Commons:Requests and votes/Wooyi

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wooyi

Vote

This is a self-nom. I've been on Commons since months ago and have uploaded many public domain images of American politicians. I also contributed in other areas such as the deletion and feature discussion, categorization, page creation to organize images, and checking for duplicates. As a native Chinese speaker, I have added Chinese description to a variety of pages. If I am promoted to admin, I will focus on maintenance works such as eliminating duplicates, closing deletion discussions, and sometimes combating vandalism, though it's not that common on Commons. Wooyi 20:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  •  Neutral for now. I observe that you participated in the discussion about w:user:Runcorn's sockpuppetry on w:WP:ANI: (archived version as it changes fast: [1]). Several of the comments concern me. First, you defended the puppets against the charges, even in the face of pretty strong evidence: "No Poetlister and I had email communications, and she has provided me important information about the issue and they indeed proved she is not a sock. I now need a trustworthy admin that I can forward the evidence to. Who wants it? WooyiTalk to me? 21:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)" which was pretty roundly rejected. Later you again asked for exoneration: "I suggest immediate unblock and exoneration of Rachel Brown, Poetlister, and Taxwoman, absurd sock accusation that amounts to Witchhunt. WooyiTalk to me? 01:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)" and finally you say, after it is pointed out that Poetlister has adminship on WikiQuote: "I agree that her adminship on WQ should be retained. We don't issue cross-wiki bans unless a person has done disruption on multiple wikis. WooyiTalk to me? 22:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)" I have to confess that while we do normally evaluate based on contributions here, and not elsewhere (many of our best users here have had contentious careers elsewhere) I am pretty concerned by socks and am not sure where you stand. This is a pretty vast and deep sockpuppetry case, one in which a sockmaster got to be an admin and used the socks abusively, in several pernicious ways, over a long period of time, and which has been shown to be the case resoundlingly and endorsed by many respected admins, arbcom members, and checkusers. Could you clarify your position please? ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'd like to clarify my position here on sockpuppetry, and Lar indeed asked a good question. First, the Poetlister case I am not convinced by the sockpuppetry allegation because I've reviewed her/his contribution and saw no compelling evidence. On sockpuppetry in general, I am adamantly opposed to the practice of keeping sockpuppets abusively. In my Wiki experience, because I edit politics/law-related articles, I have confronted hundreds of vandals and edit warriors, some with sockpuppets, it is impossible for me to have a soft stance on disruption and sockpuppetry. If I become an admin on Commons, I will keep my strong stance against any form of abuse and disruptive practices, including the usage of sockpuppetry. Thank you. Wooyi 14:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that helps. But two things: 1) I wonder why you are not convinced by the evidence in this case? It is astoundingly strong and corroborated multiple ways (edit patterns, names, CU information) by multiple highly respected editors, arbcom members, and checkusers... balanced against an email decrying innocence... that's good enough for me, why isn't it good enough for you? It at least at a certain level, calls your judgement, and your trust in other editors, into doubt. 2) Why do you think it is a good idea for Poetlister to retain admin on wikiquote? ++Lar: t/c 15:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain. Regarding to the Poetlister incident alone, I have to confess that my own personal subconscious feelings (my own love of poetry and the pretty picture) might have influenced my judgment on the case, and I am still thinking about it, as I have refrained from further commenting on AI there. If things go as they are I will not contest the result. I feel Poetlister should not be desysopped on Wikiquote because she has not done any disruption there, and the Wikimedia foundation does not have a cross-wiki banning policy. Thanks! Wooyi 18:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't think that disruptive behaviour in one place is a bar to adminship in another, then? ++Lar: t/c 18:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, disruption outside a wiki's jurisdiction should not affect one's status inside that wiki's jurisdiction. If one person is punished in real life for really egregious crimes, as long as he does not cause trouble in the wiki, we don't sanction him either. Wooyi 19:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nod. It's just that the wiki in question is signing up for the need to be a bit more vigilant, wouldn't you agree? ++Lar: t/c 12:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, on WQ the editors agree that they will keep an eye on Poetlister's future actions, and I totally support that approach. Vigilance is a very important attitude to protect a Wiki from being vandalized or compromised. Wooyi 16:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had hoped that this line of questioning would elicit a stronger statement than "will not contest"... more along the lines of "of course I trust the CU results and I am not sure what I was thinking, sorry for any confusion" or something similar. Dmcdevit is one of our most trustworthy users, and I say that is so across all the WMF Wikis. I also confess that I have asked some of my fellow CU's for more information and while I am not at liberty to discuss what I learned, it is troubling. Change to  Oppose for the above reasons, and per Dmcdevit (see below). ++Lar: t/c 21:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified below Dmcdevit's comment. Wooyi 21:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral for now as Lar. The timing seems a pity --Herby talk thyme 17:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral per Herbythyme. Majorly (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose: I'm not particularly comfortable offering my opinion as a user that is not active here, but I was one of the enwp CheckUsers involved in the above discussion. I think the most important point here is that CheckUser is an institution based entirely on trust: certain trusted users are given access to sensitive information by the community, to report back on it when needed; this doesn't work if the community doesn't trust the results that are reported back. When there is an extraordinary circumstance in which four (possibly five, if I remember right) CheckUsers and ArbCom corroborate a result, for someone who wants to be an administrator to simply deny it openly on the basis of no evidence ("love of poetry and the pretty picture"), and not only that, to accuse us of a witch-hunt and falsely claim to have "proof" that they weren't sockpuppets, is more than irresponsible; it undermines CheckUser. This was within the last few days. Dmcdevit 19:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns. However, the incident mentioned was only a youthful indiscretion, and I have already clarified that I will maintain a strong stance against any form of disruption. Also saying that I don't trust checkuser is false, as once myself has previously requested checkuser on alleged sockpuppets who have tampered RFA results. Wooyi 21:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This RFA seems a bit weirdly hijacked. Is there any insinuation that Wooyi has been involved with sockpuppeting? Is there any insinuation that he is requesting this RFA to somehow interfere with the CU process on either wiki? Is there an idea that because he challenged this CU case he would abuse the tools on Commons? If he was running for CU, or admin on enwp, I could understand the concern. But this seems really unrelated... you can be a great admin and never even utter the phrase "CheckUser". It doesn't look to me like Wooyi doesn't believe in sockpuppets, for example; just this case he was doubtful about. And CU needs its doubters, doesn't it? It's hardly an exact science, no magic 8-ball that comes up "socks!", is there?
    Wooyi wants to help on Commons. Based on Wooyi's Commons edits, which show a healthy sprinkling of sensible comments on deletion requests, I  Support. If there is CU information which is relevant to this discussion, it should either be revealed for everyone to judge equally or not brought into the arena at all... --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 17:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I think more time may be necessary. --Evrik 19:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Dmcdevit. Kelly Martin 20:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Dmcdevit (disclosure: I'm not very active here - bit I am on en.wp)--Doc 20:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Inexperience in the Commons namespace. While the user has a decent amount of comments in deletion requests, but almost all of them was voting delete for obvious copyright violations. I know you want to help, but I cannot support yet. Next time I will. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose __ ABF __ 11:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

If I don't someone else will ask - can you enable email please, thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just enabled email. Wooyi 14:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_and_votes/Wooyi&oldid=33062706"