Dear BH - Where is the article on military strategy for the the Civil War? I can't seem to locate it - it exists, does it not? 36hourblock (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 36hourblock (ominous name :), I don't know of a singular article exiting on this subject and I imagine that it would be quite an undertaking if it did. Most of the strategies are actually addressed in the articles on campaigns and battles...sometimes in the articles on leaders. Perhaps the most significant article on ACW strategy itself that I know of would be the one on the Anaconda Plan which was the primary Union strategy in place.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An undertaking, I agree, but can we create articles that deal with the general subject, and design one for Union Strategy, the other for Confederate Strategy? As a source, the following is a fine place to begin, on overview by McWhiney:

McWhiney, Grady. 1965. Who Whipped Whom? Confederate Defeat Re-examined. (Originally published in Civil War History, XI, No. 1 (march 1965) 5-26). Essays on the Civil War and Reconstruction Ed. Erwin Unger. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. New York. 67.59.92.60 (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Many, many congratulations from me too. --John (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...no hat? Thanks to both. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No hat, but you had 160 in unanimous support, putting you at #26 at WP:100, impressive indeed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! --j⚛e decker^talk 21:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the team. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well done on your promotion! It couldn't be more deserved. SuperMarioMan 03:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers!
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 160 people in support, unanimously. And you deserve it — for a long time, I had been under the impression that you were already an administrator! Good luck. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 00:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both!
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BH. I would like to add my congrats on your successful RFA. It is well deserved. And now to my question. You already endorsed my SPI here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pé de Chinelo last week. Do you have any idea how long it will be before it is acted on? I ask because the sock has begun editing again by making the exact same kind of genre change edits that are one of the hallmarks of their disruption on WikiP. Just to vent a little - it takes a minute or so to file a AIV report and those are acted on quickly (usually) - it took me the better part of 45 minutes to make sure the SPI was as thorough as I could make it but it is now it is just short of two weeks and this editor is still causing problems. It seems like an inverse proportion of work to results :( Other than bothering you with this is there something else that I could/should have done in this situation. My apologies for dumping all this on you but I thought I would ask since you are somewhat familiar with this. Cheers and again congrats. MarnetteD | Talk 18:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Just wanted to let you know that MuZemike did close this case with a block tonight (my time) - I don't know if you have any feel from your time in clerking SPI cases that this has become the norm as far as response time is concerned but if it is I would just like to pass along that my experience is that a returning sock can do more damage that an IP on a vandalism spree. Thus, I wish they could get closed down a bit sooner. Do you think that there is a spot other than the drama board of AN/I that I might express this without seeming too negative. If not then please don't bother and best wishes with the mop and pail. MarnetteD | Talk 04:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the delay in your case. I can't give you a specific reason why this one took this long. The SPI cases need more patrolling editors and admins, especially the later, We have clerks and checkusers but the whole caseload of SPI isn't supposed to rest on their shoulders alone. SPI investigations is role-based and the primary shortage is the patrolling admins that are to review the cases. Those do not come from wihin the established SPI dept. (clerks & CUs) but rather from the admin community at large. It is also worth noting that non-admin editors which patrol cases can and sometimes do help as well.

If you would like to raise the question with the folks involved in SPI then post here and you may get other viewpoints. You may want to link to this thread.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I don't file SPI's very often so I don't have a good feel for how things go there. Your explanation helps and I may use the link provided to just to give them an idea how it looks to an outsider when I have more time. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Berean Hunter!

An editor continues to add the identical content from the charade on the Amphibian article (and Reptile article), however, this time onto the Skink article. I believe that this editor is the same editor, as the previous ones that have been blocked for this disruption. What should be done next? Thank you, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, problem solved! Regards, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This might be interesting.[1] If Drmies, LadyofShalott and others attend, I would be very interested in you and I combining for a long day no-nighter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly but it is too soon for me to know if I could attend. I've got a couple of different scheduling issues that I won't know about for a while yet and will have to wait and see. I've watchlisted the page to follow along.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yum! Thank you very much and the same to you as well. I see that you've been breaking in those tools, too.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, I believe you accidentally removed the move protection from Amphibian. It seems like there would be no reason to move that page (at least not without discussion), so perhaps you could add it back? Millermk (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, I've restored the move protection as it was before. Thank you for pointing that out.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Berean Hunter, thanks for getting involved here. Personally I think the block on Iamthemuffinman was unnecessary as they had stopped (and AndytheGrump kept going). Last one by Iamthemuffinman was at .00 minutes ([2]), but the last one by AndytheGrump was at .03 minutes ([3]). And the first userspace attack was by AndytheGrump ([4]). While I agree that Iamthemuffinman used the worst language of the two, I'd ask you to reconsider the santion you imposed. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 13:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And then there is the addition on my talk page ([5]) by AndytheGrump. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 13:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was a 24 hour block which is mild considering the level of attack language. It is unacceptable and we need to be sending out the right messages that it isn't going to be tolerated. As for Andy, I'm hoping that he calms down before he gets himself blocked.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but blocking one party and not the other is where my problem was (but I understand where you are coming from), especially since both parties had attacked the other after level 4 warnings. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 13:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that is how it has ended up after all. I was hoping to keep the disruption down and people from escalating drama. I appreciate your efforts in trying to stabilize the situation also.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment and your efforts as well. I'm creating a sort of timeline on my talk page of what happened, if you'd like to have a look. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 14:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does show Andy was provoked and that may help mitigate his block length. I also took Andy for his word and believed he has good reasons for his suspicions which is why I didn't block him.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember exactly what happened (one you can see on Iamthemuffinman's talk page and the other is at Talk:Phallus) but I've seen these two in disagreement with others before (though not with each other I believe). Which is the reason I was involved with this in the first place - I still had Iamthemuffinman's talk page watch listed. With Andy my only problem was that when you have been warned twice (and the other side has stopped) you really should give it up. Anyway thanks for your help :) Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 14:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've volunteered you a bit, detail on my talk page in the "Question" section. I will be happy to do the same for you in the future when needed, but this is a situation that requires your particular skill set. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - as an involved user in this discussion, I would like to bring this SPI archive and this behavioral evidence to your attention as well. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not know what was purpose of this [6] and all other related activities. The guy admitted that he is the same person. He openly edits the same pages and very easy to detect. But Hanzo was never a vandal. To the contrary, he created several hundred articles and made at least 80,000 edits from all accounts. He usually does "gnomish" edits with obvious improvements and better sourcing. I had no problem working with him even on the most controversial subjects, although we had some disputes and he fixed my edits on a number of occasions. It might be a good idea if Sjones23 just left this user along and let uninvolved admins to look after him. My very best wishes (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These two SPI's may be related based on this older blacklist case, and the more recent case here. not sure at how you combine cases at SPI, howerver it would appear there is some connection between the two. Cheers.--Hu12 (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Berean Hunter, i thought to inform you about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wnnse which i have restarted in light of discovering a new sockpuppet. I have given all the information and details on the sockpuppet investigations page. I think you should have look at it. Thanks! TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]