User talk:Berean Hunter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
| Berean Hunter | Talk Page | Sandbox | Sandbox2 | Leave me a message |
Arrow (PSF).png
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕))

@ This user can be reached by email.

Tirgil34 established a new sock farm[edit]

It seems like Egaplaicesp is not an independent sockmaster, but rather a new sockfarm of Tirgil34. Egaplaicesp's sock MagnificentMehmet inserts at Urheimat[1] the same content as an IP at Proto-Turkic language.[2] Back in May 2015 you blocked the range of this IP as belonging to Tirgil34.[3] Egaplaicesp restores[4] Tirgil34 sock Weftsbuddy[5] at Haplogroup R1b, and Swathmafia creates the article Pazyryk rug[6] based on content added at Pazyryk burials by Tirgil34 sock Osgoem.[7] I already adressed this issue at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34 a month ago, but this obvious evidence seems to have been ignored. I'm notifying you because of your decisiveness in dealing with other sockpuppeteers, like WorldCreaterFighter. Krakkos (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Krakkos: I will try to look at this later - possibly tomorrow. Just getting back and it may take me a bit to get up to speed.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
@Krakkos: Your last filing made more sense because I was lost on the previous comparisons (the case where Vanja asked for diffs for what was supposed to be obvious). Your clarifications made much more sense. Nedbud and Panathinaikos Athen Fan indeffed.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

welcome to[edit]

my talker list be patient to talk me thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lectitude (talkcontribs) 10:11, January 5, 2016‎ (UTC)

Returning sockpuppet[edit]

Hi Berean Hunter. I believe I've spotted yet another puppet of Lgfcd, this one - Wimaraens. The behavior seems identical, editing the same articles in the same manner, and popping up right after you banned his last sockpuppet. Is this worth opening up yet another investigation? Kyteto (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kyteto: Good catch. That is definitely him and I've indeffed him for block evasion.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Hello Berean Hunter,

You were of aid to Twofortnights and me when an unknown user engaged with us in an edit war over an indisputable case. Well eventually this happened again with a used called "Dr.Majdiii" over an issue related to an article with the name of "Visa requirements for Tunisian citizens". He reverted by appropriate edit 3 times and I'm aware that an edit war is prohibited on Wikipedia. It's not the first time he's done this. He had engaged with Twofortnights in the past over the same issue however I'm not aware if TwoFortNights had or had not decided to take the matter to you or other moderators at that time.

The issue was basically that he wanted to include Lebanon as a VoA for Tunisian citizens however we didn't agree on that as it's not a straight forward VoA. Tunisian citizens can only obtain a VoA if they posses a non-refundable circle or round trip, a 3* or over hotel reservation, and 2000USD in cash. It's only granted after an approval from the GDGS personnel at the airport. It's as the VoA given to the 79 other countries namely the US or the UK for example who can simply just show up and get the visa stamped without the need for proof documents, cash in hand, approval, exct...

I hope I'm contributing in making Wikipedia a better place, and hope for the most rightful decision to be taken regarding the issue. Thanks & Regards, Joseph SakrJoeSakr1980 (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@JoeSakr1980 and Twofortnights: I can see that Dr.Majdiii has left several postings at Talk:Visa requirements for Tunisian citizens over a period of months that do not have responses. From his perspective, I believe that he is frustrated that no one has been responding to him there. Ymblanter has protected the article but editors should use the protection time period to try to discuss the issues on that talk page. The troubles here might be averted if a cordial discussion may be started. I could be wrong but I believe that he started to shout in caps because he feels that he is being reverted without responses. Try pinging him to that page so that constructive discussion may occur.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I agree in principle, however it's very difficult to engage in a meaningful discussion with that user, I've tried doing that on his talk page previously but hardly any approach (nice or harsh) worked. Also the comments that are left without response on the article talk page, I would gladly participate in that discussion, however I don't understand what he's saying for the most part. It seems French or Arabic may be his native languages so maybe someone who is fluent in those should work out with him what is it that he is suggesting for the article? Just a thought.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe Joe can help with this. I will say that it helps admins who are looking at it to see that efforts have been made on the talk page to try to accommodate discussion with all parties.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Help in setting auto-archiving[edit]

Hope you are doing well. Would you lend us a hand in setting this article's Talk Page for auto-archiving? Thanks.Caballero/Historiador 22:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks so much! Face-smile.svg Caballero/Historiador 01:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Plot tag bomber[edit]

I'm not familiar with the plot tag bomber, do they regularly create accounts or mostly edit via anon IPs? You have this range hard blocked; would it possible to switch it to anon-only with account creation blocked instead so that valid users could request an account via WP:ACC? Or would that open the door to significant disruption? --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Background for this is here, here and here is one ANI thread related to the above. He has used accounts as well as anon IPs before. I left some of the ranges alone but tried to get the ones he was jumping into most frequently. I'll let you evaluate his potential for further disruption if the blocks are altered.
One good question for @NinjaRobotPirate, Aspects, and Flyer22 Reborn: Have you seen him recently or are the blocks since Nov 10-17 helping to deter him?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
It's tough to say. I think the blocks are working, but there are some WP:FILMPLOT-obsessed editors that do seem a bit suspicious. The vast majority of historically disruptive edits came from IP addresses, but there were also a couple logged-in accounts. He used a wide variety of IPv4 and IPv6 ranges, so I doubt we'll ever be completely rid of him if he really wants to edit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I've only seen a single request via UTRS, so if the hard blocks are working I'd rather stick with them. I will give the unblock requestee some options for pursuing an account via ACC.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I've been keeping an eye and while some suspicious registered editors came up, they all had other edits to other non-film articles, none of them took whole paragraphs of plot out or changed the dates on cleanup templates. Since the range blocks, these are the only IP addresses I thought were socks: User:2600:1006:B111:9E18:D1D2:2509:F7F9:2BF6 (December 17), User:2600:1011:B042:9182:94F1:5687:626F:8DF4 (November 19), User:70.210.231.31 (November 19 - blocked for 60 hours) and User:2600:1006:B15F:6768:9D6E:8C9B:69B3:987B (November 18.) So either they gave up (which seems unlikely how forceful they were with this), moved on to another area of Wikipedia or has a new registered account and making more fruitful edits. Aspects (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I keep seeing one registered editor, @JeremyCarl:,that keeps me thinking they are a sockpuppet, due to their massive reductions along with changing the dates of cleanup templates, which was one of the banned editor's MO's. For example this edit, [8], did not completely eliminate paragraphs, but did change the cleanup date template. While they had seven edits previously, starting in November 2015, when the blocks were going in place, they picked up the pace.Aspects (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Old SPI[edit]

Hi! I hate to bother you, but is there any way you could do everyone a big favor and close the Babyface125 SPI? It has been open for a month, and I doubt anything will come of it. Thanks, GABHello! 22:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Never mind, it was just closed. GABHello! 23:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Stumbled across RfA[edit]

I just stumbled across this nomination and the co-nom by Smartse. Surprisingly I wasn't pinged by Wikipedia alerts, nor as far as I can tell is there anything about it on my talkpage. Is this "live"? Should I respond now? At any rate, I appreciate your trust in making this nomination and I intend to accept the nom. - Brianhe (talk) 08:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Also ... I started a PROD log on January 10 by coincidence, and backdated it to 2015. - Brianhe (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Kudos for finding that Brianhe...mark of a good investigator. :) I just had emailed Smartse last night that he could go ahead and let you know about it. We have just finished our part and yes, you can go ahead and accept and begin answering the first three questions after a bit of reading. There were no pings intentionally...I used {{noping}}. 8^D
I do want you to read the following before transcluding as it may affect your answers. I have seen too many failures from where candidates did not follow the advice they contain:
You should also study these two RfA criteria pieces:
...and study the successful and failed RfAs:
You may want to make sure that you can be available for questions during the week that you run. You will be picking your start time when you transclude the nomination per the instructions here. If you have any other questions then please feel free to ask either Smartse or myself.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
A pleasant surprise. I would support such a nomination. BusterD (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
@Brianhe: Doh. I should have emailed you last night! You're too good at investigating. I'm sure it'll go well but there's no need to rush if you want to wait for a good time for you to do it. SmartSE (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I've prepared my answers to the standard questions, and will finish the request in ~12 hours when I'm well rested, knowing the first few hours of responses to questions for the candidate will have to be my best. - Brianhe (talk) 09:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA[edit]

Thank-you-word-cloud.jpg Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA[edit]

Human lightning rod not to scale Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support[edit]

Peace dove.svg Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)