Wikipedia:Requests for comment/La goutte de pluie

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 04:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 08:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC).

• La goutte de pluie (talk · contribs · logs)

Anyone is welcome to endorse any view, but do not change other people's views. Under normal circumstances, a user should not write more than one view.

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct and have previously attempted and failed to resolve the dispute. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section. Other users may present their views in the other sections below.

Our concern is that User:La goutte de pluie has edit warred,and as an admin edited though another admin's full page protection, abused sysop tools, as well as have a possible conflict of interest. The user in concern engaged in an edit war with an anon IP on Teo Ser Luck which only resulted in the article being page protected by User:Toddst1. However, La Goutte de pluie being an admin, simply added back in the information that the edit war was about, violating WP:INVOLVED. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teo_Ser_Luck&diff=433227308&oldid=432701153 and the user has still continued doing that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/La_goutte_de_pluie#More_problematic_admin_actions_by_La_goutte The user was warned during an AFD discussion to not use their sysop tools for "winning" a dispute.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tin_Pei_Ling&diff=427001147&oldid=426997817 There are also concerns that she may have some kind of conflict of interest with regards to Singaporean Politics and the edits they've made.

La goutte de pluie has also self-admittedly introduced original synthesis not backed up by sources into articles on Singaporean politicians, allegedly to "punish COI editing", and has in the past introduced extreme POV bias against government politicians in a misguided attempt to counter pro-government bias (examples are in the ANI link below). When doing so, La goutte de pluie has repeatedly used sources such as anti-government Temasek Review Emeritus, which had previously been discredited at WP:RS/N as a reliable source, as the basis of some of her additions.

1. WP:INVOLVED
2. WP:ADMIN
3. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning
4. WP:COI
5. WP:NPOV
6. WP:NOR / WP:SYNTH
7. WP:RS
8. WP:PROTECT

This summary of the dispute is written by the users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus. Other users may present their views of the dispute in the other sections below.

• La goutte de pluie
  1. agrees to withdraw from the editing of articles relating to Singapore politics, broadly construed
  2. accepts that her editing in this area has been problematic
  3. accepts that she has misused her administrative tools, whether intentionally or otherwise
  4. accepts that there was a community consensus for her to undergo an administrative recall based on her misuse of tools, although this consensus may no longer exist
  5. agrees to voluntarily resign her admin tools accordingly and re-apply for them through WP:RFA
  6. accepts that "Temasek Review Emeritus" and "The Online Citizen" do not qualify as reliable sources in regard to Singapore politicians
• Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/La_goutte_de_pluie
2. Talk:Singaporean general election, 2011
3. User talk:Strange Passerby/archive4
4. User talk:La goutte de pluie/archive 8
5. Talk:Tony Tan Keng Yam (Ex-PAP, La Goutte keeps trying to hint at a still existing relationship; also, put words into Tony Tan's mouth, and insists on her point of view on the Patrick Tan issue)
6. Talk:Tin Pei Ling (PAP politician), plus see photo debate dragged to [[3]]
7. Talk:Singaporean general election, 2011 (Keeps insisting on drawing special attention to former party affiliations of candidates (3/4 being Ex-PAP) even though it is mentioned in prose).
8. Talk:Vivian Balakrishnan (PAP: some overlap with the Singapore General Election article regarding source and SYNTHESIS)
9. Talk:Teo Ser Luck (PAP: Insistence of using non-serious opinion piece as statement of fact)
10. [[4]]; User talk:La goutte de pluie

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

1. User:OpenInfoForAll
2. User:Strange Passerby 05:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Toddst1 (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Virtuaoski (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. User:Mugginsx

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.

1. ~~Ebe123~~ ^talk_Contribs 10:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. DanS76 (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. I was skeptical of the claims of WP:OR and extreme POV until I saw this. Singapore is not North Korea, and even for NK you can surely find sources from outside the country to relate such matters if true. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Quigley (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. User:Mugginsx This former administrator has posted serious falsehoods about me and consistenly refused to retract even with intervention by administrator and another editor. It seems that efforts to help, warn or admonish her in the past and in many areas have only embolded this editor. She seems to be everything that Wikipedia is NOT ABOUT.Mugginsx (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any users may post questions in this section.  Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.

Q. You say that Temasek Review is "discredited", when in fact the respondent said that the source should be used with caution — which I in fact do. Even partisan news sites are accepted as sources (see MoveOn.org, The New Republic) if the POV of the source is made clear and especially if the sites in question created "press dialogue" that other mainstream sites responded to. However you seem to make it appear that I use that source indiscriminately? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A. But you don't make and haven't made "the POV of the source clear" when you use/have used them. You have simply referred to TRE/TOC as online political publications. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q. This is another question regarding one of your allegations on using my tools in a dispute. I never sought to use my tools in a dispute, nor did I ever intentionally undo another admin's actions -- in fact, I contacted Toddst1 before protection ever occured and waited for 4 days, to which a reply never came. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A. Intentional or otherwise, ignorance is not a good excuse. Even an unintentional misuse of admin tools in a dispute is still a misuse of admin tools in a dispute. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q. On Temasek Review use: I searched the RS/N archive, and the only thread I found was [5], too weak to draw any conclusions about a consensus on that, in my opinion. I don't think it's outlandish to cite opposing political, even minority views (see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV), but care must be taken with BLP-type issues per WP:BLPSPS. For what problematic claims was it used by La goutte? FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A. Temasek Review and The Online Citizen (an online blog similar to Temasek Review) were both used extensively by La goutte de pluie on a section involving controversy regarding a governing party politician. The sources were first added by another editor, but when reverted, La goutte de pluie took it upon herself to re-add the questionable sources. In such a situation, one would expect an already anti-government site to be additionally negative over the issue, and using these sources as basis for statements to be included in such articles is highly inappropriate imo, especially since we are dealing with living people, and other sources considered reliable were available. (The article still has both TOC and TRE as sources in its current state.) Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A. In the talk page, I describe how La goutte inserted a baseless Temasek Review allegation (of Patrick Tan being granted a second NS disruption) in the article on Tony Tan Keng Yam, and stated it as fact without any sources cited, along with original synthesis to contradict an 'argument' she created and placed in Tony Tan's mouth. Virtuaoski (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q. You frequently allege that I have a COI and that I have "an extreme POV" and that I edit with a strong bias. Given that nearly every addition of mine has been sourced, generally from the mainstream press, could you clarify what biases those are exactly? I would like to point out that as a current permanent resident in America, I cannot at all have any close connections with any Singaporean political groups. The users I have alleged to have a COI (based on their editing pattern and their uploads) on the other hand, have never denied that they have a COI; it took a great deal of coaxing to get User:Alverya to admit he was a civil servant, and only after being caught editing from a government IP address. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 12:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A. I've never alleged a COI on your part, that's been mostly the IPs doing so. I believe this stems from the original dispute relating to Vivian Balakrishnan's remarks about Vincent Wijeysingha and the so-called "gay video", since you self-identify as being LGBT. Regarding the second part of your question: again, this is not about them. It's about you. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A. Sourcing from the mainstream press does not mean the edits are free from COI or POV. As I recall, the anonymous IPs and other parties you were editting against similarly used the mainstream press for their additions. For a recent example, in Talk:Tony Tan Keng Yam where you are also arguing extensively against the addition of sourced information such as in the Scholarship section.DanS76 (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q. Strange Passerby is mistaken, above, in saying that he never made a COI claim against Elle/LGdP. He wrote "Elle has been as guilty as the IP of pushing an extreme POV and COI" in the IP-initiated thread that's still open at AN/I as I write this. When two follow-up requests were made there for examples to support either the "COI" or the "extreme POV" claim, he did not respond. His answer to Elle/LGdP just above disavows the COI part of that claim, but once again fails to support the charge of "pushing an extreme POV". Given this lack of response, does he still maintain his "extreme POV" allegation, or was that also a case of simply having misspoken, perhaps influenced by the perspective of an opposing POV, as his now-forgotten COI allegation appears to have been?  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A. The problem is that the situation is so bad now that there were simultaneous discussions about Elle across at the moment. Here, [[6]] and [[7]], all because it remains unresolved almost everywhere, Strange Passerby probably thought he answered it somewhere else. AS for extreme POV, I myself have previously pointed out Elle's tendency to edit in the opposite direction whenever she perceives POV. Not when there is POV, but when she perceives it. IMO not all of those POV edit edits she claims were actually POV, though they were just stating more positive stuff about the article. She had even admitted before that she felt a need to write in the opposite direction to counter POV/COI, rather than edit down or remove the COI/POV. Strange Passerby may recall this in the Vivian Balakrishnan copyvio debate, which is inaccessible now since a whole chunk of the talk was removed. Then there's her replies here[[8]] and here [[9]] on her need to fight "promotionalism".Zhanzhao (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A. I will continue to allege an extreme POV as Zhanzhao has laid out above. When dealing with edits she views as being POV (but almost no one else does, even established editors), she has been known to add POV that's extreme to the other end. My use of the word "extreme" here is related to a political scale, as in being extreme on one end; not "extreme" in the sense of wiktionary definition 3 or 4 (being excessive / of great severity). OhioStandard, you would do well to WP:AGF in your question too. Your actions have been to defend La goutte for what are, quite simply, indefensible actions simply because you, like Lgdp, apparently believe that a poor media freedom landscape in a country means we can use non-RS to substantiate claims, but that's a matter for another discussion. Let me move on to the COI claim: Elle has repeatedly expressed that she was involved in starting an RFC (in 2006) on editing from U.S. Congress IPs, and that she wishes to do similar here. She then makes edits which are anti-government (POV here, not COI) to (in her words) "punish" the government's COI editors. Is this somehow not a conflict of interest? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A You mean edits like this is acceptable? link, link202.156.13.10 (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{This section is reserved for the opinions and views of the user whose conduct is disputed. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but only the person named in the dispute should change or edit the view in this section.}

My goals have always been to further the project. I was the creator of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress where the community slammed the astroturfers involved and even considered blocking entire IP ranges belonging to the House of Representatives and the Senate. On the other hand, since then, Wikipedia has become even more important and prominent as a source of information, and is used by public relations managers and other forms of "hired help" to edit articles to achieve an external political end. In the above RFC, editors were quick to rally against editors with suspected of conflict of interest editing in favour of their employers because the employers in question were American politicians. Singaporean politics is a lot more obscure to most editors, but because the main medium is also English, Singaporean politician articles are also attractive to employers who may want to "polish" their reputation and smear the reputation of their opponents.

Many of these editors are anonymous sockpuppets and will switch IP ranges when they encounter opposition and blocks. Rather than tolerate their attacks on the project, I believe we should generally send the message that conflict of interest editing will backfire; i.e. editing to whitewash one's employer will only result in more (researched and sourced) critical material against that employer. Contrary to allegations, I do not have a pro-Opposition bias (I found some of the Opposition rhetoric pretty xenophobic), and do not have a strong stake at the moment in Singaporean politics -- I am a green card holder in an American college and will not return for a long time. In fact I believe such anti-COI vigilance should be applied not only to Singaporean government politicians, but any politician -- I caught User:Xjrzqung astroturfing for the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario (articles created since deleted) and I would like for us to not be sitting ducks when it comes to defending ourselves against conflict of interest editing. I have no stake in whichever side "wins" -- I would simply like aggressive COI editing (backed with tons of IP sockpuppetry) to be dealt with effectively.

Some non-exhaustive examples of the type of astroturfing I have been actively working against, and have been soliciting aid in:

• Vivian Balakrishnan/deleted revisions (particularly see the edits of Geneva2011 and Eggsauto99 attempting to delete sourced criticism of their employer)
• Vincent Wijeysingha (see history for the pattern of editing from Geneva2011 which suggests editing on behalf of an attempted smear campaign)
• Blatant promotional edits made by User:Alverya to Teo Ser Luck, Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, moving Social Development Unit to Social Development Network as part of the government's "new image" campaign, REACHSingapore, National Youth Council of Singapore etc.
• Dishonest reference manipulating that I corrected for Tony Tan Keng Yam. A COI editor used an independent source to argue that Tony Tan had an "independent mind" from his ruling party because he had disagreed with a party leader over a controversial scheme, as though being on the side of the people. Other than redacting for the blatant POV, I accepted the source out of good faith; when an unrelated issue happened later, and I happened to check the actual source, I discovered that the same editor had selectively quoted the source, which stated Tony Tan's made a scrapping recommendation months out of public pressure, after 1984 general elections (one of the worst results for the PAP). However, the editor never mentioned this source in his edits and made it seem Tony Tan had disagreed with the policy from the very beginning! (At least it was convincing enough to fool me, a veteran editor.)

The evidence of COI editors' links to their political employers are rather clear [some example diffs below].

The situation with the anonymous IPs are a lot more nasty and complex. I do not yet have the time to even list representative diffs from all the IPs they have used, but the IPs in question can be found above in the sockpuppet investigations. The only reason why they were not officially linked is because of CheckUsers' wariness to reveal IP addresses, but WP:DUCK easily applies.

Back in 2006, the atmosphere for Singaporean articles was very friendly and very collaborational. I would like the community to deal with the blatant conflict of interest astroturfing agents and return to that. If the community would be more vigilant about aggressive conflicts of interest editing on the behalf of employers in this area, I would willingly stay away from the topics entirely. My interests are Singaporean culture and Singaporean history, and the physical and social sciences. I had no interest in the politicians involved until I noticed the COI editing.

I have always striven to avoid being an involved administrator; I have used my tools in this area with caution, generally after seeking advice or seeing other administrators respond. Tin Pei Ling's AFD was closed with a speedy keep by another administrator, as I originally suggested it should be due to the sheer presence of sources involved that made her article pass WP:GNG with flying colours. I simply sought that time to close by WP:SNOW. It was hardly a "dispute" -- there was no policy or consensus supporting deletion. One thing which worked well was Wikipedia:Pending changes -- which was used for Vivian Balakrishnan before the Pending changes trial expired. This worked extremely well -- edit wars were much less frequent and the community was encouraged to vet problematic edits to articles with a high risk of COI editing. The removal of Pending Changes was a loss for the entire community. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.

1. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
2. Wikipedia:Sockpuppets
3. Wikipedia:PROMOTION

1. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free)

Any users may post questions in this section.  Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.

Q. This RFC is not about them. It is about you. Please answer the charges specifically about your misuse of the tools and the accusations against your editing, and not deflect this back to the IPs. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A. I am not at all deflecting. I am simply saying I have no POV on the issues I edit in; my "POV" is purely reactionary and at any point in time happens to be the opposite of any COI editor. My goals have always been to maintain the project and get individuals with different points of view to participate in discussion and the community. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q. One additional issue I find troublesome is that La goutte de pluie seems to easily cast aspersions on her opponents. For example, she claimed that some section headings were a result of "self-promoting by possible employees". Those section headings had been added in this edit. What evidence is there that User:Vanguardsheet is a self-promoting, possible employee [of Tam]? FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A. Vanguardsheet is not at all an "opponent". We already have several employees working on that article, including User:Tangoromeo2 (as evident by the OTRS ticket on File:Tony Tan 20110623.jpg and that user's talk page). "The photo was acquired from the subject's workplace. This has now been replaced by a candid shot taken today at a press conference." User:Tempwikisc, who is a significant editor on Tony Tan's article and may be an ally, apparently created an article about himself in a really blatant act of COI. Furthermore, the promotionalism in the early stages of the article was really obvious (since removed):

• "Unusually for a PAP Minister, Tan clashed with his colleagues and then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew over issues such as the Graduate Mothers Scheme"
• Pompously adding "Dr" everywhere, in violation of WP:MOS (this is a classic COI tactic, to "puff up" their employer)
• Such blatant editorialising as "he was the most high profile member of Cabinet to question the introduction of “integrated resorts (i.e. casinos) to Singapore." (this was not in quotes from a source -- it was a naked assertion, and many other PAP politicians other than Tony Tan felt unease about the IRs)
• Vanguardsheet's behaviour is also similar. "Tan has an independent mind and possess the confidence to express opinions which are contrary to those of Cabinet colleagues."
• This edit is particularly telling with such section titles as "Country before Self" (not in quotes) and "Independence of Mind". The edit also included naked editorialising: "In a move which placed country before self, Tan decided that "the interests of Singapore must take precedence over that of a bank and my own personal considerations"." and also removing the adjective "government-linked" (which is funny, because GIC and SPH, which he led, are uncontroversially known as government-linked corporations)
• Writing about such award puffery as Tony Tan's receiving an award from a random private org in the US; then mentioning that Clinton and other prominent US politicians had received it. This award is apparently not important enough to be found on any of the American politicians' pages, nor is it mentioned on our article for the FPA, but apparently this token award boosted a few egos at the Singaporean Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 11:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q. Why, even after being informed by multiple editors and admins, and at ANI, that a number of your administrative actions (I include editing through full protection in here) had been inappropriate and had violated either WP:ADMIN or WP:INVOLVED, do you continue to wikilawyer your way out? Why have you not accepted the advice of so many other editors and admins who, arguably, have more experience in the area than you do (considering you've only just returned from a years-long break)? Why have you yet to even apologise for misuse of your tools? If you had done so earlier, I daresay the matter might have been dropped ages ago. But you've refused to do so and this is where we are. Please enlighten me, I am genuinely curious as to how you can continue to think your acting as an admin in this area is justifiable. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A. I was attempting to fight COI, which included editing, in order to clean up the years-long mess COI editors had left behind. I have no strong POV on the issue. I admire many PAP politicians. Nicole Seah is rather populistic and turned me off with her initial anti-immigrant rhetoric. This is why I used my tools at first, and became very cautious about using them as the editing got hot. If I am involved, I am involved because my stance is always the opposite that of any COI editor; the general rule of systemic bias is that if you only just noticed a hidden bias that took effort to uncover, it is likely that there is a lot more bias under the surface. Furthermore, in order to make our guidelines meaningful -- COI editing should be strongly discouraged -- this means people who edit with a COI should face the repercussions of their editing. If Opposition astroturfers hit Wikipedia tomorrow, I would act as vigourously against them. I would simply like the community to pay attention to subjects that get underpaid attention to. When I discover an article with unchecked COI for years, it generally means that not enough attention has been paid to it. When I decided to use my tools, it was either when an intervening admin action had been incomplete (and I did not want to bug them) or no attention was being paid at all, despite my pleas to the noticeboard. I was using my tools to defend the project; I never intended it to use them to enforce any sort of POV (only POV opposite to that of COI editors). elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 07:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q.

A.

This section is for summaries and opinions written by users who are not directly involved with the dispute, but who would like to share their views of the dispute. Anyone is welcome to endorse any view on this page, but you should not change other people's views.

There is one other issue not mentioned above that I have seen that caused me a great deal of concern. 202.156.13.11 was involved a great deal in editing areas that La goutte de pluie was also actively editing (Singaporean political articles). Immediately after this revert of La goutte de pluie, the IP was blocked by La goutte de pluie herself, for two weeks. To her credit, she changed her mind 15 minutes later and unblocked the IP. That wasn't her last inappropriate administrator action with this editor; a month later, while the IP was blocked, she protected the IP's talk page for 3 days after an extensive days-long edit war with the IP on their own user talk page about a message that La goutte de pluie had left in an attempt to explain the context of a block that had already expired, and that the IP kept trying to remove. For such a heavily-involved administrator to go so far as to prevent the IP from being able to request an unblock notice, just because of their removal of a no-longer relevant comment on their own talk page, is very disturbing. Future Perfect at Sunrise promptly undid the protection, stating that this was a "highly problematic action by involved administrator", and then complained about it at the already-existing WP:ANI thread that was actively discussing La goutte de pluie's problematic use of administrator tools. Her response to the complaint was to apologize because she didn't realize that the action would be controversial. This complete inability to see the gravity of her actions, and to understand the consequences of using her tools so recklessly, leaves me with very little confidence in her ability to responsibly use the tools in the future.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Atama頭 08:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Thanks for the concise summary. FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. ~~Ebe123~~ ^talk_Contribs 12:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. DGG ( talk ) 12:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Virtuaoski (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8.  Chzz  ►  01:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 07:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Cube lurker (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Kudu ^~I/O~ 13:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 10:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Quigley (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides a using her tools whilst WP:INVOLVED, La goutte de pluie's conduct is generally reasonable considering the circumstances. She clearly holds an opposing point of view on the articles in question, but she is not editing tenditiously. I would advise her to use boards such as the reliable sources noticeboard to bring source discussions to the wider community and to refresh herself with other policies (such as edit warring and dispute resloution) - but I see no need for any sanction at present.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. As I've said on the talkpage, the content side of the problem is multifaceted, and will require outside editors to resolve. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. OpenInfoForAll (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is yet another issue not mentioned above: the failure to assume good faith in other editors, even in matters very far from Singapore, to the extent of making comments about a subject on the talk page of the article about him that, in my opinion, is a clear violation of BLP. [10] Admitted, the editor had COI, being the subject of the article, but it still does not justify the comment. I noted at the BLP noticeboard,[11] that if such a comment had come from a new editor, I would have given a third or 4th level BLP warning. I shouldn't have said that: I should have given the warning, albeit to one of my fellow admins, since such an edit is all the more concerning in an experienced editor in a position of trust. I have not searched for other examples: I cam across this by accident, and I am citing it to show that the problems are not limited to a particular subject.

it's only fair to say that I had not realized the admin resignation. Though I think that what I said above is basically correct: I do not consider him a spammer, and if he were it could be said impersonally, I would have worded what I did say much more gently. DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Endorse, but note that the admin comment is now moot as she has resigned the tools. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Actually, her interest in User:Tempwikisc did arise from a Singapore politics topic. She is convinced that he works in Tony Tan's office. Virtuaoski (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
   _Contribs 13:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Cube lurker (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would post this on the talk page, but I have to respond to such a grave accusation directly here. I am not aware where it is against BLP policy to point out the fact that he frequently cites himself; everyone cites themselves from time to time, but he does so disproportionately, and that the the autobiographer relied heavily on primary sources that were not peer reviewed before publication. For example, he cites his own news magazine articles but very little journal articles -- what conclusions can be drawn from this? It is not against BLP policy to note potential cherrypicking on the talk page by a problematic contributor, and it is not problematic to point out potential abusive use of PageRank boosting, a typical tactic used by autobiographers. It is especially not against BLP policy to make reasonable concerns about the intentions of a subject, if the subject of the article is an involved editor. To suppress this would be to suppress the good editing health of the project. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 07:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To bring up now a matter entirely unrelated to Singapore, I wanted to call attention to This edit and the subsequent discussion. The position that Wikipedia should "punish" people for COI editing by including negative information in their biographies is truly breathtaking in its violation of our core ethical policies on biographical writing and treatment of others. When I first saw it, I assumed that this must have come from a very new user, perhaps even some kind of enemy of the subject of the biography. I was saddened to learn that it came from an administrator. I am glad she has been desysopped, but I think that further measures are warranted.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. I'm a bit stunned to see Jimmy Wales here at this RFC, but I can see why — that diff is just the latest in her "punish COI" crusade. Fully endorse view. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Jimbo Wales?! Something to see you here, but anyway, I endorse this. I think that this is a message to everyone to not be so much agaist something that you violate the ethical policies. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
   _Contribs 20:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Virtuaoski (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. I think "Glad" is the wrong word, but endorse the general concept.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. DGG ( talk ) 14:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. We don't punish COI editing by slanting our articles against the subjects. Using Wikipedia in this manner is a much worse ethical violation than any COI edit could possibly be. We are not the encyclopedia anyone can use to smear others. ThemFromSpace 16:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Endorse, we do not punish, we protect the wiki, the two things are mutually exclusive. --Cerejota (talk) 07:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 20:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Endorse. I had already previously pointed out a few incidences of similar behaviour and justification by said editor. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC) I do agree with this point of view - punishment is wholly inappropriate.[reply]
12. Agreed. WJBscribe (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. That is an absolutely appalling attitude. I am glad that the editor surrendered her tools, eliminating the need for a de-admin discussion. Horologium (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not examined most of this case at all, but one detail I checked gives me pause, namely the status of Temasek Review Emeritus. From the article about that publication, it sounds notable and important as an anti-government perspective in Singapore. It is said that RS/N ruled against it, but searching I find only Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_96, where one single editor who says he never looked at the site deprecates it.

I think it is very important that Wikipedia not allow knee-jerk responses (i.e. a reaction to the word "blog", or the mere fact that something appeared on RS/N despite a lack of real discussion) to translate into the prohibition and even punishment of editors linking to anti-government voices under authoritarian regimes.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Wnt (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute.  This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.  

1) La goutte de pluie gets admin mentored to improve her knowing of policies and such. ~~Ebe123~~ ^talk_Contribs 12:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

• I am of the opinion this will not work. She needs to surrender the tools completely, either by recall or by ArbCom. At this stage, with persisting alarming behaviour here and elsewhere, I am leaning towards going to Arb. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was recommending actions backed by WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Deleting Simon Chesterman's article in its current state would not hurt the project, the rule of thumb that "if you are notable, someone will create an article about you" is almost always true. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• I've proposed something less vague below. FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I would still like to continue with this proposal since Atama's comments. ~~Ebe123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• LGDP has rejected constructive feedback thus far - I'm not sure how or why this remedy would be any different than previous attempts. Toddst1 (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2) Owing to her involvement in content disputes in the area, La goutte de pluie shall refrain from using her admin tools on all Singaporean politics articles and their editors. She must bring any problems she perceives to require admin intervention in this area to the attention of an uninvolved admin. FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this was already suggested in the previous ANI. She did in fact follow it up to a point, getting other admins to action on her concerns, then it lapsed... I hope she sticks to it this time.Zhanzhao (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

This is fine with me, if more administrators and editors are willing to watch problematic articles, especially for COI editing and whitewashing (for any politician), excepting the ability to delete copyvios copied from copyrighted websites. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. If there is to be a restriction, it should be a blanket restriction — no allowances at all. Get an uninvolved admin to do it. You have been accused by the IPs of using the "copyright" argument to remove some edits and I think if you are allowed to continue to "delete copyvios copied from copyrighted websites" (in your view), there is potential for further conflict. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this was already suggested in the previous ANI. She did in fact follow it up to a point, getting other admins to action on her concerns, then it lapsed... I hope she sticks to it this time.Zhanzhao (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal does not address her problematic _editing_ of Singapore politics articles, which continues to this day despite the various processes initiated. Virtuaoski (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, but this was the most pressing issue. It's now moot that she voluntarily resigned her admin bit--a commendable act. I don't think she is the only problematic editor in the area of Singaporean articles though. I think something like WP:Discretionary sanctions on the topic area would be preferable given the other SPAs that come and go. FuFoFuEd (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• This seems like a good idea, not as extreme as a topic ban. I suggest restriction of admin tools + 1RR/3 days. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 13:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• As I mentioned in the ANI thread, I support 1RR and administration ban on problem topics (smaller than 'anything and everything related to Singapore'; at broadest, 'Singaporean politics') for a fixed duration of three months. Elle could benefit from a step back, but the project won't gain net benefit from applying indefinite topic ban across the broad topic of 'Singapore'. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3) La goutte de pluie is subject to a topic ban on all articles related to Singapore's politics and politicians indefinitely. Toddst1 (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I am a Singaporean by nationality. Furthermore, Simon Chesterman is known first and foremost for his views on the NATO intervention in Kosovo War (which I have no real stance on) and the idea that many humanitarian interventions backed by the US has gone against the framework of international law. Note I have since withdrawn the AFD. I was major contributor to History of Singapore, Singapore, Ministry of Education Language Centre (creator) and Eugenics in Singapore (creator), Singaporean general election, 1963 (creator), Singaporean general election, 1959 (creator) and PAP-UMNO relations (creator) among others I can't remember. The idea that I have a POV against the Singaporean government (which has many people I admire) is silly — I have written (unconsciously) fairly sympathetic articles about the PAP and the Singaporean government, which I remain proud of. I am only involved in this tangled mess with the 2011 elections and politicians' articles with COI editing because COI editing was involved. I cannot tolerate COI editing, and will vigourously oppose it. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 07:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Simon Chesterman / User:Tempwikisc (they are the same person) given his nationality and background, probably has views sympathetic towards liberal democracy. Your accusation is paradoxical. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 07:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. My view: given that LGDP is so driven by her desire to oppose "COI editing", she will not be able to edit articles in this topic dispassionately. As such, a topic ban is necessary, in order to prevent future tendentious editing. Virtuaoski (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. For obvious reasons. Had dispute with her over Teo Ser Luck page where she persistently added a less than convincing link to back up criticism. Tin Pei Ling might be a new politician, but I don't see how LGDP has edited the page to make it look like one. LGDP also has this habit of over-expanding sections of criticism on Tin Pei Ling,Vivian Balakrishnan and Tony Tan Keng Yam pages. I would like to highlight Tony Tan is involved in a presidential election this week. LGDP's sudden interest in making any form of criticism or disputes on his page extra long (and pasting the whole section in Ong Teng Cheong page (very well-liked former president) ) is very questionable behaviour. Her rebuttal is always to counter POV/COI. Clearly not so... 202.156.13.10 (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This is more of an addition step to 2). ~~Ebe123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user continues to edit tendentiously on Singaporean matters. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I oppose this remedy as disproportionate. Less heavy-handed options are available to be attempted first. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I for one would like to see more evidence. The number of outrageous edits highlighted here is rather small for a topic ban. La goutte de pluie appears reasonably responsive to peer criticism, so this remedy may be premature. I also have the impression that this behavior of hers being criticized here is not limited to Singaporean matters. What seems to happen is that she locks on to some COI/POV editor and turns the article in question by 180 from lavish praise to scathing criticism. See this for instance and her comment on the editor's page [12]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per User:TechnoSymbiosis, a topic ban on Singaporean topics would be disproportionate. The problems described above were limited only to polarizing Singaporean politicians where La goutte de pluie couldn't separate her own opinions from neutral points of view. She has already demonstrated good faith by resigning as an admin and I hope we can all allow her to resume her content-building work peacefully. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 15:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4) A recall petition has been started at User talk:La goutte de pluie. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NB - Elle's recall standard is that six neutral editors (who would have no interest in her being de-sysopped) confirm any recall request. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NB - La goutte de pluie has been de-sysopped at 09:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC) by Dweller (talk · contribs). [13] Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 10:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5) I have no firm remedies to propose. What I would like to propose however, is a culture shock, one of awareness and vigilance. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 07:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by parties

Can you please explain by what that means? OpenInfoForAll (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others

6) In light of wikistalking edits like this one [14] (Ong Teng Cheong is hardly a politician of interest in the current presidential election, and is generally outside the IP's scope of interest), and other examples of tendentious editing, where I worked hard to draw from a variety of academic sources (whereas the IP resorts to WP:RECENTISM and newsbites), I would like to move this case to the arbitration committee. I intend to make a request very soon.

Comments by parties

1. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I would suggest this be added to the 1rrr list as well. All these debate about what should go in or not, and how, should be trashed out in the Talk page. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   The IP editor has refused to use the talk page, and continues to use one-liner arguments. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I've warned him. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There are existing restrictions in place on general election-related articles and I would first suggest extending those to encompass the presidential election-related articles and with a further undertaking of dispute resolution with the IP-hopper before we go to Arbitration. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others

1. As I think I said on the talk page already, I would support WP:Discretionary sanctions on this topic area. Apparently only ArbCom can enact those. RfCUs (like this one) are too complex to file for short-lived SPAs and IP hoppers, which slip under that type of radar. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Another Arbitration Request has been made with a larger number of named parties (but some unnotified) see: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#La_goutte_de_pluie OpenInfoForAll (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7)Due to her expressed intent to edit punitively articles on living people that have shown some degree of COI, La goutte de pluie is subject to a topic ban on all biographical articles, including their talk pages and deletion discussions on them, for 3 months, to be extended to indefinite if the conduct justifying this resumes. DGG ( talk ) 14:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: Clearly some of the most disturbing BLP issues I've seen. I wonder if indefinite is more appropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and agree with Toddst1. It is some of the worst BLP manipulation (to borrow a term from ArbCom) I've seen, even more so considering her former status as an administrator. One wonders if being away for so many years contributed to this. I would suggest that if Lgdp declines to follow this non-binding proposal, that perhaps we would need to seek further input from ArbCom specifically about her conduct, and not any wider matter (be it Singaporean politics or BLPs). Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Strange Passerby, ArbCom will not accept it because that this is under progress. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
  _Contribs 20:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and agree with Toddst1. If the comment about using BLP's to punish people had been a passing misstatement, regretted and apologized for, I could feel lenient. But ongoing discussions have shown that this is very much Lgdp's position, consciously held, defiantly defended in the face of nearly universal criticism. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Toddst1, but not Strange Passerby, who seems to be asking we punish her...--Cerejota (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per everyone, but remember that RfCU decisions are not binding. We could get this at WP:AN just to make it binding. Right now the conesnsus is BAN INDEFINITELY. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
  _Contribs 20:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per everyone. Lgdp is using BLP to pursue her political agenda. She only started her edits just before the respective elections. She has no interest in improving the articles in the spirit of Wikipedia. This is clear, persistent and continuing abuse. 203.161.94.78 (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, This IP is a sockpuppet. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Virtuaoski (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, leaning Oppose. I might be assuming a bit too much good faith here, but I can see a reasonable point of view which matches LGDP's comments. Yes, the concept of "punishing COI by inputting negative information" is totally incorrect, but I am not certain that's what she meant. Articles should be neutrally written, and COI can lean an article towards the positive, hiding any "negative" information. What needs to happen to these articles is that they are re-written in a neutral manner, including the "negative" information if appropriate. Having looked at a pattern of LGDP's edits, I'm not seeing that she is actually adding inappropriate information, just holding an opinion and expressing it badly. As such, I'm not certain that a BLP topic ban is required at this time. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by parties:

• Endorse. We need to put really need to come to some form of conclusion after dragging on for months. I am just afraid this will drive her towards the non-BLP political articles reactively (i.e. The presidential and general election articles in the Singapore context). Zhanzhao (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had no real conflict with you, other than using Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for a part of the project that is ill-watched. Could you please highlight specific instances of BLP-editing behaviour? I believe I am being judged on intentions rather than the merits of my specific edits. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no real conflict with you. What I do oppose is the way you are editing and how you are justifying your edits, specifically in the "punishing COI" reasoning. Your actions and reason carries implications that would make policing articles and keeping them neutral very difficult if it were allowed, and would lead to people trying to game e system, as I explained in ArbCom extensively. Zhanzhao (talk) 06:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as per Worm OpenInfoForAll (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither once did any of you use the talk page or raise a disagreement, resorting instead to backroom user talk comments and noticeboards without informing me. This is rather discourteous, and furthermore, I have clearly improved the articles under dispute to a much better form than they were before they were POV-neutralised. I am curious why you think a talk page ban is necessary as well? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Discussion of this proposal underway at AN now. Toddst1 (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.