User talk:Berean Hunter/Archive 13

My IP Address has been blocked
I am a user of Wikipedia with the same IP Address as a blocked user. You have blocked me unfairly.RooinMahmood07 (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC) Apologies if I did come off as rude. Thank you for your responseRooinMahmood07 (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) You didn't mention an IP address so I cannot comment specifically about that.
 * 2) If you are able to edit here then obviously your IP address isn't blocked.
 * 3) Since all you have done is to comment here but didn't use your ability to edit elsewhere, why does it matter? If you had been blocked and finally got access, it must not have been all that important for you to edit since you didn't.

Disruptive IP
Could you please consider actioning this report, this IP has gone over the POV vandalism line. Thanx, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 16:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Genre warriors suck.


 * Thank you, could you also revert their 'tribe, the ones that are left, I've already reverted them twice. Thanx for what you do. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 17:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * NVRMND, it's done. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 17:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

CU Barnstar
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you,.


 * Well deserved. These יניב הורון socks just keep multiplying. Thanks for doing all the heavy lifting today. El_C 00:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

IP back
User BababiBa edits the same articles as me minutes after I edit them. This is without a doubt the IP you blocked that was taunting me and Materialscientist. . And if not, then the user is still Wikihounding. I hope you can help me. Just realised that I was stalked today.BabbaQ (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  00:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Much appreciate it. If you find time for it I do suspect that Sirintipattamas and might be socks of the sams user. Shown same interest in articles of Thai subjects. Anyway, thanks as always.BabbaQ (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * BabbaQ, BababiBa is confirmed as tagged to this master. confirmed Sirintipattamas to a different master today. You may need some evidence for the other account.

Block evasion
Celionite and Namaslay. See. Follows same articles and interest, COI at Big Bang Entertainments and Habit of Life, continues to develop Unda, and see accounts creation time. 2409:4073:183:5053:D4CE:DE47:DC9:A51F (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that you file at WP:SPI which helps keep data collected in one place for future use. I have limited time right now and filing is your better course of action.

Indian popular science writers
Please include name of Brijmohan Gupta from India — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.223.26.79 (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What?

U got mail
Hey Please check email for discussion regarding recent 6 month block. Thankyou Froggydad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Froggydad (talk • contribs) 16:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Froggydad, You didn't mention an IP address so I cannot comment specifically about that. However, I doubt the IP block has anything to do with you and was probably to deal with other problematic sockmasters.

Probably a sock
Hi, could you check if this IP is the same as. They both making the same edits. See, , etc. You have blocked 80.246.139.172 for being a sockpuppet. --SharabSalam (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, SharabSalam. They are IP socks indeed and now blocked.

UTRS request
Could you pop over to when you have a chance? It's with regard to possible IPBE for an account caught in one of your checkuser rangeblocks. Cheers, -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ and IPBE granted.
 * Always efficient; thank you! -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest?
Not sure what the conflict of interest is. We generally have just added current statistics that are based on Census Bureau data or our own projections / estimates. We add GreatData.com because that's the source of the info. DataPro2013 (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * DataPro2013, who is "we"?

Angelique Rockas
I have no idea why you feel the need to undo my edits, those are various fixes, for example, tweaking of words, fixing references, nothing that I wouldn't do myself. Undoing it just leave the article a worse state than it needs to be, whether the person who asked me to do is a sock is of no relevance. Hzh (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  20:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  22:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes it is because that would be you proxying edits for a confirmed and now-blocked sock, Hzh. That would make you a meatpuppet, so please do not do it again. I block editors that knowingly do that. Please see this case to see the details.
 * No, it does not make me a WP:MEATPUPPET. I have no idea who the editor is, he or she just asked me to look at the article, and I gave some advice, fixed a few minor issues (for example, the citation needed tag is there already requesting sources). What I did is no more than what I would do for any other article where similar issues exist (for example, where a citation needed tag exists). Why leave the references in a mess just because of that? Hzh (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a banned editor and now you do have an idea of who this is because I have shown you. You would be a meatpuppet going forward. You need to stay clear of this from now on. Thank you.
 * So you would prefer an article to be in a worse state instead of good-faith edits that can improve the article? I wasn't doing in anything controversial (fixing a citation needed tag is not controversial), neither is tidying minor issues like references. I think you need to read carefully what WP:MEATPUPPET entails, which is someone who, and that is not what I was doing. Hzh (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't sanction you and had not warned you of anything...well, until this thread anyway. Good edits or bad, you shouldn't do it anymore because it would be proxying and you don't "have independent reasons for making such edits". You've been getting used for a while as you helped one of their socks here. This person has manipulated others and that must end. I don't fault you for what you have done in the past.
 * You are making assumptions about why I do the edits I do. I participated in the deletion discussion of the article for Internationalist Theatre, and sometimes I do go back to the article that I had voted on to check if the issue has been fixed or they need improving, and try to fix them, and also fix related articles related to the topic. Therefore I do have independent reason to edit this article since it is closely related to Internationalist Theatre. I do think you should avoid accusing people of meatpuppetry when what they did is not that. Hzh (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You had never edited that article until you were canvassed by an Amfithea sock right here on 17 October 2018. You didn't !vote until the next day at 11:39, 18 October 2018 and your first edit to that article followed a few minutes later at 11:58, October 18, 2018 and with this edit, it was the last day that you ever edited that article...so you never returned to it.
 * You had never edited the Rockas article until you were canvassed by another Amfithea sock beginning in this thread which started 29 November 2019 and your first edit was 15:03, December 5, 2019‎.
 * I never accused you of meatpuppetry but if you keep arguing with me, I'm willing to rethink the situation. I don't buy your claim that for reasons listed above and I'll have to begin wondering why you are trying so hard to push back for the sake of banned sockmasters/paid editors. I suggest that you drop the stick now and make very sure that you steer clear of anything to do with proxying edits for this sockmaster...or any other for that matter. Stay out of those articles.

Bias and Abuse of Moderator Status wrt to Alleged Douma Chemical Attack in Syria
I'm sorry, but how are you qualified as a moderator with the ability to lock down a page by disputing a source, when the source is the SOURCES OWN WEB PAGE which provides a list of their funding channels. Bellingcat is a self-admitted United States propaganda channel.

Are you on the payroll of the State Department or one of its numerous Think Tanks? I question your objectivity. 173.230.187.144 (talk) 06:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  06:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You are engaging in original research and a bit of synthesis there. The consensus on the talk page is to leave the Bellingcat sources alone and that doesn't include some conspiracy theorist IP coming along and trying to manhandle that page. You haven't really produced any sources to convince the other editors there of anything...and it will take consensus to effectuate any changes that you are trying to make. Produce proper sources and discuss with the other editors there.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You are engaging in pedantry and trying to obscure the fact that Bellingcat is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy, a US federally funded propaganda tool. Is Bellingcat's own "ABOUT" page not a direct and relevant source? Why are you happy to publish their articles and accept them at face value, but not willing to accept their own "ABOUT" page. Defend your bipolar actions. I'm not convinced your qualified to objectively manage this page. Who do I contact to review your moderating actions? 173.230.187.144 (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There was an RFC that the source should stay and I'm an admin that is enforcing that consensus. You don't get to undermine that source without some form of consensus. There was also a RSN thread that formed a consensus that it is reliable. You are claiming something against that on the talk page and that is where you will need to discuss with your fellow editors and if you can convince them then you will have consensus. I moved your thread to the bottom where it belongs. Your sharp POV editing and edit warring (I now see that you are blocked for that) is unwelcome.

User:Kansascitt1225
Hello, a suspected sockpuppet of User:Kansascitt1225 has asked me to refer to you for his claim that he was unblocked previously and should not receive a block for this new sockpuppet. Can you weigh in? Eagles  24/7  (C) 16:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know what he is talking about,.

User:Hosh Noka.exe 3
This new sockpuppet of the usual Mexican TV hoaxer has just mde an appearance on eswiki. He is yet to do something anywhere else but I'm sure he's more than ready.--MexTDT (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

86.24.216.121
Further to this ANI disucssion, is still refusing to update dates when updating stats... GiantSnowman 10:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  11:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I hardblocked for six months. If he starts to communicate and gives assurances that he won't repeat the behavior then we can consider unblocking him.
 * Lovely, many thanks. GiantSnowman 12:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Unblock please.
I just wanted to tell you that every time I go on Wikipedia with a thought to editing something, I get a sick feeling in my stomach. People do not ask to be born into certain groups, and I was raised in public schools to believe that everyone's story, everyone's history, is legitimate, it happened. It can be interpreted it different ways, as can anything; points of view change. You have basically told me that my history, my point of view of my history, is illegitimate, because I as a Jew met the wrong person on a train. I hope you have a happy life destroying other people's lives. I will not communicate with you again and will not have anything further to do with editing Wikipedia. MatildaQ22MatildaQ22 (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, the unblock "condition that you will not edit Israeli/Palestine conflict or Zionist/Anti-Zionist material" has destroyed your life has it? Exaggerate much? Your persecution complex is a bunch of baloney as well. You sound like a sock and if you veer away from the conditions of the unblock, you will be blocked. Further, I can rescind my unblocking of you if you are dissatisfied with the terms that you agreed to.
 * Yuck. Can you rescind the image?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

It’s that time of year!
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and Merry Christmas to you as well!

blocked as troll?
hi!

it looks like i was blocked as a troll on 8.dec.2019 -- can you tell me why? i'm not sure i've even logged in to edit anything in a million years.

thanks! 136.49.29.191 (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Rothko999
 * It wasn't you. Don't forget about the Polish tag on your Commons user page.

About the IP addresses in 130.126.255.0/24
Berean Hunter, I've seen that you have blocked the group of IP addresses represented in 130.126.255.0/24 stating that they are all sockpuppets. The group of IP addresses are actually those of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, so the IP addresses represent roughly forty-thousand students and faculty, rather than a single person. Arlene Foster (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  02:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Drmies. No, I don't think that I make as many as Bbb23...I haven't looked actually. There are just that many socks needing to be blocked.

The ”we” IP
Thanks for the clever support and good laugh. I do wish he'd find something else to do. -- -- Dr. Margi  ✉  05:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. :)

Les Green
Hi

I’m afraid that I have no idea why you have banned me. I was simply trying to update my late father’s page, given that his uncle was also a professional footballer and has a page. I was asked to undertake this by members of my family at a funeral yesterday.

I have no idea what squelch socking and these various other terms mean. I simply tried to set up an account and was repeatedly told that my selected user name was too similar to others. Finally upon trying 6 times Wiki locked me out and you have banned me.

I am not a troll/serial mis-information editor. I am simply someone trying to update my late father’s page with family and relevant information.

I respectfully ask to be unbanned and if you can provide guidance on setting up a proper profile it would be much appreciated.

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.174.144 (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  06:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what block that you are referring to as you didn't supply any IP address information. I'm sure that it didn't apply to you. As your current IP address is not blocked, you should be able to create an account.

The Bugle: Issue CLXIV, December 2019
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) 12:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Tirgil34's activity on Wiktionary and other projects
Hi. Would you please submit a global block for all Tirgil34's sockpuppets (both confirmed and suspected). Some of his socks are still active and he uses them; e.g. a case like Special:Contributions/Hirabutor (blocked on EN WP) but still active on Wiktionary and uses his sockpuppet for personal attacks like this. The odd thing is Wiktionary admins and some other users of that project are aware of his LTA case & non-stop sockpuppetry BUT they still allow him editing there. As you already know, Tirgil34's case is not limited to EN WP and it's global. That nationalist troll has infected other projects too; from others WPs like German and Russian to Wiktionary and Commons. Thanks. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You may make the request yourself here, Wario-Man. I recommend that you only list the active accounts (within the last 90 days) and link back to the SPI case as was done in this request. By listing active accounts, the stewards may find other active, undiscovered accounts including those that haven't edited here. I would not list all of the old accounts. If older accounts go active at some point then make new requests at that time.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit busy but it is better to teach you how to fish anyway.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply. Wiktionary is not my concern especially after the recent incident and the way they treat that sockmaster. If they think he's good for their project, then they can do whatever they want. My concern is not even blocking him because he will return to EN WP as usual. Also I'm sure that many of his accounts are still unblocked; e.g. see . My main concern is WP & WMF should take a threat like him seriously. Have you seen how he attacks WP via his website, YT channel, and some internet forums? He's not a typical sockpuppetry or LTA case in my opinion. It's a dedicated agenda/quest and he may be a paid shill. It's even possible that there is a team or organized group behind that account. I think that's the reason why he's angry and frustrated that he's exposed on EN WP. Why he never stops? Have you seen someone who comes here and always repeat same things again and again which are already exposed? It's a non-stop nationalistic agenda/project/quest without a doubt. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Tirgil34/Hirabutor has been mocking you at Wiktionary too, Berean Hunter. He's continuing his attacks on other Wikipedias such as myself, and has declared his intention to "restore all of my edits". I for one do not have the permission to file a request at Steward requests/Global. If anyone with permission to do so would be filling to file a request, i'd be happy to prepare the request in advance. A global lock for Hirabutor would sufficent at the current moment. Krakkos (talk) 10:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wario-Man and Krakkos, my apologies as I didn't realize that because of your low edit counts at meta, you lacked the confirmed status there to be able to edit the global requests page. Both of you should make your userpages and talk pages there and other edits so that this won't be an obstacle to you in the future. See m:User talk:Wario-Man and m:User talk:Krakkos.
 * I have made the request to lock Hirabutor on the checkuser mailing list. He was indeed confirmed as a sock and I didn't realize that was Tirgil34 that made the comment on Oct 28 on my user talk page at wiktionary. That follows my Oct. 25 report of his sockfarm in our Tirgil34 SPI case here and so it makes sense now.
 * Thank you so much. Your assistance in this matter throughout the years has been of paramount importance. Krakkos (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, Krakkos.:)

Persistent unsourced changes / vandalism to genetics data by Florence IPs
Hi, fyi the IP vandal you blocked here: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1024 has been back on Special:Contributions/79.40.63.133 lately. I've already undone their edits, maybe you could block it? Thanks! --IamNotU (talk) 09:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ IamNotU.

Cheers

 * I'll raise my glass to that and wish you a Merry Christmas and the best for 2020 as well Dancing Dan! 23:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, BabbaQ and a Merry Christmas to you and yours.

Tis the season
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  12:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ebyabe and I hope that you have a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year as well.

Season's Greetings
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  12:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Merry Christmas to you and yours,.

Be well at Christmas
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers SilkTork. May you have a lovely Christmas and prosperous New Year.

Sock question
Hi Berean Hunter. Happy holidays! I'm reaching to you regarding a sock question. I wanted to create an article about an ancestor of mine who was notable several centuries ago (mentioned in several books and held leadership roles in founding a city). I'm quite experienced with biographies on Wikipedia, and I've done a lot of research this past year in the topic but haven't written anything yet. Since he shared my surname, I didn't want it to be linked to this account for privacy reasons. Based on my past interactions with you and the community regarding previous socking, how do you advise I proceed? My idea was to create a new account (with your approval), let you know which one it is, and then create the article in a draft and submit it to WikiProject Articles for creation. If you think it's better from me to abstain from creating an article, I'm fine with that too and can continue with my other initiatives. Thank you. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 17:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * MX send me an email with some of the details and we will discuss.

A Joyous Yuletide to you!
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers, 7&amp;6=thirteen . I hope that your Christmas was excellent and that your New Year will be also.
 * I made up that version of the card. I personally liked the YouTube link, and recommend a listen.  Cheers.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 7&amp;6=thirteen, I did listen to the song and liked it and wanted to find a good Christmas song by Perpetuum Jazzile to reply back in keeping with the a cappella style but I didn't find one that I liked with the Christmas theme that was appropriate. This one is good but not appropriate. :) This one gets an honorable mention.
 * My favorite instrumental counterpart to the Carols of the Bells is this version by George Winston.
 * So many excellent choices!!!. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Relly Komaruzaman socking as IP
See here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

SPI
Dang it. Thanks. Kuru  (talk)  19:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :)

Arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 14, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko  talk  03:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The countdown
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year !

Happy New Year!




 Berean Hunter , Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! Wario-Man (talk) 06:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * – Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  08:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year to you and your as well, Wario-Man!

IP-block exempt
Hey, Berean Hunter! So I saw https://utrs.wmflabs.org/appeal.php?id=28317 and was wondering 1. We hard blocked Amtrak? Can you point me to where we decided to do that? and 2. This user says they take Amtrak a lot, do you have any objection to me extending that? (I've seen a lot of very short permissions being given lately, so maybe I'm not aware of newer policy than the one I can find that says the perm is usually given for 12 months?) --valereee (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi valereee. I'm not aware of any explicit blocks on Amtrak. The situation may be described as the person was taking a cross-country train and ran into an area where the connection involved a colocation host that has been blocked both locally and globally for many months. It was described in the UTRS as a new block on Amtrak based on the person's experience of frequently traveling on cross country trains but having never encountered a block before. That appears to be an incorrect view though. Since they haven't encountered a block before despite taking frequent train trips, I believe they simply ran into a rough spot and that the need for IPBE wouldn't last long. I issued it for a short period commensurate to anticipated need. In that case, I was going to play it by ear and issue for longer if they requested it after running into the problem again. This would let us know that it isn't just a one-off issue but is truly a recurring problem for the editor that would merit a longer duration for the IPBE.
 * IPBEs should be issued for the duration of need. I use discretion when issuing them and do not normally issue a 12 month IPBE as a starting duration but rather graduate the duration based on demonstrated need. That is my practice and I believe closer to the norm than the 12 months described in the policy. Note that the statement was added in June in an effort to document current practice and was described on the talk page as worded "...so that it was descriptive rather than prescriptive."
 * Thank you, that's very helpful -- I appreciate the amount of time you spent on this! --valereee (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

required notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Nkofa (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Reporting 2600:6C56:7808:3D9:1D62:4C99:F7D8:2EEA
I have reported several times to you before about an editor who is making unconstructive edits without explaining why. The last time that I have reported this editor was in December 2018, and you have hardblocked the /64 range for one year, here's the report right here. It's has been a year now and it's look like the editor has returned and still making the same questionable edits as before just recently. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * TheAmazingPeanuts, I've blocked his /64 range for six months.

UTRS 28350
Hi, could you please look at this and offer your thoughts on the most recent response? 5 albert square (talk) 10:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I left my comments in the UTRS request, 5 albert square. I think he had a slip of the tongue.

Can't tell
would you mind helping me tell if this book is self-published or not? I'm hoping to use it as a reference but don't know what kind of publishing processes its went through. If you decide to check it out you can also see if it would break any other Wikipedia guidelines, if needed; but it probably won't since I don't see what else it could defy. The link to the book is https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Nag_Hammadi_Scriptures.html?id=ebxHP6RPNTUC The publishing house was HarperCollins. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Prana1111 (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Prana1111, Harper Collins is a major publisher and that is not a vanity press. That author is already used as a source in Nag Hammadi and Nag Hammadi library.

Informing you about a potential sockpuppet
Hello,

I noticed that you recently blocked for being a sockpuppet of. Can you check if is a sockpuppet of Dazoutti as well? Their edit histories are very similar, and Itonim made an edit identical to one made by Namwonyap

—Tookabreather (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tookabreather, see the new report.

Block for 38.141.0.0
Hi Berean Hunter. I think I've been accidentally blocked by a ban you put on IP 38.141.0.0 At least. I'm able to edit from my phone but not my laptop. Even when I'm signed in, I still can't edit from my laptop. Any ideas on how to fix this? Thanks in advance, Curtis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ph03n1x77 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it is a colocationhost that has been hardblocked since last year. You should disable your VPN and then try.

Noooooo....!
Rest in Peace, Neil. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  22:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

blocking?
Berean - why did you block my IP address which is not a registered user? I can't look up the IP as I'm logged in. It was due to expire Jan 24.

Smacks of a witch hunt to me. I haven't even edited an article in maybe months. And of course, if I can't edit, I can't request help, get the block reviewed, or any of the things WP suggests.

Blocking is pretty serious stuff. Explain yourself please.

Ben

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You can get your current IP here. I would need IP information before I would be able to know what block that you are talking about.

My IP Address Is: IPv6: 2605:8d80:4c0:5b0:e1fc:f9e7:a446:dbb0 IPv4: 24.114.40.67

This is, of course difficult, as I can't edit with that IP. Quick fix appreciated. Ben

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing to fix. The first IPv6 range is anon blocked and does not prevent you from editing while you are logged in. The IPv4 is not blocked at all.

Checkuser request
Hey there, how's it going. I have a super super strong suspicion on a user, pretty much 100%, but I wanted it to be above board and have a checkuser done on them first.

I've recently blocked User:Ffrrrrgus and User:Myrhonon as being socks, tagging Ffrrrrgus as the master. However now, upon a pointer from User:Seb az86556 via the Navajo wiki (the editor in question has been jumping all over every Wiki pushing their new maps and changes), I've been directed to look at User:Borders are imaginary. And yes, pretty much 100% sure they're the same user.

Reason.
 * All these users are making edits to change maps and alter text to remove references to countries.
 * They often upload and reference maps from Decolonial Atlas.
 * Frequently make statements such as borders do not exist and countries are purely political and don't refer to the land.
 * All three accounts clearly have an issue with governments, borders, countries etc and are pushing hard on this.
 * The accounts are frequently editing to support each other in the same content type
 * I caught Ffrrrrgus and Myrhonon when Ffrrrrgus replied to a talk comment on Myrhonon's talk page to me but clearly while logged into the wrong account. They quickly reverted and reposted it under the correct account, obviously not aware of history.

There could well be other accounts, and it wouldn't surprise me. The editor tried to keep them separate but frequently forgets which one they're logged in with and creates overlap.

So could you check User:Borders are imaginary against User:Ffrrrrgus and User:Myrhonon? I don't know if you're able to see if there are any other accounts out there as well. Fairly certain, but want to do it right.

Many thanks in advance. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 16:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , well-written report. See Sockpuppet investigations/Thylacinus cynocephalus.


 * Thank you very much. I knew there would be others out there, just harder for me to spot as they try and keep to separate articles. Great work as always. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 17:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXV, January 2020
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) 12:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Acknowledgement of exemption
At 16:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC) Berean Hunter wrote, "I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking for six months. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in." OK, thanks. I've never encountered a block. The exemption could easily pass without me noticing. Regards, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * PeterEasthope, I had to hardblock a range that you use for a period of months and I issued the IPBE so that the block wouldn't interfere with your ability to edit.

Editing from 154.160.0.0/19 has been blocked (disabled) by ‪Berean Hunter‬
Remove the block. This IP pertains to Impact Hub Accra, home to many Wikipedia events and projects and home to Wikimedia Ghana User Group. If you have people abusing it, block the individuals. We can't do this every time we have an event. We are at an event at the moment, I am the facilitator so please be quick with it. If not, I will report this incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandiooses (talk • contribs) 12:06, January 18, 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I see this request was made yesterday. Is this a two day event? In the future, you should check IP access several days before an event (or have someone do it for you) and then try to schedule with the blocking admin to drop the block for the duration of the event. That is how we usually handle situations such as these.

Range block 182.65.0.0/16
Hi, this isn't a complaint! I just wanted to let you know that I've given IPBE for 10 days to as they are participating in Google Code In 2019 and getting permission errors. I think they are okay from home but can't edit from school, but I don't want to pry further because of privacy reasons. If you think there's anything suspicious, please let me know. Keep up the good work! --RexxS (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * RexxS, is this someone that you know? I didn't see their communication for assistance and just trying to figure that out.
 * I'm mentoring school students from multiple countries on behalf of Wikimedia in this year's Google Code-in. They do a series of Tasks that I set them, with the intention of learning the Lua programming language and gaining some experience in editing and creating modules for use in Wikipedia projects. Hopefully we (or another language Wikipedia) gain some technically proficient editors in the long run. As all their contributions are monitored by a team of mentors, I don't think there's much danger of rogue behaviour, so I didn't have any qualms about granting a short term IPBE (Google Code-in closes in around a week's time). Their request is at https://codein.withgoogle.com/dashboard/task-instances/5676343832870912/ but you'll need a Google ID to login and see that. Sorry it's not as transparent as we might be used to on-wiki, but GCI is a bit of a hybrid project. Hope that's a little bit clearer for you. --RexxS (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm mentoring school students from multiple countries on behalf of Wikimedia in this year's Google Code-in. They do a series of Tasks that I set them, with the intention of learning the Lua programming language and gaining some experience in editing and creating modules for use in Wikipedia projects. Hopefully we (or another language Wikipedia) gain some technically proficient editors in the long run. As all their contributions are monitored by a team of mentors, I don't think there's much danger of rogue behaviour, so I didn't have any qualms about granting a short term IPBE (Google Code-in closes in around a week's time). Their request is at https://codein.withgoogle.com/dashboard/task-instances/5676343832870912/ but you'll need a Google ID to login and see that. Sorry it's not as transparent as we might be used to on-wiki, but GCI is a bit of a hybrid project. Hope that's a little bit clearer for you. --RexxS (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Your recent edit to my talk page reveerted
See here. I do not approve of or practice WP:DENY. Please do not, in future, revert any edits to my talk page on that basis. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that at the top of that page it says (and has for years): DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You may wish to consider that while any user may of course choose to ignore essays at their leisure, WP:BMB is policy and not an essay. VXfC is a both community banned and globally locked long term abuser.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  14:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ^^^ What GMG said. Sometimes I use a rollback all script to revert socks and banned users so if that happens, you can restore what you like to your talk page. I didn't see your talk page notice because I was reverting their contribs having come from the Arb case page.
 * Frankly I am dubious about the reversions to the arb case pages, and opposed to the protection there, but I won't undo either at this time. But i have no intention of reconsidering the revert, . DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Yes. Process is important after all.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  15:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The question is, which of conflicting processes is to be followed in this case, . Note that WP:BANREVERT says, in relevant part, This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor ... DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, you omitted the relevant part of that policy that clarifies why that clause exists. In full: This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. The spirit of that clause is to prevent banned editors from gaming the system by submitting a bunch of obvious typo corrections or vandalism reverts. To me, allowing banned editors to make edits to other editors' user talk pages falls clearly outside of the spirit of what a ban is and how we enforce bans. Since it's your talk page, I'm personally fine with you doing whatever you want, but I do think that your opinion on this is rather idiosyncratic. Mz7 (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Protection for GKOTM
I've noticed you have added protections to a couple Godzilla articles. Is it possible if we can add a protection to the article for Godzilla: King of the Monsters? If you check the article's revision history, you'll see there's been quite a bit of vandalistic activity ensuing for a while. Armegon (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Armegon, I have that article watchlisted but it hasn't reached the threshold for protection yet. Reverting is still the best solution at the present.
 * Also kindly do not protect Bishzilla pages! Queen of Monsters do her own protecting! <b style="font-family:comic sans ms;font-size:125%;color:#0FF">bishzilla</b> <i style="color:#E0E;font-size:175%;">  ROA R R! !</i> <font color="#A7A0F2">, Queen of the Monsters , 15:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC).
 * I would never think of being so insolent to overstep Her Majesty from my lowly station as a mere mortal...one could get hurt that way.

ANI notice only because I mentioned you in a minor way
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Meta email use by blocked sockmaster. Just a minor mention because you previously commented on a sockmaster. --Nil Einne (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Massachusetts IPs
You blocked Special:Contributions/207.206.238.0/24 last week but the block expired, and the person is back to their old tricks, using a larger /20 range. They have also been active in the range Special:Contributions/2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:0/64 blocked by El C, as well as much of the range Special:Contributions/2601:183:C600:20A:0:0:0:0/40. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  22:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Binksternet
 * I had originally searched the /19 range but it looked like he was only in that /24 which is why I blocked that. I have now blocked 207.206.224.0/20 for a month.
 * The range blocked by has several dozens of accounts including admins and arbs, past and present in it. It was used by editors at the WikiConference North America in Boston back in late October/early November. Usually when you see a range that has the format of a /64 that ends in a two digit hexadecimal number and the three preceding stanzas are all zeros (e.g. 2600:387:5:807::18), those IPs are dynamically assigned as singles and not a /64. That is AT&T wireless whose scheme is much like Verizon wireless. Several ranges like this have been the topic of discussions at AN/ANI where the consensus was to block them long term. AFAIC, it can remain blocked.
 * Concerning 2601:183:C600:20A::/40, it looks like 's block on 2601:183:C600:20A::/64 has stopped them. I don't see that device showing up in the /40 after that.
 * That explanation is not intelligible to me. maybe you can explain — are we /64ing still, or not? Because these nuances seem to be more suited to network engineers than to the average Wikipedia administrator.  El_C 21:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think what BH is saying about the ::18 IP (it's news to me, though) is that users in such a range are assigned discrete IPs, not a /64 range of IPs. I'm not entirely sure what the implication is; I would remain comfortable blocking the /64 but perhaps we should consider it less like an IPv4 /36 and more like a /24 (more end-users could be affected, consider shorter blocks, etc.). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * AT&T mobility is the one common ISP that will sometimes have many users assigned to a /64 (see the post script). You are still usually good to block /64s of IPv6s. Just look at the behaviour to see if it looks like multiple people if it’s from AT&T. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't understand the post-script. /64 ranges often involve multiple contributors, I noticed — so do we not block the range in that instance? Would that not result in the (localized) IPv6 blocked just being assigned a new IP after a few minutes? El_C 21:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * For AT&T Mobility it can have multiple users. Most ISPs that edit en.wiki that are residential or business you can effectively treat it as a single IPv4. AT&T’s mobile network is the most prominent that doesn’t work like this. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So don't range block for multiple users? Do the localized blocked AT&T IP not get reassigned a new IPv4 in a few minutes, though? El_C 21:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Mobile ranges are difficult to deal with, and I’d use your judgement on what is best to do. All of T-Mobile’s IPv6 is currently blocked in the United States (by me) because of very long term disruption there. I wouldn’t hard block an AT&T /64, but if the disruption is bad enough it could be justified like any other range block. Basically what said above. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * When you block that /64, the blocked editor has a very good chance of simply getting a new IP that is outside of the blocked range because the real range pool is much larger. I used shorthand above where two colons means that everything in between is all zeros. Without shorthand, ranges where the format has IPs like 2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:AF and 2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:C8 are usually being assigned as single IPs. The clues are the zeros and the fact that the last stanza only has two digits instead of the usual four. Ivanvector translated what I was saying correctly and I recommend that he check the range to give me a second opinion on collateral damage and he will be able to see what I mean in more detail. El_C, look at the IPs in that /64 and notice that Mediawiki uses the two colons together for all zeros and that there are only two digit endings. That will help you recognize these in the future. It is the ISP that implemented a different networking scheme than the usual convention. Notice that there are always the three zeros (two colons) followed by just two digits. Compare to the normal conventions used in this range.
 * I've been blocking /64 ranges for a few months now. Very rarely do I see a new IPv6 return to disruptive editing after such a block. Mind you, very rarely did I see that before I was blocking /64 ranges. I get the sense that for something like 95+ percent of cases, it doesn't really matter. The average disruptive IPv6 user, whether they were /64 range blocked or not, notice that they've been blocked for a certain duration, and they just accept it and move on. In cases when when there is multiple IPs, I tend to just semiprotect, anyway. In other words, it sounds like a lot of this is theoretical — which is good because these explanations largely go over my head. I'm more old school: I know about static and dynamic IPs, but the newer, mobile stuff is mostly hieroglyphics to me. I guess I'll just trust my intuition and accept that there will be a margin of error. But because it seems like it's a small margin of error, I'm not too concerned. But having disruptive editing occur on an IPv6 that is used by multiple admins — that's certainly unexpected. El_C 22:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Range Block
Hi Berean,

You did this block: 02:43, 26 January 2020 Berean Hunter (talk | contribs) blocked 86.187.128.0/17 (talk) with an expiration time of 3 months (anon. only, account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) squelch sock account creation and IP socking, troll lock)

This IP address and range is used by one of the UK's major ISPs and is highly dynamic. Blocking the range will affect a large number of people, but will have limited or no effect on the sock account. Indeed, I logged on via this IP, and apart from not being able to edit, I had to clear my cache before I could edit using my current IP address. Cache clearing had further knock-on effects, which then led to other problems. Not to put too finer point on it, your blocking of this IP range caused a significant number of issues for me outside of Wikipedia. Is there any other way to deal with the sock problems, other than wide range blocks on dynamic ranges? Regards, 31.52.163.28 (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can get an account and then you wouldn't be affected by anon blocks. "...but will have limited or no effect on the sock account" is wrong.
 * I have an account, active since 2004. I'm working away at the moment on a shared computer, hence the IP login. I think your block will have virtually no effect. Users of the BT range of IPs (and I assume the sock is one of them) can move across large ranges, almost at will. For example, they can easily migrate from 86... to 31... 31.52.163.28 (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That isn't a problem for us because if 31.xxx picks up all of the problems from 86.xxx then we can block it as well. "I think your block will have virtually no effect." Then we will have to agree to disagree. "...can move across large ranges, almost at will" Yes, that is what we are taking away...their ability to do so. Too much IP hopping for the place that has the highest concentration of trolls per capita. You can always have a valid alt while you are working away.
 * Okay, no problem. Thanks. I'll look at the VALIDALT option, but the number of times I'm away may not warrant it. Nevertheless, it's worth a look. Cheers. 31.52.163.28 (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Block on 2605:8D80/32
This block caught my home network. I don't know if it's feasible but it would be nice to have it narrower. ESP (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've adjusted this block to 2605:8D80:400::/38. It is only active for four more days.
 * Sorry ESP, I forgot to ping you earlier.

Thanks! I appreciate it. ESP (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Request from Bangladesh
Please add:

Prof Mushahid Thakur is concurrently holding honourary Colonel rank and Adviser specialist in Ophthalmology at CMH Jalalabad cantonment. Member BMDC( a statutory Govt organization) Dhaka  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.35.106 (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you can edit my talk page then you can probably edit whatever article this applies to. If you can't then ask for assistance on that article's talk page.

block
Hi, can you tell me what this means ": squelch sock account creation and IP socking, multiple sockmasters + LTA" and why whenever I try to edit something without having signed in it says I'm banned since November 2019? I've been fixing typos on wikipedia ever since I was little, never actually contributing anything bigger, and sometimes it would log me out? Ernis32 (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Ernis32. It means that there are multiple sockmasters and other troublemakers active in the range that you are using. LTA = Long term abuse. The range has been blocked to curtail some of their activities. Squelch = to halt, stop, eliminate, stamp out, or put down, often suddenly or by force (from Wiktionary). As long as you are logged in this shouldn't affect you.

Hey, I haven’t got a single clue what’s a sock master, I just like fixing typos cause it helps my OCD. Ernis32 (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi NoamB, I have received your email. That range is blocked because of net effects due to sockpuppetry which outweigh the good edits in that range. The block wasn't intended for you personally but I am not allowed to divulge details because of the checkuser policy and privacy policy.

A goat for you!
great that you blocked the page, just after a double external link to Bellingcat was added, and the absolutly disrespectful source based in N.Y., the United Nations own Web TV was removed. So I agree, Bellingcat is at least double as trustful as source as this crappy multinational body´s TV outlet, if not infinitely so. For the archives: This happened around 24th, 25th of Jan 2020 for the article on the Douma_chemical_attack. I am so happy that the readers of the English version of Wikipedia getting more and more into the realm of eternal truth and simplicity (of mushroom feeding).

FrankBierFarmer (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/> — Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Responded.

A wee check
Could you take a look at when you have a free moment? Editor caught in one of your rangeblocks, not sure if it's your target though... Cheers, -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I replied in the request.
 * Perfect! Thank you.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocking an entire range
"Editing from 1.46.0.0/16 has been blocked (disabled) by ‪Berean Hunter‬." Unfortunately, this is a IP range used by a major Thai mobile internet provider, Dtac. Apparently, I can edit while logged on, but this range block might prevent too many newbies to start WP-ing. No need to reply, just for your information and to deal with at your leisure. Btw, I discovered this because I had intended to merely view a source code, for which I had not logged on. &#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2020-01-26 12:00-12:05 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "might prevent too many newbies to start WP-ing" ...or it may convince some that have only been anon editing to finally get an account. Did you analyze the edits from that range and figure the problem out?

Hi. I'm adding this notice under this section, as it concerns the same issue. I've left a reply at User talk:1.46.108.106, and would appreciate a response or a suggestion for a proper centralised discussion venue. Thanks. --An editor on Dtac (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * See Appealing a block. You are not allowed to log out just to make a third party appeal on behalf of those without accounts. You do not represent them. You have an account, "While users with existing accounts are not affected as long as they sign in (me included)..." (diff). This is an abuse of the unblock request process which is why I didn't mind declining it. It is not a valid request because you had the means to edit and were not truly blocked. This is not how you go about inquiring about a block that affects others. I have blocked other accounts and IPs for doing this...this comes to mind but there have been others. It is disrupting WP to make a point. I also don't play that game of having to hop onto yet another IP talk page to continue a fractured discussion spanning talk pages because the IP changes...especially for someone who has an account and it doesn't have to be that way.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  18:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Additionally, "I'm not familiar with the case" means that you didn't do any research or have any other clue other than gee, this seems like a lot of users. Same question as I posed above, "Did you analyze the edits from that range and figure the problem out?" You didn't. Your request is built on supposition but not any facts. I also see that you figured out that it really isn't that hard to create an account if one wants, after all.


 * I made that unblock request at a time during which it was inconvenient for me to log in as usual, so that original request was not made frivolously. (I probably shouldn't have said that I was not affected, since I was at the time, so apologies for the miscommunication.) I admit that this is not currently an issue, but I now wish to discuss the block per the guideline that you linked above: "If ... you have questions about blocks of other user, you are free to discuss the block with the blocking admin."


 * You mentioned analyzing edits and figuring out the problem. I'm not sure what this is supposed to entail, but I just realised that Special:Contributions/1.46.0.0/16 lists the range's IP contributions. Going through the last thirty days of edits leading up to the block, I identified sixteen good-faith edits (12345678910111213141516), fourteen bad or test edits (1234567891011121314), and nine that belong to the gun LTA (123456789). Is 9 out of 39 edits (23%) considered a high abuse ratio that justifies blocking the entire range? And if so, is account creation blocked really necessary? (The related 1.47.0.0 range is blocked with account creation allowed, which is how I created this account.) --An editor on Dtac (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Many of what you call good faith edits above were reverted and nullified prior to my block so they weren't a net positive as you seem to count them. One was reverted after my block but I'm looking for the net effect of what positive contribs stick, so it is fair to include it.
 * If we use your math 16/(14+9) = 70% good edits coming from range


 * But using my math based on your numbers, 11/(5+14+9) = 39% good edits coming from range. That is because 5 of your 16 were reverted:
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4 {reverted after my block)
 * 5


 * No matter, because your math was already off as I count 13 edits by the LTA:
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4
 * 5
 * 6
 * 7
 * 8
 * 9
 * 10
 * 11
 * 12
 * 13


 * So adjusting the math, 11/(5+14+13) = 34% good edits coming from range*
 * I don't count edits to genres as equally weighted, good edits versus edits where someone is knowingly making false entries by counterfeiting the references, so I view this percentage as lower. If the genre edits are all that significant, someone else will do them. Keeping the bad edits out is far more significant here.


 * I also considered the longevity and persistence of the LTA along with the substandard edits coming from the range for much longer than the previous 30 days before the block.


 * Additionally, you are the only person to file an unblock request in that range over the last month...all of those edits to user talk pages belong to you. Your supposition that it is blocking loads of people that want accounts is not supported by the number of unblock requests. Admins can surely point folks that want an account to ACC for the low numbers that might show up.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  01:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - That is a completely different rationale than the one that you gave in your unblock request. I turned down an invalid and frivolous request. From your new rationale here today, the reality is that you found yourself inconvenienced from being able to anon edit and wrote that unblock request rather than just signing in.


 * Thanks for the explanation. That answers most of my query. Re: "all of those edits to user talk pages belong to you", Mostly yes; all but one to be exact. One final thought that just came to mind: I'm not sure if CU policy allows this, but if it's okay to check whether there have been new non-vandal accounts (other than mine) created on the 1.47 range, that might work as a rough indicator of whether it would be worth lifting the account creation block on the 1.46 range. I leave this to your consideration, and will pursue the issue no further. Again, thank you for the response. --An editor on Dtac (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

General Security of Military Information Agreement of Japan–South Korea
Dear Berean Hunter, I would like to create the Japan–South Korea General Security of Military Information Agreement. Would I be able to see the previous draft version ( it was removed last year November). (Potential subjects: General Security of Military Information Agreement between Japan and Korea or General Security of Military Information Agreement between Korea and Japan) Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  18:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You are free to create the article but not from the sock version.

Another sock?
Hi, there's a new entrant, SignorUgarte across at Greta Thunberg who has claimed they are "new to editing (under 20 edits)" while showing much more familiarity with the topic and with editing. Also some "idiosyncrasies". Could this be a sock of MartiniShaw? Would you mind having a quick look, please?

I left a message with Acroterion and they said it's unlikely given the timing of your previous CU, but that they would defer to your judgement. Many thanks.  Esowteric + Talk  12:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  18:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not a sock (whatever that is) I'm a shoe (lol) ... I'm a roommate of someone who was involved in editing and I was exposed to Thunberg's page through him. I have no idea who MartiniShaw is. I was asked if I'd be interested in in editing Wikipedia. I said yes and johnrichardhall showed me the basics and asked if I'd keep an eye on Greta's page. John is away for a month or so to finish and prepare a book he's been working on for publication. I was just trying to keep my word to John. SignorUgarte (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the mix-up. Esowteric + Talk  10:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I have indeffed SignorUgarte and blocked johnrichardhall for 72 hours. They are ✅ and the second account would be at best a meatpuppet if we choose to believe them. I'm not for allowing this.
 * Thanks a lot, Berean Hunter.  Esowteric + Talk  19:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Block (not you, I gave up the bit long ago so I couldn't even if I wanted to)
Please reconsider this. It seems a bit heavy-handed for a minor infringement of WP:CIVIL several days after it occurred and your replies to sink to at least the same level as the comment for which you've blocked. Not saying he's a model citizen or anything: he's always been a blunt, quarrelsome [ expletive deleted], but I don't think it's helpful to try to hold him to higher standards than your own. Yomangani talk 12:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Cambial Yellowing. VQuakr (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

IP block
Hi. I am contacting you about blocking special:contributions/37.142.160.0/20. user:התו השמיני can't even edit his user talk page. Even when connected to the account. Either you unblock it or give it IP blocking privilege. He couldn't write here, so he asked me to write to you. He is sysop in Hebrew Wikipedia and I'm interface-admin, we are recognized editors and you can check that out. Thank's, דגש חזק (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: IssueICLXVI, February 2020
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) 13:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Plausible "switch to mobile" BE
Hello. Last month you blocked. That IP made this edit, among others, to Human genetic clustering in Dec., and is (obviously) the same editor as. A couple of IP6s in the same location have been repeating this edit: etc. and. Normally this would be a minor thing, but edits like this are a warning sign of more disruptive behavior. I thought you might want to take a closer look. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  03:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This was already addressed.

Cannot edit
Hi I’ve never attempted to edit a Wikipedia page before but I saw an inaccuracy on the “Ann Glanville” page, I attempted to edit but couldn’t. I don’t even understand why but it appears to have something to do with you. I have no idea how this all works so here’s my email address and perhaps you’ll contact me and let me know Chrisbakerstairman@yahoo.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.194.55 (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  03:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't find any blocks on your range and you were able to edit the next day.

Hi, kindly tell what kind of wrongdoing hasbeen done from my IP Address.
Whenever I am attempting to edit I am getting a message like

You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia.

You are still able to view pages, but you are not currently able to edit, move, or create them.

Editing from 2409:4061:0:0:0:0:0:0/36 has been blocked (disabled) by ‪Berean Hunter‬ for the following reason(s):

I never do vandalism and I never share my device with anybody else. I want to know that how can I become again edit without logging in?

Notably my gadgets change their ip time to time idk why (maybe geographic location change???) At far past I got notification even without logging in, about edits that i never made.

regards.

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  03:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You can still edit while logged in and you were helped at the Teahouse.

Details of ban
Why did you ban me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.191.140 (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  03:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Show me where I banned you.

New sockpuppet investigation: WorldCreatorFighter
Hello BH, Please see the new investigation linked below. I noticed you blocked a few WorldCreatorFighter alts so I thought I should contact you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WorldCreatorFighter

Yours, - Hunan201p (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  03:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Angelique Rockas
I was wondering if you could maybe drop the protection level to Extended Confirmed protection because Full protection stops editors like me from making helpful edits such as fixing typos or adding sources. I recognize sockpuppetry is a problem on this article, but since you protected that article indefinitely, no change has ever been made to it. Aasim 20:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  05:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I see you haven't edited since 2 February. I reduced it to 5 years ECP. The editors will be on the look out for sockpuppets now. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope that you are correct but the sockmaster has been successful at getting other editors to proxy for them which led to the full protection to prevent it from happening again. This was the last time. Other blocked accounts have tried on talkpages of established accounts as well as IPs that I cannot point out. I was trying to get the sockmaster to stop trying to manipulate others.

Block
Why have I been blocked please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:9C12:EB00:98B6:5390:19F:5B (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Why have I been blocked please?--2A00:23C5:9C07:B300:B92C:32B5:E4C9:EA80 (talk) 07:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  05:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You would have to link to the block for me to know what you are talking about.

A beer for you!
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  05:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheers, . Have you seen your signature on Windows IE? I use Ubuntu and the arrows look right on Chrome and Firefox but when I was shown what my sig looked like on IE, the arrows were out of position...the long dashes were too high up and didn't look right. That was several years ago so maybe they have improved and of course you might not care. :) I don't know if it looks right on a phone or not.
 * oh it looks even better, if not as good on phone. IE might have fixed it. If they didn't, then probably they know it doesn't matter as people have shifted.-- ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  05:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

March Madness 2020
G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Assistance Requested on Kentucky Colonel Article
I noticed your comments on the Wikipedia article Kentucky Colonel and know you understand the commission and the honor well. I am one of the editors for the page and a commissioner for Kentucky Colonels International, we started in Berea in 1998. There has been a lawsuit filed against us for using the term "Kentucky Colonels" as part of our name, the Honorable Order of Kentucky Colonels has trademarked the term as their own and are making its use exclusive for their commercial use and profit (the purpose of trademarks right?). There is more information about this on our website Kentucky Colonels International and information can also be found in the Google news headlines. You may also like to know we uncovered more history about Kentucky Colonels that discredits current understanding based on research of the Courier Journal and the State Archives. The information is also on our website. I cannot edit the page because I have been enjoined in the lawsuit and mentioned in the Herald Leader as being responsible for removal of their information, which I did not. We will appreciate your objective perspectives and vigilance, I have also notified BarrelProof about this. Problemsmith (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Problemsmith, I've sent you an email.

Krish!
Hi, the recently unblocked user seems to be back to his old ways of whitewashing the page of his favourite subject Priyanka Chopra by adding unsourced puffery which I removed in this edit and removing negative critical notices of her performance. When reverted and asked to maintain stasquo, he resorted to his usual edit-warring instead of starting a talk page discussion, as he was advised to do. Also pinging -- do you condone such reverts mere hours after the person has been back on the standard offer? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like you're both edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is what this editor wanted. See 's page. I have been discussing with him about Krimuk 2.0's constant revert of my edits. This editor has been constantly reverting my edits and provoking me to edit war but I have been avoiding as I don't want to be blocked again. I tried to extend olive branch to this editor but he shut me down and has been constantly reverting my edits. He has violated NPOV as I have posted about that on 's page. Now what should I do now? I cannot even edit because I fear of being blocked. Krish  &#124;  Talk  18:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The puffery that Krimuk 2.0 claims was there in Chopra's article since 2014 to 2018 supported by strong sources until he revomed positive stuff and added a lot of negative stuff after I got blocked. Note how Krimuk has portrayed this to make me look as the aggressor and culprit. I have not reverted the above two links he has given. In fact i respected his reverts and his POV and left the way he wanted. Read below how he has completely tried to show me as the bad person as he accepts below that he reverted my edit to prove that only he is right. Krish  &#124;  Talk  19:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "as he accepts below that he reverted my edit to prove that only he is right." Same old WP:CIR and Conspiracy theory accusations. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * How is it conspiracy when you have written this "If she is not currently the national and global ambassador, then I accept my mistake in that particular edit, because the text seemed to suggest otherwise. I have restorted that bit. Thanks for clearing it up." below? You accept to have reverted my edit without any reasons. Krish &#124;  Talk  19:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What I did was revert to WP:STATUSQUO when negative critical notices were removed in an attempt to whitewash the subject. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * All you're saying is you're right and Krish! is wrong, unfortunately a stereotypical response from an edit warrior.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I am being misunderstood but what I'm asking for is a discussion on talk page for why negative critical notices should be removed. Until consensus can be gained, the article should remain at the WP:STATUSQUO. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * NOTE: After opening the discussion, he immediately went o to ANI to report me while I was writing the response to his open discussion. Another point to be noted that, he opened that discussion much much later. And I did not revert him for what he is claiming. I reverted him JUST ONCE because he had re-added a wrong information about UNICEF which he later accepted. Krish &#124;  Talk  02:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * See this. He din't just revert my edit of critical notice BUT reverted my last 5 edits at once and that is why I reverted him. If he wanted to revert my critical notice edit then he should have reverted this one. BUT no he UNDID all my last 5 to 6 edit at once. Yes, all my edits without any explaination but made it look like he was just undoing my "critical review removal" edit. Also read what I have been telling Cyphoid on his talk page. Krish &#124;  Talk  18:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What I did was restore to the trimmed version of the lead, that summarised the info (which the lead should do), which you first undid. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you telling me I undid your edit in a way that I had to undo your one edit twice? I didn't undid your edit. I RE-WROTE the way it was earlier. I did not revert. Then I saw you have changed the below line and re-wrote that too. How is that revert? A REVERT is called what you did here. I did not revert you. Krish  &#124;  Talk  18:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "I RE-WROTE the way it was earlier" ==> that's precisely what a revert is. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * NO. This is called revert. You have reverted me three times in last 24 hourd directly and undid several of my edits. What I meant by re-wrote is present in the edit summary. Your edit says Chopra is national and global ambassador but she is not the current ambassador. Chopra was promoted from national to global ambassador duties in 2016 and that's why the text was written that way. Your edit was contradictory so I re-wrote that line BUT never Undid your edit. You are clearly trying to present everything differently so that I will be blocked again. When you started reverting me I went to Cyphoidbomb to ask why it was happening as I myself fearful of my block.  You need to see that article's history and Cyphoidbom's page. I have updated the article and added several things that were missing. Krish  &#124;  Talk  18:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If she is not currently the national and global ambassador, then I accept my mistake in that particular edit, because the text seemed to suggest otherwise. I have restorted that bit. Thanks for clearing it up. The rest, however, should remain at WP:STATUSQUO unless the community decides that certain negative critical notices should be removed. If they do, then I'll be the first to revert myself. As for the rest, I did not undo any of your well-sourced additions. What I found problematic, I did, and requested that you gain consensus on the talk page first. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * But that doesn't change the fact that you reverted me more than 3 times in last 24 hours and removed a lot of my edits and came here to show me as the aggressor. I had explained all of my edits with long summaries so that I won't be misunderstood yet you have been reverting my edits. You had reverted many of my edits which I later understood was right such as the NFA and then I went to your page to discuss and let those reverts be the way you wanted. I agreed with your reverts as I respected your POV. Like this I did not revert even though Chopra's performance was not negatively received as your edit made it seem. I have been preparing a discussion with reviews about Chopra's performance in DDD so I did not revert your edit. Plus why did I remove this negative review of Jai Gangajal, you ask? Well, it's in the explaination. But the point is you reverted all my "good edits" (as you know claim} without looking at them as you thought I was trying to whitewash. It should be noted that all those negative reviews you added in Chopra's article without discussion in 2018 After my block. These reviews were in the article since 2015 but you only tried to balance after 2018. Would you like to explain? Krish &#124;  Talk  19:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I was not reverted by anyone for my well-sourced additions to the article in the past year. If you disagree with them, open a neutrally-worded talk page discussion and ask the community to gain consensus on whether they should remain or not. That's how this encyclopedia works. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You were not reverted because other editors are not ready to challenge your edits or just don't care. Only I would have challenged it but I was blocked. You behave as if you WP:OWN the articles on wikipedia. Could you explain why you significantly changed Bajirao Mastani article that was decided after several days of grueling discussions on its talk page? You removed the version of the article that was the consensus of the same wikipedia community that you are talking about. But you reverted it without discussing with any editor forget community, why? As per WP: I Don't Like It or WP: OWN? Could you care to explain? Isn't this a violation of wikipedia rules to remove something from article that was decided after consensus by the community or you just do it as you please? Krish &#124;  Talk  19:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Only I would have challenged it but I was blocked." Again, if you do want to "challenge", open a neutrally-worded talk page discussion and ask the community to gain consensus on whether they should remain or not, instead of waging a war against me. Simple. That's my third and final time saying it. Bye! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So when I brought your "against wikipedia guidelines" edit here, you started playing victim and complained about me at ANI to prove I am an aggressor? Krish &#124;  Talk  21:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Observations
For now, I'm just going to make a few comments on how this dispute and ANI thread are going. That is all for now. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  22:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Krimuk is right that you should get discussions going on the article talk pages. If you can come to an agreement that is great but if you can't then you should wait for other editors to bring balance to the discussion. It may take time so you should exercise patience.
 * Krish, you should stop bolding so much. A little shows emphasis but a lot just means that you are shouting and that won't help you and instead may hurt you.
 * There is a good deal of apparent bludgeoning going on and that makes for longer threads. Longer threads begin to invoke the Law of Diminishing Returns as you put more effort in but owing to TLDR, fewer people will want to assist and you lessen your potential gains. Fewer concise and well-thought-out replies are likely to be more effective. I understand why there haven't been many folks jumping into the ANI thread.
 * Avoid commenting about the other editor and focus on the material under dispute.
 * Be prepared that consensus may not go your way and you may have to accept it and move on.
 * Thanks for your response, Berean. And, I am sorry for the bold text. I won't be using them again. And, I would like to inform you that there has been two discussions going on the here and here. I have given my views, backed with all the sources. Krish &#124;  Talk  21:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You are welcome and thank you for listening. I had read those along with the ANI thread and Cyphoidbomb's talk page before I made my comments above.

The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 2020
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) 01:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Florence genetics vandal is back
Hi Berean Hunter, you helped a few months ago with this ANI report:. The user seems to be back again today on one of the same IPs, 79.8.104.141, after the three-month block expired. They're making the same kind of unsourced and obviously false changes to numbers from genetics studies.

They also made a couple of edits from 87.16.124.190 and 62.19.83.88. Maybe you have time to take a look? Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've blocked 79.8.104.141 again, IamNotU. There isn't enough activity to warrant blocking the other two but if they become more persistent then I can take another look.
 * Thanks! --IamNotU (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

This editor keeps reverting me
I did some edits on Priyanka Chopra's article. He reverted all of my edits even the non-controversial ones. I tried discussing with him and he reverted me again. He has also not replied to my last posts on the discussions we were having on Chopra's talk page. So how am I supposed to edit wikipedia? He keeps reverting me and is not ready to discuss. WP rules clearly says no one WP:OWNs any article and anyone can edit. That editor did not stop at that. He went on to remove a lot of stuff from Andaaz, an article I started working on today. He removes this which has been there since last six years and accuses me of favoring one actress. How am I suppose to edit and work on anything here? Krish &#124;  Talk To Me  08:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * He reported me again to ANI for an edit he thinks "I was showing bias" but another prominent Indian film editor agrees with my edit. The article in question is Andaaz on which I have been tirelesly working since yesterday. It's hard to work on old Bollywood film articles as there are very few sources and are found by very hard work. This editor removed several of my edits but did not bother to help the article. Just reverting and removing stuff which he did not like. This editor is clearly trying to get me blocked. You have to see this, Berean. What am I supposed to do? He keeps reporting me saying "Editor on standard offer". Are standard offer editor not suppose to edit wikipedia? Am I missing something? Do standard offer editors have different rules here? Krish &#124;  Talk To Me  08:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Unusual edit in an AfD
I am confused by this edit in an AfD. In the end, it basically was reverted. Looking at the contribution history of the two claimed editors, and taking into account the way signatures are usually attached to edits, this looks like abuse of multiple accounts by a single user. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 11:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  12:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , confirmed plus one. See this and thank you for bringing this to my attention.

Weird page activity
Hello Sir. This page Syrian Turkmen got semi-protected because of IP sock puppetry invasion. Then after the protection, similar block evasion activity appeared again to escape the rules.

93.174.95.6 (talk) 09:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  20:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting know. I've blocked the IPv6 /64 range.

Pedrovariant is back
See these IP contribs: This exact IP had been blocked for 3 months as part of Pedrovariant's ANI case. It's obviously them (resuming activity on the same subjects, e.g., shortly after the block expired), and they need to be blocked again. Thanks. Crossroads -talk- 15:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Blocked from editing?
I have a T-Mobile device and I’m blocked from editing? I’m curious as to whom gave you the power to block an entire carrier of people from fixing mistakes in Wikipedia articles, especially when said mistakes included saying someone died in 2017 of corona virus on an anonymous account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.178.227 (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  12:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The community.

Unusual spam
I found this edit through the Wikibaji SPI. The editor was welcomed by one of the Wikibaji socks. It's a rather unusual type of spamming. Any ideas? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I pinged you in the SPI case. Thank you.

block
Do you want to convert the block on User talk:Dorama285 to a checkuser block, since you checkuser blocked their socks.?  DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  00:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I did make it a cu block but it was for 72 hours with a possibility that the person may stop socking.
 * OK. I know I can count on you to follow up if they continue to disrupt.  DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you.

Multiple failed login attempts
Hi, BH - this evening, I received the failed login attempt notice in my alerts. I changed the password to the point I may not be able to remember it, and got the notice again. Same thing is happening at Commons. Should I be concerned? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 23:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC) Adding - just got another alert - this time it stated 6 failed attempts. Is anyone else experiencing this that you're aware of? 23:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  00:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , as long as you have a strong password only in use on WM/WP projects then you shouldn't have to change it and you shouldn't be concerned. I don't know of this happening to anyone else recently but it happens from time to time.
 * 6 different alerts about failed login attempts over a short period of time - as many as 6 to 12 attempts per alert. Sounds automated, huh? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 00:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Possibly. :)
 * Just saw this when I was adding another TP comment. I heard from another high-profile editor (offline) that they have gotten a bunch of login attempts lately too, as recently as Monday. They said there were ~six attempts. Possibly automated?? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Multiple editors - one thing most have in common is being a participant in an ongoing ArbCom case but it's probably just coincidental. There was also April Fool's Day but it appears things have calmed down. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 00:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * getting stressed about this to the point where you create new passwords that you risk not being able to remember sounds like a bigger problem than the original failed login attempts. Please make your password strong, keep careful notes of it, and don't change it any more; don't let them get to you. It's a 100 to one they're just trying it on, and trying to stress you out. Bishonen &#124; tålk 00:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC).

Benelli m4 edit reverted
I noticed that you removed an edit on Benelli m4 that I made to a review aggregator as being promotional. This would be the same type of website as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_Tomatoes which has over 10,000 links on wikipedia. It seems like wikipedia values these type of critic review sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlongley7 (talk • contribs) 13:20, April 12, 2020 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , most of what I saw when I clicked on that link are sales listings for firearms and we don't allow promotions here on Wikipedia. I notice that your contributions so far have been to link to that site. Do you have a conflict of interest related to that site? Btw, you may sign your posts by using four tildes ( ~ ) and the rest will be filled in for you automatically.
 * Also, how does this link which you supplied as a reference support that statement? What I see are a bunch of sales listings. Rotten Tomatoes doesn't have sales listings do they?

The Bugle: Issue CLXVIII, April 2020
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) 05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, My IP address has been blocked as of March this year for apparent 'shock puppetry'- I don't think I've edited anything on Wikipedia since creating the Historia Normannis page. Have I just been hit by accident in a range IP block or done something I should be aware of? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:3430:2200:E153:ED6:3C75:C72C (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  08:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You would need to show me the block.

176.88.97.149
Can you block 176.88.97.149? He is an idiot who thinking never released versions of Windows is real. I think he watched Windows Never Released too much. He added a load of bullshit (sorry if this word is disallowed on Wikipedia) including Windows 3.51 (not NT), Windows 4.0, Windows Server 2000, Windows XP Media Center Edition 2006, Windows 7.1, etc. I wouldn't really be surprised if this was a 13 year old kid that just wants his attention. This is probably YusufT19 who've also vandalized BetaWiki and BetaArchive Wiki using accounts with names of fake Windows versions (like Windows NT 8.1). Yue Ling (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  11:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The range has been blocked.

About FIH bone
Hi, You blocked me yesterday saying that someone named Shivamroy22 was logged in with my IP. May be, because i bought this computer system second hand from a person named Rahul. Sir, My name is Hamid and my username is FIH_bone whose full form is 'FILM INVESTIGATOR HAMID_boy of naughty eyes'. So yeah, i started to use Wikipedia for exploring my knowledge and i really would like to contribute to Wikipedia. I am a student from Mumbai and i am much interested in acting that's why i mostly chose films related articles for editing. Thanks a lot! FIH bone -talk- 09:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  20:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hm, I don't see that the account FIH bone has been blocked at all. But what a captivating backstory! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Berean, FWIW, the user's behaviour looks to me like undisclosed paid editing. They're dropping what looks like pre-crafted articles of dubiously notable films without any follow-up editing, which is rather suspicious. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Cyphoidbomb, someone tried to reset Shivamroy22's password on March 22. The autoblock should have occurred on March 24 when FIH bone got on that same IP but for some reason this editor showed up here to ask now. (??) That is probably why you were asked about it. To be clear, they have a different device than the one that tried to reset it and if this is Shivamroy22 then he has moved. That said, some food for thought is that and  are on the same IPs using a computer and a phone respectively and editing several of the same articles. That may factor into your decision process concerning whether you think they are UPE.
 * God, I totally forgot about that note from Bbb23. I'll ruminate on it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Constant Intimidation from Krimuk2.0 in order to get me blocked.
This user has been harssing me since the day I came back. He goes everywhere to harass me. See this. He is again at harassing and intimidating me. His last tactic at Andaaz did not work so this time he has chosen this article. You have to do something this time. Krish &#124;  Talk To Me  20:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Something fishy at Andhra Pradesh Medtech Zone Limited
Hi BH, could you please take a look at the edit history at Andhra Pradesh Medtech Zone Limited. There's been a lot of back and forth with some large content submissions in the 8k range. The most recent account to resubmit it is an SPA. The whole thing is fishy. I only find one article intersection between Invisiblelibrarian and Andrew nyr, but why are they both so adamant to keep that 8k block? If you look at the text, it's totally copy/pasted from somewhere, although I can't figure out where, and it is totally promotional. Let me know what you want me to do, if anything. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That text looks like some of this doesn't it? ...but that may be copied from somewhere else as you say. handled the SPI case.
 * Uhh, Amtzwiki = Andhra Pradesh MedTech Zone, no? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk page access revocation
Hey Berean Hunter, hope you are well. I saw some personal attacks by on their talk page. Not sure if you want to revoke TPA or just keep an eye on it. Just wanted to make sure you're aware. --   LuK3      (Talk)   02:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  02:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thank you, LuK3.

175.38.0.0/17
Hi! Since you previously blocked Special:Contributions/175.38.0.0/17 from Sockpuppet investigations/Srinesh.saravanan and I'd rather not backlog SPI with more obvious IP cases, would another longer block be appropriate? They returned exactly after block expiry to the exact same articles doing the same type of edits (and some exactly the same). I don't think it's likely that they will ever stop or desist. While they were blocked (and another prolific sock who is still blocked), these articles saw significantly decreased disruptive editing. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 22:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  04:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * They made a new account, so went ahead with SPI report. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Handled by Ponyo.

Wikimedia Training Paricipant IP Blocked
Dear Berean, could you please have a look at why Editing from 82.132.192.0/18 is being blocked. This an IP for a new user who is trying to create an account for the first time in preparation for an online Wikipedia training taking place today. Best Regards.Abd Alsattar Ardati (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you, the situation is already solved.Abd Alsattar Ardati (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

New Dazoutti sock(s)?
Would a CU sweep for new socks of the user be justified based on the new account,, being created and immediately repeating an edit by a previous CU-confirmed sock (compare this edit with previous edit by )? Abecedare (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  03:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Abecedare, Yes. :) Check the newest SPI filing.
 * Thanks. They are not stingy about creating accounts! Abecedare (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Similar behavior
This account behaves in the same way as at least two of the accounts you blocked yesterday (removes sourced information + adds unsourced). Care to take a look? --Semsûrî (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Semsûrî vandalising Assyrian pages
Hi Berean Hunter, this user:Semsûrî keeps vandalising tons of Assyrian-related pages, adding irrelevant information and spreading his Chauvinistic view on minority pages. Please take a look how he is changing the perception of Assyrian related pages into some sort of Kurdish expansionist view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashurpedia (talk • contribs) 14:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ashurpedia, would you please explain how you became aware of what you allege? You just created your account yesterday. How did you come to know about this?

Hi Berean Hunter! I became aware of his behaviour through Twitter it went viral. This is pure vandalism of Assyrian pages and we will not accept him re-writing our history and portray it in a Kurdish manner. Please, lock him from the pages he has edited related to Assyrians.

(removed attempted OUTING) - Katietalk 16:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Ashurpedia, Thank you for being honest as to why you are here. "We will not accept him re-writing our history" ...perhaps, but this would need to be done within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Here is one policy and another that the new users who are becoming involved in this are running into. The fact that there is a push to try to get two users banned by reporting en masse constitutes harassment as well. It takes discussion on talk pages and reliable sources to sort article content out and not concerted attacks on editors. Please refrain from calling anyone "vandal" as that constitutes a personal attack under the circumstances. Please see this to learn what does and does not constitute vandalism on WP.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you take a step back and read some of the policies that I have linked to above. Ask questions if you have them.

Thank you Berean Hunter. Ashurpedia (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Jess Jecko article
Hi there, I saw that you deleted an article for Jessica Jecko (a member of the US Women's National Field Hockey Team) because the person who created it was banned. I would like to create a new article for Jess Jecko, but the editing page instructed me to reach out to you first. -LS — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaSombrerera (talk • contribs) 22:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  00:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi LaSombrerera, feel free to create a new article for her.

Requesting Reduction of Protection Level
I'm requesting a reduction in the protection level of the List of Assyrian tribes page so that I can begin adding sourced content to it. Sources are ready to go. I think the sockpuppetry will have died down by now.--Assyriandude (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  12:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Assyriandude, Consensus is necessary for additions to the list. You should make proposals on the talk page so that they may be discussed. There has been no discussion so far.

Ah I see, thanks for sharing that link. I'm still in the process of familiarizing myself with the rules and norms and sharing that link pushes me towards that goal. Thanks. Assyriandude (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello
You've blocked my IP address @ user_talk:45.72.156.102 even though I've never made an edit from this computer without being logged in, my IP address page has no edit history and I've never made a deleterious edit to Wikipedia in 20 years. What's the meaning of this? Please remove this block.

Syphon8 (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Syphon8, you may edit with your account and are not impeded by this block which has nothing to do with you.

I am impeded from contributing anonymously, which I prefer to do. As the page linked to my IP address page doesn't contain any history of malicious edits from other people, either, I again request this block is removed. Blocking my IP address can't have nothing to do with me, because it affects how I use this encyclopedia. I do not like to be logged in.

Syphon8 (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Request denied.

Florence genetics vandal is back
Hi Berean Hunter, you blocked 62.19.128.0/18 for three months (see this ANI report) but they're back to vandalizing DNA haplogroup articles again. Do you want to re-block it? I looked at the whole 62.19.128.0/16 range and there was one outside the /18: 62.19.83.88. The most recent one, 62.19.174.0 is already blocked. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * IamNotU, ✅.
 * Thanks! --IamNotU (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Why did you block me
I added valuable information to the 2020 in standup page. Why would you block me for that. I don't know how to format it properly. So what... I'm adding the information in the first place that people aren't keeping up with anymore. Shouldn't be a big deal that they format it after I do the heavy lifting of putting it in there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.12.53 (talk) 04:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Show me the block.

Admin unblocking
Hello - I noticed that you unblocked admin user Mz7 last year. I have this block record - the one by Yamaguchi mistaking me for a school IP, and immediately reverted. But my block record here shows a block length 1027 days in error. Is there a way to clear this? Thanks for any guidance through the thickets. Following here. Zefr (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  12:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Zefr, there is no way to clear the block log. At the bottom of this report, you can use the feedback link to ask about the longest block time. I would use that to discuss whether that is a problem rather than use "report an issue" with a presumption that it is. It may be intentional but I don't know and they should be able to clarify in a discussion.
 * Thanks. I did go through that route, chatted with code admins who had no immediate remedy and considered it a low-priority issue, and came up empty. Frustrating that what seems a technical fix that other editors likely have experienced is deemed impossible among all of WP's outstanding code. Dead end, I guess. Appreciate your looking into this. Zefr (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Range jump
Hi BH, I noticed you recently range-blocked these IPs from editing in Wikipedia space. They seem to also be engaged in numerical vandalism. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've converted it to a traditional anon block, Cyphoidbomb.

Did you block everyone who uses T-Mobile
Don't think I've ever made an edit on this phone or wireless service but I'm banned? Couldn't interpret it fully but it seemed to suggest it was everyone with a T-Mobile ip — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:2B00:8224:1300:190:392:B5DF:7204 (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  00:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've certainly never sought out any one ISP's ranges to block them all, so that would be no.

BKFIP
Any objections to linking to the LTA of Long-term_abuse/Best_known_for_IP for those who may not be familiar with the acronym? OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No objection. That is not an account name but a name given to an IP editor by other Wikipedia editors so no one's privacy has been breached.

Legal
Hi, Is it legal to report a sockpuppetry investigation after 3 weeks+ from the time when it was done? Eg: sockpuppetry was done on 24th April but today is 12th May.

Actually,it took me some time to understand what was going on(I think I'm right). Dinopce (talk) 08:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

My evidence will involve 3 accounts(out of which 1 account has been deleted;not banned but deleted).

Can you still track the IP address of the deleted account involved if I'll give evidence?

Yes or no? Dinopce (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  12:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Permissible is perhaps a better way of describing it than legal but yes, you may file a case at WP:SPI, Dinopce. Yes, checkusers can track IPs.


 * Thanks for the info Beren! If Checkusers can match the IP address of deleted accounts as well,then I have a case,I think.
 * Thanks! Dinopce (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi@Berean
 * Sorry for the disturbance again.
 * Can I directly send an email to the functionaries(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Functionaries#Mailing_list)?
 * Actually,there are several things(complaints) that I want people to know. ::I think that some of the things written in Wikipedia are going against the policies of Wikipedia.
 * I want several people to take a look at these things!
 * I want to write a detailed email regarding everything that I think is wrong as a contributor to Wikipedia.

Dinopce (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  11:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure.

Hm
What started as a Twitter thread from someone who thought a rangeblock was meant personally, leads to the revelation that the Celtic cross on your userpage has been misappropriated by white supremacists.

You may want to do something about its presence on your userpage. DS (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * DS, Its presence on my userpage has nothing to do with supremacists. They have also misappropriated other symbols but that has nothing to do with me. I'm not going to remove it because of a bunch of idiot speculation. Clannad, Scartaglen, Altan, The Chieftains, Albannach, Seven Nations.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ==> This!
 * Granted, but you might consider a note, to the effect that you're using the symbol solely for its historic purposes and because you like it, and disavow any and all connections with white supremacy. DS (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Some idiot makes racist remarks on Twitter. She makes her implication that I'm a racist because I have a Celtic cross on my userpage and then tries to make demands. Her racist remarks follow. Ignore the hell out of them. Too dense to figure out that they had found themselves behind a block that probably has nothing to do with them, they come to the ever-so-logical reason that the block was placed ahead of time by a racist that just happened to know they would be coming along...and would somehow know what race they are (do you know?). Oh yeah, makes perfect sense to me. Someone at #Wikipedia comes along and tries to pander to them? She attempted to find a nit to pick and became the racist that she would want to accuse me of being. I'm not pandering to them or any other nutter that wants to make such accusations. If you have a Twitter account, go explain why she's wrong.

The Bugle: Issue CLXIX, May 2020
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) 15:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Possble sock on David Parker Ray
Can you block 152.231.139.177. They have been making the same edits as 179.50.174.57 on David Parker Ray Mysticair667537 (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  02:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Mysticair667537, I have softblocked their range which should work.

Clarification Re:SPI
Hey Hunter,

I'd appreciate if you could clarify something for me regarding this check. You're suggesting that several accounts are using the same ISP, but only some use the ISP's proxy servers. What does this mean with respect to the locale of both those that use the proxies, and the one that doesn't?

Thanks. François Robere (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello François, "ISP's proxy servers" - the proxy was not likely configured by the ISP. It is a non-VPN proxy with Tor, bot activity and recent abuse reports. This proxy is not from a hosting service. Apart from what I have said in the SPI report, I won't be discussing their location.
 * I'm not asking you for the locales, just about the certainty with regards to the locales. You mentioned one of the editors did not use (known) VPNs/proxies; presumably you have a higher degree of certainty regarding their locale than you have regarding the other users. Correct? François Robere (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Since socking still continues, there are now at least seven socks in the same place. Some on proxies, some not. They are unlikely Icewhiz but with seven, there isn't going to be any room for AGF for socks cropping up in that particular place now. These aren't "new editors" and this may be an LTA.

Charles Bronson
Hey, listen. It's been 5 years that article has been protected. Honestly, I think it should be opened back up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.24.210.141 (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Accounts were changing his ethnic origins as recent as last Autumn. You have a tendency to make these requests but you do not appear to want to edit the articles. You may make requests on the talk page if you have them.

Blocking People
Hello

Why did you block me? All I did was update the correct air dates for Fat Albert. It was 1982-1983 season 7 not 1981. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:100:8280:F0B0:355C:508E:DB6B:735B (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please link it so that I know what you are talking about.
 * Looking at List of Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids episodes, maybe this is the only user I'm seeing who might've been caught in a range block or something, and they were shifting season seven from '81 to '82/'83. But I'm just now waking up and haven't really fixed that kind of problem before.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocking T-Mobile users
My cellphone was blocked from editing Wikipedia for 10 months I have never made an edit on it only my computer. I have read Wikipedia for some information but I don't understand why I was blocked on that device. People from T-Mobile all seem to be getting blocked for no apparent reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.12.124.84 (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  11:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * After looking at your edit warring, I can understand why.

Sockpuppet
Hello I tagged the user you blocked, Platypus156 as a sockpuppet of Albe23413. Thanks and keep safe. KMagz04 (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  11:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, KMagz04.

IP Blocking
Good Afternoon Berean Hunter.

Something quite strange has happened. This morning I was surprised to discover (by chance) that my IP address (62.19.128.0/18) has been blocked by you in April, citing "persistent addition of unsourced content". I cannot explain myself how this could have happened, since I usually don't edit Wikipedia without logging in and if I do it is mainly because I do not remember to check if I am logged or not. You can see from my contributions that I always source what I write on Wikipedia and that I prefer discussing things on talk pages before adding any possibly problematic content. Moreover I have never received any warning regarding that issue.

So I came here to ask you for some explanation. Sincerely,

FilBenLeafBoy (Let's Talk!) 16:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello FilBenLeafBoy, please take a look at the range contribs and tell me if those edits to the genetic groups are yours. It is related to this thread in my talk page archive. That is the reason why the range is blocked. You can still edit with your account though.


 * Hi Berean Hunter, I have really nothing to do with those edits regarding genetics. I don't even know what those articles are about! As you have said, I can still use my account, fortunately. I do not know how this could have happened. The IP address in question is apparently associated with my mobile. I'm not good in informatics and networks, so I don't understand if an IP address can be associated with more than one device. Anyway, thanks for answering. Kind regards, FilBenLeafBoy (Let's Talk!) 17:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The rollback tag
I was looking over some tags, and noticed that last year you created the "rollback" tag, do you recall the reasoning? It's been largely unused — the are just two instances, I couldn't find them — and appears likely to cause confusion with with mw-rollback, which is defined by the software. ~ Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 18:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  11:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this must have been accidental, . I was looking at an ANI thread at the time which dealt with alleged rollback misuse and I commented here about the normal tag shortly after the creation of the other. I'm not sure what happened.
 * Cool, I'll go ahead and delete it, thanks. ~ Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 00:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Shuppiluliuma sock
Hi there, just want to let you know there is another Shuppiluliuma sock on the loose:. Thanks, Khirurg (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Khirurg, I confirmed the account and filed the SPI report this time but in the future, please file suspected socks at SPI. Thank you,

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  12:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks and will do. I noticed you didn't include evidence in the SPI you filed. Is that because this guy has socked so much that the bar is now very low? Thanks again, Khirurg (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it is because I found what I needed to perform the check and didn't list it. When you file, you need to link diffs, please.

Error in IP Block
Hi, I just wanted to adjust a spelling error when I noticed this IP got blocked on March 4th. I noticed that it said "anon only" but when i log in I still see the block. Clicking on the IP address does not show anything but a error message.

Therefore I have two questions first would be what lead to this block.

Second, if this logged in block could be corrected. Brandtair (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Brandtair, would you please link to the block?

It strangely does not block me again. I did make screenshots. Blocked IP address was 188.206.64.0/18

Block timestamp: 00:47, 4th of March 2020.

Expire date: 5th of June 2020. Brandtair (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  12:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Good to hear that this is resolved.