User talk:Wooyi/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Talk page archive from March 20 to April 5.

GA Hold for American Civil Liberties Union[edit]

I noticed you nominated this article. I put it on hold earlier this week (on the 15th). The article is very close to GA status, and with some small fixes, should pass. However, after 4 days, my recommendations I left at the talk page have not been addressed. I would like to be able to pass this article, but after 7 days on hold, it will automatically fail. Thanks for your attention to this. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I had to fail the article as it has been on hold for more than 7 days. However, it looks like the needed fixes are in process and moving along nicely. I want to encourage you to renominate the article after all fixes have been made. Thanks and happy editing! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Essays[edit]

Here are the recovered essays. John Reaves (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Note the content of those recovered essays have been moved. Wooyi 23:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Twinkle[edit]

  • Hello:) If you find vandalism go to the history, click "Compare Selected Versions", when you find a non-vandalised version click "edit" then you will see buttons, click one and it will revert it. Peace:) --James, La gloria è a dio 03:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No problem:) Enjoy the tool! I love using it but now I can not because the computer that it works on is broken right now and I am using another one:( Peace. --James, La gloria è a dio 03:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

My MedCab case[edit]

How is that a personal attack? This guy dug his own grave when he uploaded pictures from the get-go. Those pictures have no right to be there. I understand that Wikipedia isn't censored for minors, but why does that even exist in a user namespace? A man against the world 00:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Phantom Art[edit]

Dear Wooyi, I got your comment about Phantom Art. As there was nothing in Wiki about the concept and it was and is something that seems to have taken hold around North America, I felt it would be a useful inclusion, especially when revealing its roots. Perhaps it was the format, as it was an article about origins. Is Phantom art not something you feel should be included at all, or should a more historic overall treatise be something more desirable. Your undertaking as editor is to be highly commended. I hope I haven't increased the burden you bear. Torrento 01:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)torrento

Gracenote[edit]

Stop hand.svg

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to User:Gracenotes, are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. .— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.18.164.198 (talk) 26 March 2007

Please stop sending nonsense vandal warning, I was reverting vandalism, myself is not a vandal. The user who put up the warning User:83.18.164.198, is the real vandal who vandalized User:Gracenotes's userpage. Wooyi 04:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but Malt is a popular Turkish rock band. There are many rock band pages on Wikipedia. For example; Anima, Kesmeşeker, Bulutsuzluk Özlemi, Duman, Vega, Athena, Mor ve Ötesi, Kurban, Kargo..... Malt is one them, too. Why did you delete my message? Kimsin lan sen? Sen kim oluyorsun da benim mesajımı siliyorsun? Are you insane? I'm son of the Wikipedia'nın sahibi. You are a götü boklu person?

RfA[edit]

Hi. I think unfortunately it's time to pull it. Xiner (talk, email) 14:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey I just closed it, it unfortunately wasn't going to pass. I suggest you take on board the advice given to you, continue editing the areas you enjoy, and perhaps request again with more experience. Good luck :) Majorly (o rly?) 16:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. One word of advice: if two people offer to nominate you of their free will, you'll probably pass. Xiner (talk, email) 20:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: MFD discussion[edit]

Yep, I have seen the MFD. I doubt that I'll be commenting in it. You're right, however: it is interesting. I advocated its existence earlier on in the talk page. Calculus is going fine, thank you; I haven't started the multiple choice yet, but expect to get that done Sunday. GracenotesT § 02:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

More complete sockpuppet evidence you requested for AMA sockpuppet enabling problem[edit]

(from Starwood Arbitration}

Evidence presented by Blnguyen[edit]

Background to Hanuman Das[edit]


In response to what 999 said above, on review, I found a total of 4 edits out of 2000 by Ekajati, which did "overlap" with HD, however, they were four separate instances of one edit wedged between the other, but the single edit was in a 4-5 minute pause by the other account. I did an experiment with User:Blnguyen1 and found that I could edit alternately every 30s. Apart from that the edits never overlap, although there are frequent changeovers of less than an hour, but no intersections. I am also scanning through 999's contribs and have found no overlap from April until July of either accounts.


More coming soon.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


I have located a post where Hanuman Das leaves his IP lying about, for a technical check. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

See this. HD = Ekajati. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

And this also. 999, Ek, HD, are all in the same city. 999 became active on April 3, coinciding with Adityanath's block, and immediately finds itself at the related AfDs and favourite articles [8] like Yogiraj_Gurunath_Siddhanath. A check of the contribs shows similarly interweaved edits. A check of the history of pages like Lu Sheng-yen where only two other established editors have edited it in 15 months, seems rather unusual. So blocked also.


Sockpuppet usage[edit]

Given the above linkages, we can that

Sincerely, Mattisse

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jefferson Anderson - specific evidence from Aribitration left on Jefferson Anderson's talk page[edit]

From: [15]


The case was originally filed based on the actions of editors involved in the Starwood links issue. A second issue involving a dispute at Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism was added in the evidence phase in the belief that it was a continuation of the same alleged harassment. However, the two cases have very little overlap. Arbitrator Fred Bauder [16] has decided to consider only the Starwood matter at this time. I have trimmed the workshop page to remove material related to the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism matter. That matter may be placed before the arbitration committee at any time by filing a separate request for arbitration. If the case is accepted, evidence and analysis may be copied from the page history and used there. Thank you. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 01:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The bad news is that while I was analyzing the case I became convinced that Frater and Anderson are the same editor. It may not be proveable in a court, but the evidence is much stronger than is normally required on Wikipedia. The good news is that, except for the sockpuppetry (both accounts editing several AfDs and the Celtic Paganism article), the edits were (in my unofficial opinion) more or less reasonable as to questioning the appropriateness of the CR Faq as a source. Thatcher131 02:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me know if you want more. Hope this helps! Sincerely, Mattisse

AMA involvement is detrimental to Wikipedia[edit]

AMA got Jefferson Anderson excused from the Arbitration, therefore he is not blocked/banned and still loose. I am too tired from hunting down the evidence I just gave you to look for evidence of AMA involvement in the Starwood Arbitration right now. It took at least 2 hours to look for evidence you requested earlier, copy and paste it, etc. I have other work to do. I have done a great deal of hunting to find the above. Feel free to do some work yourself and look for it in the Starwood Arbitration and whatever records AMA keeps. It is there.

The Advocate has admitted to me that he made a mistake, but it does not seem to deter him from continuing his sloppy work. He did not even know that Jefferson Anderson "left" on January 15. A few days ago, when the Starwood Arbitration finally closed, the Advocate sent Jefferson Anderson a note of congradulations! That is the degree of monitoring and quality control he was allocating to the case. The Advocate has said that his job was to advocate for Jefferson Anderson and nothing more. This is irresponsible and although I did not like AMA before, now I think it is dangerous, like handing a gun to a six-year-old.

And now I read that an Advocate was behind a sockpuppet's abetting the de-sopping of MONGO!

Sincerely, Mattisse

Thanks for the Barnstar![edit]

And sorry I was grumpy. AMA is just one big horror show for me and puts me in a bad mood as does the endless, endless Starwood Arbitration -- a huge waste of good editors' time when they could have been editing and working to improve Wikipedia. I have noticed that almost all of the editors involved in Starwood (excellent and prolific editors before) are not editing much at all any more. Sincerely, Mattisse

Suggestions[edit]

Since you seem to be acting responsibly and taking the problems seriously, I would like to offer a few suggests for you to consider.

Most crucially, that there be some sort of follow up on cases as a measure of quality control. There needs to be a way of evaluating what works and what does not. You do not have so many case that each one could not be checked on by a third party to evaluate effectiveness. But if you did, you could follow up on a random sample. I was shocked to find that, although there is a survey on the form, no one had looked at the surveys. When some of us did, we found that probably at most only 10 to 20 percent of the surveys were filled out, and that is being generous. Many of the "closed" cases looked like nothing had happened, that the cases were just closed for inactivity. In many of the cases, the user was requesting the impossible -- usually something like "I want my way, and I want you to make it happen." In fact, most of the ones I read were along these lines. There was no sign that any education was provided that these sorts of goals are unreasonable.

Secondly, and I feel this is essential, if AGF is the ruling principle then sock puppets will triumph. As I have explained in other such situations, acting as if you are assuming good faith and assuming good faith by ignoring or not looking for suspicious signs are two different things. If an advocate brings total AGF for a sockpuppet into Arbitration (or anywhere else for that matter) no good can come of it. Advocates must do some basic investigation. Looking at Jefferson Anderson's edit history (not that long as he had only been on Wikipedia for a few weeks) is a dead giveaway. Somewhere there is a short list on Wikipedia of basic signs of a sockpuppet. If Advocates at least looked for those signs (which would have detected Jefferson Anderson immediately) that would help.

And I wonder, is there anyone steering the ship? There seems to be no coordination. The right hand does not seem to know what the left hand is doing, or even know if there is a left hand.

I would push for education and guidance rather than the Advocate acting for the advocee. I was surprised to see that in most of the cases where the advocee gave a good evaluation for the AMA process, they also said they would do nothing different in the future. In other words, they had not learned anything even though they were happy with the outcome.

These are just a few thoughts. I do emphasise that if you do not evaluate you will not know if AMA is effective at all. It's like having no drug trials to evaluate the effectiveness of medication, but just reasoning it must be effective. In psychotherapy, there are always outcome studies. Something that seems logically a good intervention, in reality may have the opposite effect. Hence the need alway in psychology for monitoring and evaluating outcomes.

I'll shut up now. Thanks for listening. Sincerely, Mattisse 19:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

In case you are not sick enough of this[edit]

I found this:

I was just pointing out to you that you were apparently being tag-teamed by one (schizo) user with multiple accounts. Link. - WeniWidiWiki 03:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If you follow that link you will get a taste of what we all have been going through since last fall -- the wasted time and energy! In case you can't keep all these sock puppets straight (I barely can after all this time) User:999 was banned shortly after this for being a sock puppet of User:Ekajati. Feel free to disregard this. But those of us who were affected are still trying to deal with it. I noticed a message (very polite) from WeniWidiWiki to User:Rosencomet today asking him to please use edit summaries, as he is busy changing articles again. Sincerely, Mattisse 00:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

(one last thing, I promise) Note that Jefferson Anderson's Advocate is mentioned here, but it is just assumed he is not paying attention. Do you not need more sophisticated people if they are to be involved in Arbitration cases as this level? By the way, User talk:Blnguyen is an Arbitrator, Bureaucrat,and more -- a very upper level person. Sincerely, --Mattisse 00:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, WeniWidiWiki who I do not really know, but has been enormously restrained and helpful to me, as I don't monitor ANI pages and such. I have just given you a little snippet of what was going on -- just because so much damage has been done here. I personally have no interest in paganism or related articles. But those that are, like WeniWidiWiki, have to monitor still. But the shut down of all those sock puppets has had a major restful effect. There just remains Jefferson Anderson. But he is on everyone's radar now so it is unlikely he will be back. I appreciate your interest and your ability to follow this saga. Thank you so much! Sincerely, Mattisse
Accidently answered on my own page. (copy)
Salix alba has had a soft stop for Ekajati all along. I can't complain as he has for me too since last August and has helped me out greatly. Go figure. That is one of the interesting aspects of all this -- the psychological connections. Why people supported me when for a brief time I did have people operating sock puppets on my computer. I appreciate you and your quickness of comprehension. You are not average and I would trust your judgment regarding AMA. Sincerely, Mattisse 01:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

diffs from arb page[edit]

These are some diffs from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Workshop where Advocate comments:

  • [24] - this is diff where Advocate suggests 999 email him
  • [25] - where Advocate says he has struck out comment - after WeniWidiWiki is suspicious of who he is advocating for

These are just some from the Evidence page history[27]

I think they go from most recent to less recent. There are more. As you can see, the Advocate was very active, while Jefferson Anderson said not a word. Some were reverted or deleted or whatever, so if you look at the Evidence page without the diffs, the picture is some what different. Sincerely, Mattisse 17:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is a diff from Jefferson Anderson [28]
I bet his Advocate wrote it for him as it does not sound like him. --Mattisse 17:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, he is not strictly telling the truth as Salix alba removed offending "I am not a sockpuppet of Mattisse" box with his IP (as he reveals on ANI). Jefferson Anderson did not remove that voluntarily although others suggested he do so. --Mattisse 17:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Hello Tohru Honda![edit]

Wooyi, I'm so happy that you've considered to nominate me for adminship. But I can't really say yes or no yet, do you mind if I take a few minutes (or hours) to consider? I'm just so dumbstruck right now. I need to think it over. Thanks sooo much! And I'm glad that someone is looking at my contributions. :D Tohru Honda13 19:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

help wanted[edit]

I need your help. I am a new member of wikipeida. I find the article of "Tibet" or "history of tibet" in wikipeida is very biased towards pro-independent Tibetans. I have strong evidence to prove what I said. I made some edit and added some important facts. However, they are deleted. The problem is: I am not familiar with the rules of wikipeida and I probable won't have time to get familiar with it. So, I need your help so that truth can be known by people. You can find my deleted versions in the history of that topic. The main source of my information is in the following. This is probably the most complete and detailed information source on the Tibet issue. But it is not listed in the reference list of Tibet page yet. I remember the content of this website is from Chinese government’s white paper on Tibet issue. If you go to the official website of Tibetan in exiles, you will find that although they are very unhappy with these information. They could not point out any major problems about these facts. It would be better if you can have a quick look of this website and add whatever information you want.

"The historical status of tibet", by China internet information center. It cab be found at the website of:

www.china.org.cn/ch-xizang/tibet/historical_status/english/index.html

www.china.org.cn/ch-xizang/tibet/indexE.html


Many thanks.

Xiaoliang1

I accept your nomination.[edit]

Yup. I do. Cheers! Tohru Honda13 02:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've filled everything out, but please don't put it on RFA yet; I'm going to work more on it tomorrow. I must sleep for school tomorrow. Thanks again, Wooyi. Tohru Honda13 03:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Wooyi, but I have to withdraw from this nomination. I've already done so many things wrong with the thing, to top that I've got state tests to study for in 2 weeks, homework, medical problems... and I'm not experienced enough, as I thought so before I accepted your nomination. Stress is getting to me, even when I was trying to fix my mistakes. Could you tell me how to withdraw it? That question right there is another example of my inexperience. Should I be nominated again, I would like to in June, in the summer. I'm terribly sorry, Wooyi. Tohru Honda13 21:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Thank you for keeping a level head, whatever your ultimate vote/comment, and for working to keep order on the AMA vote/comment issue. I feel you are doing an excellent job, although ultimately I may not agree with you as there seems to be no "ultimate" yet. I appreciate you attempts to be fair and do the "grunt" work. Thank you again for trying to keep order and logical flow. Thanks! Sincerely, --Mattisse 02:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

My sleepy-head causing too much confusion[edit]

Let me copy my comment at RFC/U here also:

No, no, I meant wu3 yi1 are the numbers '5' and '1' in Mandarin Chinese, "五一", if that comes out on your system. My other comment is more my worry to query about at the policy page - not directed at you. My user name has been misremembered as a couple different things - I'm happy if people come 'close' to the right thing. Very sorry to have caused you worry. Shenme 17:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The short names I think are easier to remember, and if they can be pronounced easily, like yours, even better. Again, sorry. Shenme 17:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, cool, though my contributions aren't nearly so many as yours. :-P Still just correcting English! And practicing that confused feeling - I'm getting quite good at it! Shenme 19:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

BDSM User Boxes[edit]

Maybe. I'm not sure what kind of help I could provide. It looks like you already know how to make user boxes. Let me know what kind of help you are looking for and I'll get back to you. ForestJay 17:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

New style of RFCN[edit]

Hi Wooyi, I noticed your link (on WT:RFCN to your proposal at the Village Pump. I just wanted to acknowledge that you too came up with the good idea; it looks like it will get implemented. I've now added the Village Pump to my watchlist; hopefully I won't miss other ideas in the future in that forum. Cheers, Flyguy649talkcontribs 18:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

RE Chavez image[edit]

No problem, I've deleted the entire userbox from my page. Ordinarily I carefully check images' usage policies before using them in userboxes, but this particular box was designed not by me but by User:Caligvla; I copied it from his page. So it wasn't me who made the choice of images. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I had too many userboxes anyway. Btw I've reviewed you at your editor review. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I looked at your failed RfA - I think it's unfortunate that you jumped in too early with that one; I would have told you to wait until you had at least 3,000 edits. You're right that it wouldn't be effective to re-apply so soon after the previous one, but wait 3 months and your RfA will be near-certain to succeed. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


Your GA nomination of Tom DeLay[edit]

The article Tom DeLay you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.png, see Talk:Tom DeLay for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. King of 18:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS[edit]

I don't know any background to your involvement with RFCN so I will assume good faith and hope you have had previous discussion with Amarkov regarding that page. However if not, this is a violation of WP:CANVAS, and I would ask that you stop. ViridaeTalk 01:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Johnny the Vandal[edit]

If you look at Wikipedia:Blocking policy you'll notice that blocks are not expected to be decided by anything like consensus, except perhaps in the extreme example of a community ban. Therefore, it really doesn't matter what consensus was at all, even if the people were discussing the proper issue. But as it happens, the username was clearly in the pattern of the various vandal sockpuppets of Johnny the Vandal: see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Johnny the Vandal. If you look there, it'll be totally obvious... this vandal very often uses John as a first name and Robinson as a last name, and in fact has combined the two many times. But even if I didn't know the vandal, I might well have reblocked, assuming there was one that the blocking admin was aware of, at least until that admin has a chance to comment on their reasons. RFCN moves way too fast to expect "consensus" of a handful of highly active users to override admin judgement without discussion. Mangojuicetalk 02:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree with the block, to put it simply, too bad: you're not blocked, so it's none of your business. I have no interest in trying to "convince" you that the block is justified. It is. I highly doubt you will find any administrator who would undo the block, knowing the reason for it. Vandal name blocks are meant to be preemptive: those that are high-visibility long-term abusers of Wikipedia can create blocks like this. Might it be an innocent user caught in the crossfire of some jerk's war with Wikipedia? Yes. But if that happens, things will work themselves out. Mangojuicetalk 03:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, you are wrong in identifying only one sockpuppet on Misza's talkpage, Johnny the vandal has used:
Our username policy says we block vandal memes on sight. This was a clear case. WjBscribe 03:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I guess he'd probably email an admin or the foundation and complain, then he would be asked to confirm who he was (as anyone who wants to edit under the name of a notable person must anyway) and then he could be unblocked. Blocked users can edit their talkpage so he could also question the block there. Its unlikely to be a big issue... I know you just have in mind the best interests of innocent account holders, and I think you should be free to ask questions. But experience has tought everyone to be wary of names that follow a pattern. WjBscribe 03:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the smile. I know you have good intentions, sorry if I was a bit snappy.  ;) Mangojuicetalk 04:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks Wooyi (:

Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


Automated Peer Review response[edit]

Evidently there is a javascript program created by User:AndyZ which can make editing suggestions on articles. Another editor, User:Kmarinas86, used this program to put holds on all the Good Article nominees before he was blocked (which was later lifted, details at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Kmarinas86). To say the least, I'm not a fan of programs which allow editors to make editing suggestions without even reading the said articles. However, it does appear that this program was only supposed to be used on WP:PR. Best, --Alabamaboy 16:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)