User talk:Berean Hunter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
| Berean Hunter | Talk Page | Sandbox | Sandbox2 | Leave me a message |
Arrow (PSF).png

Reverted edits[edit]

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

See my comment here and understand that you are finished with the subject. No edits of yours will be allowed on that article because you were canvassed by meatpuppets.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I assure you I had no association whatsoever with those meatpuppets. We started off on the wrong foot. I just want to contribute on Wikipedia. Please tell me is there no other way to expand the article?
 — Burair7 (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
No, there isn't. "a representative asked me to add some information and expand the article. I'm happy to provide proof." diff.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Gun LTA from Thai IP[edit]

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

Thanks BilCat, I've blocked his range as he had recently used several other IPs.,, and to name a few.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks much. What some people do for hobbies.Facepalm Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


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

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

IP Vandal[edit]

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

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


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

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

Hi Deryck. Not much that you have been told is true. That entire /32 is not an ISP in Bangladesh but it is Free Basics from Facebook which anonymizes the users and it is in Ireland. Grameenphone internet provider in Bangladesh uses Free Basics but have provided IPv4 addresses for their customers which they may still use. Tell whomever that they need to cut the Free Basics service off to edit Wikipedia. Because it anonymizes, we have had heavy abuse from different countries in that range despite the fact that the whois report and the geolocate report will tell you that they are in Ireland.
See this and this as examples. Those reports are accurate. Here is an explanation by someone that uses it. In this one, you see someone supply their IPv4 address that they have been assigned but they couldn't connect via that /32 IPv6 they actually do have access to edit Wikipedia.
"restrict the hard blocks to 1-year or shorter duration blocks on /64 subnets where misuse of Wikipedia is actually observed?" Right. :) A couple of things about Special:Contributions/2A03:2880:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (please see block log history). First, a majority of edits are from sockmasters. Second, when you look closely at those addresses in that range you might think that you are looking at the same /64 addresses but you aren't. Each edit is in a new /64 because the fourth stanza of the address always changes. No two consecutive edits by the same user are ever in the same /64 address. Example taken from the range contribs, highlighted in red for your convenience:
  • (change visibility) 05:41, March 10, 2017 diff hist -18‎ Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports ‎2a03:2880:3020:afd8:face:b00c:0:8000 (talk) ‎ →‎2A03:2880:3020:AFC2:FACE:B00C:0:8000 Tag: Possible vandalism
  • (change visibility) 05:40, March 10, 2017 diff hist -18‎ Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports ‎2a03:2880:3020:afcc:face:b00c:0:8000 (talk) ‎ →‎Sher Aziz2A03:2880:3020:AFC2:FACE:B00C:0:8000
  • (change visibility) 05:39, March 10, 2017 diff hist -11‎ Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports ‎2a03:2880:3020:afef:face:b00c:0:8000 (talk) ‎ →‎2A03:2880:3020:AFC2:FACE:B00C:0:8000
As you can see, blocking /64 addresses wouldn't work here (minimum /56 needed but they appear assigned dynamically so someone could get a new address to get around it). The rolling address scheme is incompatible with WP editors' ability to communicate with anon editors. Also, I personally do not use Facebook but for those that do, this report does not paint a good picture of Free Basics.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


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

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

New BabyKids sockpuppets on Wikimedia Commons and eswiki[edit]

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

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

 No comment with respect to IP address(es). I've confirmed the Gjsd Tavs account and filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ghso ehwj but the other account is beyond my scope and you will either need a steward or a commons checkuser. Wim b, would you please lock the confirmed account and have a look at cross-wiki abuse? I also think that it is time to let one of the checkusers at know about this case so they may have a look since the accounts are active there. Pinging Rastrojo.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
For clarity, the confirmed account is "Gjsd Tavs"? --user talk:Wim b 11:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Wim b, yes.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Done, TY. --user talk:Wim b 12:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular[edit]

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

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

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)[edit]

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

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

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

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

The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 2019[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 11:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


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

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

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

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