User talk:Ddstretch/Archives/2008/November

Welcome to WikiProject Lincolnshire

Hi, Welcome to the project Ddstretch, apologies for not acknowledging you joining sooner. I've mainly been looking for Lincolnshire articles and Vandal patrolling the ones I've tagged. I've not assessed many of the article yet as would like the opinion of other editors as to Importance/priority rating to assign to groups of articles at same time. Have started cleaning up some of the main articles which are riddled with dubious external links and alack of refs (inline). My original interests roam across to the Cheshire Border having started with the Sheffield project, then some articles drew me this way were there appeared to be a gap in project coverage, so any help to get more order to the article s is appreciated. Cheers - BulldozerD11 (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Burwardsley

Please give a reason if you're going to delete information rather than just claiming vandalism. My edit was factually correct so I'm not sure what your problem is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.231.213 (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Your edits may not have been vandalism, but they were unreferenced and non-notable. Per WP:V and WP:N, Ddstretch was right to remove the information you added, although the warning was disproportionate to the action. Nev1 (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This IP user had introduced inappropriate unverified information, twice, after it was reverted, to another article (Stephen Hendry).That information was unreferenced and bordered on the extremely unlikely. A different IP user had introduced the same information to Burwardsley before. The nature of the previous addition strongly suggests that it was the same IP user. I will withdraw the warning, but re-introducing the information again (I note it has been added again subsequent to my removal of it) or similar behaviour on other articles will be reverted and a warning that will not be reversible will be issued.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems fair, I was unaware of previous issues with the article. Nev1 (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

And today, identical additions to Burwardsley and identical vandalism to Stephen Hendry occurred close in time to each other, both of which had been associated with 81.152.231.213 and another IP user before. So, given the presence of definite vandalism as well, a one week softblock to both IP addresses has been issued.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Mooretwin's block

Please see my comment at User talk:Mooretwin. Thanks! Tiptoety ^talk 19:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipeire

I have other suspected sock accounts 194.125.53.123 and 78.16.145.136. I went to the CheckUser page, but was unsure exactly what I should do. Can you advise? Mooretwin (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to get the evidence you have that makes you suspect they are sockpuppets, and I agree that if there is some evidence, they should be pursued as they are quite disruptive and damaging to wikipedia. I've not had too much experience of dealing with sockpuppets in general, though I have had some experience. You may like to ask User:Jza84, who has much more experience, and whose judgment on what to do I would certainly trust myself. Editing styles and editing patterns are good ones to use, but because they are anonymous ip addresses, it could be difficult. I'll take a look myself, though, as I said, Jza84 may be more skilled at this than I am. Is it wikipeire that yu think may be behind them?  DDStretch  (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've another one 78.16.201.116. My main "evidence", I guess is that he appears to be following me around to revert any edits that I make on Irish articles. Also, the IP addresses are similar (possibly he is operating from a college campus, but using different terminals?). Anyway, I'll contaxt Jza84. Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 13:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok. All three of them seem to originate from an ISP registered in Dublin (you can find this out by accessing the whois link when you go to there contributions page): ESAT now owned by BT Telecom Ireland. I think it would definitely be worthwhile putting in a checkuser pointing out your suspicions about them following you around and reverting your edits. Try to provide some diffs of the actions they have done to show that they are reverting you, and point out that they all seem to originate from the same ISP based in Dublin. I hope it gets resolved, as, if proved, the actions are upsetting to you and disruptive, and we already have far too much drama on these kinds of articles. Good luck.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks for bringing my attention to this. I deal with Wikipeire in the strongest possible terms. I make no apologies for saying he's a relentless bully and a chronic time waster - a true troll - and I have told him not to force his POV on articles on my watch. If I spot him, I block him. I'm not that brutal normally, but Wikipeire is someone who consistently edit wars, consistently creates sockfarms, and consistently pushes the patience of the community to the limit.

My thoughts? I believe we need to seek to sanction Wikipeire formally, or at least bring this to a formal dispute resolution. Wikipedia:Mediation is one route, but I'd be tempted to lobby for a Wikipedia:Request for arbitration. We would probably need User:Alison on board too.

I think we need to get Wikipeire either on-side - to stop edit warring, or else ban him from Irish/British/British Isles content, or else an outright indefinate ban, possibly with a range block.

But.... do we have the strength and conviction to follow this through together and make these changes happen? I do, but we'd need the support and pooling of evidence together. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If you tell me how I can assist, I'll do my best. Mooretwin (talk) 13:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've made a request for Checkuser at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Wikip%C3%A8ire

Not sure if I did it correctly. Mooretwin (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Another one - 78.16.191.38 - editing about "Republic of Ireland" again on Northern Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 13:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the page. Check the ip's contributions and revert on the spot - he's effectively blocked, so any edits being made to circumvent the block are in definance of the original block, and thus forbidden. Tag the ip user page with {{ipsock|Wikipéire}} so we can place it in to the category. I will look at the ips in question and put together something which may help. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll revert his edits, but how do I tag the ip user page? Mooretwin (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've done it for you. But you can click on their talk page, then navigate to their user page from there. Just add the tag given above.

I've started User:Jza84/Sandbox2, which is based on User:Irate. I need us to pool together our findings on what ip addresses Wikipeire is using so we can help other users, administrators and check users in the future, and better inform our decisions. I want us to compile what ip addresses Wikpeire has been using and put them into the table. Can you help? I have also asked User:Alison for assistance. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can help, but I'm a bit out of my depth with these admin. tasks, so I need guidance on what to do.Mooretwin (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm also happy to help in any way I can: this sockpuppetteer is totally disrupting wikipedia in this area, as he/she sows discord, false information, and causes an already contentious area to become even more contentious with editors (and administrators!) being misled and so on. If you could indicate what is needed, I'll try my best to do it. I agree that firm action is required here.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The sooner Wikipiere is no longer able to evade his/her ban (i.e. creat socks) the better. Thanks to him/her, I'm suspicious of any IP accounts appearing on those Irish articles (and their talkpages). Thus enforcing my stand on mandatory registration. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDay. Unregistered users should not be allowed to edit. Mooretwin (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've thought for a long time that unregistered users should not be allowed to edit, but it seems that we are in a minority of editors who are vocal about it when it comes down to a proposal: so much so that the idea is listed as a perennial proposal, and is therefore quickly removed as such whenever it is proposed. This seems to me to be strange, for how else would one be able to tell whether consensus has changed, but that seems to be the way "the powers that be" allow things to be done in this instance.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

WPCities & UK

Thanks for the info. The reinstatement of the wpcities banner wasn't meant to be provocative, it's just that the banner sometimes gets deleted when the scope has not been read. The project scope is quite wide, perhaps too wide, and UK settlements are included. If there are differences, then the UKCities guideline should help, particularly if it's a global project. City articles from around the world have been highly rated so issues can be settled. I have some issues with WPCities. Mainly I think it's too US-centric, so I try to dilute this by adding qualifying non US settlements. The scopeis also too broad, IMO, but what boundaries are difficult to decide.

BTW, one category that is excluded is abandoned settlements, so I'm trying to kick one off to cover them. Let me know if you're interested. Folks at 137 (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I haven't come across the need to write about deserted settlements. and I don't think there are any of real interest in the county of the UK that is my main interest (Cheshire), but I'll bear it in mind. I agree that the project is a bit too USA-centric, and was toying with the idea of raising that issue: for instance, I think it is partly illustrated by the actual name chosen for the project which makes it, from a UK point of view, highly misleading given its scope. I was going to suggest that a more generic framework-type set of guidelines could be specified that is then used as the basis from which to derive more specialized country-specific ones (such as the USCITY and UKCITY ones), though some better choice of names may help.) So, thanks for the response.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: deserted settlements. At my end of the UK (south-east)there are going to be plague villages, Dunwich, Roman settlements, and villages moved to provide parkland. I'd be surprised if Cheshire doesn't have any of these. Keep in touch over wpcities, if I can help. Folks at 137 (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Radcliffe

Hi there, I wonder would you be able to insert some of the information you have written about here into the Radcliffe article? Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Aaargh! I'd forgotten about that! Yes, of course I'll be happy to do it. It may be not for a day or so, though. Would that be all right?  DDStretch  (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A day? That's a disgraceful and unacceptable delay! I insist it be done IMMEDIATELY!!! (kidding) ;) Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Progress on the Manual of Style?

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Task_Force_terms_of_reference and in particular the subsection Compromise Proposal. -- Evertype·✆ 21:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Yman88

Thanks for that, I did have concern about this user! I meant to check on their contributions this evening. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)