User talk:Berean Hunter

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕))

@This user can be reached by email.

Coverage of school board elections

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)

Berean bait?!?

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)

Autopatrolled?

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)

Blocked??

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)

UTRS appeal #18143

A user you have blocked has opened UTRS appeal #18143 on the Unblock Ticket Request System. The reviewing administrator, Just Chilling (talk · contribs), has requested your input:

TiWash (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Time: Apr 27, 2017 19:00:46

Message: This user has an insufficient contribution record for an IPBE. I wonder if you would look again at the block and see if a soft block would be in order or whether the hard block is necessary for adequate protection of the Project, please?

Notes:

• If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
• Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.

--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)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MyronTimpson

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)

Kristina Pimenova

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)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 2017

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Question

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)

One wonders if the point of this post will be understood

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)

AwesomeKid14

AwesomeKid14 did not harass Gilliam with anything so you had no right to block him. Then, you turn around and block his account forever by accusing him of sock puppetry. Not cool Berean Hunter. Not cool at all. Please unblock him.97.101.186.114 (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)