In case you are around (no bother if not) your eyes over the current infestation from sock and serial railway editor User:D47817, it seems the ed just doesnt want to give up. JarrahTree 11:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I may be able to look this afternoon/evening.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

no big deal now, edits have been reverted, and some of the new arts have been speedied, suppose the mian thing is whether it is indeed the sock (duck test trully well passed), just to close off as such. If it isnt, I suspect a trout for chirstmas... JarrahTree 13:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from with what you wrote on the article's talk page. I was wondering, could we talk over some more direct method, Skype or regular calling or something? I have a good amount to say on the matter, but can't easily translate that into a written statement like I'd have to here. Thank you. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 07:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ɱ: I need to ask this since I see that you have a COI statement concerning some of your work. Do you have a COI with relation to this article? Promotional material is precisely what I pulled from that article.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

No. I would have stated that on the disclosure, if I had. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 17:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Just informing you that Momčilo Elezović (talk · contribs) is another sock of AnulBanul (Wüstenfuchs) as evidenced by the SPI results at Commons. [1]--Potočnik (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. He's blocked now.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Please look into user 98.228.153.99 a self-identified internet troll named "neoconshooter@live.com", who according to my Google search, is actively trolling dozens of web-sites. This IP user left his email address on my talk page about his Assault rifle page edits, and expects me to response to by email. I'm afraid there is more to this than just being a new user. I have since removed his edits to my user and talk pages--RAF910 (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

You know, I read his arguments about .30 cal carbine on your talk page earlier this morning. He seems to be confusing caliber and cartridge semantics. Calling something a "rifle caliber" is simply bad semantics when he must have meant (in order to make any sense at all) a "rifle cartridge". I disagree with his OR nonetheless as I find the .30 round nose straight-jacketed to be more of a pistol cartridge. Using his logic, the .44 must be a "rifle caliber" and he would mention a weapon like a Ruger .44 carbine to try to prove that the .44 isn't a pistol cartridge. I'll look closer a little bit later at his activities as I've got some things to take care of in real life. Thank you for the note,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

	The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
	Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:18, 24 December 2015 (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 the German retreat from France in 1944 Op-ed: TomStar81 on empires of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2016!

Hello Berean Hunter, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2016. Happy editing, Caballero/Historiador (talk) 08:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thank you very much Caballero1967. I hope that your holidays have been full of joy and cheer and that the New Year holds many blessings for you and yours.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Not long off a block (3rd or 4th for the year, also) and now we have [2], [3], then [4], [5], and [6], followed by [7]. Seems the lesson wasn't learned. You may want to monitor contribs for a bit longer, perhaps? Montanabw^(talk) 04:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Montanabw. They aren't off to a good restart after the block and the rope gets shorter as they remain combative. The holidays don't seem to be helping with disposition. I'll be keeping tabs.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Best for us to stay low key, I think; DFTT. Montanabw^(talk) 19:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

this edit history came to my attention after I got this odd bible-related post to my talk page, for no apparent reason. That IP is featured in the edit history. Have you seen lots of users editing a user's sandbox before? Is it commonly a sign of socking? Or OK to ignore?--Elvey^(t•c) 02:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

Can you please look into the Grenade Launcher article and talk page. Herr Gruber apparently that believes that the nick-name of "knee mortar" is the correct name for the Japanese Type 10 & Type 89 Grenade launchers. He refuses to accept any source or reference to the contrary, and has repeatedly removed said info from the article (edit warring). I have provided 16 references to support that they are grenade launchers. He has provided none to support his POV and gleefully misrepresented one of the references that I provided. --RAF910 (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a lie, I have stated the weapons are functionally light mortars which happen to be able to use a specific type of hand grenade as ammunition. A device for projecting hand grenades is not, in itself, in line with the modern definition of the term "grenade launcher," and would require the human arm also be regarded as a type of grenade launcher since it is capable of projecting hand grenades. I am attempting to tighten the definition used in the article to refer to the specific class of modern firearms rather than anything that's ever been called a grenade launcher in any sense by anyone. Herr Gruber (talk) 07:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I had requested more direct contact with you, and answered that I have not been paid for any work related to that article. My interests in the culinary arts relate to my edits to that particular article, and I'd like to discuss how the content you removed has some validity. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 04:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ɱ: If the article talk page isn't a place that you would want to discuss then would email work?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I hate to bother you, but is there any way you could do everyone a big favor and close the Babyface125 SPI? It has been open for a month, and I doubt anything will come of it. Thanks, GAB^Hello! 22:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Never mind, it was just closed. GAB^Hello! 23:12, 25 January 2016 (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 on Jefferson Davis; Hawkeye7 on Australia's war in Vietnam Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses British World War I conscription Timeline: This month in World War I

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

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

Hello Berean Hunter,

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

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

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

@JoeSakr1980 and Twofortnights: I can see that Dr.Majdiii has left several postings at Talk:Visa requirements for Tunisian citizens over a period of months that do not have responses. From his perspective, I believe that he is frustrated that no one has been responding to him there. Ymblanter has protected the article but editors should use the protection time period to try to discuss the issues on that talk page. The troubles here might be averted if a cordial discussion may be started. I could be wrong but I believe that he started to shout in caps because he feels that he is being reverted without responses. Try pinging him to that page so that constructive discussion may occur.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I agree in principle, however it's very difficult to engage in a meaningful discussion with that user, I've tried doing that on his talk page previously but hardly any approach (nice or harsh) worked. Also the comments that are left without response on the article talk page, I would gladly participate in that discussion, however I don't understand what he's saying for the most part. It seems French or Arabic may be his native languages so maybe someone who is fluent in those should work out with him what is it that he is suggesting for the article? Just a thought.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe Joe can help with this. I will say that it helps admins who are looking at it to see that efforts have been made on the talk page to try to accommodate discussion with all parties.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems like Egaplaicesp is not an independent sockmaster, but rather a new sockfarm of Tirgil34. Egaplaicesp's sock MagnificentMehmet inserts at Urheimat[8] the same content as an IP at Proto-Turkic language.[9] Back in May 2015 you blocked the range of this IP as belonging to Tirgil34.[10] Egaplaicesp restores[11] Tirgil34 sock Weftsbuddy[12] at Haplogroup R1b, and Swathmafia creates the article Pazyryk rug[13] based on content added at Pazyryk burials by Tirgil34 sock Osgoem.[14] I already adressed this issue at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34 a month ago, but this obvious evidence seems to have been ignored. I'm notifying you because of your decisiveness in dealing with other sockpuppeteers, like WorldCreaterFighter. Krakkos (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Krakkos: I will try to look at this later - possibly tomorrow. Just getting back and it may take me a bit to get up to speed.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Krakkos: Your last filing made more sense because I was lost on the previous comparisons (the case where Vanja asked for diffs for what was supposed to be obvious). Your clarifications made much more sense. Nedbud and Panathinaikos Athen Fan indeffed.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

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

 Done
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 01:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Also ... I started a PROD log on January 10 by coincidence, and backdated it to 2015. - Brianhe (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Kudos for finding that Brianhe...mark of a good investigator. :) I just had emailed Smartse last night that he could go ahead and let you know about it. We have just finished our part and yes, you can go ahead and accept and begin answering the first three questions after a bit of reading. There were no pings intentionally...I used {{noping}}. 8^D

I do want you to read the following before transcluding as it may affect your answers. I have seen too many failures from where candidates did not follow the advice they contain:

• Miniguide to requests for adminship
• Guide to requests for adminship
• Advice for RfA candidates

You should also study these two RfA criteria pieces:

• RfA Voting
• RfA criteria

...and study the successful and failed RfAs:

• Successful requests for adminship
• Unsuccessful adminship candidacies

You may want to make sure that you can be available for questions during the week that you run. You will be picking your start time when you transclude the nomination per the instructions here. If you have any other questions then please feel free to ask either Smartse or myself.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

A pleasant surprise. I would support such a nomination. BusterD (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Brianhe: Doh. I should have emailed you last night! You're too good at investigating. I'm sure it'll go well but there's no need to rush if you want to wait for a good time for you to do it. SmartSE (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I've prepared my answers to the standard questions, and will finish the request in ~12 hours when I'm well rested, knowing the first few hours of responses to questions for the candidate will have to be my best. - Brianhe (talk) 09:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

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

	Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

@Ponyo: Background for this is here, here and here is one ANI thread related to the above. He has used accounts as well as anon IPs before. I left some of the ranges alone but tried to get the ones he was jumping into most frequently. I'll let you evaluate his potential for further disruption if the blocks are altered.

One good question for @NinjaRobotPirate, Aspects, and Flyer22 Reborn: Have you seen him recently or are the blocks since Nov 10-17 helping to deter him?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It's tough to say. I think the blocks are working, but there are some WP:FILMPLOT-obsessed editors that do seem a bit suspicious. The vast majority of historically disruptive edits came from IP addresses, but there were also a couple logged-in accounts. He used a wide variety of IPv4 and IPv6 ranges, so I doubt we'll ever be completely rid of him if he really wants to edit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I've only seen a single request via UTRS, so if the hard blocks are working I'd rather stick with them. I will give the unblock requestee some options for pursuing an account via ACC.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye and while some suspicious registered editors came up, they all had other edits to other non-film articles, none of them took whole paragraphs of plot out or changed the dates on cleanup templates. Since the range blocks, these are the only IP addresses I thought were socks: User:2600:1006:B111:9E18:D1D2:2509:F7F9:2BF6 (December 17), User:2600:1011:B042:9182:94F1:5687:626F:8DF4 (November 19), User:70.210.231.31 (November 19 - blocked for 60 hours) and User:2600:1006:B15F:6768:9D6E:8C9B:69B3:987B (November 18.) So either they gave up (which seems unlikely how forceful they were with this), moved on to another area of Wikipedia or has a new registered account and making more fruitful edits. Aspects (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I keep seeing one registered editor, @JeremyCarl:,that keeps me thinking they are a sockpuppet, due to their massive reductions along with changing the dates of cleanup templates, which was one of the banned editor's MO's. For example this edit, [15], did not completely eliminate paragraphs, but did change the cleanup date template. While they had seven edits previously, starting in November 2015, when the blocks were going in place, they picked up the pace.Aspects (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Aspects. I see the messages on their talk page concerning plot summaries. Since you have pinged them, it will be interesting to hear what they have to say when they resume editing.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• 108.52.17.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Massive vandalism for many days. Does this by adding incremental misinformation. Attacked dozens of dog articles, particularly. I've been reverting NOW, but this shit has gone on unchecked and only barely warned. Really insidious. Typically the edits are eventually reverted. but few warnings were issued. the bad data sometimes just gets absorbed. Thought you should know about this. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Stan. "Insidious" is definitely the right word for it. It makes you wonder what is wrong with some of these people. If he comes back after a month-long block and doing the same thing again then I'll increase the block time to 3 months.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Sir, please don't even think that I will revert your edits. Thank you.-Nimit (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2016 (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 nuclear weapons in Britain and Nick-D on Australia's war in the Pacific Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Kamurun Campaign of 1914–16 Timeline: This month in World War I

Not sure why, but I keep seeing your name come up quite a bit. I can assure you all my edits are good faith edits, If you are finding issue with any of my edits lets discuss. Mathew Stilwell (talk) 11:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC) (I guess a signature would help...)

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 discusses a Panzer general and a "mercenary mum" Op-ed: TomStar81 on the terrible battles of 1916 Timeline: This month in World War I

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 Australian spies, Nick-D on the German Army Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1916 Easter Rising Timeline: This month in World War I

hi there,i wonder how do you find enough time and motivation for wikipedia? Your job is easy or taking short time? :)--Kamuran Ötükenli (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, my name is Tice Estes and I have been an avid wikipedian for many years but have never really edited or added content to a page before. Recently I have become quite knowledgable about the trees in my area (souther Indiana), and on my very own twelve acres farm I recently had an approximately 50 year old black cherry tree (Prunus serotina) that toppled over in the forest due to a bad spot about 10 meters up. While mushroom hunting (Morchellla season) I happened upon said fallen tree. The stump was three meters high and solid at two and a half meters was a beautiful cherry burl. As a rare hardwood woodworker who specializes in awesome bangles made by hand, I was really excited because I knew with a little time I would have a beautiful piece of wood to work with. By happenstance, today I was reading the wild black cherry page on wikipedia and one of the pictures shows a really nice burl exactly like mine, a bit bigger actually on a much smaller tree, but the same thing in fact. Then I notice it is labeled as a black rot which has a link and upon linking to view the black rot page, I read and learn and see about a totally different thing than the previous picture shows. The person has mistaken what is actually a big beautiful burl (which is caused by a very small wound in a very young tree and is in effect simply a scab that increases in size every year the tree live and does not hurt the tree at all) for black rot infection. I have lots of pictures of my cherry burl before and after i cut it in half to dry it for use in my woodworking projects. I would love to see this little error fixed especially because I am so certain I am one of the few people on Earth who would be able to spot the mistake. Sorry for rambling, but it would mean the world to me if you could give me some help. Tice Estes (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

There's an unblock request at User talk:Gharouni, relating to a six month range block which you placed in November. The block log can be seen at Special:Block/103.251.67.0/24, and you stated that the block was because of the editor whose history is at Special:Contributions/A_Pizzon_Lamb. I can't see any resemblance of the editing by the editor requesting the unblock to either that by A Pizzon Lamb or anonymous editing from the IP range. I suggest that the block, which has already run all but 18 days of its six months, can be lifted now, or if not at the least it can be made anon-only. Any comment? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• I've just seen that you haven't edited since February, so I have decided to go ahead on my own. I shall make it anon-only. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Would you take a look at the new user Strgzr1? This person's first few edits have a striking similarity with those that we saw from User:69.1.22.120, who you blocked last fall for disruptive editing. Billcasey905 (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2016 (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 Australian spies (part two) Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of Jutland Timeline: Events of World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian Imperial Force Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi. You are now listed as missing. Should you ever return or choose not to be listed, you are welcome to remove your name. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:57, 27 July 2016 (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 looks at disease control and defence satellites Op-ed: TomStar81 on the rise of air power Timeline: This month in World War I

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 and Nick-D on Nazi terror and covert warfare Op-ed: Hawkeye7 looks at Australians on the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

There is/has not been/never will be/ a slow edit war with the Spector page.

One can be a fan of someone and still make edits to their page! I don't have to exclude myself from enjoying his legacy while also making edits to the page!

There is misinformation, there are links that aren't credible, and there's nothing wrong with fixing them. No "slow edit war" going on here. You should list the man as a convicted murderer, or at least a convicted felon, but i've tried to put that, and it's removed, says it's a violation. You list OJ Simpson as a convicted felon, but not Spector. Why are convicted felons and murderers selectively listed as such in the opening paragraphs of their wiki? Shouldn't it be across the board??

It's about getting the facts out there, it's about getting the proper wording & sources to those who want to be educated about Phil Spector- and I've corrected many inconsistencies! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9FC0:58:3C38:A4BE:488D:2A94 (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2016 (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 and Hawkeye7 look at recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on the evolution of the tank Timeline: This month in World War I

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 looks at two new books on the US military Interview: A chat with our new project coordinators Review essay: Nick-D discusses recent works on the British and Australian Armies in World War I Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Berean Hunter.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Two years ago ...

diligence of looking things up
... you were recipient no. 1035 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 17 November 2016 (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 looks at America's nuclear capability at the start of the Cold War Review essay: Hawkeye7 on the Manhatten Project suite of articles Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses leadership changes in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

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

	Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!
	Thank you for helping make Wikipedia a better place. You are missed. Blessings. May we all have peace in the coming year. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

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 recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on a curious episode of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:37, 3 February 2017 (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: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (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 works on two facets of US military power Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Russian Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Thank you. I lost far more than that within the last year and can't get them back. I can't believe it's been a year...feels like five. I should imagine that life here on Wikipedia has been far better. Hopefully? I would like to hear that the sockpuppetry problems have been solved, no one needs ANI anymore and we have added loads of new recruits to the admin corps.

I have no immediate need for the bit. I'm not sure how often I can get here and I rather think that if I can get the time that I might look to improve articles or wikignome. As far as identifying me for yours or any other crat or CU's satisfaction or admin's for that matter, I'm at your service. You can email me if you wish. I have a couple of edits as an IP over the last two-three weeks maybe...one correcting a citation needed request and some minor rewording in an article or two. Upon request, I'll dig that out of my browser history for you. Also, I formerly used only Firefox on Ubuntu...now I have concurrent browsers, Firefox and Chrome on Ubuntu. The only Wikipedian that knows me from meeting face to face is Dennis Brown but there are others that know me...er, I guess they are still around. Ah crap. In preview mode, I just saw that his name popped up red and just read his talk page...sigh...I'm frustrated that he is frustrated...I want to have my rekindling of wiki as a positive experience. I haven't seen the latest dramas so at least in my ignorance there is some bliss. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I've sent you an email identifying the edits that I mentioned above. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Berean Hunter, to request restoration of access, just drop a note at WP:BN - you can reference this discussion - restorations are normally processed 24 hours after request in case there are any community comments to consider. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Xaosflux.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought you might be interested in participating in the North Carolina Triangle Wikipedians user group. You can sign up here!--Pharos (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation, Pharos. I've watchlisted the project and will be reading more. The Psychology event looks interesting but no page to peruse yet. Are there audio or video recordings of the educational portions from previous events. I've enjoyed learning from other Wiki events that way. If things work out, I'll be attending a different event at a different campus this weekend.

I predict very, very low class attendance on Tuesday and all of the toilet paper will adorn the trees on campus and Franklin Street. Last night was a nail-biter.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back via YouTube. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Full blast, too. :) Looking around and will have much catching up to do. Good to see you are still here and staying busy. Have I missed anything?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld retired, among other things. He'll be missed.

Meanwhile, please take a look at my talk page. My signature (user name) is producing problems. If you have any suggestions I would appreciate your wise counsel. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

You mean "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:7%266%3Dthirteen" and the escape sequences in that (percent marks)? ... or something else?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

As you will see if you look at my talk page, they say "ping" doesn't work. Some have suggested work arounds, but I don't understand what they are suggesting. I know [[User:7&6=thirteen]] does work. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you get a ping with {{ping|1=7&6=thirteen}}? Testing @7&6=thirteen:. Did you get a ping from me?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Got it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

(tps) @7&6=thirteen: You probably already figured this out, but the "=" in your username will break templates, and since most people won't know to use the "1=", I can't think of any workaround. Hmm...unless there is some unicode character that looks like an equals sign... I'll have to think about that. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey, it's really good to see you back, and clerking at SPI to boot! If you need anything, you know where to find me. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you DoRD. Are there any SPI procedural changes that I need to know about? I'm still looking about for changes.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, there are some unicode equals signs here...

• U+003D = EQUALS SIGN
• U+207C ⁼ SUPERSCRIPT EQUALS SIGN
• U+208C ₌ SUBSCRIPT EQUALS SIGN
• U+FE66 ﹦ SMALL EQUALS SIGN
• U+FF1D ＝ FULLWIDTH EQUALS SIGN

 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are not allowed to archive cases except on Tuesdays and every other Thursday. You've already violated the new rule. I've moved you back to active on the clerks. Are you going to ask for your tools back? I put you in non-admin for now anyway. It's good to have you back!--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Cheers! I will...I've already tried to look for deleted articles when checking for socks and forgot that I can't do that at the moment. :) I actually had tried on that mention of meats from an IP on your talk page. Should I make a formal request for doing SPI work from the Checkusers collectively?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Wholly unnecessary. You're a clerk. I said so. After you get the bits back, move yourself to the admin section on the clerks page. BTW, to answer your original question, there haven't been any procedural changes I'm aware of. If you don't know about it, you might take a peek at the new cookie block thingamajig.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Yup. What he said. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm really glad to see you around again. It's been quite a while... GAB^gab 02:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Some time ago you blocked [16]. This user resurfaced a few months later as an IP and then created the account HLY. At least since this account got blocked indefinitely the user is active as a notorious sockpuppeteer [17]. Only recently I found that in fact the user blocked by you is the puppet master behind the socks of HLY, see [18]. I wanted to inform you because I saw in the archives that there was some discussion about the block. Also I would expect that this user uses other socks for the Armenian genocide denial which haven't been linked to the HLY socks that avoided this topic. This might be worth further investigation. 84.187.151.195 (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Danke, I will look into this a little later to reacquaint myself. Is there something that needs immediate attention? That is, current activity. I keep trying to get back to SPI cases but real life keeps distracting me today.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

No need to hurry - this user is usually not active on Friday afternoon/evening and Thursdays socks have already been blocked. The recent activity can be found here, here and here. I usually inform User:NeilN and User:Black Kite, who have blocked most of the HLY socks, by posting on their talk pages when I see new HLY activity (maybe for the moment it's better if one of them blocks the socks because if you block this will lead the sockmaster directly to this discussion on your talk page, that's one reason why I used MS talk page for this).

But this only concerns the socks that are easily recognizable as HLY socks which mostly have been active in attacking Rojava related articles (they are disruptive but mostly under control). The user continued with the Armenian Genocide denial [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], but then stopped it. Thus it might be useful to keep an eye on AG denial activity and to compare it to Dom/HLY and their socks. Maybe also User:EtienneDolet or User:Tiptoethrutheminefield could help with this.

There might already be families of Dom's socks (on AG denial or other topics) which haven't been linked to Dom/HLY yet. So it might be worth that an experienced sock puppet researcher who knows Dom looks into the case.

There is also cross-wiki sock puppetry, e.g. on es.wiki where I try to get es.wiki admins interested in [26]. Most likly also on tr.wiki where Dom had already been indef blocked for sock puppetry but later been unblocked. 84.187.154.110 (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2017 (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 and Hawkeye7 look at air power and nuclear weaponry Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on Australia's part in the advance on the Hindenburg Line Timeline: This month in World War I

I don't know if the situation calls for it, but given the repeated lies, false apologies and the rest of the nonsense that has followed his unblock request, I see no reason why he needs it. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:Don't feed the trolls. In other words, just ignore them. Bri (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Editing from 162.219.176.0/22 has been blocked (disabled) by Courcelles for the following reason(s): Banned proxys.svg The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be an open or anonymizing proxy. To prevent abuse, these proxies may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you are using an open proxy you will need to turn it off to edit Wikipedia. If you believe you are not running an open proxy, the most likely cause is that another customer using your IP address who was previously assigned this IP address was running an open proxy. You may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. Place any further information here. [[User:Deisenbe|deisenbe]] ([[User talk:Deisenbe|talk]]) 15:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)}}. If you are using a Wikipedia account and wish to keep your IP address private you can email the functionaries team. More rarely, your network equipment or that of your service provider may be misconfigured or compromised by malicious software (such as a virus). For more information, see the WikiProject on Open Proxies. This block has been set to expire: 14:14, 22 September 2018. Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and email other editors and administrators.

deisenbe (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This address block is globally locked across all wikis. Please email UTRS for the request to be considered and you can also point them to this page if you want your IP address block oversighted.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I see you have stepped aboard your adminship again! Good stuff! Bishonen | talk 17:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC).

Agreed! Glad to have you back on the job. :) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

A welcome return to the mop and bucket brigade. Congrats. MarnetteD|Talk 18:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your service. Good to see your datestamp. BusterD (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you everyone. It feels good to be back. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Let me add my pleasure in seeing you back, and a good indefinite block today. Doug Weller talk 19:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Ramih3 - just think, you voluntarily returned to that kind of thing. Wait, where are you going? Come baaaaaack!!! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Given enough rope... :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@BilCat and Denniss: I'm trying to setup some semi-protections to curtail that IP hopper that is hitting some of the articles that I see each of you working to clean up. Are there articles that I'm missing that still need them? I'm only looking for the ones associated with this particular guy. Also, do we have an SPI or LTA case associated with him?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

You can see the pages that I've semi'd today here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm new to this sock farm, so I don't know more about it. I'll let you know if I find anymore pages to protect. - BilCat (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I just want to let you know that I softened a rangeblock you placed yesterday due some significant collateral damage. Hopefully that'll still be enough to curb the socking. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

(Experiencing OTOL - Open Tab OverLoad) No worries. Knowing that a CU has scanned the range and verified is helpful. Is there a rule of thumb for the number of logged-in editors when weighing whether IPBE's may be the solution? i.e. If the number of collateral editors is greater than 3 in a /24 range then softening is better than block exemptions?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't really have a rule of thumb for that - I typically look at it on a case-by-case basis. In this case there were a lot of good contributors that would end up being affected, but since it's a mobile range, they probably don't use it all the time. If there were more problematic accounts on the range, I'd probably have been inclined to go the IPBE route instead. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's a range that you may want to inspect further since I've hardblocked it. One IPBE has been issued and there is certainly an overly-well-known problematic account that has used it quite a bit.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It appears that a check was run before IPBE was granted, so I'll assume that that was the right solution for that range. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Uh... might this be anything to do with an e-mail I just got from User:TheGracefulSlick stating that when she tries to edit, she can't, and it says "Wikipedia: Long-term abuse/ Dog and rapper vandal"? You, BH, are given as the blocking admin. I feel all thumbs with autoblocks these days; it's been ages since I dealt with them, and they probably don't work remotely the same any longer. Anyway, TGS is not personally blocked, per her log. Could you deal with this, please? Bishonen | talk 20:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC).

P.S., or you, DoRD? I see BH hasn't edited in the past few hours. Bishonen | talk 20:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC). Oops, I see you haven't either; I misread the timestamp. OK, I'll take it to ANI. Bishonen | talk 21:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC).

And removed my ANI post again, as I understand BH took care of it. Good... I don't know why people write to me about difficult stuff like that. Bishonen | talk 21:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC).

Hi, Bishonen, if that's the rangeblock I'm thinking of, it's a mobile range that extends over a wide geographic area - like half of the US wide - but without more details, I can't be sure. If TGS has trouble with it again, I'd encourage them to post an unblock request with the affected IP address, or to go to UTRS if they'd rather not reveal that. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bishonen and DoRD: I didn't take care of it so to speak so I assume that TGS was reassigned into a different IP address block. If it happens to her again then she should follow what DoRD has recommended. I didn't get very far on WP yesterday as thunderstorms caused me to power down. That range is a IPv4 /24 static assignment from a major US city. From what DoRD is implying then it would be an exit node from that mobile provider where they have routed internally to that location. The LTA report is helpful here to see who I was blocking.

In that same range, I see one of the cartoon vandal/socks (unclassified, we have a few). Also, from memory I thought someone that I remember as something like "Philie John" is in there but I couldn't find that SPI case despite trying wildcard searches and spelling variants so I'm not relying on that one necessarily being in the mix....I'm getting the name wrong or something. Coincidentally, the unclassified cartoon sock and DRV seem to have the same IP just a little more than 12 hours apart...that is quite the coincidence. Not stale. If those are the same mobile device then that would connect DRV somehow to what seems to be a different sock. (DoRD, I can mail you two diffs if you want that connection).

There is also a certain banned editor that has popped up in this range through the years. I see several edits that I would credit to him including some that are more recent. This is someone that I generally (IAR) ignore when I see them for a variety of reasons...they won't be bothered by this rangeblock at all. One possible, suspected set of edits from them in that range prompted me to go and look something up, though. Knowing this editor's real life name, I see that they have managed to sock themselves into having obtain a real life IMDB listing with their photo and stats (yep, that's him). LMAO....He probably did play that minor part in that movie so it is probably true but that is funny as hell. Now, I will have to seek that movie out...
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The range I was thinking of is a /16, iirc, so ignore that part of my comment, I guess. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Egad, remind me to never play chess with you! :) Dlohcierekim 13:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I did it for the lulz Unconventional PsyOps exercise. It's been fun toying with him. You know, we "dickheads" have been known to have a sense of humor. No "B" button was used or threatened during this exercise and the "S" word was avoided until I decided that I had let him simmer long enough. It was fun watching him squirm.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you qualify for the autopatrolled user right? I must admit, I am astounded that a SPI clerk such as yourself doesn't have that right. ... And as I'm typing this, I realize that you are a former administrator, so I'd say you'd probably be granted that immediately. Just saying ... since you probably received the notifications that I patrolled several of the SPI case archive pages you created. Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

...And then I noticed that you had your administrator status restored some time after those archive pages were created, so feel free to disregard this. Steel1943 (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. You indicated here that you had blocked 2A00:23C4:6393:E500:F9FA:5532:C673:EBE7 for 1 week but there is no block in the block log. Quis separabit? 03:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Rms125a@hotmail.com, you can see the block here and it doesn't appear in the logs of single IPs since it is a rangeblock. You can see the edits for that range here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. Quis separabit? 19:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for modifying the link on my post in the Talk section of the article on Kristina Pimenova. Is it possible that my remarks be included in the main article? Thank you again, Christopher Moore Ctmuva2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctmuva2000 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

This is related to the remaining hardblock above and this thread as well. There is one LTA, one banned editor and a cartoon sock that all operate in that range. Now, since DoRD is familiar with this, they may have thoughts. There are some similarities in contribs that leads one to wonder. To soften the block is to allow 2 high-activity sockmasters and 1 that isn't as active as the other two.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Just Chilling (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Where does coverage of school board elections go, if not at articles like Arlington County School Board? St. claires fire (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

They don't. We don't cover the news and we don't need to start lacing political commentaries throughout our articles. Some of what you are writing looks to be politically motivated on current elections. Why would you think that one County's school board is notable? They aren't. Did you create that just to go along with "Yeardlygate"? That isn't neutral and isn't even VA state news level, let alone the US or the world. Perspective counts here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

We cover some notable news; that's why we have Template:Current event. We have Liverpool School Board election, 1882, although that may be an anomaly. Special:Search shows we have a lot of articles about school boards, e.g. London School Board, Scarborough Board of Education, District of Columbia Public Charter School Board, Jackson County School Board, etc. Most of them seem to be Canadian, where they seem to refer to the district itself the "School Board". In the U.S., it seems more common to redirect the school board page to the school district, so you may be right about that, although I haven't seen it codified anywhere. St. claires fire (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

K, you should stop socking and yes I know you are pissed about what I wrote about you in the above thread. Do you believe in coincidences? Gotcha!
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

But I can see you. Very easily. xhzvbxb :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

And I arrived at the same conclusion independently. Acroterion (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Diff 1 and this editor is sock of this same editor.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey, MyronTimpson is  Confirmed to HarveyCarter (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23, I'll do a merge when I get back. That line of storms that's causing all the hail and damage through the country is about 5 mins away...
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear. Take care of you and yours.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2017 (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 Strategic Air Command doctrine Op-ed: Tomstar81 looks at a little-known aspect of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi Berean Hnter. I followed up on a link I blacklisted recently, and found it listed here:User:Berean Hunter/References (last added item). There is quite some material there that seems typical spam. Are these for you to follow up?

If so, are you aware of user:COIBot/Poke, COIBot picks up the links requested there, and saves reports. Always a good reference to decide further, some deserve no follow up. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Dirk. There is quite a bit of potpourri listed there that has accumulated over several years. I should probably clear it out for a fresh restart. Some were simple spot checks while others were used to keep tabs on repeat spammer socks. Some of those were blacklisted but I've never removed them.

How do you handle the "Too many link additions" such as at the bottom of this report?

I've watchlisted the Poke page and reading some of the reports to follow along. Looks very useful so I imagine that I'll be listing there.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Some of them seemed, just by name of domain, typical cases to pull the trigger on. Was just wondering as it seemed something active, you added a domain that I just decided that I did not want to bother about anymore.  :-)

With those reports with more than 1000 recorded additions it is very lkely that it has a huge number of different users adding them, including many 'regulars'. I generally ignore them, or have to research them manually. In extreme cases I can query the db directly, but generating a meaningful output is rather futile (and the page would hit the transclusion limit). These are often not blacklistable (maybe can be on XLinkBot), it is better to block the spammers individually.

The poke page is good for initial review. The bot also generates reports when links are reported to WT:WPSPAM or WT:SBL. You may also be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports. In that are listed the cases that the bots think need attention. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

That is where I have looked at a few reports today. :) My late addition of that link was checking after I responded to this thread at AN. I was trying to check the scope and see if it affected other articles. Those kind of links all pile in at such a fast rate, too.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Berean Hunter. If you threaten to block another admin if they unblock someone again, I'll block you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

If I find that they are gaming the system that is block-worthy. Wheel can be gamed. What would be your rationale?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I guess you did miss the point. I'm not actually going to block you, I'm trying to demonstrate how poorly thought out a comment like that is, and how damaging. Threatening to unilaterally block an admin for an admin action is always unnecessary escalation. For one thing (not the most important, but the most difficult to refute), blocking someone does not prevent them from taking admin action, so it is always punitive, not preventative. For another thing, it means you value your judgement (without getting community feedback) more than another admin's judgement (interpreting community feedback in a way you disagree with), which you claim is what is bothering you in the first place. I seem to recall an ArbCom case from long ago where an admin was either desysopped, or warned that they'd be desysopped next time, for blocking an admin for an admin action they took. Maybe I have the details wrong, but I think that was at least part of it. It's essentially wheel warring in spirit, if not precisely the same. I guess the discussion about how wrong it is to demand, in the absence of clear consensus, that a block be maintained instead of overturned, can wait for some other day. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Not trying to be argumentative but I did get your point and didn't think that you were threatening me with a block but if you saw my rationale then maybe you'd see where I was coming from. I wanted him to stop and he did that (accomplished) and before you wrote the above, I had conceded this. Funny that if we block outright, people will say that we should have warned them but when we do warn and say that we will block, it is called a "threat". My warning that I would block was issued in brevity to get him to stop. I'm remembering certain cases where wheel has been gamed and this undermines us (admins) and worse, by way of admins pulling these games harms the community.

I saw two new supports for the block come in under consensus and honestly that leads me to think someone is trying to make a decision now so that maybe it doesn't go that way. If after a decent amount of time, consensus is to unblock, I'm okay with that. I do appreciate your efforts here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Nothing undermines admins more than one threatening to block another over a disagreement. AlexEng^(TALK) 07:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

‚ט־„„״״״״״״טטכםםםםםךךךחחחחג””’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:741:1:D200:5954:DA4:F8DF:367 (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. 2600:8806:4807:E700:E463:7594:9CE9:2722 (talk) 02:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Given recent IP comments at the bottom of my talk page, for example the one by IP 24, who is an obvious sock, and this most recent provocation by IP 2600, would you please indefinitely semi-protect my talk page? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Medeis. There hasn't been the kind of abuse that would merit semi-protecting an editor's talk page because it is infrequent. The pertinent policy is here. Removing and ignoring is probably the best route per DENY.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Then please at least semiprotect the page while the current ANI is going on. These single-purpose attack IP's are obviously someone's sockpuppet, and it is unfair to have the burden on me to have to waste time dealing with their graffiti in order to see if there's actual relevant commentary on my talk page. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, I only see two IP edits (1, 2) and they are three weeks apart. The other IP didn't strike me as trolling with this. Nonetheless, you only have four or five IP edits to your talk page within the last year. If you feel that you have a valid rationale then you may post in the current ANI thread where other admins may consider this or offer advice going forward. Another valid request path is at RFPP where admins may consider your request. I add the latter because that would be the appropriate place for such requests after the ANI thread closes and if the need should arise in the future, it is where you would most likely find the most timely response.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Who's the master? I've been dealing with this one almost from day 1 and I couldn't quite make up my mind if this was a CIR case or trolling. Meters (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Just posted at ANI here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll add him to my list of socks I'll recognize the next time around. Meters (talk) 03:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for being so quick to rev-del that "interesting" post on Talk:Zodiac Killer. Greatly appreciated. Shearonink (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Cheers. :) You were quicker at reverting it off the page...I had found you had beaten me to it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I had to self-revert at least once because 32.218.70.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is correct in placing cities in the top-level state category. Category:Cities in North Carolina, for example, carries a notice that all cities should be there, even when they are also in correct subcategories. They are making some other incorrect category edits, but these seem to be correct. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I see now, thank you. I thought he was adding redundant parent categories.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

GAB^gab 17:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I urge you not to take a deletionist stance on food articles like St. Louis cuisine. I'm one of the most active/recent contributors to the food sector of Wikipedia, and yes, the majority lack citations on perhaps a majority of content. It's not dissimilar to many other topics on Wikipedia. Yet if you read WP:Verifiability, it maintains what you see at WP:MINREF. You really should only remove content if you truly, respectfully, doubt the veracity of the content. Otherwise we'd have editors blindly deleting enormous swathes of content on Wikipedia, which is really the opposite of helpful here. Please revert your edit. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 00:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Food articles already are some of the least developed, with bare bones for content. Please don't reduce this further. When editors develop an article like the one on St. Louis cuisine, it's also enormously helpful to have actual content to start with and cite. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 00:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Responded on the talk page.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I want to improve the article. I think it should be more obvious in the article that there is an extra article with the adaptations. If it had been more obvious, I would have found it right away. Do you have an idea? Maybe put it in the "See also" section (* Jack the Ripper in fiction) or just at the end of an article, the way it is done with film article lists of movie stars? Syncrow (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Syncrow (or should I say Scarecrow :)). At the present, I see that there is a link at the end of the lead section (last paragraph, last sentence) and again in the Legacy section, scan for "hundreds of works of fiction" as the second link. Once upon a time there was a prominent link, I believe in that section. I'm not sure what happened. I suggest that you post to the talk page with a proposal to get collective input.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I actually found that, but it is not that obvious. For otherwise I would have placed my additional information directly there...Syncrow (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

This [27] is scaring me. I have nothing to do with that D.Pearson account but Cjhard has been Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding me. Morty C-137 (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2017 (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 looks at the Battle of Kokoda and US defence acquisition in the 1960s Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines Timeline: This month in World War I

Hey please block me already plz User:Lj 03:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, there, Berean Hunter. I see that you have blocked the IP in question, but at the time the original case was posted, and at the time I reverted the delete, it was not blocked. Isn't the block supposed to happen before it can be used as a rationale for deleting a post? Or have I misunderstood the process (which is certainly possible). Newimpartial (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Check this previous IP which is blocked. It's cool, you were doing this in good faith...it's just that others immediately recognized him.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

I've noticed some strange IP behaviour on Meta over the last few months. IPs from four to five different ranges requesting locks of old accounts, voting on other requests, and generally performing non-useful or time-wasting edits there. These IPs do similar things on enwiki, tagging old blocked accounts, leaving block notices on talk pages for accounts blocked years ago, etc. 66.87.68.228 is the most recent example of this, and I've linked to the global contributions there.

2602:306:36D5:5690::/64 is one range where this behaviour is coming from, and you mentioned that I had blocked it on Meta. Do you have any idea who this is, or why they do this? Or if there is a list of ranges that I can globally block for a while?

Thanks, -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Ajraddatz , the IPv6 range is blocked as this case. The other range in the previous report has a /32 range block here on en.wiki as this LTA. See this and I note that this edit suggests a link to the account as does geolocation for 66.87.68.228 suggest the same as well. DRV is actually in a different part of the country but you know how that goes. After looking, you are certainly right about the disruption at meta. I don't know about global locking but local blocking of the range at meta would surely help. That shouldn't really cut anyone off from there as he appears to be the one using it exclusively. I hope that helps.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

That does help! Thanks. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Howdy! Yes, it is I. I occasionally update my bibliography of books that I own because it is very convenient to have Wikipedia format it for me into a PDF. However, I am not planning to resume significant editing. I am too busy with my cartography business and general retirement. I hope all is well with you and that the Civil War section of Wikipedia is reasonably intact.

Yr obt svt, Hal Jespersen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C203:7133:F14B:A1A3:9F1C:F1AF (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Good to hear from you Hal and that things are going well. You are missed and the extension of welcome will always be here for you. Anytime you want to stop in. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Ditto from a page stalker. Nice to see your datestamp Hal! BusterD (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something, but as the account was banded for 6 months in 2009 why ban his new one? Do not get me wrong, I warned him about his likely ban, and his response is just stupid. But I can see why (this time) he is (over)reacting the way he has.Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Ahh the IP was blocked for 6 months, the user permanently.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2017 (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 planning for the unthinkable Op-ed: TomStar81 on Russia's Provisional Government in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

i keep meaning to look at that Spi but rember it at the wrong time, like now as I'm going to bed. I'll put it in my alarm. Doug Weller talk 21:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries and no rush I don't believe. Get your rest. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting this. Of course being a planter is much more than that, as it assumes one was a large landowner as well.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. He has used a couple of IPs now and I have posted at this ANI thread.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Is this another one? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Not enough to tell. He hasn't falsified any refs yet that I can see. Thank you for pointing that out, though because when we do see him, I want to block and then add protections to his target articles enough to deter him.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and will do. Glad to have an admin watching this case, and I certainly appreciate the article protections you did today. - BilCat (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's one to be watched.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Related to your effort at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lovesblackchoco, there have been two more hits on the spam blacklist log for that exact link - both attempting to add it to similar (celebrity) articles. The accounts were Liang Reporter (talk · contribs) and NightcrawlerIam (talk · contribs). Just FYI. Kuru (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Boatlake23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Another sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atroye12 has popped up. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed and the article semi-protected for a month.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

BH, this user appears to be chronic linkspammer, in addition to having a username that appears to represent the company they're spamming for. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

BilCat, I think you quite possibly found a diamond in the rough. In summarizing what I've seen from tracing a good bit of this, he has used IPs innocuously for years adding links to high quality photos on article subjects. The vast majority of these have stood the test of time and remain in the articles. With some of his IPs no one ever left any messages and with other IPs he didn't get (arguably) the message or two that was left because he was reassigned a new address through no fault of his own. He wasn't intentionally IP hopping.

After a few years, he began to add multiple links at the same time like the single ones he had already been adding but adding multiple links appears to me to be why a few editors reverted him. Several at once sends red flags to those of us that watch articles. He noticed that he was being reverted and asked on a talk page and was given direction that he shouldn't just link photos but should make web pages to place them in with prose. So he did. The probability that he had been flagged for adding multiple links was never conveyed to him.

He then began to add links to the web pages with the photos and most of them have been in articles for some time with only an occasional editor reverting him. He had little to no messaging from other editors. After several years of editing as an IP, he decided to get an account. I believe that he has editorial control of the webpages and would likely change them to fit with guidelines where they might not be if given guidance. I don't see anything too terribly promotional. The About Us page indicates that you have someone trying to share photos from the inside, so to speak. The placard at the bottom that follows the About Us is the only thing I've seen that has the advertorial look but since it is at the bottom of an About Us link and not prominent within the pages being linked, I don't think that is all that promotional. In short, I think that he would work with us to bring the pages inline with our guidelines if someone points out any problems to him.

The best way to go here might be to welcome him with both a template (to give him links to become a better Wikipedian) and with a more personal message that invites him to participate in the Aviation and any other relative Wiki projects. I think that if given more guidance, he may participate more as an editor and not just to link to those pages. While welcoming him or shortly thereafter, I suggest that you ask him to change his username with reason if still seen as objectionable and point him towards WP:CHU.

I'm posting some of the info below for your evaluation. It may be that the links are something to be considered by project members for discussion since they have been in articles for some time. I wouldn't just start pulling them. They should be looked at on a case by case basis, imo. There are a good many but he might not have added all of them...I've seen one sandbox where it looks like an editor may have simply found the link. With a little grooming, they may be nice resources to keep with the articles.

• i-ota.net (*|search current)
• nasatech.net (*|search current)

A few of the IPs for a snapshot but not complete:

• 76.26.169.76 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 76.26.169.178 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 50.150.243.9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

He's been around a long time...seven years at least. This could be a win for WP, a couple of projects and a win for him if we extend a welcoming hand.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

(with a bit more coffee now) You already have done what I've suggested with the template and CHU message and a couple more messages to boot. Hmmm, I'm thinking he isn't seeing the "You have new messages" bit...
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I've emailed them through the About Us page so hopefully we get a response soon.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for reviewing this, and for the advice. I appreciate it. - BilCat (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• vintagetin.net (*|search current)

Well, BilCat, I tried. Through a couple of emails, they have stated that their account was solely created for the purposes of adding the links...i.e. they needed confirmed status to add it to some pages. They want no part of collaboration and have asked for their account to be deleted (I'll block it) and have said that it would be best if we removed the links including the vintagetin.net which is also theirs. They can be seen adding it here. I note this response in April 2016 echoes their same sentiment.

What a pity.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for trying. - BilCat (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome Cullen. You'll do well...just don't try to move or delete the main page and try to avoid the village stocks.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Berean Hunter, just a passer-by from someone who has seen a lot of these socks (lots of them getting reported to WP:AIV, etc). I thought I'd take it upon myself to find a way to calculate a possible rangeblock here for their IPv6, since you have already blocked their IPv4 here: 174.192.13.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Anyhow, this is the result that the default rangeblock calculator brings up for some of their IPv6 addresses.

Sorted 13 IPv6 addresses:

2600:1000:b004:197:fcee:d9e7:445b:b8a2

2600:1000:b007:352c:d575:eafc:6964:600c

2600:1000:b010:8056:5406:2687:5df9:82b9

2600:1000:b013:cd2:6d4e:3d57:3910:bbc4

2600:1000:b016:6421:c8f4:9a54:6e1d:27c8

2600:1000:b018:97a6:d554:e0be:9024:aad2

2600:1000:b01d:405e:bdc2:f0e6:c868:f640

2600:1000:b020:2b0:a01f:27fe:f57f:fa20

2600:1000:b023:8aa4:d95c:d35f:9883:fa8f

2600:1000:b026:75fd:69f8:7104:966c:fe11

2600:1000:b034:80c4:d027:e3a3:9bd:3a2d

2600:1000:b03b:30f9:d9c5:51ac:1bf2:2543

2600:1000:b077:66ca:4c:cec4:16:a169

Total affected	Affected addresses	Given addresses	Range	Contribs
8M /64	8M /64	13	2600:1000:b000::/41	contribs
4M /64	4M /64	12	2600:1000:b000::/42	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:1000:b077:66ca::/64	contribs
3M /64	256K /64	2	2600:1000:b004::/46	contribs
	1M /64	5	2600:1000:b010::/44	contribs
	512K /64	3	2600:1000:b020::/45	contribs
	1M /64	2	2600:1000:b030::/44	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:1000:b077:66ca::/64	contribs
512K /64	1 /64	1	2600:1000:b004:197::/64	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:1000:b007:352c::/64	contribs
	256K /64	2	2600:1000:b010::/46	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:1000:b016:6421::/64	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:1000:b018:97a6::/64	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:1000:b01d:405e::/64	contribs
	256K /64	2	2600:1000:b020::/46	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:1000:b026:75fd::/64	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:1000:b034:80c4::/64	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:1000:b03b:30f9::/64	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:1000:b077:66ca::/64	contribs
13 /64	1 /64	1	2600:1000:b004:197::/64	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:1000:b007:352c::/64	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:1000:b010:8056::/64	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:1000:b013:cd2::/64	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:1000:b016:6421::/64	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:1000:b018:97a6::/64	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:1000:b01d:405e::/64	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:1000:b020:2b0::/64	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:1000:b023:8aa4::/64	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:1000:b026:75fd::/64	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:1000:b034:80c4::/64	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:1000:b03b:30f9::/64	contribs
	1 /64	1	2600:1000:b077:66ca::/64	contribs

So, the final output of this calculation appears to be 2600:1000:b000::/41 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), which has notably, been blocked before for one week, which took place just short of a year ago. With that in mind, they very likely have had access to this IP range for a very long time now, so a nice long block. Would you be willing to block 2600:1000:b000::/41 for 6 months? Regards. 172.58.43.50 (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Your reporting is excellent. Good analysis of the range for collateral damage was all that was left out of the above. The vast majority are him but there will be minor collateral such as the IP that submitted this AFC. That said, the benefits of blocking the range outweigh the negative so I've blocked for six months. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

I had thought about semi-protecting Drmies' talk page yesterday to stop the IP hopping there but I see this guy has frequently trolled the noticeboards too. This is CC although I didn't enter the name into the block log per DENY.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 09:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/171.7.122.189 and Special:Contributions/49.237.158.175. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, BilCat. Both IPs blocked and all of the articles semi-protected.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

And thank you very much. - BilCat (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's another one. - BilCat (talk) 06:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

And this one made just one edit. - BilCat (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/171.7.89.225 made some edits several days ago, and some of the articles haven't been protected yet. - BilCat (talk) 06:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 08:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome...just starting on my coffee.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 08:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's a couple more: Special:Contributions/49.237.137.132 and Special:Contributions/49.237.153.19. - BilCat (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Articles protected and second IP blocked. He's already left the first one so it would be ineffectual to block it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Here you go! BilCat (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Cheers. :) Going for my second big cup now. Sun still hasn't come up yet.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

User:ZUKAGRAD has been adding information based on this source, but I don't think it's reliable. Any thoughts? - BilCat (talk) 10:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

That just looks like a website to me but not an RS.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

But that Websites is based on Relaible Sources like books and photos. - ZUKAGRAD

Then why not cite those books directly? Those are the real sources.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

To be fair i dont much difference between citing that website on citing books, but if books sources are more acceptable i will cite books in future edits. - ZUKAGRAD 10:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

ZUKAGRAD that would be great because it helps with verification to cite directly. We have problems with people trying to introduce bad, false references into firearms articles particularly when it comes to the Users sections. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I take it you are referring to what I wrote about CSI Miami when I wrote what I did I was actually watching the episode in question and until that moment I had never heard of Charles Whitman so I'm sorry if I made a mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moondustcloud (talk • contribs) 21:10, July 27, 2017 (UTC)

No worries. We often do not keep trivia in articles and particularly when it isn't cited with a reliable source.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

BH, could you look at Special:Contributions/178.16.2.138? The IP reverted my edits of the rifle sock farm here, apparently in retaliation for my revert of his edit on Airbus A400M Atlas. It does appear to be totally unrelated to the sock farm, but hounding instead. Any advice/help? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I originally treated the reverts as vandalism, but I'm not going over 3RR because it isn't clear-cut case. Two other editors have also reverted it, so the IP is past 3RR now. I've warned for vandalism, as has Dennis, and I also added a 3RR warning just now. - BilCat (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped for now but if he picks up again he'll likely be blocked.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/49.237.157.147. - BilCat (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/49.237.192.173 is another single-use IP. He edited Colt Single Action Army. Is there an easier way to catch these? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes there is. I've now anon rangeblocked 49.237.0.0/16 as well as set protections on his latest article targets. He is quite hardheaded. I had thought that he was adding these users because he thought that he *knew* they were users but was just frustrated that he couldn't find proper refs to support such additions. But now I see that he is just a vandal that will write anything. Do we ever know of him having used an account? If we can tie this in with an account then I will file an SPI but I don't file when there is only IP addresses.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if an account is connected. There've been several Thailand-related vandal accounts, but I can't remember who they are. - BilCat (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

BilCat, He has returned as 171.6.137.18 which I blocked and semi'd the articles. He ineffectually ref-bombs articles, he's always reverted and he never succeeds yet like clockwork, he returns about the same time every day to try again. He's 5 O'Clock Charlie. 8^D
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Yup, and thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

See this suspicious diff. They don't cite sources, but I seriously doubt it's the rifle sock farm. - BilCat (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not. I saw that user page the other day and tried to figure out his former account(s). This is him. Easy to see here on July 3. I still haven't placed him but have been noticing.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't recognize the IP either, but I'll keep an eye out. - BilCat (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The Veganism article uses British English, it even has the Use British English Oxford spelling template. Kindly self-revert. 79.76.182.106 (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

My apologies. I had looked at the early versions and checked the archives for ENGVAR. Early versions were American and I don't know where Engvar was decided but there isn't anything listed. No matter because I'm not going to dispute it. I have reverted.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Berean - a few of us at UCL are planning a translatathon with Finns in the UK to celebrate the Finland centenary. This will happen at UCL but currently nobody connecting in our IP range is allowed to create accounts. Is this a longterm situation? Do you have any suggestions about how to proceed? TrabiMechanic 10:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTrabiMechanic (talk • contribs)

TheTrabiMechanic, would you please email me the IP info? I can't remember who it is but I do remember making that block to stop a sock which from memory is a long term abuser. That said, we might be able to drop the block for your event once we know the date(s). Send me email with details, I'm sure we can get something arranged.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

TheTrabiMechanic Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done Replied to you, Richard Nevell (WMUK).
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry - ran out of time to thank you earlier TrabiMechanic 23:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTrabiMechanic (talk • contribs)

Sinebot reminds me to sign so TrabiMechanic 23:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC) TrabiMechanic 23:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTrabiMechanic (talk • contribs)

You're quite welcome, TrabiMechanic.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2017 (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 the Battle of Messines and recent Australian Army leadership; Nick-D on South African armour Op-ed: Nick-D talks photography Timeline: This month in World War I

Do yo have any record for this one? It's Bigshowandkane64, and I just blocked a sock of theirs, User:Moviegear. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, I do have a record but it wasn't for that master. Mine is here and I blocked as Cosmic C. Need me to find a diff to show that?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Wait--Colton? No, that's C Cosmic, haha. I'm not familiar with this one; I'm pretty sure. Anyway, CU confirmed with...well I can't be more precise, but it's a previous edit warrior in that particular article. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Would you like me to open an SPI report so that you can get it recorded?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know; we have an SPI for Bigshow. Who is your editor? Drmies (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

(Too many open tabs) Behaviorally, this but most of those were blocked by Sergecross73 without mention in the SPI. Formerly known as MK Vandal and was primarily documented on Serge's talk page. This editor is also Nintendoguy12 and looks like your guy.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I looked at some of the large possibly-related sockfarms at SPI and have gotten tired. I may be getting crossed up here. I had about 20 open tabs for one case and several for another and then started popping more open to check that range. Being tired, I'm going to halt and look again in the morning.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I think one more semi-protection it's needed for Ion Cuțelaba. They are not here to contribute constructively and collaboratively... XXN, 21:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi'd three months. Maybe they will begin to use the talk page.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Gand fod dunga smjha mere articles chheda तो. Madarjaat sale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.201.14.128 (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't speak Hindi but I gather "If you have any questions about the article, then go to Madarjaat sale"...and I have no idea what that means or what this is about.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Berean: I'm an admin and 'crat on Commons, recently contacted by one of your blocks "Donald Trung" with request to unblock him, see [28] for diff. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ellin, he should be locked on sight and wastes people's time socking even as he asks for unlocking. His request here is current as an IP but his account is locked globally. Please see the previous lock request and SPI case for more background. He is admin shopping.

I see that his range has now been locked globally by Vituzzu.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I figured it was something like that and politely declined further assistance. Just wanted to make sure you had him completely duct-taped instead of assuming. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

So one of the articles on my watchlist I noticed that you changed "sex worker" to "prostitute, AND left a disruptive editing comment. I undid your rv and I guess we can talk about that on the article TP if you want? But more seriously, it appears that you and another editor are doing this on multiple articles? What's going on? I think that I prefer sex work to prostitution (the terms). TeeVeeed (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

TeeVeeed, you need to revert yourself, please. I am removing those edits as disruptive and they also appear to qualify as WP:BANREVERT because of the evidence here. I'm acting in an administrative capacity and my removal should not be interpreted as taking part in a content dispute. I suggest that you revert for now to avoid complicating the building case against the banned editor(s). You can start a discussion afterwards for community input but I can tell you that consensus is against you. The status quo, as you will see when you read the thread linked to above, shows no consensus to make such change.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you please show me anywhere where consensus has discussed this? I kind of want to stick with "sex work" vs "prostitution", and especially with the page that I watch, since none of those ladies had pimps, which prostitutes generally have. I don't know about the rest of what you say here, I think you are getting a little heavy-handed, but if you can show me where this has been discussed I may be able to understand your point?-ThanksTeeVeeed (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit to add--Okay, I see that the banned? editor is accused of socking the matter, so I'm going to stay out of that and the rest of it but I am still open to discussing using "sex work" "prostitute" or both on the on the Eastbound Strangler talk page. I am going to go back and edit it with "both" and if you have a problem with that can we bring it to the article TP please? Thanks for letting me know what the problem is. TeeVeeed (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I mentioned you at a section I started at AN/I. The section heading is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Two.25.45.251. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Berean Hunter--what was the evidence against the Guido account? The SPI didn't make that clear to me. If it's private, feel free to email me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Just wanna stop by and thank you for your efforts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JournalmanManila. (N0n3up (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC))

You're quite welcome.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

please unblock my account, Why my account was blocked۔ --Obaid Raza (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Your account isn't blocked. I originally blocked that IP range based on this SPI case. I doubt that the range would be unblocked due to the trouble caused but it isn't up to me anyway as the current blocking admin for that range is a checkuser. You may consider filing for an IP block exemption as a possible solution.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Berean Hunter is correct, and I won't unblock that range as it's still being abused. I encourage you to apply for an IPBE. Katie^talk 18:42, 8 September 2017 (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 and Hawkeye7 look at two recent releases Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on ANZACs in the Third Ypres Offensive Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi Berean Hunter. Remember the investigations of JournalmanManila and his/her sockpuppets? Now he/she's back once again as User:Dashcam and User:Xpose09. I was about to open another SPI investigation but this post by Xpose09 and this level of edits made by Dashcam akin to the sockpuppet who created that very article confirms it. (N0n3up (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC))

Spot on. Blocked and tagged. Thank you for reporting this.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Berean Hunter:, remember JournalmanManila and his sockpuppets? I think he has came back again (well that's fast), this time as Enervonsyrup. My hunch is because s/he retieved most of Philippines-related edits here that I think was added by his previous socks before. Thank you in advance. Cheersǃ —  Gunkarta  talk  16:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting Gunkarta. That is definitely him and I have indeffed and tagged him.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for quieting the latest episode of odd editing re VN War weapons. I'm not actually sure the fellow is trolling; it could also be good-faith with unadmitted problems with English, for instance, but either way his work isn't an improvement.

On the principle that no good deed goes unpunished, I'd like to ask that you take a look at Doublet (linguistics). There appears to be a small crop of new accounts, all named to the same pattern -Wordword1234, two words, followed by four numbers- with an edit each. Might just be a class assignment, but it looks like a great way to build a sleeper sock farm. Anmccaff (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Anmccaff, please report this in the related ANI thread. I'm doing something else at the moment but will look shortly. Thank you,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Left a comment with the info there and notified the accounts. Thanks. Anmccaff (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)