn't in this yet
• 25 May Removal 2 "removing this - talk page is not a forum" which was restored 3 June by 92slim "restoring. see WP:NOTCENSORED"
• 3 June Removal 3 "rv vandalism by 92slim, see wp:Not A Forum" after which he deleted a different post which discussed sourcing as "deleting per WP:Not a Forum". This was in fact discussing the article and sources where "not a forum" is not a reasonable rationale.
• 3 June both comments restored by 92slim "Reverting per WP:NOTCENSORED"
• 8 June Removal 4 "deleting vandalism by 92slim (his restoration of a clearly off-topic post that had been deleted per Not a Forum)" with a 9 June restoration by 92slim, "Reverting per WP:NOTCENSORED"
• 10 June Removal 5 "rv to remove vandalism" and followed with this post which included the ad hominem attack "You also must be a particularly dim person to be incapable of realizing that April 24th is not the same date as April 25th." followed by this removal "not a forum and not a platform to insult or display your personal brand of stupidity"...yet another ad hominem attack.

That had reached a new level of disruptive and combative editing and at no point did Tiptoe try to ask for admin intervention or post concerning the removals on the talk page so other editors could take part in discussion. More than one editor had restored comments but only Tiptoe had removed. "Not a forum" removals do not justify edit-warring or personal attacks. Tiptoe crossed a bright line.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you actually understand the content of any of these diffs? I can't imagine why anybody would restore any of those comments, unless they wanted to drag the other party into a petty edit war. The last diff includes the accusation that he's socking; repeated, unsubstantiated sockpuppetry accusations are sanctionable. Tiptoe lost his patience with the junk that keeps being posted on that page and the antics of 92slim and others; while your rundown is factual, it is lacking in context. Alakzi (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The converse is that I can't imagine why anybody would delete any of those comments repeatedly, unless they wanted to drag the other party into a petty edit war. The only person removing them was Tiptoe as other editors had correctly addressed the comments. As for 92slim's accusations of puppetry, they aren't entirely unsubstantiated. I blocked IPs that had been used by someone socking and chose to give the benefit of a doubt since I was concerned that somebody was trying to do a joe job and frame Tiptoe. The IP in this archived thread is a sock. I've been watching since that case to stay abreast of the situation. I would like to point out that Tiptoe, in his rant on his talk page displayed behavior that is perfectly in line with E4024's quick trigger to spout unfounded racist accusations as pointed out by Étienne Dolet. If he isn't E4024, he certainly is acting like him. Tiptoe degenerated into ad hominem attacks and disruptive editing and was blocked for it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding sock IPs

Hello Berean Hunter,

Thank you for responding to the concerns raised at the SPI. I think it be best to do a range block on those IPs. They seem to sprout out everywhere. Is that what you'll be doing? Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is the 176.239.0.0/16 network which is very large...I'm about to head for bed but I'll let you scout this to assess how much are sock edits (perhaps more than the present master) versus what may be collateral damage. I'll check back in 8 or 9 hours to see what you think. You wrote a good SPI report, btw. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Berean Hunter. Once again, thank you for taking your time and looking into this matter. I must say, after examining all these IPs, and noticing that each of their edits contain some sort of Turkish nationalist agenda, and that the edits are almost always anti-Armenian or anti-Greek, made me realize that most if not all are connected with the master puppet. None of them appear to have made, for example, any constructive or favorable edit towards an Armenian or Greek article. And as you may have noticed, the edit-summaries of each IP are similar. The articles in which they edit are similar. I've been dealing with the sock puppetry of this account for quite some time now. In fact, I've dealt with this account from the first day I have started editing Wikipedia, and I can almost sense when s/he is around. I must also say that with an enormous history of sock-puppetry and the continuous disruption that these IPs have caused (i.e. page protections, edit-warring, topic ban violations, and etc.), a one week block seems to be too kind. Whats going to happen after a week or so when they start editing again? Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I blocked for one week because the IPs are dynamic and he only uses them for a day. It wouldn't do much good to block the IPs for very long because of that. I haven't finished assessing the IP range contribs to check for collateral damage if blocked. If I do block a range however, it would be for longer than a week.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll also keep an eye out myself for the other IPs. If I see them editing, I'll contact you immediately. Thanks once again, Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is one. Not blocked yet pending rangeblock.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It took a while to review these but he is using it heavily. Blocked 1 month.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Need an uninvolved admin to help me look at page histories

Hey there! An editor has given notice of a merge request at First Battle of Bud Dajo. The merge subject is Moro Crater Massacre, though the page with the oldest history is now a disambiguation page Battle of Bud Dajo. As someone who was editing the subject in real time, the page histories look truncated and I suspect it's because of this version, where Alphachimp removed an extended passage from journalist Mark Twain's autobiography (Twain was not a fan of an American foreign policy choice which involved surrounding a volcanic crater where a decidedly unmeek Moro village was concealed, then throwing every piece of modern ordnance possible into the crater, literally killing women and children by hand afterwards in the mop up.) I seem to remember not removing the passage then because 1) it was beautifully written, 2) unsurprisingly ironic, 3) the best source I could find at the time and 4) Wikipedia was a very different place as it regards sourcing then than it is now.

I'm not asking for a history merge, though that may be the best course eventually if the merge goes forward (I've seen worse). I won't oppose a merge and I remember being a primary contributor to the Massacre page, though page history doesn't reflect that these days. Is there a hornet's nest to open here? Would you mind poking at it? Best. BusterD (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Tirgil34 probably socking on Nart saga

Today, 89.204.153.165, a probable IP sock of Tirgil34, edited Nart saga, claiming that the name of Nart saga is only "probably" of Iranian origin and instead of Mongolic origin.[41] He claims the content was originally added by Bouron, but in fact it was added by confirmed SPA sock OssetianRealm in August 2012.[42] Tirgil34 has since been restoring this content in full or in part with numerous confirmed socks,[43][44][45][46][47][48] IP socks also starting with 89.204 (locates to Tirgil34's physical location in North Rhine-Westphalia),[49][50][51][52][53] and other IP socks (old IPv4 account with same ISP and location as Tirgil34's rangeblocked IPv6 socks).[54][55][56] He has also edited Nart saga with several other CheckUser-blocked socks,[57][58] and even used IP socks (also starting with 89.204) for strawsocking by removing his own edits with hateful markings.[59] Can anything be done about this? Krakkos (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for 3 months and added PC1 as well as blocked the IP.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Following recent revelations, Tirgil34 has been targeting Wiktionary with his sock Hirabutor, engaging in the same activity of personal attacks,[60] socking[61][62] and fringe-promotion.[63] Appearently, Checkuser identified bad sockpuppets qualify for indefinite blocking at Wiktionary. Do you have any reccommendations on what could be done? Krakkos (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Versageek: Is this something for which you could lend assistance or advice? Our sock case here is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

As you know, the communities on WMF projects are largely independent of each other. Looking at that user's contribution history on Wiktionary, I don't see any clear indication that he is using socks disruptively there. I can't just block him based on en.wiki checkuser results. --Versageek 23:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Cameron's book

Thanks for bringing your concerns about this book to RSN; I was considering taking the same action. I'm sure you've also thought of the possibility that the editor who is so aggressively referencing it might be closely associated with the author (or is the author) -- especially now that he has admitted "discussing the book with the author". I'm not sure how that could be proved without a CheckUser search, or maybe not even then; but you would know much more about that than I. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I suspect that some form of promotion is going on here. Considering that other editors could introduce and reintroduce this material, I thought it best to deal with the source to have the debates all in one place instead of scattered across various talk pages.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sock of indefinitely blocked User:David Hedlund

Hello. A month-and-a-half ago I filed an SPI (that was closed without action a couple of weeks later) about a suspected sock of indefinitely blocked user David Hedlund, an IP that is now wreaking havoc on the articles that Hedlund did the same on last year, obviously being out on a mission, just like Hedlund was. Totally undiscussed controversial edits that other editors are now complaining about. So it might be a good idea to reopen the SPI. Thomas.W ^talk 10:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Static IP hard blocked one year for block evasion.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blindedhall

I think Bbb23 wanted to do some more investigation. [64] I forgot the CU request. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

•  Done
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

IP indef-block

It appears you indef-blocked 98.166.157.157. Do you want to set an end date? It's my understanding that we don't indef IPs. Huon (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Huon, I had meant for that to be one year. I've changed it now. As an aside, indef blocking IPs does indeed happen as well they should sometimes; whole ranges in fact. These are periodically reviewed. I don't recall ever setting one myself...my longest may be three years. Raw link below because I can't get it to post due to bracket delimiters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BlockList?wpTarget=&wpOptions[]=userblocks&wpOptions[]=tempblocks&limit=50

• See. :) Go here and check the "Hide account blocks" and the "Hide temporary blocks" boxes to get this to work.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Status color

You updated the documentation but not the template itself! I just did it for you (at least I hope I did right). :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I just made the switch on the SPI status entry template. I hope the color is okay; the other one was a little hard on my eyes.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I also noticed the groupnotice was out-of-date with the template documentation so I updated it also. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That deep blue for "admin needed" seems a lot too passive to me... I'm thinking maybe some not-too-agressive-orange? It would fit the general scheme of the CUrequest (but "admin request" instead). I also think the "hold" and "more info" should be different shades, even if they're kept in the violet/purple range. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Go for it. :) I'm trying to reduce that eyestrain factor so as long as they aren't too saturated and burning holes to the back of my skull, I'm fine with it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I have some tools to finetune hex color at home so I'll come back and work on it tonight. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

(too many tabs open) If you are using any Linux distro, search your repository for Agave color scheme selector. I've used it for years although I was being lazy and tweaking by hand. Your userpage needs a minor update to SPI clerk and not trainee. I was looking to see if you declared your OS. I use Ubuntu.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

For the time being I'm still a trainee, actually; there's apparently some discussion on the topic on the CU-list but I'm no hurry as the difference between trainee or not is mostly ceremonial and I don't intend on training anyone else anytime soon. But it's a good idea to mention my setup on my userpage and I'll do so right away! I edit on Chrome/Win7 at home, Firefox/Win7 at work, and Chrome/Android5.1.1/Nexus5 throughout the day also. "Linux distro" sounds like some obscure techno band! Heh, j/k I know what it is and I have an old PC running Ubuntu but it's been collecting dust in a closet for years now. :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

thanks

It seems there is also User:Kunalshahv [65]. I do not know how or where to add them once the case has been archived. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Somehow I missed this earlier, sorry DGG. Which case is this related to? I know that I did this one that you had filed but I'm not sure which one this belongs to.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

it's Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thinkified/Archive. My fault, I omitted to list that one in the first place; it may i be the current master account. I feel silly not knowing how to do this stuff--especially since I now have checkuser (and I do know how to do that, at least). On the other hand, I do know most of the parts of deletion process and afc and NPP & citations. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That's okay, that's what we are here for, not only as clerks but also as Wikipedians to help each other. :) What connects this editor to the others? I haven't realized the connection. The case has multiple accounts all editing a tight group of schools in Australia but the above account seems to be editing Indian Financial companies. I don't see any crossover.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sherlock4000/Archive

Hi Berean Hunter, perhaps my findings weren't clear to you, but the tags on three of the blocked accounts can't remain the way they are: Superagente86 (talk · contribs · count), Danielseo451 (talk · contribs · count), and Vaquillonhilton (talk · contribs · count). All three accounts are technically related. The first two are confirmed to each other because of the technical evidence and what they were doing. The third is not confirmed. However, none of them is related to Sherlock4000, so you can't tag them as CU-blocked socks of Sherlock4000. Any other tag short of that is up to you. Make sense?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It does. This is one of the cases that I had all typed in but then lost due to this issue so I had to redo everything over again. Apparently, I got the tags wrong; I've corrected them now. Thank you for pointing this out to me.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Too many things going on at the same time. I know what that's like. Thanks for retagging the accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

review

Hello, Dear Administrator

please review on these kind of edition: [66] (without any citations or references) and [67] that have anti-Armenian proposes thank youWorld Cup 2010 (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015

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 new technology of 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) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Unsure of the best headline...

... but to be accused of WP:HOUND? And then called hypersensitive? I am genuinely disappointed. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you acknowledge that in the recent thread on Packer's talk page that both of you may have misjudged and were a bit quick to accuse? Do you not see that you may have done something wrong?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the sex thing - absolutely. The other editor removed the sentence, and I acknowledged it was a good thing. I don't want to relitigate (as it were) my concerns, and I'm sure you don't want me to, either - you've either read the diffs or not. Regardless, do you really mean (I hope your comment regarding WP:HOUND was an overstatement on your part) that either of us is editing for "no overriding reason", or in a manner that includes [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing|tendentiousness]], [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attacks]], or other [[WP:POINT|disruptive behavior]]. I would be stunned if you said that you did see such things.

I will say that I completely give up on this topic. There's a problem with the edits from this editor. Ignoring the one under discussion, each of their stubs created from earlier today needed fixes. I don't want the editor to stop editing. I think it would be best if the editor would slow down and take some of the advice given. As for the sex and political bias issues, given the good-hand/bad-hand editing done up until very recently, I don't think it is a terrible, rip-roaring error to incorrectly see that this one edit (in a wholly unsourced article) wasn't of the same nature as before. I would hope that your fair assessment would not be that being wrong in that one regard (done in good faith, and understandably, I assure you) obviates all other concerns raised and as well as our work in cleaning up the problems found.

You've been around longer than I, I think (but I'm no spring chicken), so I don't mean to pass judgment on your comments nor throw acronyms at you. I know that I work very hard to improve the encyclopedia, including fairly helping others. If you look at the WP:ANI thread, I changed my !vote to acknowledge some initial engagement by the editor. I don't find being accused of serious misconduct nor of having a personality flaw (or however one might fairly categorize being called "hypersensitive") is fair, appropriate, or good practice. As they used to say on USENET, YMMV. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hypersensitivity is what led to not just one but two editors to be quick on the trigger in that talk page thread as well as the continuing keep alives on the current ANI thread. If I had been overtly concerned about either of your behaviors then I would have actually left warnings on your talk pages instead of being intentionally illusory. I'm not holding anything against either of you; I just happen to think that overzealousness may be attributed here. In the last couple of days she was mis-characterized again leading to another editor calling for an indef block although they were poorly informed so this is a serious matter. Packer isn't perfect as none of us are. Stubs can be and will be repaired as that is the nature of Wikipedia. We correct each others' mistakes. Their exasperation in not being able to satisfy a particular editor is a red flag that they are feeling hounded ("I've gotten the impression that at this point nothing I do will please this user"). That is a cue that it is time to back away. Since we are a community, it is usually best for those editors to back away and if there are significant ongoing concerns then other editors will raise those without having the appearance of it being unilateral.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

sock puppetry going on for 76.117.58.67 (?)

Greetings. On the Genesis (band) page, there seems to be some sock puppetry going on for 76.117.58.67, who you blocked for one year, 2 months ago. Under IP addresses 50.166.46.164 and 209.212.4.2 there are edits being made which are essentially the same edit that got 76.117.58.67 in trouble. The address 50.166.46.164 has only 7 edits in his/her entire history, all on that page, all within the last two months, and including the edit in question twice. The address 209.212.4.2 has 6 edits, all in the last two months, and all on that page (or its corresponding talk page), including the exact edit in question once. When I reverted the edit in question, with summaries (and a "Please see "To 76.117.58.67" on talk page" note), 50.166.46.164 has reverted my edit twice, with no summary at all. Is there something that can be done about these addresses? Thank you very much. 147.46.57.248 (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked both IPs for a year. I would have considered adding semi-protection except that I was aware that you are editing there and that would cut you off. Any chance on getting you to create an account? :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I will. Thank you! Feel free to add semi-protection if you see it fit to do so. Thank you again for your efforts! 147.46.57.248 (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Your block of Jonahthunder

FYI - If an admin starts editing an article that is not protected, someone turns on full protection while the edit window is open, and then the admin saves their edit, there is apparently no warning message that pops up as you save the edit as to the protection having been applied. You would have no way of knowing.

Given that Jonahthunder's edit went in a minute after your protection, it seems at least possible and perhaps likely that he saw no warning. I would suggest asking him if that's what happened. If so it would seem like an unblock is appropriate.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

He hasn't responded but I'm open to hearing him. Thank you for pointing this out.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you go look at his talk page then. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Protecting templates

Hi, regarding this edit: when you protect a template (or other transcluded page), please make sure that the {{pp-sock}} (or similar prot icon template) goes inside a <noinclude>...</noinclude>. There's usually one already, down at the bottom. If this is not done, all the pages that transclude the template are placed in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. Often, a prot icon template is not necessary, because many templates have a {{documentation}}, and most navbox templates have a {{collapsible option}}, and both of these will display a prot icon when appropriate. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Redrose64 for correcting this and leaving me the message. I'll try to remember to not add a tag at all on templates when protecting them.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, another thing, this time articles... if you re-protect (or alter the prot settings for) a page that already has a {{pp-vandalism}} or similar, as here, you don't need to add another, just update the |expiry= parameter on the existing one (changing it from e.g. {{pp-vandalism}} to e.g. {{pp-sock}} at the same time). If the |expiry= parameter is absent, the page is put in Category:Wikipedia protected pages without expiry; if it's present but is in the past, the page is put in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates.

Also, if you set the page as being subject to pending changes (whether or not it's protected), you should also add a {{pp-pc1}} again with an |expiry= parameter. If you don't, Cyberbot II (talk · contribs) will add one (inconveniently at the bottom of the article, not at the top), but it won't set the |expiry= parameter - so the page again ends up in Category:Wikipedia protected pages without expiry. If the pending changes has no expiry date set, you can use |expiry=indef; I've fixed this one too. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I've cleared the few left in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates that were mine and a few extra. Because Twinkle only places one tag at the time of protection, if I had applied semi-prot and PC1 then I would let the bot tag the page for PC1...I didn't realize that the bot tagging is a problem. In the future, I can use Twinkle in a second action to tag it and avoid the bot. Hopefully, you won't be seeing anymore incorrect tags attributed to me. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Khanfarhan437 back?

Hi Berean Hunter.
I think Khanfarhan437 (talk · contribs), who you blocked very recently is already back as Shoaibali2786 (talk · contribs). Re-created Mohammad Farhan Khan as Mohammed Farhan Khan. Similar pages edited. 220 of ^Borg 00:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you 220 of Borg. He's blocked now.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yay! If you look at my recent edit history, you may find another candidate who I think is a sock of indeffed Ironboy11 (talk · contribs). 220 of ^Borg 00:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You may need to help me out with that one. It's late here and I'm on the tired side; headed for bed soon.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Know the feeling, "Headed for bed", is about what I said I was doing 3 hours before your comment. I still haven't got there! Apart from that, what do you need to know? I've been discussing the issue with another 'involved' editor at User talk:FeatherPluma#Chagai-I. - 220 of ^Borg 13:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If I hadn't gotten to bed I wouldn't be able to function at all this morning. I will look at this a bit later today as I'm soon to head for the store and trying to beat incoming storms. Trying to clear out my watchlist for obvious things before leaving.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

At your leisure Berean, The editor involved has been warned many times and seems to be backing off. However, if they start again I may go to WP:AN/I or even WP:SPI. 220 of ^Borg 13:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@220 of Borg: Here's what I have for you so far. I believe this is a start but there may be more IPs or editors; this is useful for filing an SPI case:

• Ironboy11 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• PeerBaba (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 76.3.146.238 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 76.3.145.81 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 184.1.31.6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 184.1.14.244 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• Master/Sock intersections (139 total) (I haven't run the IPs for intersections but I did check their /24 ranges and saw that he wasn't jumping in them but was rather consistent at the specific addresses)

You may try running the IPs against the master and sock to see what results you may come up with. Intersect tool.

The IPs all geolocate to same place and same provider. I think they are all him. I have his current talk page, and the article talk page watchlisted. If he doesn't respond but continues editing then we may be blocking based on a failure to engage. Deleted contribs on all but xxx.238 are telling and a mention that they should be looked at in an SPI report should be mentioned. That's all for now...I'll let you look this over and see if you can add to it. USA vs. China FIFA Women's World Cup is on so I'm going off wiki to enjoy it. Just watched an amazing game between Germany and France. Let me know what you think/what you find. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't expect you to go to so much trouble! Without looking closely at the particular IPs you supplied, I also found earlier that just about any IP making a series of edits at: Pakistani nuclear tests, BLPs of Pakistani scientists involved in those tests, Pakistani nuclear organisations, pages on places where the tests were done, and IIRC Indian nuclear tests, as you say "all geolocate to same place and same provider."

The behavioural evidence is also, I think, quite obvious, as in IPs repeating the same edits by PeerBaba that I reverted or corrected. For example, there were quotes that were changed several time to a version not supported by the cited source, without explanation. Their linking behaviour is also quite distinctive, as in massively over-linking, (I 'fixed' a link to HEU used 4 times in one paragraph! [68]); unnecessary piping i.e. [[Civil engineering|civil engineering]], wp:SEAOFBLUE linking, and sometimes simply wrong links like; 'rocky' to Rocky Mountains, jet nozzle which has nothing to do with uranium enrichment, or even more 'surprising' things. See where FeatherPluma fixed some here.

Poking around I found:

67.232.139.60 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) old (2011)

67.235.25.166 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) recent (June 2015)

67.239.211.145 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) recent (June 2015)

184.1.30.125 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) recent (June 2015)

67.239.213.159 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (July 2014)

184.0.17.48 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (August 2013)

184.0.20.187 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (Feb 2013)

184.0.16.233 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (Feb 2013)

• Hope you enjoyed the soccer, er ... football, whatever! - 220 of ^Borg 15:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much...

...for your kind words of support over at my RfA. I shall strive to be worthy of the honor accorded me. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. I'm sure that you will do a good job. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Civil War

I have replied to your comment on my talk page Stroganoff (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems a fish slipped through :)

Hello Berean Hunter,

The same 42 IP you range blocked as of shown here [69], is continuing for some time now through another 42 range while disrupting the same articles and evading his block. Here's a revision history of an article he disrupts through various 42 IPs. [70] Any idea how to stop this?

Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for bring this to my attention LouisAragon. I've blocked the range for three months.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You're always welcome. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPA

How is telling someone to go to hell not a personal attack? Why would you close it? Yes, I will challenge that. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

challenge your premature closure

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimandia (talk • contribs) 01:54, 4 July 2015‎ (UTC)

Okay. I see that it was closed, too.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Commenting on rapidly archived material

I see you reverted my comment in one of the WP:ANI archives. I'm hoping you can provide more insight, because I was uncertain making the edit, and am still unsure what the protocol is.

I thought twice before making that edit because it was in an archived page, but it didn't have an explicit caution against editing as you see with closed discussions and pages with archive templates on them. I decided to make the edit because the issue was still open, and the archiving was done by a bot on the basis of how long the thread had lingered on the active page. It doesn't seem sensible to have issues essentially closed by automatic archiving, but is that how it works? Willondon (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

You shouldn't comment in an archive as the thread is considered to be closed. Occasionally, a clerk, admin or experienced editor may update a link or leave a post-archive note that is useful for someone reading the archive but there is no active discourse any longer. Threads that have archived are usually considered closed as no admin was compelled to take action. Some are closed discretely while others time out and the bot archives them. See this page.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

CharlesCopperpot

In this editors unblock request, which I refused, you say that you have used a new SPI template or method. This does not show on the standard SPI page, which exists for this user. No problem, but could you please explain what I should look for? Where I should look for it? I can, of course, just leave all sock blocks for the attention of a checkuser (say here if I should) but failing that, and to avoid wasting everyone's time, please bring me up to date. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I linked to it in my statement to you but here is the long form: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lu3ke and this particular user is listed in the second report (two were open on the same page) with evidence presented by Keri. In my statement on their page, I piped it to just say SPI case.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

Thanks for the Scooby snacks, Rich.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)