Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/La goutte de pluie

I do find La goutte's actions worrisome wrt WP:INVOLVED, but I don't think anyone presented evidence of actual WP:COI here. I think some are confusing mere political bias or "POV", which many editors have when it comes to their local/regional/national politics, with the more narrowly defined WP:COI. FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that this matter is escalating unnecessarily. Remedies were voted on in the recent ANI thread, one of which (1RR+admin ban) was supported by Elle herself. Why has this been escalated to an RFC/U without the ANI remedies being enacted and attempted first? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the remedies didn't pass, the other did. I was the one who closed them, and enacted the second one as I did so (1RR + semiprotection on 5 articles). I'm not aware of an "admin ban", though there was a topic ban proposal that failed to get a solid consensus. Neither of the proposals at ANI included a specific restriction on LGDP's use of administrator tools, though concern for the use of tools was cited as a reason for requesting a topic ban. This RfC/U grew out of discussion you can see here, where multiple people suggested it. -- Atama頭 23:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The admin ban was in the proposal you closed as passed. From Strange Passerby's proposal, 'Elle would not be allowed to use her admin tools in this area', which was one of the criteria I explicitly supported. Could this also be enacted/enforced, please?

I see that a few people wanted to push the issue to RFC/U but these appear to have been requested before the sanction was closed and (partially) enacted. Doesn't this seem premature? I'd rather see if the already-approved sanctions work before escalating this matter further up the chain like this. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a moot point now that La goutte de pluie has resigned her tools. -- Atama頭 16:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not use semi-protection recklessly; one other administrator had reverted the removal of the notice from the IP talk page, while many unblock appeals from the IP had already been repeatedly posted and rejected.

For the blocked IP to remove my own comment (and only my comment) from public discussion about the editor was basically being petty and disruptive; furthermore my comment was directly related to the unblock notice and selective removal of that comment disrupted the flow of the page. Of course users are allowed to remove comments from their own talk pages, as members of a community. Someone who sockpuppeteers across shared IP ranges is quite another; in that case, the user does not "own" his or her IP address.

User:202.156.13.11 is only one of the many incarnations that the user has taken; my purpose in the very old block mentioned was to try to trigger an autoblock in an attempt to trace the sockmaster of the IP, before Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geneva2011 had occured — but of course I had forgotten autoblocks had been anonymised a long time ago (otherwise a good thing for most purposes, generally) — an autoblock could be expected shortly because the user tended to switch aliases or IPs very quickly. This is why I removed it after 15 minutes. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 08:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never admitted to original synthesis -- in fact Strange Passerby often makes this allegation for things that are not OR. For example, if Tony Tan said that "group X's claims are nonsense -- I was Minister of Defence from 1995 to 2003", then he's arguing that "conflict of interest is impossible because my tenure as minister falls outside the time period in which it could have occurred". This is hardly OR, and I think most people would agree it is a reasonable and fair paraphrase of his statement. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 08:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Passerby's allegation of your self-admittance of OR is justified. Words were placed into Tony Tan's mouth, without regard to attributability. The section in question originally read, "It was highlighted that Dr Patrick disrupted his NS for medical studies under a President’s Scholarship and a Loke Cheng Kim Scholarship in 1988 whereas Tan served as Defence Minister from 1995 to 2003." You re-wrote it to read, "Tony Tan argued preferential treatment would not have occurred because of his influence, noting that Patrick suspended his NS <...> in 1988 whereas Tan only served Defence Minister only seven years later." Even after the wording had been corrected and sources cited for the corrected version, you reverted the edits and again attributed these remarks to Tony Tan. Subsequently, you added the phrase "Tony Tan said that a conflict of interest was impossible." There has been no evidence that Tony Tan actually said these things. And no, I do not agree that it is a "reasonable and fair" paraphrase of his statement. Along the way, you also alleged that Patrick Tan was granted a second NS disruption, an allegation for which no reliable source exists, which adds to the OR concern. Virtuaoski (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, read Wikipedia:Words to avoid. "It was highlighted" is a weasel phrase (who highlighted it)? I am not sure if you know what Wikipedia:original research is. The words have to be attributed to someone; we can't have phantom forces making phantom explanations. Obviously Tony Tan would mention his Ministry of Defence tenure in order to imply that he would not have been responsible for any preferential treatment. This is not putting words into his mouth -- this is common sense. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 11:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you were using " he said it ..." to mean "His position was that ..." This is not acceptable modification. If you were using it to mean "He said things, that in summary amounted to ..." it could be acceptable wording in a neutral context, but I think would still better have been avoided here. In political statements, exact words matter. I do not completely agree with you that "highlighted" is always to be seen as POV, but it could equally well be a comment that "His key point was " which in context may have been fair summary. But yes, , it should have been avoided here, (Unfortunately, people here and elsewhere seem to use it just for variation without realizing the emphasis.) DGG ( talk ) 12:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is little difference between "he argued that" and "his position was that"; only that the former has more felicitous (and direct) language. We should strive to be clear and concise. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 18:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LGDP, I cited the original phrasing of "it was highlighted" to show that you removed a borderline phrasing, inserted a completely novel phrase, and attributed it to Tony Tan without basis. I note that even though that phrase was subsequently cleaned up, and what was said was corrected and the primary sources cited, you subsequently removed Tony Tan's mention of his defence tenure. This was ostensibly because another user found it problematic, which is untrue. The other user was concerned that words were being put into Tan's mouth. Here in this discussion, you imply that Tan's defence tenure is material, which raises the question of why you removed the mention of his defence tenure in your recent edit. By the way, your use of "obviously" (which, incidentally, is listed in the Wikipedia:Words to avoid that you asked me to read) and "common sense" do not advance your argument. Virtuaoski (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Words to avoid" here is for avoidance in the article, not in talk discussions. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 18:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Elle never did admit to original synthesis. But thats a technicality. FAct is, various admins and editors(not counting the anon IPs) pointed it out to her that she was doing it but she has never admitted to it. Not that it helps much. What she DID admit to is adding stuff in the actual article to make a point or fight COI/NPOV - resulting in equally questionable edits. Also I find it ironic foe her to point out Wikipedia:Words to avoid when I was just previously pointing out this very same rule for the use of "It is noted" on the article where she defended the addition of the Library of Congress addition which had no direct relation unless one pushed OR or Synthesis. Frankly I am getting tired.... Zhanzhao (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not push any new conclusion. It is simply relevant background matter to the politics of trade union endorsements at hand. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 02:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this concern was raised on her talk page, shouldn't we add WP:SIGN? ~~Ebe123~~ ^talk_Contribs 10:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that is a different dispute, and per WP:RFC/U, RFCs should be about single disputes relating to single users (in this case, La goutte de pluie on Singapore politics). Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty bureaucratic. We have a "request for comments about a user" who is an administrator. Stifling comments is f-ed up. Toddst1 (talk) 05:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that's even close to "stifling comments". I simply feel adding it here would be yet another unnecessary distraction from the main dispute. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one use of Temasek Review in [1]. It's for a trivial, gossipy matter that probably doesn't belong in that article--someone being their sole Facebook moderator--but I don't see where the huge outcry is coming from. FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used TR in that particular case because it was a form of investigative journalism that used a verified primary source (the election documents), and in that edit to my recollection, I roughly wrote "Temasek Review pointed out X". (X being a well-sourced fact.) Of course anonymous editors looking to wikihound on particular technical details of policy, rather than the spirit of the policy, are quite another matter. I do not really think they appreciate what WP:RS really means, and why it's in place. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 18:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can check Tin Pei Ling's page. 202.156.13.10 (talk) 03:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Strange Passerby, but they did not express a significant minority viewpoint. The mainstream press and government agencies has often responded to outcries raised through TR -- this includes the current "curry mediation incident". When the mainstream press (or a government body writing in to the press) says they are "responding to online furor" they usually mean responding to concerns raised through such sources as TR or TOC.

It is precisely because other reliable sources existed that we can cite TR because we can cross-reference statements made, solving many of the concerns of why WP:RS exists. I believe we can cite TR as an opposing viewpoint, especially if the mainstream press is forced to respond to that viewpoint. The Patrick Tan concerns were raised first in TR; naturally we should be able to cite it. That I have not pressed the issue is because I am amenable to compromise, but when I have time I intend to submit a more comprehensive argument to WP:RS/N, listing situations where TR raised something, and the government press was forced to respond to it. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 18:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To correct you on the sidetrack about the curry mediation case, they were not responding to TR, but the furor created by a misconception created by TR (That the case was recent) that was created when the original source (the Today paper I believe) failed to mention timeline. This is what I have read from the publications thus far. The evidence is in their frequent mention of euphermisms of "generic online discontent" and the facebook event rather than TR. The editor and journalist of the original publication that left out the date has since clarified and apologized for the mistake in leaving out that crucial information, as expected of a reliable publication, but TR has just fluffed over it. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Passerby's point is that using sources such as TRE as the basis for statements to be included in such articles is highly inappropriate. The use of TRE introduces falsehoods into articles. Since you mention that the citing of TRE as an opposing viewpoint was appropriate in the Patrick Tan case, I shall argue why it was not. A false TRE allegation that Patrick Tan was disrupted from NS twice was inserted by you with inline citation to TRE. After other editors removed the section, including both the false allegation and the TRE reference, you reinserted the allegation that he "had been granted a second disruption" in the article as an unsourced fact, with synthesis to imply that this contradicted Tony Tan's 'argument' (an 'argument' that Tony Tan did not even make, but that was created by you, as I described earlier). The outcome: baseless TRE allegations end up in the article, stated as fact, without any sources cited, along with synthesis against words that were placed in Tony Tan's mouth. Virtuaoski (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that TR recently carried 2 "Expose" arcles regarding the Patrick Tan case, in both bases using the "unnamed source" tact. That makes verification extremely difficult. The thing is, not all TR articles are taken seriously enough to even get quoted, sourced or replied to. And in cases where they are sourced, the publications have very explicit about describing/naming it, not treating it as just another mainstream source. I don't see this being applied all the time to how TR is sourced here, and in many cases its been questionably treated as a mainstream and conventional source here.Zhanzhao (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the 2XX IP that this is most concerning. It's a classic battleground between two sides with extreme POV, neither of which bothers with any sources (massive WP:OR), and both sides write extremely biased text. You'd think this doesn't happen in the Wikipedia of 2011. Frankly, I don't see how this RfC is going to solve that problem. This should be kicked up to ArbCom or WP:AN to have WP:Discretionary sanctions covering the whole of Singapore politics. A topic ban on just one of the participants is not sufficient in my view. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over the years (without people watching the articles) promotionalists have managed to dominate the articles, with such nakedly POV statements such as "the National Youth Council is the Advocate, Connector and Enabler for youth", which for years went unnoticed. I think cautionary skepticism in the other direction for a few months is sufficient. I've already compiled a list of references to draw from on the talk page; I will draw from those in time. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 02:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cautionary skepticism is one thing. Editing to the opposite opinion is another. As pointed out repeatedly, edit the POV out, not swing it to the other end of the street. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. Wikipedia is not for advocating a particular stand. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to seem like I'm being a dick, but I'm not exactly seeing people rush to fix any problems themselves. If you find it so problematic, there's nothing to prevent you or anyone else from taking a crack at it. I may try to do just that in the near future, but I'll have to educate myself a little bit more on the goings-on in Singapore. And finally, I do think much of this problem would have been avoided if she wasn't dealing with an IP hopping editor evading a great deal of scrutiny who is, frankly, the more problematic party content-wise; had this been a dispute between two named accounts or at least a long-term IP editor from one IP, it would have been considerably easier to come to some agreement, for various reasons. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't excuse the misuse of admin tools in any way, though. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, and other people have already said what I would have about that, so I deliberately didn't bring that up. I'm more concerned with the content side of this, though, and I'm seeing more than a one-sided problem. To deal with that will require more work all-around. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will, however, say that I do not think she has done anything so horrific that she should be required to give up adminship; I'd really have to see gross abuse of admin tools for that. To put this in perspective, we've had an admin (who I can name if necessary) mass-protect thousands of templates with no consensus, creating a gigantic mess that took a huge effort to undo. Shit happens; I don't endorse it, and I find it problematic, but we're not talking about an admin deliberately changing the You have new messages bar to display the picture of goatse either. I think if we could simply cut to the heart of the problem (ultimately, getting a few more people involved with stopping the IP trolling and more people willing to work from a neutral point of view), the trouble with admin actions would fade away as well. If more people were willing to deal with it in the first place, it may not have come to this point at all. It's kinda shooting the messenger in a sense; that doesn't excuse some of the issues described above, but again I'd expect more people to intervene if they really see a problem. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Put another way, if a prospective admin had made the exact same edits as Lgdp has, you would still support them in their adminship request despite the obvious issues with POV? That's rather concerning, because I'd hope people would be able to see through that. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that I'm in a minority on this (though not as much a minority as would appear, since there are others who won't admit this stance), my feeling is that adminship, once gained, is something which requires severe abuse of those tools to be removed. I would probably be neutral to start on a recall RfA, and would be more than happy to switch to support given a promise to request assistance in the topic area. I personally think we've gotten some assurance of that over the past several days, though it does take a little reading through the lines; a more concrete promise would be helpful, too. Once that's been promised and demonstrated, I think the goal of this RfC would have been achieved. If it keeps going on, then maybe we can talk recall; however, as I said above, I think it will help if a few more people (as evidenced by the section below, I'll be one of them) get involved in the topic area to deal with the very real problems La goutte de pluie has repeatedly referred to. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly how La goutte de pluie has been making edits on all Singaporean politics related pages. When someone brought up an article addressing NS disruption ( if you are in Singapore and followed on the case, you would have known the letter was related and partly addressing Patrick tan's case) , LGDP removed it stating it is not related as Patrick Tan wasn't mentioned in it. However when she needs to back up that Patrick Tan went for "premedical studies" (which in her opinion is not recognized) , she proceeds to dig it out and insert it back in saying that "However, MINDEF clarified that Patrick Tan had in fact, been given disruption for his "pre-medical component for a general undergraduate degree". Didn't she say Patrick Tan was not mentioned in it? It seems to me she's approving references based on her liking. And of course she likes to add notes like "(Admission into an undergraduate program does not entail admission into medical school in the United States.)" and "(Due to competition, most premeds never attend medical school: see medical school in the United States.)" 202.156.13.10 (talk) 10:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to the rest of this substance later, but in the diff you provided she doesn't say it doesn't mention him; she says the reference supporting thought I had removed this before, but too late now; just striking through the removed information was "of tenuous relevance". The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's my take on this. She initially removed the section on Tony's clarification of how the Singaporean government handles disruptions claiming it was of tenuous relevance, which in WikiSpeak is WP:UNDUE. Looking over the article, I'm inclined to agree; he was the minister of defense from 1995-2003, so his answering a question in 2011 about conscription isn't particularly relevant to him. Conversely, adding that there was a controversy about his son somehow deferring for a very long period of time is relevant to him, because people questioned him and believed he had some hand in it. What I'm guessing happened is she accidentally added the wrong article in as a reference (this, when the article containing the questions about his son are here; they were simultaneously removed). Of course she can clarify/correct that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the recall has been performed, would it be fair to close the discussion? — Kudu ^~I/O~ 16:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Mr. Wales thinks "that further measures are warranted." I have no idea what that means but it sounds punitive. Toddst1 (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably ArbCom, which is punitive to an extent. I see nothing wrong with punitive actions as long as they don't violate policy, and as far as I'm aware the only punitive action prohibited by policy is blocking as a punishment.

On the original point of this subtopic: I see no reason to sweep the content/general conduct issues under the rug just because the recall procedure was successful. The admin abuse issue may be resolved but not the content/general conduct issues and this RFC is also here to serve that. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On that matter, there is nothing wrong with punitive actions against COI as well, so long as the edits comply with policy. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. You're really missing the point, or perhaps can't hear it. Toddst1 (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you all are missing the point. Elle is a good user at heart, and has cooperated with this whole matter. There doesn't seem to be a need for arbitration. I think mentoring might be a good idea. Also, let's remember that Wales' opinion is no more important than ours. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 21:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jimbo misinterpreted my position, and I have a strong sense of ethics, actually. While striving to maintain a neutral article and comply with content policies — if an involved editor is willing to use a billion sockpuppets and jump IPs, and use any available means to circumvent the policies of the project to enforce their promotional view, the project should not be a sitting duck. I can think of no greater discouragement for abusing the project than restoring (reliable) sources that the abusers wished to censor. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your motives are very much in conflict with Wikipedia's policies, and more than that, the Wikipedia culture itself. Using your own words here and in the previous AfD discussion, you want to prevent the encyclopedia from being a "sitting duck", so to "discourage" someone from "abusing the project", you want to "punish" them with "reliably-sourced negative criticism". That kind of tit-for-tat retaliation is unacceptable. You should never, ever use article main space (in a BLP, no less!) as a tool against other editors. When you edit an article, you should have one intention only, to improve that article. Not to "punish" someone. I don't mean to sound hyperbolic here, but I would go so far as to say that adding information to an article with the intent to punish someone, and not with the intent of improving the article, is skirting close to vandalism. That's pretty serious. We deal with abuse in a number of ways, but not by inserting info into an article only to upset them. Well-sourced or not, acting in that manner is destructive to Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 17:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discouragement is within policy: see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (COI is strongly discouraged) and Wikipedia:Autobiography (autobiographies are strongly discouraged). Such edits are primarily meant improve the article, but also compensate for the fact that there is COI working against the interests of neutrality. Again, such edits would still comply with Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. That there is COI involved merely motivates the discovery of critics that the said interest may be covering up. That is all. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"That kind of tit-for-tat retaliation is unacceptable." In what sense? The article would still comply with policy, but the COI-agent would be deterred from future attempts to subvert the project. Indeed, the general public should know that people are free to make constructive edits, but that COI editing will generally result in backlash against the external goals of said COI editor. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're inventing policy now. We have absolutely no policy that states that we need to make article space edits to "compensate for the fact that there is COI working against the interests of neutrality". I would never insert something into any article space just to discourage an editor, and I would hope no other editor (administrator or otherwise) would do so either. In effect, if you edit with that purpose in mind, you're letting the other editor control your edits. -- Atama頭 21:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My primary intention has always been to improve the article. In most articles I have worked on, I have usually tried to work comprehensively. On Vivian Balakrishnan I attempted to represent his views accurately, as well as his views on social welfare, as well as represent the media furor more clearly, which his whitewashers tried to delete mention of -- even those of perfectly respectable sources. With that in mind, I paid especial attention to what they tried to delete -- simply because there was probably something they were trying to cover up, leading to good clues about what to really write about. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atama, I think (and Elle, you may of course correct me if I'm wrong) that above she's saying she doesn't want these articles to become overrun with COI editing. Reworking an article because it was written by someone with a COI is, in a sense, "compensat[ing] for the fact that there is a COI working against the interests of neutrality". There is an essay on this general concept (though it covers other things), so it's not an unheard-of concept. I think that "punish COI" was, at very best, a bad word choice (and Jimbo has said what it is at worst; I will withhold my personal view, although suffice to say you may be surprised), but I think there's more being made of that than is necessary. We have {{uw-coi}} to discourage users from editing with conflicts of interests; it's not the concept of discouraging COI that I see as the problem, but with the method displayed there. FWIW, however, I've heard other people say that who made an article matters at AfD before; I can give you a link if necessary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elle may have backpedaled a bit in her most recent comment in this thread, but earlier she had explicitly stated that she would insert properly-sourced negative criticism of an article subject for the sole purpose of punishing a disruptive editor who tried to remove it. I don't see that as making the pole straight. I see that as arbitrarily wiggling the pole around to irritate someone. It may not be violating any actual policies but it's still a poor attitude to have. I'm somewhat familiar with the COI problems at Wikipedia (I'm sorry to say that I've made more edits to WP:COIN than any other page on Wikipedia). But you should never make an edit to an article only because someone else doesn't want you to, and that's exactly what she suggested at AfD and earlier in this thread. -- Atama頭 00:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now the last point you made I think we can all agree is right. I've been dealing with longevity-related topics on and off since November, and I saw a lot of that going on (although the motivation there was some strange biblical literalist interpretation of human longevity in addition to fighting an expert with a COI and a serious case of WP:OWN); that editor ended up banned for a year by ArbCom. That editor refused to back off at all, hence he ended up banned; if Elle is seeing why this is a problem now, I don't see where there's a need for vague threats of "further measures". And it's not necessarily the most helpful way to shove the pole the other way, but she's right that there is a problem there, and like I said above I'm not seeing a huge line of people looking to help out (I'm reading up on the subject now, so hopefully in a week or two I'll be able to lend some more assistance). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think more eyes on those subjects would be good. I'm not unsympathetic to Elle. I'm not sure about "further measures" either. My entire point here was to refute the suggestion that it's okay to make edits to an article solely out of retaliation. -- Atama頭 04:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my concern about the certifiers' general allegations in this RfC/U, I'm finding it hard to muster up outrage about the idea of "punishing COI" by turning slanted articles into balanced articles. The interest of someone with a COI is to have as flattering an article for their person or organization as possible, even if they have to ride roughshod over Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. That interest is fundamentally at odds with the interest of Wikipedia, which is to have a reliable, verifiable, and neutral article with a sufficient breadth and depth that would include reliably-sourced criticism. Wikipedia mandates the inclusion of criticism because articles that obsequiously praise the subject seriously damage Wikipedia's readership and credibility. Edits designed to cause distress to another user should be treated seriously, but insofar as this distress would come from having a balanced Wikipedia article, the feelings of that user should be ignored or held in contempt. Quigley (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding myself largely agreeing with you. It's the difference between what's happened at the Fiona Graham article versus the Earthcore article, in a sense. Fiona, or someone close to her, has been repeatedly attempting to stuff the genie of revealed biographical information back into the lamp to help her career as a geisha (ignoring the fact that things like birth dates are rather important). Conversely, at Earthcore we had someone attempting to force a poorly-sourced negative slant into the article because the tour's organizer had edited it. The former is what we should be shooting for, the latter is what has people worried; that, I think, is what Jimbo was concerned about. You and I seem to have a fairly similar view on that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My intention is not punishment for the sake of punishment; I always seek to comply with policy, but edits can also keep discussion moving forward. In the case of outright agenda-pushing, I seek edits that both improve the article and teach COI agents to use discussion and respect policy; attempting to ride over policy will backfire. Often they don't use the talk page at all, or rather they did not attempt to seek consensus. This is a way to expose problematic editors to the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that both sides may have overly extreme positions here. Clearly speaking of "punishing COI editors" was a spectacularly bad way for Elle to express herself - one almost wonders if she moonlights as an Israeli diplomat. ;) The way to put this is "to counter a POV bias inserted into the article by someone with a COI" by "providing relevant background information to ensure both sides of political controversies are fairly represented". COI's should not be taught that their efforts will "backfire", rather they "should understand that they don't WP:OWN their articles, and should recognize the need for inclusion of relevant material even if they dislike it".

But it is also wrong to propose all kinds of harsh sanctions against Elle without really talking over the individual edits and what their sources are. I haven't looked very deeply into this case, but I see a lot of proper sources being used to make fairly moderate statements. I would like to see more discussion on the article talk page; for example, an edit like [2] seems mostly appropriate to me, even if perhaps the amount of quotation should be reduced since it isn't really that important a source to quote. I thought on Wikipedia we were supposed to discuss the edit, not the editor, so it seems like putting the cart before the horse to talk about blocking or topic-banning Elle before we have a consensus about what edits she made are actually bad, and if so how bad.

Elle using the admin tools to win a content dispute was clearly beyond the pale. Even so, my criticism of her must be tempered by my suspicion that some other admins, while not actually changing a protected article to match their position, actually do sit and watch it for hours or even days until it reaches a state that they most agree with, then swoop down to full-protect it in that condition, then keep it that way until the state they've chosen is the "status quo" which "no consensus" cannot change. I hope I'm wrong about that, but I don't think so. Wnt (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the above-guideline suggestion in another section and I do not see where it mentions that only one matter can be discussed at a time as one editor suggested especially if it has to do with continuing bad conduct. I also have a complaint against this user and she refuses to respond to myself or Administrator User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. She has posted a totally false accusation about me and in a bizarre manner and improper format - one comment on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Reliable_sources.2C_not_the_.22truth.22 It is a solitary paragraph she titles Reliable sources, not the "truth" in which she accuses me of an even more bizarre accusation, i.e,that I stated "that we should blacklist reputable, reliable sources to push (my) paralegal agenda." The paragraph includes one editor who is equally confused, and my request she explain herself or retract her statement. I have complained to Administrator User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. She has not responded unless by email to anyone though she has been active online. I have never engaged with this person on any article. I hope she does not get her tools back because what I have read at her Talk Page and other places, and what I know about the mostly fine administators I have dealt with, La goutte de pluie does not deserve them. In fact, I have seen editors banned for much less bad conduct. Mugginsx (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like as you were typing you got a brief response. Not standing up for the content but I think I see what happened. If you look when this was originally posted[3] it was right below the thread "Death of Caylee Anthony: Alleged defamation by WP:RS" that you were active in. If it had been put in as a subsection and not a main section it would have had at least some context--Cube lurker (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. Well, if that were the case, certainly with her experience, it was still inappropriate to put the paragraph in that format in the first place, or when notified, could have put it on my talk page or some other format as you suggested. Secondly, she still falsely accused me publically, offered no evidence, has refused to retract, and has not answered in anyway to me or an administrator. I don't know about Administrators, but that, itself, is enough to get an editor blocked. Shouldn't she be held to higher standards since she has been given so much power in the past and also so many warnings? What confidence can editors have if administrators are allowed to exploit us without fear of repercussions? Someone said she has stress, well I have had cancer three times and I think I know what stress is and I am expected to respect everyone as I do myself. Yes, I know anyone can say anything about themselves. If anyone now here (except the subject of this complaint) wants to email me I will give them the names of my doctors and permission to tell them of my health. Mugginsx (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she must have read this because she finally responded to me on her talk page with a curt, "I've been busy." Then she tells me her interpretation of my "subjective thinking" never once addressing the false statement she made. More bad conduct in my mind. I hope Mr. Wales reads this and her talk page. Mugginsx (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What false statement? You make an argument attempting to blacklist the use of perfectly good sources (from a well-known news site) for that article because of your perceived (WP:TRUTHY) idea that what person X said in source Y is a lie. Wikipedia articles does not judge what is a lie or not -- which is Mugginsx's original research -- we simply report what the sources say. This section is frivolous. Mugginsx is bringing this up here because she simply does not like her arguments being refuted. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The noticeboard was mediated by an expert. We all came to agreement. It is here for anyone to see the truth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive130#Death_of_Caylee_Anthony:_Alleged_defamation_by_WP:RS You did not participate and have "claimed" that you did not see that the noticeboard was archived. That is disingenuous. If that is true, why did you make a separate section? Do you really think you can just say "anything" no matter how outrageous and be believed? Editors, and Mr. Wales can look at the above-named discussion and see for themselves the truth was resolved by an expert, and that you did NOT participate. This information what put here for the others to see. Now, through this and many other of your actions, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive715 AND http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/La_goutte_de_pluie your credibility seems so low, it no longer matters what you think or say and that should be a very sad thing for you to ponder. Mugginsx (talk) 09:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to make a subsection -- and certainly I did participate. In fact, you seem to have something against my remarks simply because I was not previously involved in the discussion. The discussion resolved a local consensus yes, but not a global one. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 11:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To state that you didn't notice that the discussion was archived and that you "intended" to make a subsection is incredulous. Further, I see that you have made your very first edit on the Death of Caylee Anthony article and, seemingly in complete defiance of Wikipedia rules, you re-inserted one of the questionable references that were settled by consensus at the aforementioned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive130#Death_of_Caylee_Anthony:_Alleged_defamation_by_WP:RS The references were discussed in full detail and this comment was made there by my76Strat, and again, in a different matter on Jimbo Wales discussion page i.e., (The resolution to this one was finding a source closer to the subject, which was therefore more reliable, and that contained the correct version of events.) by Sjakkalle. It would seem that you are in self-destruct mode. Mugginsx (talk) 11:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More sources are always better. You should only replace bad, invalid references. Better references should be added on top of valid references, not replace them. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, how you can turn a phrase. It astounds me. You took the very reference that was discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive130#Death_of_Caylee_Anthony:_Alleged_defamation_by_WP:RS which you admittedly read - then put it in the article in defiance of consensus. It seems that your actions are everything Wikipedia is not about. Mugginsx (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was no policy supporting the reference's removal, and furthermore the "consensus" achieved was very tentative, in the face of tendentious editing. Removing a reference on the grounds you gave would set a very bad precedent. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it does not make it true. It is all there. Continuing with you denials becomes a childlike game of :Yes you did" "No I didn't". I maintain what I said and have proved it to be true. End of discussion for me. Mugginsx (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have some some infatuation with the pursuit of "truth": This is not about truth; it is about reliable sources. This applies to both Caylee Anthony's case, and our case here. Editors repeatedly told you that your position was erroneous -- as is evident with the ANI dispute. I am sorry that you are offended by my position against your aggressive position. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Show it! Link it! Show everyone here!. You can't. Show where I said that we should "blacklist reliable sources". As I said before, you seem to be in a self-destruct mode on Wikipedia. Nothing more to say to you here. Will let Wikipedia work its process. Mugginsx (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at your comments at [4] and I find them very disturbing. If you were talking about links to online copies of newspaper articles that had since been retracted by the newspaper or suppressed by legal means due to defamation concerns, maybe you'd have a point. But Wikipedia is not supposed to be some kind of moot court where we run around saying that the Orlando Sentinel and other sources are "defaming" people even though they still have the articles in question up on their site for everyone to see. Such articles are often covered by WP:WELLKNOWN, and in any case the requirement to "avoid victimization" has generally not, and must not, be used to suppress citations of newspaper articles simply because they mention parties some Wikipedians find to be non-notable private individuals. Wnt (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many points were explained to myself and the initator of the discussion board and both of us learned a great deal at that discussion, some of which concerns you here. Your point is well taken. That, however, is not the subject here. The subject here is that I am being accused of something I never said and never even thought, entirely different from your expressed concern.Mugginsx (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mugginsx, kindly cease and desist from ICANTHEARIT. I'm sorry you feel victimised by being called out on a noticeboard for a fallacious argument. I meant to target directly, the heart of your ideas. If you somehow as a paralegal, conceive of this as slander, I would like to direct you to Wikipedia:No legal threats. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is truly bizarre. You lecturing me on ICAN'THEARIT. You do not know the definition of the words you use. I have never said anything about slander to you. You are in complete denial about everything you are accused of on this board. It is astounding and, at the same time, very sad. I think you have some very big problems which should prevent you from ever editing on Wikipedia again. I don't know what exactly they are, but I know they are there and violate many Wiki policies and guidelines. Mugginsx (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What now? Possible solutions:

1. Close the matter as resolved (which it isn't);
2. Mentoring;
3. Block for unconstructive editing;
4. Community ban;
5. Arbitration.

I am leaning towards mentoring or maybe arbitration. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 22:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Block or Ban - This editor has misused a position of trust as an Admiistrator and as an Editor. It seems several warnings and previous attempts at mentoring have only emboldened her instead of making her a better editor. She goes out of her way to thumb her finger at Wikipedia rules and guidelines. It seems to me that she is everything that Wikipedia is NOT. Mugginsx (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry you are so sour at being opposed in opinion about a matter of policy. By the way, your position is erroneous -- as others pointed out on that thread -- I have yet to see you defend it. The compromise was worked out to please other editors, but it was not a consensus that was the correct way to interpret policy. I am far from a legalist by the way -- I am using the spirit of the policy, not that the technicalities of the policy ever supported the removal of reliable sources on the grounds that some crackpot site (caseyanthonyisinnocent) that you seem fond of citing has some sort of "evidence" against the mainstream media coverage. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 10:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Block and Arbitration block for 6 months and arbitration is continues afterwards. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
  _Contribs 13:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Block For obvious reasons. Just look at Tony Tan Keng Yam page. The guy just became president, you don't see La goutte de pluie adding any vital information about his win. All you see is her claiming to fight recentism by updating one whole chunk of story about trade unions and Ong Teng Cheong. Is this page about Tony Tan or Ong Teng Cheong? This has been happening to all singaporean politician pages that caught her eye. You don't see it updated with any form of positive information. But if it's something negative, it will be written and extended till very long. It happened on Tin Pei Ling page. It happened on Vivian Balakrishnan page. I am most disgusted noone blocked her from editing during the recent presidential election despite my warning. <Personal attacks redacted. -- Atama頭 21:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)> 218.186.12.10 (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The promotionalism at Tony Tan Keng Yam was unacceptable; at a margin of 0.35%, it could have even unfairly influenced the election. Furthermore, the information added is more useful than whatever "Tony Tan was endorsed by the umpteenth NTUC trade union" edits that the COI agent used, and provided to his previous interaction with the trade unions. I have been at Wikipedia for a long time; I was the major expander (if not the primary writer) for History of Singapore. I expand what the sources give me. Give me sources. I am simply compelled to write something because of COI; but I always aim to write a balanced view; on Vivian Balakrishnan, I represented his views on social welfare pretty well. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As I've commented at the arbitration request, I don't see a need for arbitration against La goutte de pluie's behavior; I see a need for further editor involvement in the topic area. I think she knows now that people will be watching her, and a strong reminder to seek help and to maintain a dispassionate style while editing will be fine; if it gets worse, then go to arbitration, but don't put the cart before the horse. The IP's trolling above is a larger problem than the editor it's being directed at; how about dealing with that? I'd support an arbitration case against the IP trolling. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Block and Arbitration block for 6 months and arbitration to continues afterwards. How many times do we have to go through this circus act again? Ever since the first case, she has already been aware that eyes are on her behaviour. IPs can be rangeblocked or have the page protected (Which is relatively simple since the IP apparently only targets a few speciic pages), but thats on a different user/topic. We are discussing Elle here, and as we can see from the very first ANI, the user/editor/administrator involvement list has ballooned to the extent that even Jimbo is involved. Where does the buck stop? Zhanzhao (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plus a comment for those who have been optimistic that more eyes on the articles would help, but I just wanted to say that I myself was quite active in policing the problem articles and attempting to correct and remove COI editing from the affected articles, undoing changes from both Elle and the anon IPs along the way. But it was getting pretty tiring..... The 2 factions are fighting among themselves, I am technically fighting against the both of them in trying to keep the articles clean. Hence my recent short "break" from editing. I was waiting for the Singapore Presidential Election 2011 to pass and then some so that I can go back into fixing the pages after the worst edit warring is over, and hoping that this would be resolved by now, which does not seem to be the case. Fatigue has set in. If this is what I am feeling, I can only imagine what some of the other editors and admins are feeling. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think your COI policing was aggressive enough; furthermore, you only went as far as reverts, as opposed to useful additions of sourced content, from scholarly articles and news articles. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure the anon IPs feel the exact same way you do about me, except from the opposite side of the fence. My main activity on Wikipedia here has always mostly revolved around policing/corrections/editorial rewrites, first on the articles I am familiar with, then gradually on to others of interest which I have to do additional research on. I only do fresh additions when there is a really obvious need (i.e. Adding the presidential election results section for the Tan Cheng Bock article). I envy you for the time and energy you are able to commit to here, which is even of a higher output than mine was at its peak. I restrict myself to levels of activities I know I can commit to in the long term. Which is attempting to maintain the neutrality of content. Its unfortunate you feel not enough is being done for your purpose. Policing is not a simple task of itself as I mentioned, as I am fighting multiple fronts.Zhanzhao (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With that sort of attitude, Wikipedia would never get written. I wrote the bulk of many Singaporean articles by researching sources and establishing new content, rather than relying on WP:RECENTISM. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 16:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand my current role in Wikipedia as mostly that of a policer, and aim do carry out that function with as much objectivity as possible. That also entails identifying and raising red flags on activities that causes unnecessary complication or introduces subjectivity to the process. I only wish tha you would have that same level of objectivity in your role as a content creator. Which other admins and editors besides me have raised issues with. Everyone plays a part to make wikipedia work, regardless of the roles we play. Its HOW we carry out those roles and how they mesh with the efforts of the community as a whole that is the mai. Issue here. Zhanzhao (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ban. Elle's disruptive editing and intent to "punish COI editing" are completely unacceptable. I am particularly disturbed by her continued refusal to listen to the community's view. She even twists Wikipedia policy to suit her own misguided purposes. Her behaviour is a particularly insidious form of vandalism, and should be treated as such. Virtuaoski (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who calls actions you disagree with on a content level "vandalism" -- I am not sure you understand policy, or the definition of WP:VANDALISM. But perhaps I'm wrong, please enlighten us. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement on a content level? That is not what I, nor the other editors, have been saying in this RfC, including in the discussion above on Response to Jimbo Wales. In response to a separate question from you at AN, I have stated my concerns again at AN. Virtuaoski (talk) 01:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Truce or Arbitration. Bear in mind that Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance rules out the imposition of involuntary penalties in the RFC/U process, so all those calls for blocks and bans above exist only in a hypothetical reality where Elle would accept them voluntarily. The key issue here is that both sides imagine that editors with improper agendas should be forced to add as much about things they don't like as things they do. The COI editors have the agenda to make their side look good, so left to their own devices they make glowing articles. Elle has the agenda to punish COI editors, so she adds stuff to make their side look bad. Now both agendas are improper to some extent: COI editors are indeed limited by the policy, and sanctions are not supposed to be about punishing editors at all. Nonetheless, both sides can and should be free to express their bias when they do so by adding content or otherwise improving the article rather than fighting to get their POV on top. One can't realistically expect COI editors to dredge up all the nasty things about themselves or their party, etc., yet they have special knowledge and resources of value to Wikipedia. And when editors find a whitewashed advertisement like article about something it is entirely appropriate to dig around for a little dirt to make sure the good and the bad is represented - that just has to be a matter of improving the article to achieve NPOV rather than "punishment". I should add that I believe every editor has some agenda, and every edit we make expresses some POV - we should try not to view editors with agendas too harshly, but just try to channel that motivation to proper ends. So to summarize, I think that if Elle agrees not to continue trying to "punish" or "deter" COI editors, but only to improve articles by doing ordinary editing that one can view as good work without looking at the names of the previous editors, we could be done here. With the removal of admin tools we can put aside the most serious incidents that they made possible, and provided she stops trying to enforce COI restrictions with punishment/deterrence, the problem is solved. But if Elle doesn't agree to that basic philosophical point, it seems inevitable that the case will end up in arbitration sooner or later with the usual ugly sequellae, probably topic banning or worse. Wnt (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that certain editors have yet to use the discussion pages on the articles they think are examples of problematic editing, nor have they really done anything to them. I have never sought to edit unilaterally -- if for example if someone thinks I edit too far in a certain direction against COI, that can be easily fixed with discussion. They can make changes to my edits.

On the other hand, the issues with the anonymous IPs are not easily fixed with discussion, and I would like arbitration to proceed forward. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 10:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to caution you, as I often caution anyone who wants to start an arbitration request, that arbitration is rarely pleasant for anyone involved. Anyone named in arbitration risks sanctions, either directly or indirectly from such things as article probation or discretionary sanctions. This isn't to dissuade you from pursuing this, but it's unlikely that the committee is going to only focus on the problems coming from the IPs. If you do choose to initiate or support a request, despite the possible risk to yourself, simply because you want to see the article issues addressed no matter what, I have to commend you for being that brave. -- Atama頭 18:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My only desire is to eradicate COI from the project, nothing more. I have nothing to fear from arbitration. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:COI. Eradicating COI is not policy. If you succeed in driving COI editors away from the project, you're damaging it, not saving it. I believe everyone has biases - and the people who claim to be dispassionate on an issue are sometimes the worst offenders. Wnt (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People with declared COIs contribute to the project, and I have nothing against them. People with undeclared COIs, are an entirely different matter. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of problems that tend to come from editors who have a COI, such as slanting an article or advocacy or advertising, and we'd like to eradicate those issues. I hope that is what LGDP meant. If she really does mean that she wants to oppose any and all editors who have undisclosed conflicts of interest, regardless of their behavior or contributions, that would indeed be a problem. Most editors who have a COI have the potential to at least provide a perspective that other editors wouldn't be able to provide, and some rare COI editors use their conflicts of interest to the benefit of Wikipedia (as ironic as that sounds), where their passions inspire them to really work hard to improve an article. One of my favorite examples is this one, where a curator of a museum managed to single-handedly bring his museum's article to Good Article status. -- Atama頭 17:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that editor edited with good faith, cooperated with the community, and declared his COI. I simply wish to force uncooperative COI editors to cooperate with the community as opposed to performing attacks on the project anonymously and through stealth removals of criticism. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a view which was removed here. Was there some reason behind this? Also I see the edit summary was removed for that edit - was some revdeled edit messed up somehow? Wnt (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was just vandalism from an IP. -- Atama頭 02:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing the edit summary which called me a liar. I did not know it was allowed but was not sure. Wow! Some people are very nasty. Not like that on most other articles. Disagreements yes, but not nasty. Thanks again. Mugginsx (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a complaint against this user and she refuses to retract to myself or Administrator User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. She has posted a totally false accusation about me and in a bizarre manner and improper format - one comment on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Reliable_sources.2C_not_the_.22truth.22 It is a solitary paragraph she titles Reliable sources, not the "truth" in which she accuses me of an even more bizarre accusation, i.e,that I stated "that we should blacklist reputable, reliable sources to push (my) paralegal agenda." The paragraph includes one editor who is equally confused, and mine and editor HansAdler requests she explain herself or retract her statement. I have complained to Administrator User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. The subject of this discussion has responded on her Talk page and at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/La_goutte_de_pluie#Continuing_Bad_Conduct_Complaint where she repeats the falsehood. I hope she does not get her tools back because what I have read at her Talk Page and other places, and what I know about the mostly fine administators I have dealt with, La goutte de pluie does not deserve them. In fact, I have seen editors banned for much less bad conduct. Mugginsx (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is coming from someone who uses "caseyanthonyisinnocent.com as a general source. Ummm....why would you favour this source over the Orlando Sentinel? Oh, that's because you're out to "uncover the truth behind the trial". It is not a falsehood to explain this (as other editors have probably done). You are someone with an agenda. This is not a falsehood -- this is just my analysis. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 15:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another falsehood. Never used that source anywhere. Prove it, like I and the other editors here do, or retract it. Mugginsx (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You used it in the ANI discussion (now archived), several times in fact. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 02:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Show it! Link it! Show everyone here!. You can't because I never said it. As I said before, you seem to be in a self-destruct mode on Wikipedia. Nothing more to say to you here. Will let Wikipedia work its process. Mugginsx (talk) 09:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused myself. I don't see Mugginsx anywhere in the three ANI discussions; were you thinking of BLPN or another noticeboard? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LGDP knows and I guess you missed it. Mugginsx (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a quick search I find you've linked to it from Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive130#Death_of_Caylee_Anthony:_Alleged_defamation_by_WP:RS, Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony/Archive 10, Talk:Death_of_Caylee_Anthony/Archive_7#News_media_is_really_despicable_and_new_chloroform_information, Talk:Death_of_Caylee_Anthony/Archive_6#Krystal_Holloway. Now I have no problem at all with editors bringing up primary, partisan, or even fringe sources on talk pages and noticeboard discussions, but WP:V is and hopefully will remain about verifiability, not truth. If we have sources that say contradictory things we should say both things and (within the limits of WP:FRINGE) cite both sources. Self-consistency or a consistent point of view, deciding who's right, should not be a priority for our articles; presenting the data should be. Wnt (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I shall have a look over those. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason this conversation is here? It does not belong here. Look where you want but THIS has nothing to do with LGDP's accusations against me. Strange and humorous that you two editors put these comments HERE. If you are perhaps trying to intimidate me please look here:Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in edit wars Under section Prior Discussions it states: Discussions are never standing policy. They address immediate situations and do not make permanent decisions. Any discussions that have been held a significant amount of time ago may be out of date, based on changes that have taken place either on Wikipedia or in the outside world. The more time that has passed since that discussion, the less likely it is to be applicable. Mugginsx (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to intimidate anybody. I wandered into this big shaggy debate a few days ago and I started looking for threads to pull at and see where they led. The big bold "show it link it show everyone here" looked like something to tug on. If you didn't want us discussing that here you really shouldn't have written it like that. Wnt (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My only disagreement with LGDP is that she accused me at the first linked discussion of recommending the "blacklisting of certain WP:RS". I have repeatedly asked her to retract and she has refused. I thought you were challenging my statement to her and since I have been called a liar and other outrageous falsehoods, I was, perhaps over sensitive. If you feel that reading these discussions, one of which I linked here, will help you to come to some determination, by all means read it. Further, I apologize if that was not the intent. Mugginsx (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if she really is misrepresenting your words, that would be a sign there are some serious problems with her conduct, so it is relevant. I do not want to turn this on you, as this is not WP:Requests for comment/Mugginsx. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She did here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Reliable_sources.2C_not_the_.22truth.22 Reliable sources, not the "truth one short paragraph and she still is, here, on previous discussboard on her and on her talk page, so thank you for the comment.

It's ironic, for I never called you a liar. If you did not intend to blacklist a reliable source, that is what you are effectively doing, by giving a rationale based on posts from a crackpot website claiming that the news sources are part of "lies by a media circus". Of course you may not be saying this yourself, but your favoured source seems to say that. I am also concerned about your denial that "you never used that source anywhere" -- since not only did you use it in talk page and noticeboard discussions to suppress the use of a reliable source, but it's also in the article -- I'm guessing that source was added by you. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would seem that you crave attention, no matter if it is positive or negative. Now, as to why we are really here, i.e., your false accusation that I recommended "Blacklisting WP:RS". I know I will never get a retraction from you. Further, a retraction by you means nothing to me personally. It is the principle involved, but principles are only important to principled people. I never made the statement you claim. You know that I never made the statement that you claim. You have produced no evidence that I ever made the statement that you claim and you will never produce the statement that you claim I said because it does not exist. So, you try to divert and deflect. This continued dialogue just makes it more and more obvious that you are guilty of making the false accusation and refusing to retract it. When you are ready to retract, let me know, otherwise I will just cut and paste this paragraph after every remark you make so you will no longer waste my time. Mugginsx (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I commented about this above and you said "your point is well taken", but apparently there's still some misunderstanding here. To me this accusation describes your opposition to those Orlando Sentinel articles etc. (in an opinionated manner, to be sure). I think you're getting carried away with this detail. The main point is that you've identified and resolved one problem (misuse of tools) and identified another ("punishing" editors rather than fixing the article). Don't undermine your progress with bitterness over semantics. Wnt (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, my desire has always been to fix articles first. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well for love's sake then why don't you start saying that and back off from this constant "punishment" stuff, which is doing nothing but sending you down a greased chute to blockland. Block abusive IPs, watch articles that are distorted by POV-pushing editors, edit to restore NPOV. There's not much time, if any, left for you to fix this diplomatic blunder. Wnt (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am unfamiliar with La goutte de pluie except for the complaint in this section. According to this "Bad conduct" discussion, the "retraction" issue seems to be about this diff where Mugginsx writes: she accuses me of an even more bizarre accusation, i.e,that I stated "that we should blacklist reputable, reliable sources to push (my) paralegal agenda." La goutte de pluie actually wrote in the first sentence of the BLPN section she meant to append to the original and relevant "Defamation" thread: going so far as to suggest that we should blacklist reputable, reliable sources to push his paralegal agenda.

I think the only thing La goutte de pluie has to do here is clarify that Mugginsx wanted to "blacklist" the reliable source for this news article only, because allegedly it contained defamatory information about a non-notable person. Maybe she also could change "paralegal agenda" to "paralegal POV." Or even say Mugginsx thinks her paralegal experience makes her more of an authority on what is defamation than all the $600 an hour attorneys employed by the Orlando Sentinel. So, the bottom line is, it's all Mugginsx getting overwraught about semantics that need just a bit of clarification by La goutte de pluie. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you are asking her to do is to misrepresent what "she actually said: and admitted several times she said. Mugginsx (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When one is angry, as she obviously was after reading the BLPN Defamation thread, one can use loose language that one later goes back and corrects. Now if she prefers to use that language, that is her call. I don't think it's so far off the mark as to be totally incorrect and worthy of retraction. But if I had made the statement, I probably would go back and clarify what I meant once I'd cooled down, leaving strikes through crossed out words as not to try to "hide" what was written before. (Unless no one else had replied, in which case you can clarify away without strikes.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the lack of activity on here, the proposal to topic ban Lgdp resulted in nothing, as well the fact that the dispute appears to be over, I am proposing a motion to close this RFC/U.OpenInfoForAll (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result of this dispute has resulted in the following events:

• User:La goutte de pluie voluntarily resigned her administrator tools per a recall process
• The affected articles have been placed under 1RR and semi-protection by the community.

•  Done. Thanks to all participants for your input. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]