IP 37.138.235.128, 85.16.226.58 and 91.248.142.3 all geolocate to the same area. They are participating in an RfC, so if it is determined to be sock activity, can they be blocked and their comments removed? ^Atsme 📣 📧 12:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC) ^{Add WP:Harrassment, as indicated below. 13:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)}

Those are all me. My ip changes every day, nothing i can do about that. And given that i live in Germany(i.e. not the heartland of the english language Wikipedia), i have empty contributions every day. But i took part at ITN or DYK, look at this AN post months back, me. Just as a random example... so i also object to the single purpose account label. I could make an account, but i don't have to and so i won't. 91.96.118.79 (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

And also, could you please look at Atsme's behaviour in that RfC while you are at it? Massive battleground behaviour, misrepresenting and twisting of sources, making bogus arguments and just a general wasting of time. All that makes a very toxic atmosphere. 91.96.118.79 (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and of course feel free to run CU or an SPI, i have absolutely nothing to hide(not that you even need my consent but i would even ecourage you to check, just to get this joke over with). I have been called a sock on quite a few occasions before(been editing as an IP for years now, never much but ever so often), this is just a tactic to descredit my points and views and to not have to actually adress them. Trying to win a content dispute by other means by creating a chilling effect. Quite low but whatever i guess. One gets used to be treated like dirt lol. But my choice so i should not complain about it. 91.96.118.79 (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Sigh... now i am harrassing them? Could you maybe present some diffs that support that? Otherwise, unfounded accusations of harassment are pretty much just personal attacks. Anyway, more attempts at creating a chilling effect, more attempts at discrediting me etc. No, i am not harassing you by standing up for myself, responding to your accusations or by bringing up your problemtic behaviour. Besides this discussion, i have interacted with you by commenting 3 times on points you made in that RfC. Nowhere else, ever (except here then, obviously). Explain and please provide diffs how i am harassing you, otherwise please strike your unfounded personal attacks. This is nothing but sad and pathetic. 91.96.118.79 (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Atsme, for IP socking you would need to identify deception in an IP editor's behavior. Since they have owned their comments and aren't trying to IP hop to edit war or do anything deceptive then I wouldn't see this as a socking issue. My suggestion to both of you is to disengage from each other and let the RfC continue. In making comments there, stick to subject matter and avoid commenting on the other editor. There are (or will be) so many participants that this should give balance to the discussion so you don't have to face off with each other.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

They owned it only after I brought it here. The different IP addys make it seem like more than one person is commenting. I don't know of any PAGs that say this is ok - please point me to it, if you will. Once I realized multiple IPs were at play, I disengaged with this editor, and brought it here only to discover they are now harrassing me. The edit history on each IP shows it is a single purpose account, and I question if it's a new user. The IP either needs to register or disclose they are one in the same each time they comment. I will not be responding to any of their comments, but something has to be done to correct this situation. ^Atsme 📣 📧 14:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I think the problem here is that the IP contributions to the Fascism discussion have the appearance of being from different editors. No effort was made by the user to identify the comments as being from the same user, and in truth any IP could claim to be that user too, which just adds to the confusion. It has the appearance of trying to game the system, and in that sense could legitimately be construed as socking. - BilCat (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It is in the SOCK policy at WP:LOGOUT and WP:LOUTSOCK. Although not a policy, WP:IPHOPPER should also help explain. I agree that it can be frustrating to think that multiple people are commenting. In this case, they are all from the same area and you can discern that they are the same.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Was it not pretty obvious that i was one and the same person in all 3 comments? I certainly did nothing to hide the fact and you also never just asked me. Where was i supposed to own it even? If you want IP editors to always mark their edits specifically with indivual marks, that has to be made clear somewhere and defeats the purpose of not needing an account. Again the claim of harassment here... where and how am i harrassing anyone? To the SPA thing, read my first comment. And i am not a new user, never claimed that. Quite the opposite actually which i also mentioned before. If you think i need to register, please go to the village pump and start an RfC. 91.96.118.79 (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

And can we please elaborate on the claim of harassment or call it what it is, a very strong personal attack on me. Which the link to it actually makes clear as well. Wrongfully accusing someone of harassment is a personal attack. 91.96.118.79 (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The first 2 links apply to registered users, the 3rd does suggest ill-intent. There is no way for me to confirm that this IP is a registered user. The fact they are harassing me is what raises concern about ill-intent. Their behavior on the TP of the RfC is disruptive, whether they use 1 or 3 different IP addresses. It is very difficult for me to AGF under those circumstances. I won't disturb you further with this matter. Thank you. ^Atsme 📣 📧 14:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

And now Atsme removed two of my comments here, surely by mistake through an edit conflict but not fixing it is unacceptable. 91.96.118.79 (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought the edit conflict software did that, so yes, if it didn't place your comments under mine, then I've misunderstood how the feature works. Now that you've commented above, I don't know which edits to restore so go ahead and fix it. I'm done here. ^Atsme 📣 📧 15:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I fixed it manually, just went by timestamp for order(that ok?). I was actually just about to remove my comment to show some good will as it was an obvious mistake and no malice. But alas, i was too slow. No worries anyway 91.96.118.79 (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Your comments here are really not appropriate, and could understandably be taken as a form of harassment. However,you'll note that Atsme didn't start adding a string of rapid responses on that user talk page, asshe didn't want to harass you in turn. You made a comment here, which is very thoughtful and kind. You need to remember that in regards to Atsme. Your comments on Use talk:Awilley were certainly not kind to her. - BilCat (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

So i cannot raise behavioral issues on admin talk pages... Atsme did exactly that at the same time oddly enough (did not see that until after). In other words, we did pretty much exactly the same thing. Assuming bad faith with eachother, calling eachother out etc. Is that ok, not it is not. But call us both out for it, not just me. And harassment is over the top anyway, that is a serious charge that should not be thrown about lightly. And as a genuine question, how should i have framed the behavioral concerns i had about Atsme in a better way? I explicitly mentioned in that comment that i did not want any sanction to come ouf of it as well but only to modify future behaviour. Unlike here where the goal was to have me banned and my comments removed 91.96.118.79 (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

You've already "called her out" for it, so there was no need for me to do it too. If we were having this discussion on User talk:Awilley, then I probably would have called her out, not you. - BilCat (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, went for a small walk to get some fresh air, calm down etc. Let me rephrase and just try to explain why i felt attacked here. I saw an RfC on a topic about something i am interested in (not exclusively so, just to make clear again; Not an SPA) where i saw a sentence like "To incorrectly state as fact that nearly half the US population are fascists in WikiVoice is not good for the project." that was used as a serious argument for why fascism cannot be a right wing ideology among other things. I state on the talk page that i find the behaviour very problematic and after several days of no response to it(which is totally fine of course) i raise the issue with an uninvolved admin in hopes of improving their aproach to editing political articles while making clear i was not seeking any sanction. I even called them '...probably a brilliant person away from politics...'in my comment there. And then i get told that is harassment while they did exactly the same thing. Raise what they felt was an issue at an uninvolved admins talk page. Now if you lot all agree it is not ok for me to raise an issue like that, then i will concede that and will try to word it more nicely or otherwise modify my behaviour in that regard. But i would need to be given some pointers how to do that, where to raise an issue like that in the future (probably won't after this experience lol) and so on. You, or anybody else, could answer that on my talk page or where ever of course so it would not have to bother Berean Hunter more than it already has. I am genuinely sorry for this mess but i felt attacked and harassment is something i do take very seriously and so was very offended by the mention of it. Anyway, really enough of this now... 91.96.118.79 (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

This is funny: {{|"You, or anybody else, could answer that on my talk page..."}} LOL. You edit using dynamic IPs. You don't have a single talk page where messages for you can be left in one place. - BilCat (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I actually thought of jokingly saying "my talk page for the day", because that is what it usually is. Not like on a mobile network. Get a new Ip assigned sometime during the night i think, but is mine until the next day. Plus i could just go back to it and still use it for the short purpose of an ongoing discussion. But yes i get what you are saying and actually smirked myself when i wrote that part. 91.96.118.79 (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

This one you blocked recently for vandalizing the album articles has resurfaced: [1], [2]. Dan56 (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Deja vu. I had just caught that in my watchlist. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I've inquired about page-protection again for these articles, this time directly to the admin who decided on them at WP:RPP my last time there. Dan56 (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

When I logged out from Wikipedia and wanted to create a new account, an error occurred because of you. You’re fired, dude!!! Do not reply me!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCRATCH1234 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

As you have told @WhisperToMe: and what he has replied, I was notified of the incident. I have actually stated the event when granting temporary confirmed rights to event participants. As you know, I can't control whether they are using the same Operating system and same browser. Shall I place more notifications? Many thanks.--1233 ( T / C） 01:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• 1233, you didn't do anything wrong. My request was that the users place an indicator on their userpages to help avoid confusion. A bunch of new accounts on the same IP address at once, all seeming to be promoting individuals can look like undisclosed paid editing. I figured it out because I saw WhisperToMe who was the only established user.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Okay noted and thanks.--1233 ( T / C） 13:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Berean Hunter. I just encountered another one: Germanium123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Should I open another SPI? Thanks again. Dr. K. 03:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

 Confirmed,  Blocked and tagged and no other accounts seen Dr.K.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much Berean Hunter for these mini SPI results. It does take some of the pressure off. Take care. Dr. K. 16:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed that for many months there has been a large block on AT&T users. I assume that this is because of a troll who keeps reappearing.

107.77.192.0/19 is 8,192 IP addresses. I don't know how many users that represents, but it is a very large number.

I know there is a trade off whenever issuing a block; how many people and days are we willing to block in order to stop one the problem user.

I just want to voice that there are a lot of dolphins snared in this tuna net and we have been for a long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.185.122 (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

As it is anon-blocked, I suggest that you get an account so that it doesn't trouble you.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

That is helpful information. Thanks. 76.186.185.122 (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

A new users have been registered to create new hoaxes: BabyKids2019 9 (talk · contribs) and BabyKids2019 11 (talk · contribs)
He's also been very busy creating sandboxes with hoaxes about American networks in Mexican TV stations, stations that in most cases do not exist. [3] Please, delete those sandboxes if possible. --MexTDT (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

 Confirmed,  Blocked and tagged and the pages deleted.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

See the edit history at 1 (New York City Subway service). Cards84664 (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Already confirmed and blocked by another checkuser.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Berean Hunter. You previously deleted a draft by this name on February 5, 2019, per WP:G5. I'm not sure if it's the same or if the creator (177.21.30.36) is the same blocked editor, but this IP has created another draft Draft:Anfitrião do Fantasma which you also perviously deleted per G5. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at these as well as at the IP. Just for reference, I came across the Capítulo II draft because File:ItChapterTwoTeaser.jpg was being used in it and the file was flagged as a WP:NFCC#9 violation. This particular file has been used in other deleted versions of the same draft as well; so, whoever is creating these drafts is likely go to try and use the same file again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome, Marchjuly.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

[4]. Thanks, GAB^gab 20:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

There's also this guy, for good measure. Thanks, GAB^gab 20:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

GAB, Dman1954 is  Confirmed to WelcometoJurassicPark. I don't have anything on the second one.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll keep an eye on the other. GAB^gab 09:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

BH, would you look at the HughD sock IP that commented here [[5]]. This is typical HughD behavior, Chicago based, follows me to an obscure area of Wikipedia, is the same IP address as similar 2017 edits. I've pinged NeilN but they haven't posted since 2018. The local editors aren't familiar with HughD's behavior and want to let the edits stand. I've tried to remove per EVADE. Thanks Springee (talk) 10:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

82.132.232.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Clearly this is the BKFIP, if you check the talk page this article has been a regular haunt and he is obsessed over removing some details from the article. WCM_email 12:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Already blocked by another admin.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

After new hoaxes from these IPs, 2806:10A6:15:1FCF:C944:1575:50B9:2C51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 189.161.136.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), a new user was created on enwiki BabyKids2019 14 (talk · contribs). On eswiki, the user BabyKids2019 15 (talk · contribs) was also created.--MexTDT (talk) 06:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

MexTDT, I have confirmed and blocked BabyKids2019 14 but BabyKids2019 15 is not on this wiki so I am not able to block it. You can request global locking from the stewards here, however.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip but I wasn't able to use it, it doesn't let me edit the page.--MexTDT (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

My guess is because it doesn't see you as autoconfirmed at meta. Wim b, since you have recently locked one of the other accounts here, will you be able to assist and lock 14 and 15 and any others that you may find?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: 6  Done, but the IP's range is too large to a CU, i used Special:UserList --user talk:Wim b 18:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Wim b.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67, Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at three books focussing on the World Wars Op-ed: Indy Beetle on the fall of Idi Amin

Hi, I've noticed you reverted the citation for the statement "Iqbal was elected from Dhaka-10 in 1996.", the current citation points to an article regarding underage driving by that person's nephew while I added the citation from Amir Desh Online of Election Parliament results. Can you please explain to me how is that irrelevant? Burair7 (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

See my comment here and understand that you are finished with the subject. No edits of yours will be allowed on that article because you were canvassed by meatpuppets.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I assure you I had no association whatsoever with those meatpuppets. We started off on the wrong foot. I just want to contribute on Wikipedia. Please tell me is there no other way to expand the article?
 — Burair7 (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

No, there isn't. "a representative asked me to add some information and expand the article. I'm happy to provide proof." diff.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi BH, see Special:Contributions/1.47.5.46. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks BilCat, I've blocked his range as he had recently used several other IPs. 1.47.233.56, 1.47.67.159, 1.47.107.225 and 1.47.165.108 to name a few.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks much. What some people do for hobbies. Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused about this sock. Both their contribs and deleted contribs are empty. What am I missing? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

RoySmith, they had created this account unquestionably so I went ahead and listed it and blocked rather than leave them with it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what it's about, but you were mentioned in some vandalism: Special:Contributions/41.115.127.69. Blocked and reverted, but I figured you'd want to know. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Roy. I've blocked the /17 range as he has used other addresses in it to do much the same. Streisand effect worked here. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Berean Hunter. It's been over a year since you made this /32 hard-block. There's been a complaint on Wikipedia Weekly (the Facebook group) that, contrary to your blocking comment that this "is indeed an open proxy", what you have blocked is actually an entire ISP in Bangladesh. The collateral damage seems to be significant enough to move away from the hard-block.

I wonder if you would be kind enough to consider reducing the /32 block to anon-only, account creation permitted, and user talk editing permitted, and restrict the hard blocks to 1-year or shorter duration blocks on /64 subnets where misuse of Wikipedia is actually observed? Deryck C. 12:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Deryck. Not much that you have been told is true. That entire /32 is not an ISP in Bangladesh but it is Free Basics from Facebook which anonymizes the users and it is in Ireland. Grameenphone internet provider in Bangladesh uses Free Basics but have provided IPv4 addresses for their customers which they may still use. Tell whomever that they need to cut the Free Basics service off to edit Wikipedia. Because it anonymizes, we have had heavy abuse from different countries in that range despite the fact that the whois report and the geolocate report will tell you that they are in Ireland.

See this and this as examples. Those reports are accurate. Here is an explanation by someone that uses it. In this one, you see someone supply their IPv4 address that they have been assigned but they couldn't connect via that /32 IPv6 range...so they actually do have access to edit Wikipedia.

"restrict the hard blocks to 1-year or shorter duration blocks on /64 subnets where misuse of Wikipedia is actually observed?" Right. :) A couple of things about Special:Contributions/2A03:2880:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (please see block log history). First, a majority of edits are from sockmasters. Second, when you look closely at those addresses in that range you might think that you are looking at the same /64 addresses but you aren't. Each edit is in a new /64 because the fourth stanza of the address always changes. No two consecutive edits by the same user are ever in the same /64 address. Example taken from the range contribs, highlighted in red for your convenience:

• (change visibility) 05:41, March 10, 2017 diff hist -18‎ Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports ‎2a03:2880:3020:afd8:face:b00c:0:8000 (talk) ‎ →‎2A03:2880:3020:AFC2:FACE:B00C:0:8000 Tag: Possible vandalism

• (change visibility) 05:40, March 10, 2017 diff hist -18‎ Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports ‎2a03:2880:3020:afcc:face:b00c:0:8000 (talk) ‎ →‎Sher Aziz2A03:2880:3020:AFC2:FACE:B00C:0:8000

• (change visibility) 05:39, March 10, 2017 diff hist -11‎ Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports ‎2a03:2880:3020:afef:face:b00c:0:8000 (talk) ‎ →‎2A03:2880:3020:AFC2:FACE:B00C:0:8000

As you can see, blocking /64 addresses wouldn't work here (minimum /56 needed but they appear assigned dynamically so someone could get a new address to get around it). The rolling address scheme is incompatible with WP editors' ability to communicate with anon editors. Also, I personally do not use Facebook but for those that do, this report does not paint a good picture of Free Basics.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for sorting out the block on my editing rights! --Redlentil (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

You are quite welcome, Redlentil.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I hope you can help me, he's been quite active in the past few days, but since he's not attacked on existing articles, he went unnoticed.

• Josndn Nkso
• Gjsd Tavs (talk · contribs) (enwiki, his discussion page must be deleted.)
• Gjsd Tavs (eswiki)
• 2806:10A6:15:5C60:E491:1E09:D123:27B5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2806:10A6:15:3DC0:BC3A:3769:201C:13B4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2806:10A6:15:3DC0:D188:A2B5:A1:2B5A (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2806:10A6:15:3DC0:F92A:F784:82C1:4F05 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2806:10A6:15:C089:F4A6:E0E2:B234:C8A6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2806:10A6:15:C089:916:39D:8E34:2BE7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2806:10A6:15:711:DC32:30CC:B4B1:B58A (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2806:10A6:15:711:7808:F014:60F3:DC57 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2806:10A6:15:C089:4A6:F5CF:DA88:2588 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2806:10A6:15:5C60:A4B9:5FCD:B082:62C7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 187.194.213.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 189.161.130.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Velella (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Davidelit (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Please, help. These IP ranges have to be blocked globally on all of the Wikimedia projects, I don't know who else can help me.--MexTDT (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

 No comment with respect to IP address(es). I've confirmed the Gjsd Tavs account and filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ghso ehwj but the other account is beyond my scope and you will either need a steward or a commons checkuser. Wim b, would you please lock the confirmed account and have a look at cross-wiki abuse? I also think that it is time to let one of the checkusers at es.wiki know about this case so they may have a look since the accounts are active there. Pinging Rastrojo.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

For clarity, the confirmed account is "Gjsd Tavs"? --user talk:Wim b 11:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Wim b, yes.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Done, TY. --user talk:Wim b 12:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australia's leadership and medical services in World War II and Peacemaker67 on Israel's targeted assassinations Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the fate of the German fleet at Scapa Flow

Hi Berean Hunter. I sent you an email on May 4th. Did you receive it? If not, I'll send again, or alternatively you can email me. SilkTork (talk) 08:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork, I sent several emails to you on May 5 in response. Check your spam box, perhaps? I can resend if you need it (I replied to the email address that you used with the WP system which is different than the one that you use on the mailing lists). I've been busy but hope to be on WP some this weekend.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Doh! Thanks for reminding me! I changed emails recently to separate my regular email account from the Wikipedia one. SilkTork (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I have returned to my usual email. SilkTork (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Would you please remove TPA and disable email for Onion Apple Plum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and OOMPA PA PA OOMPA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I we leave it enabled it won't take long before he starts posting crap and personal attacks on their talk pages, as he always does (if you look at the other socks that were listed on the SPI you'll find that all of them have had TPA and email disabled; also check the talk page of OOMPA PA PA OOMPA...). Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thank you Tom, I should have done that earlier.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Berean,

Thank you for your help in resolving my situation. In regards to your comment on my page about the Willem van der Haegen's article content, I would like to invite you to the discussion about the article in which I cite several sources for my proposed edits and also extend the subject further.

Best regards,

Frid.antonia-arlon (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if you can help, but this handful of edits by a new account show a very combative pattern, & considerable knowlege of WP policy etc. Unfortunately I can't suggest who he is socking for, & it might be a longer-term ip who's taken an account, but the pattern may suggest a sock-parent name to somebody. The stuff he is blanking with abandon (none of it mine) has some issues, but is not the gibberish he suggests. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod, I've been doing some looking but the result so far is negative. I don't have anything to suggest I'm afraid.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks very much anyway! Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, can you please see if any accounts were used on this IP address and tell me if I can use a account? I want to use a account particulary to revert vandalism, but this doesn't mean that I will do socking. --93.78.16.26 (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but we don't do that.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the Dambusters, and Hawkeye7 at Allied code breakers and Australia in New Guinea and Vietnam Op-ed: TomStar81 on the treaty that ended World War I

Hi, just for your information, Special:Diff/900275362. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, ToBeFree.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Could you have a look at User talk:Nannus, where there is an unblock request relating to a CU IP range block that you made? Perhaps making the block anon-only might be appropriate. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, I've changed it to anon only.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

sigh, it is incessant Manda 1993 is at it again unrestrained JarrahTree 14:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Already working on it.. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I am genuinely sorry I have to choose you, but it is at time overwhelming in the sheer damage it creates so damned regularly. Thank you for your forbearance (scuse the possible pun there) JarrahTree 14:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

apologies, in case I hadnt seen you online I had submitted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Manda_1993 - FYI... JarrahTree 14:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

been closed by a very punn-y fellow :) JarrahTree 14:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I nuked their contribs and also see where JamesBWatson was undoing some of the moves.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I am mystified why and how a new user regular sock can do moves so early in the edit history - thanks to you and JamesB... JarrahTree 15:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

If it's of any interest, Berean, you beat me by one minute to the mass-revert button. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I suspect this user may also be User:LilBillWilliams who was User:BobRoberts14. He was just t-banned. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: they are  Unrelated.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's good news. Thank BH. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for semi-protecting List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019 after the clear sockpuppetry going on. Now, the exact same thing is happening in the main article, List of mass shootings in the United States. If you could semi-protect that article as well it would be appreciated. Ottoshade (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Ottoshade.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

There is an editor who keep adding unsourced content and ordering album ratings for no reason in album-related articles. For example, if you at the page history of The Sun's Tirade,[6][7][8] Cilvia Demo,[9][10] and Isaiah Rashad,[11][12][13] the edits in these articles look very similar. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything actionable here, TheAmazingPeanuts.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

So an editor is clearly using multiple accounts for disruptive editing in the same article (To Pimp a Butterfly) like these [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] in several months, isn't questionable at all? Yes the IPs haven't been used for awhile now, but you can clearly see the most of the IPs have been edit the same articles for months especially in the critical reception section. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

What accounts? I haven't seen any accounts. "is clearly using multiple accounts"...no, they clearly aren't from what you have presented. If you think there is an SPI case here then file a case. I don't think that you have one.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I ask another editor (Binksternet) about this issue and he agreed that these accounts are possibly from the same editor, he even show a list of IPs that have been used since 2015 here. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts,

• Accounts do not equal IP addresses. You never presented any accounts on my talk page at all. The first accounts that I have seen mentioned are those presented by Binksternet on his talk page and the account names are Inorap and Varun3281. Only two accounts have been mentioned. Everything else have been purely IP addresses. It is important that you understand the distinction so that you stop making the same mistake.
• As a checkuser, I don't affiliate any accounts with IP addresses as a matter of policy. Binksternet isn't restricted from doing this and he is going to be a better choice because of that and he probably knows more about these articles than I do. You can learn from him because he is good at investigations and knows how to search IP ranges. He also knows how to present the evidence and make a case.
• Your statement, "I did report this issue to Berean Hunter right here but they don't see these edits being related." is incorrect. I never said anything of the sort. You didn't show me any blocked accounts or blocked IP addresses and the latest IP address only has one warning so nothing was actionable. From what you presented to me, you didn't have the makings of a sockpuppet investigation and I wasn't going to do a behavioral investigation based on what you gave me.
• Based on Binksternet's investigation, I was able to find your post where you had agreed to go to noticeboards rather than hitting up admins on their talk pages. At least you articulated a clear problem there, "These IPs goes around vandalized the album ratings template by adding star ratings while the source itself doesn't use a star ratings system. Recently this user has made this edit while the sources doesn't use stars." That would have helped back up your assertion about adding unsourced content but you never wrote that here. I have blocked the most recent IP for adding unsourced content and because I find it plausible enough based on behavior, it is likely Varun3281.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I admit that I not good at sock puppetry investigations and I have forgotten about that discussion at the noticeboard back in 2017. So I sorry that I didn't make my point clear about this issue, next time I do a better job of expanding by adding block accounts from the past in the discussion. Again, I sorry that this report was confusing to you to understand what I talking about. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Freeboy200, see Special:Contributions/Aryanman902 and Special:Contributions/5.182.121.70. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Hrodvarsson, I added him to the SPI case.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

user:148.75.33.187 has been abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

CLCStudent, reblocked for a month with tpa revoked.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey Berean Hunter, it looks like more sockpuppetry by HughD is going on at the List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019 article. The new user (Morarl) started editing the page as soon as the semi-protection expired on June 29, and I have noticed that they are using similar edit summaries and continuing their disruptive behavior. Can you take a look into it? Thank you. – Braxton C. Womack^{talk to me!} 00:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

•  Confirmed to each other and using a compromised server
• Morarl (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Sajidkhan300 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• You look so petty (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Indeffed but it is inconclusive concerning the master. Pinging Braxton C. Womack this time. Article protected again.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks again for your help! – Braxton C. Womack^{talk to me!} 00:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Safeersmak stands solely as a promotional account for actor Mammootty. First edit itself was for adding the term "Megastar" in his article - diff1, diff2. Added the term in Mammootty filmography while logged out. Rearranged cast in Twenty:20 (film) - diff3, diff4, diff5, the most suspicious edit. Harirajmohanhrm was such an account blocked while edit-warring for rearranging cast. Then there was Mealwaysrockz007. I'm not sure which is the likely master. Can you please check it? 2405:204:D185:F8F0:EC2A:AA43:A181:DE86 (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

No, the accounts that you have linked are too old so there isn't anything to compare the account to. Further, you need some evidence to show that they are socking. They haven't ever been warned for anything.

Within your /48 range however, there is this fanboy edit. :/
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Berean Hunter, can you please take a look at 157.37.231.142 who is editing the same article from the same location as 157.47.136.120 that you blocked for socking. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@GSS: I have blocked their range and semi-protected the article.  Likely IP socking.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

for you help earlier getting my duck in a row.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I've a new fiend. G'night.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome, Dlohcierekim. Freudian slip?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Berean Hunter. Back in November 2017, stemming from the SPI case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RobinJenssen/Archive, you blocked the IP 83.241.130.186 for one year. It appears that after their block expired, they picked up where they left off, editing the same articles where they had COI/undisclosed paid editing. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Drm310, you may find this report useful. I've hardblocked it for three years.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that is a useful tool. I'll go over the user's edits and excise any promotional content. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Berean Hunter,

I use to forego notifying editors when I tagged empty categories because I thought editors were less invested in them than articles they created. But I angered one editor who took it to ANI and now I am! However, I've contacted a few editors who I noticed create quite a few categories to ask if they wanted me to skip notification and have received some yeses. Would you like to be on the "Do not call" list? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. If you want to Liz, you can just G6 them. We need to be able to track them sometimes so they should have a breadcrumb for us to follow to the correct sockmaster like I did with that one.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a good idea, Berean Hunter. I'll do that from now on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I've been having some problems accessing my mail account and didn't receive the mail you sent me yesterday. Would you mind sending it again? Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., check your inbox.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Could we have a new range block on this one (last blocked for three months in March of this year)? They're still at it (see contribs for the range: Special:Contributions/2403:6200:88A0::/48), adding bogus users with fake sources on a large number of gun articles, a hobby they've had for more than two years now... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the range for six months this time, Thomas.W. Thank you for letting me know.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. If you check the oldest contributions on en-WP from that range, from 31 March 2017, you'll find that the 43 first edits (and around 90% of all edits from that range over the past more than two years...) were all of the same kind as the most recent edits from that guy, and on the same articles that they're still hitting on an almost daily basis, so that guy desperately needs a new hobby... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Tom, I consider him an LTA and he has used other Thai ranges as well. BilCat has been reverting him since he began faking references. I have reverted him and blocked quite a number of ranges on the fly and protected many pages because of him. I have found some of the discussions that document him...may have missed some...but this may be helpful to you:

• April 2017
• July 2017 1
• July 2017 2
• July 2017 3
• Feb 2018
• April 2018
• April 2019

BilCat may know of other places where he is documented and we may have the makings for an LTA page where his ranges may be aggregated and tracked. Need to impose a common name on him for that though.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

got it back to front - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/180.241.50.76 its our old friend... JarrahTree 13:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

and someone else has cleaned it up - in a manner of speaking - sorry to have bothered JarrahTree 14:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

and thanks for your understanding implied by your action - appreciate that... sigh... JarrahTree 14:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Haweye7, Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on recent books covering the world wars

Could you explain why you keep deleting the Barbecue in Oklahoma article? Jmbranum (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Replied at the talk page.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens, if you are going to list yourself first in the post at DN then you are "Editor A". The labels may need to be adjusted for clarity. I have no objection to using our actual usernames.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon and Chaheel Riens: I believe the advantage to having it posted at DRN at this point is so other editors may see it and go to the talk page discussion to participate. The filing occurred on the heels of the dispute and I'm waiting to see if other editors join the discussion. I don't see the advantage of writing out more than what we have already written there considering that third parties at the talk page will likely affect consensus. I don't believe that we have given enough time for that to happen. The article/talk page has 32 page watchers so filing at WP:THIRD may be more appropriate at this point since I believe the filing at DRN was premature.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear Berean Hunter the following IP address 2409:4060:2000:0:0:0:0:0/36 have been blocked by you. But the person involved has not vandilised wikipedia. Please look into it and open the block. --Rangan Datta Wiki (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Rangan Datta Wiki, there are multiple sockmasters operating in that range. If you happen to be using that range, you shouldn't have any problem if you are logged into your account as it is only blocked for anonymous IP editing.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

	Happy Adminship	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing Berean Hunter a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! -- Mjs1991 (talk) 03:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Congrats BH! You've made it through another year - whew. Many thanks for your work here at the 'pedia. MarnetteD|Talk 03:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

👏😊 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AhamBrahmasmi. New evidence affirms that it is the same person. Big Bang Entertainments, a relatively new production house's page was created by AhamBrahmasmi two times even after an AFD. Their second production Aravindante Athidhikal's article was created by Aham. On August 1, just when the third film Helen (2019 film) was announced, a draft was created by an IPv6 and it was instantly moved by WikiMeAlways. See the timestamp, both 13:41. 137.97.103.236 (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Make sure that you put this in the declined case. I'm busy and not sure when or if I may get to review it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• BFB GFFBDDB (talk · contribs)

Please, delete his sandbox and block his discussion page, on eswiki, he usually makes use of his user discussion page to create hoax articles.--MexTDT (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

MexTDT, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ghso_ehwj.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for making the edit at the "Richard Kuklinski" page here: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/909849121) it was really needed. The source was added spuriously, and i am pleased that you removed it. SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Why has my IP address been restricted when I’ve never used Wikipedia

No idea but if you are posting here then you aren't blocked.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

sock maybe, but water nsw edits, you've undone things that are, so now i have to undo your sock undos because why ? Dave Rave (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Dave Rave, I believe that you are likely referring to this case and according to the block log of the master, he "fabricated and falsified sources". Since we cannot trust what he has written, I have reverted many of his edits. If they require a source and you can provide them then there is no objection from me about restoring. Also no objection to restoring good edits if you know that they are good - just bear in mind that you take responsibility for what you restore...and thank you for asking.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

an obvious water ref to a NSW water ref is hardly a hard thing to figure is okay to allow Dave Rave (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. You just blocked Alexandria76 a few days ago, I believe OmKumar112 is another one which they just recreated. Can you please check? I also created added to the SPI. --Muhandes (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. --Muhandes (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe they immediately created another one: इंद्रा सिंघ 29. Can you please have a look? --Muhandes (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

 Confirmed. Muhandes, take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Milan sarmah/Archive for comparison to the Itsxerox case and let me know what you think. They may be related.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

They may be related but I'm uncertain. I'm very hesitant about giving details here, they may help them avoid us. Lets just say that the editing pattern does not match exactly. --Muhandes (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Berean Hunter,

There is currently a case in UTRS of James Hanley, a user whose account is caught up in the IP range block (Redacted) Can you check it out and respond? I'm not sure how to exempt one account in an IP range block. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Liz  Done. IPBE granted for three months.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Good day User:Berean Hunter!

I dropped by to seek your help with regard to User:Albe23413. A month ago you have blocked him for unconstructive editing, now he is at it again over on the pages Ang Probinsyano and List of Ang Probinsyano episodes. I've advised him to do his edits on the sandbox first if he is unsure of his edits or at the very least talk it over with me before publishing his edits, but my pleas have fallen on deaf ears. On the aforementioned pages, there is a very clear instruction that episode count is to be updated WEEKLY, and not daily, but Albe23413 disregards that and updates it daily in derogation of the instructions for that entry in the page. I surmise that he is doing the same in order to raise his edit count enough to become an extended confirmed user. I believe that his first blocking didn't teach him the lesson intended and it is high time he gets sanctioned for his offenses.

Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I see the hidden comment, "Please do not updated (misspelled) the episode count daily, the episodes are always updated WEEKLY so that only a single edit is necessary" in the edit view of Ang Probinsyano but I do not see any previous discussion on that talk page where a consensus was reached regarding this. Can you link to one, Gardo Versace? If not then you need to get a talk page discussion going and invite Albe23413 to participate.

To be clear, JJMC89 blocked Albe23413 for disruptive editing (block log) and I blocked him for socking when he sought to avoid scrutiny by using the account Platypus156 as seen by his deleted contribs visible to admins.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I've looked over the talk page, and I couldn't find a consensus either. The page has been running for 4 years, I've only been editing it for the lasr 2 years and it's always been there since I started, that's why I've stuck to it like it was the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gardo Versace (talk • contribs) 13:24, August 13, 2019 (UTC)

Dear Berean, Please help to publish this link User:Morteza Bemani/Akram Pedramnia . The page is already available in Farsi as اکرم پدرام نیا.Morteza Bemani (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC) This article was my fisrt translation to english and therefor I could not do publish public. ThanksMorteza Bemani (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Morteza Bemani, you can publish your sandbox translations (or creations) to article space by using a red link, clicking on it and then copypasting the contents of your sandbox into it and hitting the "save" button.

• 1. Use the edit view of your sandbox, click anywhere in the edit box and then press CTRL+A to select all of the text (it should then be highlighted) and then CTRL+C to copy it to your clipboard.
• 2. Next, use the Wikipedia search box and search for "Akram Pedramnia" which should get you this view. Notice the sentence that gives you the red link, "You may create the page "Akram Pedramnia", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered."
• 3. Click on the red link, Akram Pedramnia and then click anywhere in the edit box. Then press CTRL+V to paste the sandbox contents from your clipboard into it.
• 4. Hit the "save" button to create the article.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Dear
 — Berean Hunter (talk) thanks for your kind help. I did as you said and I wish you have the time to check what I have done. of course there are some problems with thelinks that I hope I can check them all. Morteza Bemani (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have done some editing, hopefully fixed the apparent problems and finished for now, Morteza. You should consider linking the article into other relevant articles by adding her name where appropriate. I'll leave that for you to find them.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the editing you have done. of course I had problem with the dates. I will do the relevant articles soon. Good Luck
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Morteza Bemani (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The IP that attacked me a while back and that you blocked until 2020 is back again.BabbaQ (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• BabbaQ, Confirmed LTA, range blocked for two weeks and ANI post removed per DENY.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

  Quite interesting to notice now that the IP has used plenty of other IPs now effected by the latest block. The abuse is bigger than I imagined. Hopefully this latest block takes care of it. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

  Not sure but I think IP 212.186.0.174 is the troll. He has reverted one of my reverts of the troll at Eris . Using similar long Edit summaries.BabbaQ (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• BabbaQ, it does not appear so. Btw, you aren't just looking for long summaries but for the LTA, they are increasingly rude.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• OK, good. Yes, I will be on the look out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabbaQ (talk • contribs) 06:15, August 16, 2019 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Peacemaker67 look at Italian, German and Australian forces in World War II

Just saw this handy graph - so can it be used for almost anything that needs a graph? For example, results for # of admins or editors from one date over the course of several years? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, the Ngram viewer is a Google tool that graphs words and phrases that appear in published books/works from Google books. Here is a thorough explanation.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

I would appreciate your input regarding this UTRS request as the IP block is a CheckUser request by yourself.-- 5 albert square (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

5 albert square, see my comments in the UTRS request. I've granted an IPBE to assist this editor.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!-- 5 albert square (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The user Fgna_Losn has started hoaxes on eswiki with Extracable, a non-existant pay TV service he always tries to advertise anywhere, including YouTube.--MexTDT (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

That account hasn't edited here nor has it been blocked on es.wiki as far as I can tell. What is the name of the master on es.wiki? Our case is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ghso ehwj/Archive but I do not see a listing on the checkuser wiki for es.wiki checkusers here (only visible to checkusers) and I want to make sure that we are lining up the case correctly. If they start one or otherwise show me the casename then I can supply en.wiki cu log details and IP addresses that may assist them.

es.wiki has a new checkuser, Pólux that may be interested in this case as Ghso ehwj is certainly a sockmaster at es.wiki. I will be happy to assist him, MexTDT.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, he hasn't been blocked yet, but I have good reasons to believe he is a sockpuppet, that alleged pay TV service in the article is always mentioned in his vandalism and he always creates names with random typing. What gives him away is the Losn "surname", he has created two YouTube accounts with the name Kols Losn and uploads fake (and very badly made) videos about non-existent TV stations in Puebla, Mexico. Due to a very persistent attack in 2018, he might be better known as Baby Kids or BabyKids on eswiki.
By the way, another checkuser that's very active in eswiki is Bernard, maybe you could work with him and maybe you could also try to convince them to make the same IP block as here, there is one but is not as broad.--MexTDT (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Fgna Losn was blocked on es.wiki by another admin some hours ago. I've checked comparing with the last sockpuppets of his, BFB GFFBDDB and Hjuhbj ssb, and could confirm he is a new sock (Extracable, the title of the article he created, is also the name of one of his former socks). He was using the usual range, so I've applied a new block of this range on es.wiki as well. As MexTDT pointed out, this sockmaster is more commonly known as BabyKids on our wiki. I've also talked to Bernard about updating the checkuser wiki and adding info about him too. I'll try to do it in the next days (still getting used to all of this :)) and any help would be appreciated. Cheers, — Pólux (σ) 03:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

He has managed to create the same Extracable hoax here using his sandbox.--MexTDT (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

 Blocked and tagged and sandbox deleted.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Believe it or not, there's a new related account, Hosh Noka 2. The name resembles another hoax called BabyHosh [20], which was supposed to be the "American version" of his hoax channel, "BabyKids" and even tried to create logos of it and upload them. Like the previous one, I've just reported it on eswiki, so he is still not blocked.--MexTDT (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

Would you mind having a quick look over this please? This IP is a CheckUser block but the user is requesting to edit some band page. I've placed the appeal on hold until I hear from you.-- 5 albert square (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

5 albert square, I replied in the UTRS request.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Why did you block Matt for 4 months? Seems excessive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:DC80:389F:3C05:6CEB:5131:D842 (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Please link to what you are talking about.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! :)

I found out I’m blocked from editing, which is rather surprising. Since I’m a bit of a naturally curious bookworm, and not particularly computer savvy, I just was curious as to why I am blocked. The only edits I seem to do are for punctuation, grammar, and clarity (unless, of course, I’m tipsy...lol, jk). But seriously, I was wondering if I must be violating something without realizing it...? I will say… I actually think it’s kind of cool and fascinating that someone as ‘boring as me’ can be blocked, which makes me appreciate the integrity of Wikipedia! :) Anyway, in all sincerity, I’m just curious why I was blocked, because I literally don’t know what I would have violated (especially because I’m so boring, and frankly, I’m just doing standard proofreading and copyediting about some rather ‘quiet’, arcane topics). Thanks so much, and have a great day!

Take care :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.151.197 (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

You would need to link to the blocked IP address or account so that I would know what you are talking about.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey Berean Hunter, I got an email from Oddpencil30 (well, it didn't go through, but they sent something), about a range you blocked: CU will give it to you. Perhaps you can deduce something about the IPv6 they used to create the account, and maybe there's a section that can have account creation blocked. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

		The Checkuser's Barnstar
		For doing all this. As they say around here, Jesus Tap Dancing Christ. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, Ivanvector. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, there is a new discussion on Talk:List of most-liked YouTube videos, if you're interested and you want to leave a comment you are welcome--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Berean Hunter, is there a case name to report this sock? As you know, I usually report this sock to you, but I wanted to give you a break and just report the sock master at WP:SPI. Foodboy31 is the sock I was looking to report. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It's him and I've gone ahead and blocked with no other accounts seen, Flyer22 Reborn. For future reference, it is this case.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 07:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I see 71.90.77.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked. Wanted to point out 70.92.25.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) EvergreenFir (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Per checkuser and privacy policies, I cannot discuss IP addresses so any that you believe that may be related to a sock are best handled by non-checkuser admins. You may report the IPs to the respective SPI cases if you have evidence. Checkusers do consider IP information given in cases but they do not give feedback.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 06:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. EvergreenFir (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Please protect 2019 Hong Kong protests, it has been attacked relentlessly by pro-Chinese bots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.240.143 (talk) 09:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi. It seems you uncovered a case of sockpuppetry on visa related articles. I am not surprised about this given the high amount of vandalism and trolling recently. Nevertheless, some edits that were reverted by you were legitimate and I have reinstated them. Whether this was because the edits were not made by a sockpuppet or for other reasons I do not know but after checking the references I have established that they are legitimate updates and should stay in those articles. Cheers, --Twofortnights (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to your taking ownership of the edits, Twofortnights as long as you understand that you are responsible for them. I wouldn't want all of a sockpuppet's contribs restored as that would encourage them to sock. For edits that are in Russian, it would be best to offer an English translation for our readers...perhaps leaving the original Russian intact as well.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I have reinstated the edits in English Wiki only.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the legacy of World War II

• Angelique Rockas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've now applied indef EC protection to the article. The last protection was by you for one year. Not sure why I'm letting you know, but if you disagree, please say! This appears to be the latest sock, judging by behavior. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Good call Ed, I endorse the EC protection and the sock is confirmed.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

diff, diff, diff - reverted my recent edits for no apparent reason - appears to be targeting me. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Atsme, that is a proxy which I've now anon blocked.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The irony - I initially thought editing dog & equine articles would be peaceful and fun. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Back in July 2017 you removed something I added concerning CSI Miami I was actually watching the programme at the time I added what I did and it was the character Calleigh that spoke of him I'm sorry if I breached any rules by adding what I did but it is also mentioned about that particular episode by murderpedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moondustcloud (talk • contribs) 17:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Moondustcloud, I responded to you.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Berean Hunter! I saw user Asbosaurus is blocked for being a puppet of FightingForRight, and that you'd marked it 'likely' a sock. Are you allowed to tell me if that means they were actually editing from the same IP? The reason I'm wondering is that the writing/complaints seem different to me, and the timing on the Asbosaurus account almost seems like they made that first edit and then wandered off, not realizing for nearly six months that they'd been blocked. --valereee (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

valereee, in this case I do not have any documentation other than the checkuser log to base this on now as things have gone stale. Asbosaurus was using a now-blocked proxy in the southeastern section of the same country as FightingForRight which is not in Mark Shouldice's country. They were not using the same IP and Asbosaurus's actual location was obscured by the webhost. Asbosaurus's current post (non-proxy) is using the same ISP as FightingForRight was using. Although both editors are in the southeastern section of the same country, they are not in the immediate vicinity of each other. One of FightingForRight's IPs after I blocked is tied into a very large organizational network. There are scenarios where the distance could be explained such as logging into one's employer's proxy. I don't have the full picture in front of me as FightingForRight is stale.

I note that Ian.thomson states that he has evidence of meatpuppetry here so he may be able to shed more light on the situation.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: I've emailed Berean Hunter the evidence that Asbosaurus was a meatpuppet recruited by Mark Dice (which was what I meant by that comment). WP:OUTING is why I don't just link it here but he uses the username elsewhere to congratulate Shouldice on an earlier video. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, BH! Ian.thomson, oh, I have no doubt both ended up here because of Dice's attempt to recruit fans. I just was wondering how sure we were that it was actually socking, as I don't necessarily think the simple fact someone came to WP because they watched one of Dice's videos is enough by itself to define someone as a meatpuppet. Someone could in theory watch the video, hear the recruitment attempt, come to the Dice talk page out of curiosity, and still be a well-intentioned newbie. But if there was clear evidence of socking also, I'm no longer interested in trying to see if the person is actually a potential well-intentioned contributor who just happens to watch Mark Dice videos. It sounds like the socking evidence is -- just as Berean Hunter mentioned at the case -- "likely." The locations are possibly close enough to each other that they could be the same, and the coincidental timing is there, too. I just kind of feel bad for asbosaurus if he's not a sock. How would you even prove that you weren't? --valereee (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Someone called Technitium A.K.A. Shreyas Zare seems to be using Wikipedia to promote her business. IP diff list: [21], [22], and [23]. I undid the crap the best I could, but then I saw that you blocked the IPv6 IP. If you come to the same conclusion I have, please block all of Technitiums sockpuppets. 185.213.154.168 (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The particular contrib that you have linked is about a year old and not the reason why I blocked the IPv6 range. Since this is dealing with IPs, I suggest that you post the issue to COIN. I haven't researched the issue thoroughly and not convinced that linking an open source project that I think is FOSS is necessarily commercial. COI may be explored with a COIN posting.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Can you confirm if CharlesHolston is a sockpuppet of the IPs listed above, i.e. does it use the same IPs or originate in Mumbai, so I have more information for a COIN posting? 185.213.154.168 (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

As a CU, I don't comment on the association of IP addresses to accounts because of the checkuser and privacy policies but I will say that if that account is tied to that IP then it would only be sockpuppetry if 3RR is cumulatively exceeded between them or an attempt at deception was otherwise attempted. Timing suggests that the account has made its edits after the IP was last active so it could be a good faith joining of WP rather than a clear effort to sock. Time and further investigation at COIN may result in something different.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I suspected that such policy existed, which is why I phrased my question with can (not "will"). The account has now been blocked for sockpuppeting. Is there still a point for me to research and do this COIN thing? I don't want to waste time on pointless bureaucracy. 185.213.154.168 (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a waste of time and you never know what someone else may turn up during an investigation.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Longtime editor editing while logged out regarding this editor. You previously applied the rangeblock to Special:Contributions/84.13.176.0/21 based on an email I believe Doug Weller forwarded to you. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Re: "I have pinged a couple of other admins, I'll let them investigate and help determine whether a topic ban or discretionary sanctions should also apply" at User talk:Bardrick, just letting you know I'm no longer an admin and I've stepped away from enforcement, so I'm sorry but I can't help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, forgot about that. :)
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

...is at DRV, and this is your pro-forma notification. —Cryptic 22:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Cryptic. That was from a confirmed sock and now deleted.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have sent you an email. Thank you, Mimihitam (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• I've replied.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Yesterday I undid an edit of yours to this page [24], where you undid an edit of a sock puppet, who undid a badly laid out edit (2 months ago), and now today I come back to the page to make a new edit and I find that you've accused me of being a sock puppet and locked the page so that I can't edit it. Why would you do this?

The first time you made the edit it was bad enough (because you didn't actually review the edit you were undoing, which was simply reverting a badly laid out edit made by IP address 95.40.157.6), but your second edit was even more egregious, because even when another user (i.e. me) comes across the page 2 months later, realises that your last edit only added junk to the page and undoes your edit, instead of actually looking at the edit the new user made or their edit history, you immediately revert their edit, accuse them of being a sock puppet and lock the page.

Here's the link to the relevant section of the page after I made my edit [25], and after you undid it [26]. As you can see, by undoing my edit all you have done is add unformatted junk to the end of the appetite stimulants section. Next time preview your edit before making it. 218.214.175.194 (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• "Next time preview your edit before making it." WP:BANREVERT allows me to revert regardless and I am sometimes undoing very large numbers of edits so I do not always preview them and not going to as that may take considerably more time invested in each case. I do not always undo sock edits but that is on a case by case consideration.
• "accused me of being a sock puppet" Not really. If I would have felt strongly about it then you would have been blocked with a message on your talk page. Sometimes I use "rv sock edit" which would have perhaps been better. All that you did was to simply undo my reversion with no explanation in the edit summary. I recommend that you use the summary to explain in the future. That sockmaster has been simply undoing my reversions some of the time (like you have done) and there wasn't much to distinguish your revert from theirs.
• After consideration, I have removed the material from the article. Thank you for bring this to my attention.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• "WP:BANREVERT allows me to revert regardless" The page you linked says that you can revert any edits made in violation of a ban, but that obviously helpful edits can be allowed to stand. Isn't assuming that I was a banned user without taking a cursory glance at the edit I made a violation of WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH?

• "Not really. If I would have felt strongly about it then you would have been blocked with a message on your talk page." Well you did block me from editing the page (by protecting it) and the reason you gave was "persistent sock puppetry". Your reasoning doesn't make sense to me, unless you're accusing me of being a sock puppet, as no one else has edited the page for 2 months.

• "After consideration, I have removed the material from the article." Thank you. But I noticed that the article is still protected, which means I can't edit it. 218.214.175.194 (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• No and I've already explained this.
• This involves multiple target articles and the socking has been persistent. I'm trying to make sure that it is curtailed. I don't know if you are the sockpuppet or not but I am allowed to have my suspicions. Btw, that block does not affect editors with accounts.
• See WP:SEMI about using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template on the talk page to make your suggested edits.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

I've had a response to the above UTRS appeal that you ran a CU on. Could you please take another quick look and advise?-- 5 albert square (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong: does this mean Incorrigible Troll is MakesTheWikiBetter? pbp 22:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89, no I believe MakesTheWikiBetter is a different sockmaster.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

In less than two weeks, this guy registered 3 new users to continue the vandalism and hoaxes:

• Hosh Noka 2
• Hosh Noka 3
• Hosh Noka 4

--MexTDT (talk) 01:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The first one listed is registered here but has no edits. The other two are not registered here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Would it be possible to put a global block on these?--MexTDT (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

MexTDT, you make those requests here on meta.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on writing a military biography

Thank you for all the rollbacks on Argentina airports. Much appreciated. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Alright, uh, you’ve blocked my mobile data IP address for sock puppetry? I sometimes don’t login on my phone to make edits, because sometimes I just want to make a quick edit while I’m just browsing Wikipedia. I’ve never had another account aside from this one on this address and if you’re going to ban me for “sock-puppetry”, I’d really love to see the proof of my personal phone IP being used in conjunction with a sock puppet account. Cheers. Naihreloe (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Naihreloe, in the block message, is it for a specific IP address or is it for a range? I suspect the latter and I doubt that this has anything to do with you. Without IP info, I don't know what block this is pertaining to.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

You were kind enough to block Special:Contributions/Заслуженный_шашист on 18 September 2019 as a sockpuppet.

An IP editor Special:Contributions/93.80.13.241 made a number of unexplained edits today that were identical to edits by Заслуженный_шашист that you had reverted on grounds of sockpuppetry. [[27]].

Toddy1 (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

	US Banknote Contest
	November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

I know you have previously protected pages. To let you know, the page Dr Who and the Daleks may require protection as an IP is currently involved in an edit war with me and will not discuss first before removing a section with sources. Rodericksilly (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Rodericksilly, I have blocked this range which may help you find their edits easier with this link - Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:1A00:0:0:0:0:0/42.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your swift action. I suspected it might be the same person as had edited the page before. Rodericksilly (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

18 October 2019 you undid the changes about copper and sexual maturity of Neocaridinas. Do you know anything about shrimp at all? Have you checked those changes? Do you know that shrimp actually need small doses of copper for the blood circulation? Do you know that it takes 75-90 days to reach maturity, depending on the temperature (not 4-6 months)? Current information about shrimp is wrong! In addition, there is a sentence "Copper sulfates found in snail killer are in high amounts and will kill shrimp." - what is this? It makes no sense! It must be removed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MixMV (talk • contribs) 13:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi - I just tried to edit a Wikipedia page and was told I was under a block due to a post made in August? I don’t remember making any edits to Wikipedia within the last few years. I may be wrong but I can’t find any information on what page I supposedly edited. What was the exit I supposedly made and why am I blocked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.167.66 (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

You would need to copy the full message here for me to know what you are talking about. If you can post to my talk page then you aren't blocked.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I see you're not a fan of American English. 14:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.38.12.163 (talk)

What? I'm no fan of spammed links.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. I can't understand why you made this change, wth edit summary "spam". The information in the sentence is correct, as far as I can see. The source appears to me to be an appropriate source - the ACT government's official budget review document. What exactly is the issue? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing it was the file sharing platform that was the problem. I have reinstated text and added original source. tell me if there's a different issue? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, hamiltonstone, it was the url domain that had been spammed and I do not have any objection to you reinstating with the different link.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for your investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tirgil34/Archive#25_October_2019 Good work. Keep it up! Wario-Man (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Wario-Man. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I was hoping you might drop by Eucalyptus leprophloia and take a look at the edit warring that is going on. Regards Hughesdarren (talk) 11:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Dear Berean Hunter, a few weeks ago, user Gderrin asked a moderator to intervene, as he thought my deletions were unwarrented (see here: "Any help with having this editor stop removing reliable sources would be appreciated."). However, administrator Fut.Perf. stated:

"I disagree with the implied claim here that the principle of consensus requires prior discussion and seeking of consent in cases of simple, straightforward corrections (including removals) of edits that are just, simply, incontrovertibly wrong, as was the case in, for example, this edit. If you see an entry like that, and you have the expertise to understand why it's wrong, then the only correct thing to do is exactly what Wimpus did: remove it, with a matter-of-fact and informative edit summary. Accusing Wimpus of disruption for such edits is not appropriate. The onus here is clearly on the person who wants to reinsert such material to first get informed and understand why the entry may have been flawed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)"

Gderrin has stated earlier that he has little knowledge of Latin and Greek, and during the discussion on the "Administrators' noticeboard" it became clear that Gderrin was clearly misquoting his sources or was adding questionable etymological information, given the response of administrator Someguy1221:

"But more importantly, I don't see in the cited pages where this text actually explicitly states the etymology of trichoglottis."

"Indeed, the source asserts that 'gigant' is Greek, a claim for which I can find no support."

"I do not believe you have provided a convincing explanation for how the content removed by Wimpus was actually supported by what was cited."

"Okay, so given those examples, I agree with all of Wimpus' reverts presented."

"When your argument includes the obviously false claim that none of your sources predate the content for which they are cited (like citing a 1956 book for the origin of the name of a species described in 1974), it is difficult to take anything you say at face value. I would honestly have trouble believing you at this point without the provision of a direct quote from each source to convince me you are not misreading, which also saves me the time of having to find and evaluate a source myself."

You have reverted to the version of Gderrin, but shouldn't "The onus here is clearly on the person who wants to reinsert such material to first get informed and understand why the entry may have been flawed"? With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Wimpus, I have read that ANI thread but it seems not to have reached a resolution and the etymology discussion shouldn't have taken place there. A larger discussion should be taking place, perhaps at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants, because you guys are actually having this problem on more than one plant article. You may be right but I'm not the one to evaluate the content and will let others form a consensus to decide the matter. Consider posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants and link to the current dispute but also ping the editors involved in the previous ANI thread since they are familiar with the dispute. Hopefully, a meta discussion that goes beyond the particular dispute and deals with the more general problems could occur so that future conflicts are curtailed.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

There was an extensive discussion, but no resolution had been reached. Wimpus (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Berean Hunter,

While reviewing my talk page and going through notes left by my predecessors I noticed an address that had previously been checkuserblocked by you, [28], had resumed editing. Some of the edits seemed problematic (for example [29]), but I don't consider myself anywhere near knowledgeable enough yet to judge whether it is the same person, or if I should report it to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, so I was thinking you should have a look at it as an expert. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 05:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi,I got this message

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Willbb234 on Allied pilots, Hawkeye7 on the defence of Australia and logistics in Indochina, Nick-D on Australian commandos Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports back on a high-profile history symposium

Wow - you've done some insane work on the cutting down the socking around Indian film (and other topics). I really, really appreciate the effort! Ravensfire (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Ravensfire but I'm guessing that it is the checkuser team as a whole and not just my own efforts. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

It's quite possible this user is being truthful here. I saw a similar clumsily-worded request earlier that had me fooled for a second; it was purportedly from an autoblocked user in good standing; they claim they were never blocked and never made a UTRS request. I think we still have some spoofing vulnerability at UTRS. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Ohnoitsjamie. Normally, DeltaQuad was working on that, I believe, but she has retired. Do you know of someone else that needs to be informed of this so the UTRS system may be improved?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I am still here with UTRS as it's a global project. This was faked appeal. It will be better on UTRS 2 as it will require actual account verification, but we are not there yet. I'll see if I can find the time to add the one domain to the blacklist code. (@SQL: can you take a swing at this as all?) -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

DeltaQuad, Looking at it. Should that be a local change to appealObject, or push to git (or, I have it completely wrong?) SQL^{Query me!} 16:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, glad you're still around, DQ! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello dear

I want to make my own master photography page. But it's only in my drafts. Please confirm if possible.

Mehdi Nazeri Pages , Persian Wiki Link : https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D9%87%D8%AF%DB%8C_%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B8%D8%B1%DB%8C

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beach Girl (talk • contribs) 06:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Why have you blocked my mobile phone from editing wikipedia ? Ive only made two edits, one to reverse the first. I have no idea what squelch sock account means . I cant even sign in on my mobile until your blocking expires. I dont think I have broken any rules so Im asking for a full explanation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmcst1 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmcst1, Do you expect me to know what IP address that you are talking about?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

2.25.215.224 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmcst1 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

That range is blocked because there is a prolific sockmaster that uses it. Good block. You are able to edit on that range provided that you are signed into your account which you should be anyway. Clearly, you can edit when using your account or you wouldn't be able to edit my talk page. Obviously, you can sign into your account with my block in place, too.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cassianto^Talk 21:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Precious

Five years!

Do you know my little questionaire, talk before you block? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you Gerda. I have seen that before and parts of it are more applicable for new editors, those that do not know certain policies, or editors that are acting out of character because they may be having a bad day or something along those lines. It should never be used to excuse those who are behaving as divas and have been warned/blocked many times before. They would seek to game the system believing that they have some margin in their favor.

• It is also best to not talk where enablers would arrive to offer arguments of absurdity and to harass and harangue. Those discussions bear no fruit and only serve to embolden the divas to their own detriment.

• Per Pavlov and Skinner, when the diva does A they should come to expect B to happen like clockwork.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I am an opera person, and for me, diva is derived from divine, see? - I haven't been blocked, so can't tell from my experience, but I doubt that a block has a positive influence, especially on a person with character, acting in character. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello:

I’m contacting you because I don’t understand what’s happening with respect to “Socking”. What is “Socking”? Whatever it is, why has it raised an issue with my Wikipedia account? I’m a legitimate Wikipedia user & I’ve had an account with the user name “PittsfieldPete” for several years. I’m completely in the dark as to why my account is suddenly being considered suspicious or counterfeit as some called it. I don’t know what to do about the problem, largely because I don’t understand what’s wrong with it in the first place.

Do you understand the problem? If so, will you kindly write back with an explanation & what steps I need to take to fix it? If you like you may contact me via email at:

Thank you very much.

Best regards,

Pete Wilson “PittsfieldPete” — Preceding unsigned comment added by PittsfieldPete (talk • contribs) 04:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Responded to you in email.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Berean Hunter,

can you please explain your undo of my edit? Wasn't it just a misunderstanding? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Midway&oldid=prev&diff=921804331

I've explained my motivation in the comment: Fixed grammar (plural The few aircrafts)

The original sentence is incorrect, because it's plural: The few aircrafts on the Japanese flight decks at the time of the attack were either defensive fighters... (emphasis added) But the aircraft is missing the plural suffix, so I added it. Am I right? If yes, please undo your miscorrection.

Thank you, regards, Peter Ivan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanpeter5o (talk • contribs) 22:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

(by talk reader) @Ivanpeter5o: In English, the word aircraft is both singular and plural. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! In October you range-blocked 20.138.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), now the user is back as 86.186.109.124 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), adding the exact same unsourced changes on Garry's Mod as they did under the old IP(s). Could you also block this IP or its respective range? Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 15:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Lordtobi, I've blocked the IP address and semi-protected the article.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

In October you blocked 95.83.249.0/24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), now the IP is back as 95.83.249.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who exactly the same genre warring under its range. Could you keep an eye of the range? 2402:1980:824C:9E66:38BA:270C:4F2A:2436 (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey Berean Hunter! Could you please take a look at UTRS appeal #27685? Does this look like the target of your hard rangeblock?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

No, that isn't the LTA, Ponyo. The cu wiki page for him has been updated recently. Beeblebrox issued an IPBE for this editor which is the right solution.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Issuing IPBE was my intent as well, just wanted to double check with you first! -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey Ponyo, I missed it in the log that you were already looking into this, but this seemed pretty clearly to be collateral damage. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I could have checked myself but I was being lazy; I'm not surprised someone more efficient got to it before me.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Berean Hunter.

Even it was created by banned user, but it is very important subject on current military situations. Try Googling "gsomia". I think you should restore the article. Please consider it. Thanks. --49.98.151.193 (talk)

Provided that you aren't a sock puppet, you are free to write the article if it is all that important.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

At User talk:Avaya1, I've read all the comments and would be inclined to deny the unblock. Is it kosher for me to do so given that I'm not a checkuser? It is obvious that I can't *accept* the request but am unsure if I can deny it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, EdJohnston, it is okay to decline.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Probably want to clean up those two page creations. I don't know that this is credible enough to contact emergency though. GMG^talk 22:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo. Already contacted and pages deleted. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your service. GMG^talk 22:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism lol? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan6425 (talk • contribs)

Yes, This is vandalism.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)