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: 02:44, 8 June 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.

Cause of concern

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 edit's 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.

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

Desired outcome

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]

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

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)
6. Talk:Tin Pei Ling (PAP politician), plus see photo debate dragged to [[1]]
7. Talk:Singaporean presidential 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)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

1. User:OpenInfoForAll
2. User:Strange Passerby 05:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.

1. Virtuaoski (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. ~~Ebe123~~ ^talk_Contribs 10:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. DanS76 (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

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 [2], 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.

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.

{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.}

Response to concerns

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.

The evidence of their links to their political employers are rather clear [diffs to come].

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]

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.

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

Users endorsing this response

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

Questions

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.

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.

Outside view by Atama

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]

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.  

Template

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:

Comment by others:

I've proposed something less vague below. FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of admin tools in Singaporean politics restricted

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]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.