User talk:Momo san/Archive 5

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

If so, I hope you're sitting down: BellSouth got back to me and they will be investigating the Bambifan101 matter! How's that for an early Christmas present? I just left a more detailed message on Collectonian's talk page. I have to run or I'd fill you in on all the details now. Talk to you soon and THANK YOU for all your fine work. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats great news, lets hope they can disconnect this "weirdo", he's caused enough trouble around here. Momo san ^Gespräch 19:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted the User:Drhiwaomer page. I deleted it as G11, however, and not as something requiring oversight. From what I can tell, this person posted their own resume, and so it's advertising, not something I would send to be oversighted. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It contained email addresses as well as his home address which could be used to track him down or to harass. Momo san ^Gespräch 19:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Momusufan, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Starcraft brood war - a page you tagged - because: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. JohnCD (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Users are usually given some latitude for their user pages, and while this is admittedly irrelevant it isn't offensive and is doing no harm. Also, one shouldn't normally remove material other users' talk pages. Regards, JohnCD (talk)

Hi, I don't tag pages for deletion that often unless a vandal did it. I'll review the CSD information either way. Momo san ^Gespräch 18:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just FYI, G1 is for pages that are totally incomprehensible and gibberish. This particular article was written in Spanish. If you stumble across this sort of thing in future, you may wish to add {{notenglish}} (which can be followed by |Spanish or whatever if you recognise the language, or you could run the text thorugh trnsalre.google.com (it's crap but it gives you a rough translation- enough to work out the subject) and apply a relevant CSD tag if required. I've replaced it with an A7 for now, since the translation doesn't appear to assert notability. Do get in touch if you have any questions and keep up the good work. All the best, HJMitchell You rang? 21:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That Tulsa World archive on Oral Roberts is actually a first-class collection of information about him--certainly a worthwhile "further reading" link. I understand your concern that this was added by someone apparently connected with the World but would you object if I put it back in? (I am in no way connected with the paper.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

For watching out for my userpage. Obviously, my response on WP:RPP was a little ... unusual ... and I hope you didn't take offense. To be perfectly clear, I do appreciate others reverting vandalism on my user page, I'd just prefer not to drive vandals to pages people are actually reading. Again, thanks. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 06:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you know anything about Toyotaconspiracy (talk · contribs)? They seem to be a member of your fan club. Acroterion _(talk) 05:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Just happened to notice it, well I reviewed his edits the first time and he removed certain things which I reverted back to the way it was like removing the romanized translation of the company name in Japanese, like here for instance. Not sure why he blew up on me like that, but if he does it again after 2 days he sure will get the boot for what he's done. Momo san ^Gespräch 06:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I was on the edge of indeffing, but figured I'd let him have one last chance. I'm not optimistic. Just wanted to make sure he wasn't a sockpuppet. Acroterion _(talk) 13:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I've been seeing your requests at WP:RFPP seemingly all day and approving most of them. Keep up the good work, Malinaccier (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone else beat me to it. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 06:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The diff in question is not "oversighted", it's merely deleted. As an admin, I can still see it. I don't know if this is important, and I don't want to edit a closed discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That is right, admins can see it but the rest of us can't which is what was needed here. Momo san ^Gespräch 18:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh I get what you mean now, I happened to find WP:REVDEL which explains everything. It was a deletion not an oversight. Momo san ^Gespräch 18:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I was pretty sure TMZ wasn't a reliable source. Sorry about that! --Russ is the sex (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, They may break a story but it's just not that reliable i'm sorry to say. Momo san ^Gespräch 19:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I see that you recently (5 December) identified 82.34.173.149 as a sockpuppet of cbbcfan, who has been blocked indefintely. Since the temporary block on 82.34.173.149 was lifted, I've noticed that 94.168.95.164 has started editing a similar range of articles, and making similar changes/comments. I don't know if you, as an admin, are able to keep an eye on this editor, in case things start going awry again, or of the formal reporting mechanism for such issues. Kind regards, Lynbarn (talk) 09:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not an admin but if you feel it's the same user as that 82 IP, try bringing the issue to WP:ANI or file a sockpuppet report at WP:SPI. Momo san ^Gespräch 15:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Howdy! Having noticed a few of your recent 'issues', I wanted to draw your attention to [1]. I want to clarify in bright blazing bold print that I am not out trying to canvas for support or anything of the kind. Rather, I notice you are someone who has had some run-ins with this IP recently, predating mine. As such, you might have context, background, or information on their activities that go beyond mine. If you have some legitimate arguments or evidence to add, even against my report, I wanted you to have the opportunity to since you seem to be in a knowledgeable position due to your previous interactions. Again, please, I'm not looking for a "me too" here, but a further source of information on this case, even if that proves to be in opposition to my observations. In whatever case, thank you very much for taking the time out to read this. I'm very sorry for shooting down your previous AIV report against the IP, by the way. I hope you understand where I was coming from on that. I know you've been around here a good while and, while we don't know each other personally, I trust you know your way around. - Vianello (Talk) 19:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! That's exactly the kind of background context I thought might help sort out who's who. I'm pretty sure this will go through though. The user's little faux-polite screed against you, to my eye, pretty well cements that these are the same person. - Vianello (Talk) 19:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for your continued help/backup through that whole thing. Looks like we sure got that fella's panties in a knot, didn't we? - Vianello (Talk) 21:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me revert vandalism on my talkpage. You are doing a good job patrolling, keep up your work! Also, what an effective TW user you are! Optakeover^(Talk) 19:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and Happy Holidays! Momo san ^Gespräch 19:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for revert on my talk page. Happy holidays! Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 05:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, since you seem to hang around RFPP a lot, feel free to do NAC marks for the bot if they are very obvious. You don't have to, but it's been done before and for editors that understand, go for it. Or just run already. tedder (talk) 07:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Any idea what's going on here? Some of the edits to her talk page have been revision deleted, and my block has also vanished from the logs. Rodhullandemu 15:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Judging from the User talk page history, all his edits say that his Username or IP address got removed. My guess is that it got oversighted and deleted as such by an oversighter which basicly deletes everything. Momo san ^Gespräch 16:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've replied here; this has happened many times before, but I guess it's hidden so well that many people aren't aware of it. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, thank you for reverting the vandalism on this page. I had just seen the page had been edited by that user again and was about to revert their edits, but I saw that you had beaten me to it. Thank you again! :) - JuneGloom07 (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I have closed your Request for adminship prematurely. Simply put, the community doesn't feel you are ready to become an administrator; while your edit count isn't the only determining factor, and numerous people have their own personal standards by which they judge RfA candidates, this particular RfA was all but assured of not passing.

I am sorry about this, and I hope you don't take it personally. If you continue to contribute to the project in a positive fashion, I am confident that you would be able to submit a successful RfA in the future. You may wish to consider applying for an evaluation by other Wikipedia editors for feedback on how to obtain the necessary experience. Once you are ready to request adminship again, there is a great admin coaching program available, as well as a guide to requests for adminship.

If you have any other questions about becoming an administrator, please don't hesitate to ask me. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing my edit. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Momo san ^Gespräch 16:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Re, your message, I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean, or are trying to get at. Delnoy didn't make any of the blocks of the socks I was reporting.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

After you had done that, he apparently ran a checkuser to find other socks in which he did find at that time. You're right they were not ones you reported, hopefully you can understand what I mean. Momo san ^Gespräch 05:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I do now, thanks for the explanation, I wasn't aware any CU had been done.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey. I just wanted to say I saw we "cooperated" on battling a couple of vandals yesterday and I wanted to say thanks for all that :) Peasantwarrior (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have stopped - and have asked the other contributor to stop, and discuss the issue on the talk page. Similarly, I have proposed a temporary stop to edits so that we can deal with the conflict which has arisen out of uncited original research being repeatedly posted. Instead, the editor has continued with their POV pushing. --Ari (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I did notice you both were using the talk page, just keep using it to avoid further trouble. Momo san ^Gespräch 16:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the user is attempting to start another edit war. --Ari (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case, you should bring your report to The edit warring noticeboard. Make sure you supply your evidence using diffs. Momo san ^Gespräch 15:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

So if Meta oversights like the thread says, the contributions vanish rather than merely being crossed out? Because I've never seen the former happen before, short of the page being deleted. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, they do it and the admins here don't have to do anything. It confuses me a little bit but I do see the point. Momo san ^Gespräch 16:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It appear that the 71.77.20.26 (talk) has moved on and will not be back anytime soon. I am of the opinion that the user started out with good intentions (removing what he considered to be dubious, unsourced material), but approached the task in the wrong manner and ran afoul of the system. Whether or not we have lost a potential future editor we will never know. I suspect we have other major contributors who started out rough around the edges, so I try to go out of my way to assume good faith. Seems like this attempt was in vain. Deleting material without an edit summary was questionable. Repeatedly doing so was disruptive. Incorrectly accusing you of adding unsourced content and dropping warnings on your talk page was a definite mistake.

That said, I also think errors on our side. First, the user was issued a generic vandalism notice rather than a more specific deletion warning. The latter would have informed the editor of the need to use edit summaries. Not recognizing the user's intent early-on through a review if his other edits was another missed opportunity. What really concerns me is the attempt to silence the editor's complaints through these edits: [2], [3], and [4]. I think it is important to at least listen to such grievances. Suppressing them is probably not good practice – particularly when the item is addressed to the "reviewing admin" and you are one of the referenced parties. It's generally best to leave such things in the open.

Please do not consider this to be criticism. I intend it more as a postmortem and possible learning opportunity. You never know if a misguided newbie might become a future major contributor. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 19:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I probably did give the wrong type of warning and should have given a uw-delete warning than a vandalism warning as it was blanking of a section rather than simply unconstructive editing. At the time I didn't think of looking over his prior edits, seeing all the recent changes made me think of the edits happening right now. As for me thinking he was soapboxing, I was aggravated that he was falsely accusing me of something I didn't do and did revert them but knowing now that I should have initially kept his statements. Sometimes i'll make reverting mistakes while looking at recent changes but I do try to carefully examine if it's vandalism, page blanking, etc. which in this case was blanking of a section without an edit summary and no consensus from other editors. Mistakes happen and we all learn from them. Momo san ^Gespräch 19:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Nobody expects perfection, but keeping an open mind is always a plus. Thank you for all your work as a recent changes patroller. The community appreciates it. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 20:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I did some clean up on the article Jithin C Nedumala, if you have any questions or comments leave a note on my talk page. Jeepday (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Momo san ^Gespräch 21:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick assistance in the vandalism case I just made and sorry for any mistakes I may have made in doing so. It's the first time I've had to do so in the 4 years I've been editing here. So I'm not too familiar with it. Thanks again! NJZombie (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. How did you narrow down that IP an hour ago to "Elwood School District, NE"? I clicked WHOIS at the bottom of their contributions page, and only got "State of Nebraska / Office of the CIO". You must have a better WHOIS? Regards, JohnCD (talk)

This site gives you the host name whereas the other one does not, thats how I was able to figure out the school district. Momo san ^Gespräch 05:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, very useful! JohnCD (talk) 10:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for filing a report at WP:AIV. However, I did not block the user you reported, because the edit history shows they did not vandalize after being warned.

To clarify, here's what most administrators expect to see before issuing a block:

1. User vandalizes a page
2. You warn them with {{uw-v1}} or {{uw-v2}}
3. User vandalizes again
4. You warn them again with {{uw-v3}}
5. User vandalizes again
6. You issue a last warning with {{uw-v4}}
7. User vandalizes again
8. You report them to AIV

This all needs to take place within a reasonable span of time. How long is up to the individual administrator, but most expect at least the latest one or two warnings to have been issued and ignored within the past 30-60 minutes. A day or two at the very most. We block users to protect Wikipedia, not to punish them. If they're not vandalizing on a regular basis, blocking them isn't effective.

Hope that clears things up. I know it's a long process, but we want to give everyone enough chances to mend their ways before we block them. Yes, it wastes a lot of time, but it's the only way to keep Wikipedia free for everyone. Thanks again for your efforts at fighting vandalism. If you follow those steps, you'll have better success at AIV in the future. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Momo san ^Gespräch 19:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, one of them did get blocked, by a different administrator. If we can assume the three IPs were all the same person, he might have had other IP's as well which were still going as of the time of those AIV reports. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

They have been vandlising articles all day, mostly at Mechanical energy and those ones at Alex Trebek. They all belong to the same school district. Momo san ^Gespräch 19:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, my mistake. I just went back to block the others, but I see it's already been done. In a case like this, it's usually better to either a) report the additional IPs to the original blocking admin (assuming he's active) rather than opening new reports at AIV, or b) post an explanation along with your AIV report to let us know they're related to a currently blocked IP. Sorry for the slow follow-up, and for missing the connection in the first place. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

After it all happened, I did go back to JohnCD (talk · contribs) and let him know of the other IP's, so yeah, it's been taken care of. Thanks. Momo san ^Gespräch 19:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi ... I only checked back a few weeks, but every single entry of 69.116.81.11 was vandalism, including those just now. Can't we block it?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If they come back tomorrow, ping me - if I'm on-line I could do a rangeblock to cut them all off . All the addresses they used yesterday fall within two blockable ranges, one of 128 and one of 256 IPs, but they all belong to VC (at least the first and last of each range do). Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that school IP was doing its usual kiddie-wiki, pre-adolescent, Teletubbies nonsense at Simple English. I checked over here yesterday and sure enough, he'd been playing here as well. I blocked the IP but I neglected to block his talk page access. All A-OK now. Either this kid is in Special Ed or he has the most gall of practically any vandal in this site's history since he requested others edit his pets yet again. I think he's finally done for. I've only seen one new sock in the past three weeks and it may have come from his school. All of his BellSouth ranges are blocked for a year and I strongly suspect they shut him down as well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Since you have been so instrumental in the fight against vandalism and other nonsense, I feel it is high time you were granted rollback rights and I've taken it upon myself to grant them to you. This will make things a lot easier for you when dealing with reverting and rolling back vandalism. Enjoy your new vandalslaying tool! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Momo san ^Gespräch 19:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I went back to add the schoolblock notification to 199.71.128.2's talk page, and saw you had taken care of it already. Thanks! Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

[5] Any sources to verify these claims? Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, 2 previous socks that edited before this account (see page history) were indeed sockpuppets of Wallflowers98 after I brought the issue to User:J.delanoy who is a checkuser and confirmed those were sockpuppets of Wallflowers98. I brought it back to him and i'll see what he says. Momo san ^Gespräch 21:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh I don't doubt the sockpuppetness, but without sources this content surely now has a big question mark hanging over it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess it does, if something was not released and didn't have sources, maybe he is right? Momo san ^Gespräch 21:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems, I guess, that he also made those edits in the first place. I've undone them. Feel free to change it further. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanx for warning User:Mladifilozof for the unusseless edit war he engaged. But, he continued doing it. How can I ask to block him? FkpCascais (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

...understand why we block some AOL ranges permanently (e.g. [6], and also 64.12.0.0/16) but not the 172.129, 172.130, etc. ranges? It seems they are also quickly dynamic (aside from having more than the usual share of vandals -- back when I did lots of troll-patrol in 2005/6, a good half of our vandalism was from AOL). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I had always thought AOL was only the 172 ranges, If those other ranges were a problem, maybe the 172's should get blocked too. Momo san ^Gespräch 04:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There are a bunch more. 207.200 comes to mind, and 152.163. 207.200, however, seems to be unblocked. What the heck? Wow, I've even blocked that one myself in the distant past. Antandrus (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a 172 range you blocked recently. If they have blocked ranges for a short time in the past, i'm sure it can be done again with these 172's. Momo san ^Gespräch 04:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. The only reason I didn't is he has about seven of those 0/16 ranges to work with; it's a little like chasing a horsefly with a flamethrower. Sometimes a little bug-repellent or just shutting the screen door works better. Though it might be less fun.  :) (More seriously, whenever imposing those 0/16 blocks I always bring up the last 5,000 recent anonymous changes and look for good edits from the range I'm about to block; in his case, there'd be a fair amount of collateral damage.) Antandrus (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a /16 range is really big (65535 IP's) so care would have to be taken in that case. There has been another AOL vandal involved in spamming links as well, see here for more on that. Momo san ^Gespräch 05:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)