User talk:Berean Hunter

I'm primarily an editor on the English Wikipedia. You can leave a message on my talk page there and I will probably respond quicker than if you left it here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Information_desk#Need_admin

...? Respond! -- Prince Kassad 16:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You are an admin?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for responding...I was logged out while making my userpage and my IP was listed in the history...I wanted it rev deleted to obscure my IP address...it has now been taken care of. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: Hi Berean Hunter, I'm reporting a probable case of sockpuppetry because you're both a checkuser and the sysop who blocked a proxy related to the suspected socks. On 2 April 2018 you blocked the IP range 72.52.64.0/18 in en.wikipedia because it was an open proxy (AS6939 HURRICANE - Hurricane Electric, Inc., US). This IP range has been also gloally blocked for 1 year together with other IP ranges belonging to the same proxy (74.82.0.0/18, 64.71.128.0/18 and 66.160.0.0/16). The last IP range had already been partially blocked months ago (66.160.188.0/24) together with a pair of socks (Myeuurn and Baka Líte) for LTA. Now, I have a suspicion that another pair of accounts may be socks as the previous 2: Fulgencio Kokomeci and MbretiBasha. If you could do a quick check, just to establish whether one or both of them have been editing from that proxy as the previous 2, you'd be able either to exonerate them or to get the overwhelming evidence proving they're just another pair of socks by the same user. Since both using open proxies and sockpuppets like that isn't allowed in Wikipedia, I think it's worth a check, because it's hard that's a coincidence: the user who used to hide behind the first blocked proxy and the 2 blocked socks was obsessed by linguistic issues and used proxies and socks not to be dectected in different pages and in different wikis (but, despite CU checks, he kept trying exonerating himself), and the user behind the newly blocked proxies and the 2 suspected accounts have been doing the same. I hope my suggestion has been useful, and I hope there's no problem for you about it, but in case you can't or don't want to verify this thing please tell me some other admin's name to report it. Best regards :-) Kbstudio0121 (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

72.52.64.0/18 is hardblocked on en.wiki and it is not possible for either of those accounts to have edited from that proxy range after I blocked on May 2. Neither Myeuurn nor Baka Líte have edits on en.wiki and I'm not able to see enough evidence on the newer accounts on en.wiki to justify a check. Why haven't you mentioned who the LTA is? ...and why are we talking about this on a talk page that I haven't used in seven years?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

72.52.64.0/18 is a different IP range from the same proxy (AS6939 HURRICANE - Hurricane Electric, Inc., US) which provided also IP ranges 74.82.0.0/18, 64.71.128.0/18 and 66.160.0.0/16 that were blocked together in the same moment; both Myeuurn and Baka Líte used to edit from such IP ranges and indeed they were globally blocked 1 minute after a /24 subnet of the main /16 IP range as they were socks without any main account; I've written to you on this page because I didn't want to tell you about this issue in your main wiki which is en.wikipedia where the user behind these proxies socks is more active. One of the new accounts has already been suspected to be related to the already blocked socks, both his registration and his edits go back to the same time. Kbstudio0121 (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Not enough evidence for a check. If you disagree, please file an SPI on en.wiki and then multiple CUs may consider it.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've understood. I've already contacted other admins, but if nobody replies I'll post my request where you said. The evidence for a check at least for the first new account is the fact that some months ago another admin in Spanish wiki had already identified him as a sock of the other 2 (see), but when an admin of Portuguese wiki globally blocked the vandal's socks using that US proxy he did it only for the 2 he was told about, that is Myeuurn and Baka Líte. It'd be a far too strange coincidence that, after some months, Fulgencio Kokomeci pops up again exactly when another IP from the same proxy starts editing in the same way and then it's globally blocked too. I bet that if admins run a check over the blocked proxy IP ranges I've reported above they'll find both (and probably only) these 2 new socks (the other one is MbretiBasha). Kbstudio0121 (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: For godness sake, will you tell me why are you acting against "me", trying only reporting a known LTA, instead than against the LTA I'm trying reporting??? What have I done to deserve this??? I created this account to edit outside en.wikipedia and another one to edit inside en.wikipedia, but this one was immediately blocked by the Einstein of sysops, Bbb23, with the following excuse: "not here to contribute to the encyclopedia". Are you all serious?! I've registered these accounts specifically to communicate with admins, to tell them about a LTA, and I'm the one blocked??? I know I've created new accounts after the first was blocked, and following literally the rules I shouldn't have, but what should have I done then??? Tell me, please: what? I did nothing bad, at all!!! If I did, tell me then! I didn't disrupt en.wikipedia, and reporting information about a LTA to admins isn't something bad at all! You're focusing efforts against me, by preventing me from reporting this case to other admins which is my only activity, and you aren't doing anything about the case I'm reporting! Do you understand the absurdity of this? I may have become unlikable in your sight, but is this a valid reason to ignore willingly some true, and I underline TRUE, information about an already known LTA? Is it a valid reason to leave him and his new socks free? In a nursery school, maybe, not for sure in a project like this. Come on, tell me: what's the point in blocking a user who's done anything but reporting a vandal and not even check the trueness of his assertion about that vandal? If you check the 4 globally blocked IP ranges and you find out that the accounts I'm reporting aren't socks and that no other accounts were created, I won't have any reason to insist. But it's just impossible you find out that: another checkuser discovered account Fulgencio Kokomeci while investigating those IP ranges and a pair of other socks. Whatever will be the result of the check I'm asking for, I won't continue writing to you and to other admins. You have all the information you may need about this case, why you're behaving like that against me instead of making en.wikipedia a safer place by using all the information you already have??? I've told you "tell me" 4 times, about what a user who tried reporting a vandal should have done after his account was blocked without a valid reason, about what I've done wrong except creating new accounts after the first was blocked without a valid reason, and about the point in blocking the reporter without verifying the information he provided just because you don't like him. I'm not so smart and I can't get it at all, please dispell my doubts. I'm dispelling a doubt of yours, better, a wrong certainty: there's no relation between me and the IP who edited en.wikipedia in 2009, I have absolutely nothing to do with that, I swear on my life I hadn't made a single edit yet in en.wikipedia back to 2009, probably not even in any wiki, the proxy I used today belonged to the same range but it's nothing more than a coincidence, Wikinger is a Polish cross-wiki LTA and it isn't difficult to know his case, even about him I've done anything else than reporting all the information I had to an admin. Reflect: my edits show that I'm interested in helping virtual admins to fight that kind of virtual vandals, I haven't ever disrupted articles, made edit wars, insulted people, spammed anything... Or have I? No, I haven't. You know, don't pretend you don't. All you can accuse me to have done against rules is creating different accounts after the first, and then the others, were blocked. If the first account I created in en.wikipedia, the one I used only to communicate with a pair of admins, hadn't been blocked w-i-t-h-o-u-t_r-e-a-s-o-n, then I wouldn't have had to create "socks" myself to report that LTA's socks! Isn't it? If my first account wasn't blocked by that highest genius, now the LTA's socks would have already been found out and blocked, and the ones I've created wouldn't have ever existed! Can you see the paradox? You admins have made such a simple thing a huge problem, all I wished was that vandal to be caught, period. And I don't think I've done anything suggesting I was going to disrupt the encyclopedy in any way, but in case you feel differently just tell me. This and the 3 more things I asked you above, but also everything else you may want to tell me about what I've witten. Give me the chance to prove my good will, you won't regret it, just let me prove I'm not lying about the vandal I'm reporting, in case I'd been lying so far you'll have a good reason to block me on sight from now on but I'm sincere and my intentions are good. Maybe in future I'll find some other vandals and come to tell you, but about this case I swear I'm quitting calling on admins when a check to control the information I've provided about socks related to those proxies will be done. You're a checkuser and I've served the new identities of a previously blocked LTA to you on a silver plate. Kbstudio0121 (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The way that you have gone about things inspires distrust. You haven't listened to the advice that you have received. Instead of creating that SPI as suggested here, you decided to keep admin shopping and create new accounts...that is the opposite of what I suggested. Who are you? You have veiled your identity enough that there is no good reason to trust you. I didn't decline the CU request and have left the substance of the report so that admins/CUs will get to consider it. You admin-shopped enough and that does get to become disruptive when you aren't following our procedures or guidance. Just look at the number of times that you tried to solicit an admin on all of the different projects. We aren't doing it your way...a way that didn't work, did it? I don't hide from LTAs so I don't understand your doing so. Without some understanding of why you are breaking with rules/policies, admins don't want you breaking them to call on them. Frankly, I think that you are an already-blocked sock that has created more accounts. A trusted user could have emailed a checkuser if they had a true need to stay off of an LTA's radar.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I've got to thank you for replying. I haven't created a SPI immediately, but I did it later, and at least as I can see somebody checked. Anyway, I stopped "admin-shopping". Still I can't get how come my first account was indefinitely blocked without breaking rules in any way. I hadn't ever registered an account before that, I'm not any known "User:X", the only accounts I've created are the ones I used for this report, I've always edited as an anonymous, and rarely in en.wikipedia since I'm neither English nor American and since English isn't my first language. Conversely, the user I'm reporting IS a very known user, he's even an admin in a minor wiki and that's why he's expressly been using proxies and socks instead of his original account: not to be discovered and blocked, not to destroy his reputation. But I don't think you're interested in listening to all the story. Rather: do you think that, if I register an account with my e-mail address, will I be able to communicate with one of the global admins and, speaking person to person via e-mail, give him all the information about this clever vandal (so clever that he managed to cheat even a checkuser as I can see)? Kbstudio0121 (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)