I am an involved editor, and cannot use my tools in the dispute; since this involves elements of a content dispute, incivility and sockpuppetry it is my greatest regret that I have to use AN/I. It is my every desire to promote discussion and avoid edit warring; however various anonymous users often repeatedly blank sections (even when they are referenced!) without explanation that are critical of Singapore government / PAP (ruling party) politicians. These same users often write glowing or promotional articles on government ministries or government programmes with hyped-up language without any hint of neutrality. Originally my response to these actions was to revert on sight (especially if the removal was poorly explained or not explained at all) as well as introduce more critical language into the targeted articles; it's been a long time since Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress (which I helped draft) but this I believe is an appropriate action to disincentivise conflict of interest editing by powerful parties.

Originally these editors started out rather bumbling (deleting entire critical, referenced sections on Tin Pei Ling without any explanation) and reverting sourced criticisms (well-known criticisms, in fact). For a while (many Singaporean administrators are away and did not catch this) they could build such biased articles on government ministries without interference -- see this revision on MCYS for as an example.

I also suspect that these editors may be employed by the Singapore government. I do not make this accusation lightly. The first hint (outside of Wikipedia) was that during the elections, there was already a massive smear campaign online against the Opposition, sending trolls to make homophobic remarks or cast doubt on Opposition politicians and so forth; the trolls were deduced to be trolls because they came from accounts with virtually no friends, airbrushed or artificial / out of place profile pictures, and were created shortly before election campaign season, unlike commenters (both pro-government and pro-Opposition) who generally had some sign of a real life (and had friends, were not completely anonymous etc). Bloggers also caught the PAP astroturfing with fake accounts, the link given is just one example.

My first major conflict with these editors -- who I suspect to be coming from the same interested party -- started in Vivian Balakrishnan. Because of a discovered very old fundamental copyright violation (an unrelated issue) 330 revisions were deleted, but they can be seen here. Please note the range of different IPs and different usernames that attempt to remove reliably-referenced criticism, but behaviour (involving little discussion and little use of community tools) that makes it seem like they come from the same party. IP User:160.96.200.34 is a Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore address (also are addresses 160.96.200.35, 160.96.200.36, 160.96.200.37), all which have been involved in possible conflict of interest edits in Singaporean politics, often writing extensive promotional material for politicians and government ministries. Commercial ISPs are also used, especially IPs with a history of possibly COI editing -- see the anonymous editor which edited National Youth Council of Singapore in such an "official" and pompous way that makes me think these editors are from the government. The pattern of these editors have been to ignore warnings, avoid the use of talk pages, and try to battle it out through edit summaries, which is extremely frustrating. I used pending changes protection on that article in the middle of May for that reason, which I think was appropriate since the anonymous edits could still pass through, but other uninvolved editors could always look at the changes -- and generally they did not approve the unexplained reversions.

The latest conflict involves Teo Ser Luck, which I helped expand, and its talk page, over a section I added that discussed a video of a rally this politician spoke at, for which he was ridiculed online for, and made it to Yahoo! News Singapore. Despite the multitude of IPs reverting, I suspect they are one party and that sockpuppetry; government IPs were involved (User:160.96.200.36). When I posted my concern on the talk page about a) why I thought Yahoo! News was a reliable source b) that this was part of a pattern of whitewashing, an anonymous editor would constantly delete my comment off the talk page as "vandalism". It has now been moved out of BLP concerns by another user to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Teo_Ser_Luck, however I am puzzled because the talk page comment makes no problematic statement against Teo Ser Luck, since I try to discuss the editors involved, and the news source, not the politician himself. The removing user's awareness of previous history at Vivian Balakrishnan, despite the fact that the history has now been deleted (for unrelated copyvio reasons) and other articles at Tin Pei Ling strongly confirms my suspicions of sockpuppetry and common party COI editing.

I have made my case for the inclusion of the statement backed by a Yahoo! News Singapore source (which hires local journalists) on the BLP noticeboard, but I can further elaborate here if needed; my frustration is not with the content in fact, but rather the attitude of censor-with-impunity that possible government-hired editors seem to have. The editor(s) would rather delete entire talk page discussions rather than engage in discussion, and this alarms me. The user simply says "the source is unofficial" (essentially a one word argument) rather than referring to policy or how he or she disagrees with how I characterise the source. This is the most problematic part. I think I am complying with BLP policy as well.

I am glad to be proven wrong on any of my suspicions though. However, if I am not wrong, then I am frightened by the lack of action. If possible, can I have advice if a) CheckUser is an appropriate course of action, and if b) what administrative actions, if any, should be required. Except for pending changes protection I have refrained from using the tools in this issue. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 10:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would support a blanket ban/indef block on all IPs coming from government ministries (in Singapore and indeed just in general). On a related note, I have previously raised concerns with the OP at her talk page over her edits in the matter (which have often bordered on POV, even if admittedly to simply counter the pro-government, government-added POV). COI and POV editing is not new to Wikipedia, not even from government agencies, but they are a huge headache when they do occur and even more so when others try to add opposite POV to counter the existing POV. User_talk:La_goutte_de_pluie#TOC; User talk:La goutte de pluie#WP:RS / Vivian Balakrishnan and User_talk:Strange_Passerby#fair_use.3F are some relevant related links. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that government IP addresses seem to be mixed with a collection of commercial IP addresses; however the commercial IP addresses do not fluctuate that much. They seem to have the editing patterns of a single party. (see evidence above and below). I have refrained from blocking anyone at this point, or even using semi-protection, on the grounds of WP:INVOLVED. Admittedly I am more likely to make edits involving criticisms of the ruling party, but this is really out of the fear that for the past few years whitewashing and astroturfing has proceeded for Singaporean articles with near-impunity, with little administrative attention paid to them. I do not see patterns of Opposition members editing in a self-aggrandized way about their politicians and their plans; if I did I would also be similarly annoyed.Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 10:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ho! Since my name has been brought up, guess it's fair I jump in? I've already replied on Strange Passerby's page about where I'm coming from. And yes, while there is a reason to be paranoid seeing the recent unexplained blanket deletions by unknown IPs, it's also a tad unfair to drag in others who do try and make articles more balanced. If the negative incident is referenced and cited properly, and not overly represented in a page (which may be a tactic to try and turn the article negative, excuse me if I'm wrong), I don't delete them. I've learning to be more fair and balanced in my article. Where La Goutte and I seem to "butt heads" is where I view he's being overly negative. While we don't want whitewashing, we also don't wanna sway to the other end of the spectrum and turn wiki pages into "smear" pages. Now pardon me if I'm wrong, and I don't mean to be rude or personal, but that's my rationale. If i'm wrong on intents, pls correct me. Thanks. Alverya (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. La goutte de pluie cannot stay civil and would keep repeating his dumb conspiracy theory that whoever disapproving of his words, is working for the government. Every Singaporean netizen has a right to edit and tell you when you are in the wrong. I was the one updating Teo Ser Luck's new ministrial posts after seeing nobody doing it, not you. So how are you considered the one expanding his section? And how is it considered pro-government when it's just an update of job titles? You are the one insisting your piece of irrelevant news be put up there, which is most insignificant. The way I see it, you just want whatever negativity you can find to be there. What's up with your hatred towards MCYS that you keep harping about it everything, even on talk pages? Apparently, it's more likely you seem to have a personal agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.247 (talk) 03:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since you mentioned the earlier U.S. Congress problem, I would point out that part of the 'solution' to that problem was to use Template:CongLinks to provide reliable information about each person. That has a deterrent effect as it provides a check and balance against Wikipedians trying to spin and shade the facts. There's also Template:UK MP links. Perhaps you could find similar sources for Singapore politicians and create a similar template. Not a total solution of course, but it would probably help avoid the typical 'editing by newsbite' which causes undue emphasis on whatever makes the ooh!ooh! news reports. Here's an example of some sources I found. I don't know if they exist, but voting records and speeches in Parliament would be helpful. Flatterworld (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further sockpuppetry suspicions[edit]

What especially strikes me as weird is that 218.186.16.10, a metastable IP involved in this dispute who kept removing my comments off Talk:Teo Ser Luck and in fact listed me as a vandal in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, was later blocked for being an open proxy; when this occurred, another IP Special:contributions/218.186.16.249 showed up to protest the block (a request that was declined). This to me lends more evidence towards my sockpuppetry suspicions. Both addresses are commercial StarHub addresses that are stable for weeks if not months; it's weird for one address to be detected as a proxy and for a customer to be able to switch freely between these addresses, unless the customer had some special privileges. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 10:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a block log entry for .16.10... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check again. "The IP address 218.186.16.10 is blocked globally (full details)." i.e. the IP is blocked on all Wikipedias. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 10:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can see it on the global log, but not on the enwp block log. Must be admins-only. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global blocks are separate from local blocks and are not visible on the local log. Nothing to do with admins. T. Canens (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I don't see the line quoted by Lgdp at all anywhere, that line could be the one visible only to admins. I can see the block entry on the global log. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Yes, that line came from Special:Block, so it's admin-only. T. Canens (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The proxyip4 template, as in {{proxyip4 | 218.186.16.10}} should allow anyone (admin or not) to check whether rangeblocks or global blocks cover the IP. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I just tried that interesting template. For it to work, the space before the parameter (the IP address) must be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI guys, 1.) please bear in mind that its the mid-year school holidays in Singapore right now; 2.) Starhub ip addresses are rarely dynamic in nature, though one can still "connect and use" another person's household WIFI (stealing bandwidth, in other word), most likely due to an apparent lack of security setup (from my experience, it's a fairly common problem in some of Singapore's tightly arranged HDB flats and/or private apartments); 3.) from my professional/working experience, governmental organisations and linked companies/statutory boards are mostly served by SingNet/SingTel's network (which has always maintained and valued network stability and security). That is all. (PS: @Elle, if I were you, I would have just Semi-PP the articles, they'll move off once they find that they can't disrupt us anymore.) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 22:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dave for explaining. It is beyond my control how Starhub gives IP address. I am not stealing bw if that's what u mean. In fact, I am having problems doing edits as I'm blocked from editing when I'm on a certain IP address. I have tried appealing but for some reason, it brought me to another IP address's talk page. So La goutte de pluie, I do not appreciate that you go around smearing and insinuating that I'm part of govt board doing damage control. Like I said earlier, if you cannot stay civil, don't edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.247 (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems very "convenient". StarHub almost never has quickly-changing addresses. Can you explain why you are such a special "customer"? Why are you quick to revert but slow to come to discussion boards? Why do you sometimes edit from government ministry addresses? That is a really weird IP-switching system. It's hard to imagine a system that could be any more "accidental". Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst1 (talk) had originally page protected Teo Ser Luck due to Edit warring / Content dispute from June 5 2012 to June 12 2012 [1] due to edit warring between Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} and 218.186.16.10. Editor had already been warned previously about 3RR on the same article [2] and then a second time warned more explicitly against repeating this [3] that the page was being protected in lieu of a ban. However, Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} was still able to edit the page and revert it to the version she preferred on June 8 [4], 4 dys before the page protection expired. Is some loophole being exploited or does the editor have some higher editor/administrative rights to the article? Even if the 2nd scenario was true the editor should keep out of the article during the page protection period as one of the warring parties. Zhanzhao (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notified User:La goutte de pluie - diff - Thats pretty blatant, warring party as an admin editing through the protection. Perhaps he didn't notice it was protected? In the edit he made through the protection he also added this youtube video which is pretty clearly a copyright violation and it should be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be deprotected, in that case. I asked the other party to repeatedly use discussion avenues to discuss the issues; the said party hasn't replied on the noticeboards (ANI / BLP / TSL talk page) on the issue itself; indeed, the discussion on ANI expired without a single rebuttal to my claim of the source being an RS. As I stated before the discussion expired, it's not my tendency to edit war; however when an anonymous editor with a known conflict of interest, who jumps several ISPs and occasionally posts from Ministry IP addresses, repeatedly removes criticism and does not give any further explanation when asked, I am extremely suspicious. Silence when I ask for a reply seems to say this anonymous editor isn't really here to build an encyclopedia or build consensus -- whereas I am. I would readily re-comment out (or remove entirely) the disputed section on my own accord if the editor actually discussed the merits of the source. I also said to the protecting admin that reversion within 72 hours if there was no reply seemed reasonable, if only to motivate the disputing party to more discussion. The party has the strange habit of not participating in discussion when his/her aim is achieved and only coming back to discussion under reversion. As I said, I don't really have a "preferred version" -- I simply do not want government-linked editors being allowed to remove whatever criticisms of the government they want with impunity to community rules. Government-linked editors (as I readily proved in an archived ANI discussion) have been removing other criticisms without explanation in other articles, have been behaving rather maliciously on the internet against the opposition overall, as well as writing heavily promotional articles about their government ministries and programmes. Allowing reversion without discussion, seems to me to reward such anti-encyclopedic/anti-consensus behaviour. You will note that the Singapore government ranks #151 for press freedom. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From page protection policy: "On pages that are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus." i.e. the goal of page protection is to promote discussion. However when protection encourages silence rather than discussion, then perhaps protection should not be used. No one replied to me on recommendations of suitable courses of action when I asked for advice on BLP or ANI; it is my deepest desire to avoid COI as much possible; however when the protecting admin did not reply (he is semi-retired) and when the other party remained silent for 72-96 hours, it was my desire to restore the source (of which I am fairly sure is a reliable source, given that Yahoo News! Singapore is a professional news service; SingaporeScene as I wrote would be counted as having the same editorial control as Yahoo News! Singapore per WP:BLP and WP:RS). Had the editor ever addressed WP:RS claims -- ever -- I would have readily reverted myself, to promote discussion. This is my deepest desire -- what I do not want however, are COI parties, especially those employed by a government with low press freedom -- to be allowed to remove criticisms without discussion. Thus after a notable absence of discussion, I saw it fit to reinstate the deleted criticism, in hope that the editor would come back and use the talk pages so I could gain greater insight into his claims. That editor has not. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are listed as blog authors, not journalists. You just want to keep harping about it so you can keep your trivia piece of news, instead of keeping it factual. You even reverted the office posts I added in, which you don't even care about updating. And then you proceeded on to harp on and on about government conspiracies taking over the Wiki world. I think you are the problem, dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So your did it deliberately, edited through another administrators full protection - placed there because of an edit war you were involved in - I realize you are a returning user after a lengthy time but surely you understand WP:INVOLVED and you know where WP:RFPP - is to request article unprotection? Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but La goutte de pluie does not seriously believe she can justify all her actions based on Singapore's media freedom ranking, can she? Perhaps the next step should be an RFC on her admin actions. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is part of it, but I am trying to ensure the spirit of the project. Many government-linked editors do not care for the community or for encyclopedia-building -- they only wish to use Wikipedia to make their superiors look good, as can be told by the way they callously avoid discussion.

La goutte de pluie, I do not appreciate that you go around smearing and insinuating that I'm part of government board or of a certain Ministry doing damage control. If you even know how Starhub IP addresses work, which apparently you don't, you would have known IPs don't get issued the same all the time. In fact, I am having problems doing edits as I'm blocked from editing whenever I'm on a certain IP address. I have tried appealing but for some reason, it brought me to another IP address's talk page. You have been going around challenging me, making claims I remain silent even though I have told you so. Like I said earlier, if you cannot stay civil, don't edit. Clearly you don't know where to draw the line between factual info vs whitewashing. I worry for future Singaporeans who have to read up the nonsense edits you have been writing just to deface people's wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you, Mr Anon, need to lay off the attacks. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the Ministry IPs in question are 160.96.200.34, 160.96.200.35, 160.96.200.36, 160.96.200.37, which are shared IPs, but sometimes have the editing patterns of the above editor and seem to engage in potential COI editing and participating in the edit wars of the above editor. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yingluck_Shinawatra&diff=prev&oldid=430947999. This anonymous editor (while using Special:Contributions/160.96.200.26) kept on using officious government language which I took out specifically to avoid a promotional tone and any copyright issues; these anonymous editors have a tendency to make Wikipedia pages on Singaporean policies, programmes and politicians look like another copy of Singapore government web pages, down to the way sections are titled. Note that this editor, while editing under a Ministry IP, would remove free images from articles and replace them with copyright violations such as File:VivianBalakrishnan42.jpg, perhaps to comply with some sort of online policy of making their politicians look as sharp and officious as possible. Reversion to this copyrighted image, and removal of the free image, happened repeatedly on Vivian Balakrishnan. Interestingly, this very image was uploaded onto commons as a super high-resolution image several megabytes in size and uploaded with a free license with the claim that the uploader was the copyright holder; this copy does not exist elsewhere online, further confirming suspected links that this editor (or his allies) has with the Singaporean government -- otherwise, why would that editor be in possession of such a humongously large image? There are many, many other telling clues that I have noticed over the past months that support the suspicion of conflict-of-interest editing. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, StarHub never changes addresses that frequently; that is, StarHub addresses are metastable -- it usually takes several weeks between IP changes. Such quickly changing addresses either suggests that someone, perhaps someone with influence, has asked to give you highly dynamic IP addresses from StarHub, or that you can request new addresses at a whim, or that you edit using open proxies. In fact, one of your IPs -- a StarHub IP -- was detected as an open proxy -- which is highly suspicious. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous editor above now desires to provoke edit wars with me again, without discussion, and calling good faith edits "vandalism". [5] The reversions the editor just did includes my edits which tried to avoid language the government used in their web pages (for copyright/npov issues), as well as removal of perfectly good citations from government-linked newspapers. Note that in a history now at Vivian Balakrishnan/deleted revisions (checking admins can look), this same editor (under several IPs) would have simply removed the entire elections section outright. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't a user named User:Dave1185 explain how Starhub IP works? Or are you acting dumb about it? What's with bringing up the IP addresses 160.96.200.xx ? And I caught you rephrasing Vivian Balakrishnan page again. Couldn't keep yourself neutral as usual I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A reversion this editor carried out is found at [6]. I have partially rephrased part of this edit because of a potential copyright violation from the official PAP website. Perhaps the editor thinks that copying from government websites is OK and not a copyright violation, because his/her employer, is that of the government. Dave1185 explained that "Starhub ip addresses are rarely dynamic in nature" [7], but perhaps you are a rare StarHub "customer" indeed! Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed out Dave's point of how it is not impossible to happen due to how close HDB flats are. Aren't you a Singnet user? Are you working for the government then? Dave and others in the other discussion told you that government IPs come from Singnet. Did you purposely miss out that part? So how am I, a starhub user even related to ur stupid theory that I'm doing my 'job' ? Your warped logic disgusts the hell out of me because you are stooping so low to accuse me of all sorts of nonsense, while trying to be this saint doing a holy job of 'cleaning' people's pages. I think you are trying too hard to discredit Vivian Balakrishnan by changing all the words from "his contributions" to "contributions of men under him". Personal agenda? You should just be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, 218.186.16.226 has now managed to talk himself into a range block, related to an issue farther down this page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I speak? In case you are not aware, La goutte de pluie complained about me again here after i reverted his edits (I had to copy back from Zhanzhao's version since La goutte de pluie weren't undo-able)here, here, most importantly here about Vivian Balakrishnan, making claims I was responsible that all the edits reverted and that I was trying to keep copyrighted source. How was his/her edits making it less different from the copyrighted source? A change of words from "he" to "his subordinates"? I've been told if it's copyrighted material,you can't just tweak a few words. So why am I getting blame for this? Please enlighten me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.247 (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring and Administrator privilege issue[edit]

Going back to the edit warring issue: When I protected that page, I was unaware that one of the warriors was an admin. I seriously considered blocking La goutte de pluie (talk · contribs) at that time and in retrospect, I am sorry I didn't. Protection or not, had this edit been brought to my attention, I would have likely (and correctly) blocked La goutte de pluie. That the edit warrior is an admin makes this worse and that it was done through page protection compounds the issue. This should have been dealt with one one of the noticeboards rather than unilaterally by La goutte de pluie. Toddst1 (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One way would be to simply topic-block registered users/editors who are obviously involved in the edit war which would keep them as well as the anonymous IPs out, but it was really unexpected that an admin would bet so involved in the first place (then again look at hot topic issues like Meredith Kercher....). But the block is due to expire soon so the current block will soon be a moot point. I have already commented on the nature of the admin's edit on the article's talk page so there are more opposing voices to what the editor considers a credible addition to the aeticle so his arguement of no discussion is moot as well (though that means I am potentially identifying myself as an involved party but so be it). Plus she has been informed of the proper procedure of how to request edits on a page protected page (based on her edits its unlikely she did not know the page was not protected). What we need to see is what happens after this block expires. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, as Todd and Rob and others note here, an abusive act by the user/admin La goutte de pluie - who is "open to recall". Perhaps that should be seriously considered. Meanwhile, I have taken the liberty of reverting to where it was when Todd semi-protected it, as the matter is in dispute and the added material was questionable, at the very least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wholly agree, there has been a spate of similarly very concerning actions regarding the Singaporean elections recently by this admin. This cannot continue, government "whitewashing" or otherwise. StrPby (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked the admin about his/her recall criteria. We will see what he or she says. In the mean time, I have extended full protection. Toddst1 (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this issue were over the Santorum page or any other high visibility article we'd probably have emergency ArbCom desysoppings by now... Let's see if recall pans out. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I first met the user when I opened an AFD after some request somewhere (at BLPN if I remember) and La goutte de pluie commented strong keep (he said americans did not understand the candidate) and said if no more reason was presented he was inclined to 'speedy close' the AFD.diff - this set of my spidey senses in regards to WP:CLUE - The user was warned not to do it by user:Ohiostandard - "Doing so would be an extremely bad idea: It would be a blatant abuse of administrator privileges (not "rights", please note) that would certainly generate a huge amount of drama and would almost certainly result in negative consequences for yourself, as well. You cannot use admin privileges to win a dispute in which you are involved, and even the threat to do so seriously damages the faith the community must have in those we allow the extra bit if our governance model here is to function. Please think more carefully before you make any such threat in the future. I also find it strange that the user seems to be moving his talk page to his archives which I have never seem before, it may be ok to do that but it breaks the talkpage history and as you see here his talkpage history goes back to May 4th only. Can I do that and then do a user request to delete my archives and rtherby delete my edit history? Anyways, then its been prety much downhill all the way with our mmetings - The user was then edit warring with me against MOS style replacing flags in the infobox of an article this came to ANI here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive691#IP_range_making_nationalist_edits - again he was reverting without WP:CLUE. This incident and his statement that he did it to get the IP to discuss is reflective of the general situation with this returning contributor - I asked him right at the start to take it easy and get a feel for how things work round here these days but he does not appear to have listened. He has shown a lot of partisan contributions to the issue he returned to edit , the recent Singapore elections and when challenged goes off on a commentary that it is the lack of freedom and such similar in Singapore and government editors that he is working to resist ... basically he is well involved in this issue and clearly should not be using the tools at all in that area, never mind editing through another admins full protection when he was one of the warring parties that caused the article to be protected in the first place. I also support recall of his tools. His original RFA contains some interesting comments~,Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Natalinasmpf I extremely doubt he would pass now and its unlikely that he would be a shoe in to get the numbers up for users in that locality/timezone.Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

La goutte de pluie has not replied. I think it's time for an WP:RFC/U but unfortunately I don't have time this week to kick one off. Toddst1 (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note, btw, that moving the talkpage to archive it is documented at Help:Archiving a talk page#Move procedure, with sigificantly fewer downsides than the cut-and-paste method that most of us seem to use. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's the real issue here. Edit warring through page protection is. Toddst1 (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had never seen that before. Thanks for the detail and for replying to my query Sarek. Off2riorob (talk) 09:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) excuse me but actually, how did La goutte de pluie actually get the sysop bit, searched the local and global log. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 18:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She was renamed -- see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Natalinasmpf. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So is nothing going to be done about it just because La goutte de pluie is keeping quiet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.241 (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anon, I would strongly suggest that you stop IP hopping and stop hounding La goutte de pluie. Action will be taken in time to come, but it will be progressive. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does it seem strange to anyone that the user in question was nominated for adminship by someone who ended up being community banned for abusive sockpuppetry and sneaky vandalism? (edit) Actually, the RfA appears to have been votestacked by multiple accounts that were later community banned or else turned out to be socks of previously banned users. One was User:172 (a sock of User:Cognition), another was User:Freestylefrappe. User:Jossi was also blocked for sockpuppetry. User:Izehar was a purpose-made votestacking puppet. Something isn't right. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, Izehar signed off as that humourously. I appreciate constructive criticisms, but I cannot tolerate completely unfounded slander. Please check your facts? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seemed strange to me when I saw that. When I first encountered this returning admin we had a dispute and this account came from out of nowhere to defend the admins position and attack me via a worthless wiquette report User:Ougro contribution history - I stated then that account was a sock or a meatpuppet. Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This all makes La goutte de pluie look very suspect. The sheer number of banned users and socks involved in the RfA is very suspicious. As for the account that attacked you, obviously someone's sock. Is it recent enough for a checkuser? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last edit from May fourth. I was directed to go to SPI but I would have been fishing so I put it down to experience, although I thought there was some connection to User:La goutte de pluie as the attack stopped I let it go. Off2riorob (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent to SPI [8]. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had time to draft a recall procedure, or even follow up on sources I have shortlisted on various talk pages. Give me a few days. I'm a university student doing biochem research, and I am in fact in lab right now. Btw, it's my personal belief that the SPI request is spurious, but I will assume good faith about it. I was actually rather annoyed by Ougro's admin shopping -- I don't bear grudges, it offended me that Ougro thought that by merely disagreeing with Off2riorob that he could recruit me to his "request". I only offered my opinion very reluctantly. I am sorry that Off2riorob thinks that I have some vendetta against him. I don't. He is a valuable contributor and discusser, if I wish he would be a little more amicable sometimes. Karmafist, 172 and Freestylefrappe were all prominent community members. Such was the community back in 2006 -- many people have now left because of disagreements with the direction of the project of course. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Should we start another RfA because of excessive socks, suspicion? In general, misuse of RfA. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this prejudice against old contributors. I was about to voluntarily draft a recall page, where I can also explain my actions, which has been difficult because I am acting on outside information. I do not wish to hold any tools against consensus (which I have always stroven to uphold), but if spurious accusations are being made like I am using an offical talk archive method (officially endorsed! -- and the copy and paste method should not be used at all) as though I am purposely trying to conceal messages or that I made all these socks for my RFA, when those were perfectly good contributors (RFA was very well-policed even in 2006), then I am not so sure. User:Izehar was an administrator for goodness sake. His user page history --a very rich one -- lists 260 deleted edits alone, and his contribution history is very rich.

With all due respect, I am not sure I can respect recall requests from users who make such misinformed accusations without investigation first. Accusation without proper investigation is in fact, the basis of my old disagreement with Off2riorob and some other afd nominators. I have disagreements with the "hyperdeletionist" culture -- that is, with nominators who will tag an article for deletion without so much as a google check, and seem offended when I question their assumptions. The most recent article I saved was Geiser Manufacturing, a historically notable firm that was tagged for speedy deletion. I believe in careful, conscientious editing, not knee-jerk button pressing responses. Perhaps if that CSD page (as I found it) had been found by another admin it would have been deleted rather than salvaged.

I am sorry for editing through protection. Normally content dispute page protection -- especially without prior history -- lasts 24 to 72 hours, not 1 week, so after 72 hours without discussion -- as I told Todd -- I saw continued reversion as acceptable, especially because I had it on good suspicion that the IP-jumping editor had a conflict of interest. And I edited well over 4 days later, respecting the page protection (that I had no idea lasted 1 week. isn't this against policy?). I am also not sure I can call it a content dispute if the anonymous user refused to use the talk pages despite repeated entreaties. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I was the one who highlighted the "edit through protection" issue I would like to clarify why I raised it all the way here. As mentioned by other editors/admins above and in her talk pages, Elle's edit behaviour had been noted by some to have been questionable, especially where it concerns Singapore politics. While Elle has made many useful contributions in other areas, she seems to lose her objectivity in the problem area I mentioned. Accusing editors who make edits that are less than critical of the government as party representatives is not very nice either. There will always be people who wiki during company hours and ride on the company's free wifi to do so (I speak this with great experience:P) which could explain some of the close IP ranges identified; some may be doing so to clear misconceptions or to balance anti-government sentiment views. Another questionable behaviour is over-reliance on sources which are known to be less than reliable/neutral such as Temasek Review Emeritus for which I (and other editors) have repeatedly cautioned her that the source was a blog/SPS, not a news site, and which has been described by other non local media as leaning towards the opposition.

In any case, this report is not the first time that Elle received feedback that her edits on political articles have been less than neutral; there are more instances of this on her page and even a June 2 entry that specifically questioned [[9]] her involvement as an admin in an edit war, but it was apparently ignored, and escalated to the incident that led to this report. My greatest worry is that while it has not happened here yet, I would not like to see a situation where an administrator is able to protect a page from other editors just to protect his/her own version of the article in a moment of edit passion. I am not suggesting that she stop editing political articles, just that she takes care to ensure greater objectivity when doing so, or at least with the same level of care she has taken with other non-political articles she has contributed to. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support any consideration of a new RfA because some of the prior supports may have turned out to be socks. The numerical results were not a close call, and it could set a precedent we may regret. I have no problem with an SPI investigation if warranted, I'm simply disagreeing that identification of sock support six years after getting the bit is good reason for a new RfA.--SPhilbrickT 20:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the call for a new RFA, at least by recall motion, is because of the admin's actions, and hopefully not related to her original RFA. It would be ridiculous to think we'd make everyone who Freestylefrappe or Karmafist supported have to run a re-RFA. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Future timestamp to prevent premature archiving before this issue is settled. StrPby (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New concern about La goutte de pluie has been raised on my talk page by the anonymous editor, saying that earlier in the edit war before page protection, LGDP might have logged out and reverted the anon as an IP. I'll quote in full the concern below.

During the "edit war" with User:La goutte de pluie, I noticed another anonymous IP popping up to help La goutte de pluie to revert back to his edit. Also under the Talk Page, it was the same person who added the questionable content about MCYS. If you asked me, I think that guy is also La goutte de pluie and I'm saying that because during several exchanges with him, that's exactly the same things he said to me over and over again.

Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone investigating the issue with the IP? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editor has explained that this was due to her editing on her Iphone and forgetting to log on[10], so I think we can ignore this. Also that she had been busy for the past few days hence her recent silence on the matter [11]. But now that she is actively editing again lets hope she can clarify her stand on this. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only recently edited because of egregrious copyright violations by editors on Vivian Balakrishnan. I have since rangeblocked the offending IPs from the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore for constantly copying and pasting content from government websites and repeatedly ignorning warnings. My intention is to file an RFA on the matter, particularly because I have my own concerns about COI editing, as well as what I perceive to be an overdependence on bots to fight vandalism and anonymous removal of sourced content, which is widespread not only for Singaporean politics but goes as far as home owner associations editing Wikipedia to remove criticisms about them. Our system seems very good at detecting simple cases of COI editing as well as businesses who create pages about themselves, but not particularly more elaborate cases especially concerning the non-western world. Singapore's case is unique (and to a lesser extent, India and Malaysia) because it falls outside the western world but uses English in everyday life; hence certain entities have a strong incentive to improve their English-language public relations.

I do not know why I am the only administrator to notice such egregious incidents as wholesale copying and pasting being inserted from copyrighted websites; it is for this reason that I have been acting unilaterally and then seeking consensus. I previously sought requests for advice on this board twice on how to deal with this problem, including continued conflict of interest editing, and when I received no response for several days -- except for an editor who recommended that I block them all, I went ahead with my proposed remedies -- and I didn't block anyone at that time. The impression then I got is that a) I was still alone in noticing the problem b) I would have to take care of it myself. I do not know why this concern is raised against me when it could have been raised much earlier; why did people ignore my previous requests for help and advice?

As a young administrator in 2006, I issued my willingness to be recalled based on the idea that the recallers would be (like editors generally were in 2006) informed, rational Wikipedians who would approach issues rationally in the Jeffersonian spirit. I cannot respect recall requests from people who make such accusations that I used sockpuppets in my own RFA, or from people that cannot be bothered or informed enough to even look at the rich user contributions of retired admin User:Izehar before calling that user a single purpose account, or from editors who are willing to block someone for reverting an egregriously explicit copyright violation on the grounds of "edit warring". Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to point out that the "copyright" content which you are talking about are actually content from government websites, which are essentially public domain for all intent and purposes. I.e. see [12] where "Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works, provides that "Copyright protection is not available for any work of the United States Government," defined in Title 17 USC §101, as "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties." for something similar. So "copyright". You are free to copyWRITE the language if you think it is POV though to make it neutral (though that may introduce further subjectivity) or keep the same tone to avoid intruducing subjectivity. Your edits included additions like [[13]], "Government officials are eager to point out that all Singaporeans should hold this obviously highly talented minister in the most greatest esteem" which should be avoided.

What concerned me about your reply is your claim above that you had apparently rangeblocked on an article which you have COI issues with. This should NOT have been allowed considering the concerns raised here about possible abuse of administrative rights, and you should have instead raised your concerns to other uninvolved admins to action on it rather than doing so yourself.

PS Although I am not familiar with it, but there a free Internet service called Wireless@SG in Singapore locally, could this have caused some of this similar IPs to keep surfacing?

(Update: Apparently Singapore also allows that under Fair Use [14]) Zhanzhao (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking my wikibreak here, but worth doing so to point out that only US Govt works are PD. SG govt sites are copyrighted. StrPby (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But they have a fair use exception [15]. Toddst1 (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out, my worry is that copyediting to prevent copyvio is one way by which subjective bias to the article could be introduced [[16]]. In which case it may be safer to stick to the government site content which when viewed objectively seems to be just a choronological list of the subject's portfolio. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus (by accepting the anonymous editors' edits) seemed to say that content should generally promote Balakrishnan wherever possible and avoid all criticism; it was not a POV edit in so far it supported consensus, and I was only trying to be reconciliatory. Zhanzhao, I mean this in the most respectful way possible -- but I don't think your interpretation of copyright law really flies. The assumption that all government works are public domain (this doesn't even apply for U.S. state governments' works!) or that wholesale copying is allowed under fair use (when fair use is justified for things like critical commentary and so forth) worries me somewhat! Wikipedia's burden of proof in order to use fair use is very strict. In any case, copyright violations cannot be tolerated. It is not at all safe to stick with a copyright violation revision! This is in fact, even an exception to WP:3RR. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, Singapore's copyright laws do provide for some exceptions under its fair use clause. And as I also mentioned above, my worry is that you have snuck in some NPOV wording like [[17]] which I feel is the more worrying issue here. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note here on copyright: Singapore's approach to fair dealing is not the issue here, as the Wikimedia Foundation is based in and governed by the laws of the United States (see WP:PD). Usage on Wikipedia must accord with "fair use" as defined by the United States (which may be more or less liberal than Singapore's; I haven't evaluated). If content is being used under "fair use", it needs to follow the policy and guideline at WP:NFC, which allows brief, clearly marked quotations, used transformatively. That's got nothing to do with the other issues in this thread, but I want to be sure we're all on the same page with this one. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for summarizing that section, I am just SERIOUSLY adverse to Elle being the person to edit it down. As mention, she had been cautioned a few times on her own page that she had apparent COI issues with articles concerning Singapore politics especially where it concerns members of the ruling party. And this reason she gave for knowingly adding a NPOV statement into the main text of an article "That statement was to invite discussion, especially since no one appeared to be paying attention to the copyvio issue." is unbecoming of an administrator. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know nuts about all the rules in Wiki but the edits that La goutte de pluie made are not even rephrasing the copyrighted paragraphs. She just makes minor edits like "He contributed" to "his men contributed" in Vivian Balakrishnan page. That's not even the main point, just rephrasing of the nouns and not even correctly. I refer to ocassions when she couldn't help add in her own sarcastic opinion here and here ("While sometimes ridiculed by the youth ") and still got the cheek to argue back that people are white-washing articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.234 (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going to draft an RFC on the issue of astroturfing[edit]

After spotting an IP-hopping editor -- the one with a similar editing pattern to the editor who would restore copyvio revisions at Vivian Balakrishnan deleting references wholesale at Tan Cheng Bock -- rather than attempting to rephrase and salvage material, which is the Wikipedia Way to go), I am alarmed at the proliferative extent of a possible astroturfing problem. I will be drafting an RFC for this reason. I invite the community to look at the blatant extent that copyright violations from government web sites are introduced without anyone barely winking an eyelid. It is not merely Singaporean politics I am concerned about, but other non-western articles as well. It is my concern that these pages are poorly watched, and what happens is that different editors of different views never collaborate on articles as desired. Because these edits pass through the bot filters quite well, no one notices a potential problem.

I actually do not have much concern about what actual material actually remains after discussion and consensus; what matters is that there is discussion and consensus. I am neither on the government or on the opposition -- I am currently a Singaporean college student attending a well-known college in the US -- I have no stake in the dispute. Some anonymous editors however, do -- I consider blocking COI-editors at government ministries justified. It simply irks me when anonymous editors with possible COI problems remove previous (sourced!) content (with legitimate uses) wholesale on petty grounds, rather than trying to salvage or revise the material. This is the Wikipedia Way, as I knew it. Often the removed content does not have an issue at all. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the main issue[edit]

I note that the Elle is still actively editing [18] and even personally exercising administrative powers[19] on the article in question. Granted there seems no problems with the recent edit per se, but the fact that she still doing so while recall is in limbo on the article where her actions have been called to attention is questionable. (In fact, personally range blocking a edit warred page with potential COI concerns on this particular page was the example I raised as a concern). As mentioned, her contribution history as raised by me and other editors (registered ones, not IP hoppers) throws doubts on her claims of being objective in regards to being an objective editor in matters relating to Singapore politics, specifically with regards to PAP representatives. To Elle, could you please withhold from actioning personally and placing any concerns you have to the relevant boards where actions can be taken by uninvolved editors? Thats one of the reasons Wikipedia has such notice boards in place. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This thread should imo be closed. While there has been a few users involved with editing articles with the user and such like and an admin stated that they would have blocked the user if the editing through protection had been seen at the time, there is only a limited request from a few users for recall ( recall requests have weight usually with over six users requesting ) so this has not been met imo and the user has rejected the request so that all to see here unless new related reports occur I imagine from their comments the user will move forward a little more cautiously and take the issues/complaints on board. Off2riorob (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the best. Ultimately as long as wiki procedures are followed, which in this case means the editor in question abides by wiki policy when editing, I see this report as having achieved its objective. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elle's abusing her rights to delete Vivian Balakrishnan's page again. Is there a need to delete his background and the schools he attended... Come on, can someone stop her nonsense... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.236 (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only removed the section because of the blatant copyright violation (copied from other websites); this is a hard and fast rule for Wikipedia. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 09:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a whole chunk of edits and their details had been deleted recently [20] which makes it hard to evaluate the quality of those edits... Cant seem to find any discussion or reason on why those edits were removed so no clue from there either. In any case, lets just make sure that whatever is added adheres to wiki policy, be it on the grounds of objectivity or copyright.Zhanzhao (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add anything. Since the editor seems to dispute my revisions the only way I could adhere to policy was by removing the entire problematic section until it could be discussed. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 12:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you start a discussion for it? It must be hard for you to rephrase the section on which schools he attended. StrangePasserby requested for unprotection here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.238 (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

( ← outdenting ) Rob quoted me at length, above, about potential admin abuse on Elle/LaGoutte's part. But if you look at the AfD from which that quote was drawn, you'll see a different picture emerge. Once I saw what motivated Elle's comment about a possible speedy keep, and saw RS to document that motivation, I agreed with her. The AfD did result in a "keep", btw.

It turns out that all of Singapore was in an uproar over a grossly unqualified "yes man" candidate that the government meant to shove down their throats. Rob made some remarks about the issue on his talk page to Elle that I thought were unduly aggressive and quite offensively chauvinistic toward the entire country. I asked him to retract, and he refused. Anyway, Elle's initial comment was injudicious, but entirely understandable once one learned that the entire country was vocally angry over the situation. My first response that Rob quoted to her initial comment shouldn't be taken as evidence that she was guilty of any admin abuse. She wasn't.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What uproar? Don't assume "all of Singapore was in an uproar". By the way, we are talking about locking of Vivian Balakrishnan page , not Tin Pei ling. Elle is not even based in Singapore. What does she know about the country? She got the cheek to say people are whitewashing. What's with her smearing of politicians on their pages and abusing her tools everytime people do not agree with her. Till date, I still see nothing done about her and she just goes on pretending nothing is happening and that she is too busy to reply. She certainly was very free when she was busy doing edit wars over at Teo Ser Luck page to come back everyday. Each time she would say that since I did not reply within a certain number of hours, she has the right to lock/revert back to her version. So why is she keeping quiet about the recall of her tools on her page and avoiding the issue? Is this just going to drag on forever?

Seriously the articles Elle wrote about Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, Tin Peiling, Vivian Balakrishnan are just crap. There was never a neutral stand. It's always with sarcasm. Even the image uploaded on The New Paper was meant to be sarcastic. She seems to just want to magnify negative issues and downplay postive aspects (if any). Aren't Wiki articles supposed to be neutral? Seriously the article on Tin Pei ling is just long and draggy like a grandmother's story. I didn't know it's so hard to summarise everything and why there's a need for very insignificant bit to be written in. Tay Ping Hui's 8 Days issue must be such a HUGE deal and of greatest most importance that Elle had to write it in. Oh wait. Isn't the photo copyrighted material? Why is Elle allowed to post it then? Double standards? - from the anonymous IP above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.13.245 (talk) 03:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thread moved from ANI [21] due to length.  Chzz  ►  23:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is this problem with this editor La goutte de pluie and this has been going from months on pages related to Singaporean politicians/politics, in particular those related to PAP (People's Action Party). The precise affected pages are Teo Ser Luck, Tin Pei Ling and Vivian Balakrishnan. I really do not know what is her problem and I seriously believe she should have her tools removed as she is unable to do neutral edits on their pages.

The incident I need to pinpoint is currently happening on Singaporean general election 2011 where La goutte de pluie is back to her old ways of editing of the subheading related to Vivian Balakrishnan. For some reason, she seems rather persistent to change the subheading from "Balakrishnan accuses SDP of "suppressing video" to "Balakrishnan accuses SDP of "gay agenda". This happened because of what happened at Vivian Balakrishnan's page earlier, where La goutte de pluie had wikilink words like "agenda" to gay agenda" and the idiom "come out of the closet" to "coming out of the closet". I had spotted it and removed it because I did not feel it was right to insinuate instead of letting readers judge by themselves when they can simply read up the references. She went back to revert it several times. It wasn't until User_talk:Zhanzhao who intervened that the matter got settled.

When I checked on the Singaporean general election 2011 page in early July, I spotted the same wikiwords insinuating gay issues and subheading "addressing "gay agenda". I then edited the subheading to a more neutral tone to fit the issue which surfaced from a video and removed the inappropriate wikiwords. However La goutte de pluie just couldn't accept and again started another reverting war regarding the subheading. Zhanzhao had more or less settled it in the Talk section and now it's August and once again, La goutte de pluie has started reverting back.

The other issues :

1. Page Protection Violation on Teo Ser Luck by User/EditorElle which resulted after a dispute with her for adding trivia matter and attempting to support it with a less-than-convincing reference. She attempts to add it back again after the issue was finally over.

2. La goutte de pluie's ilogical edits on Tin Pei Ling page which has caused the page to appear more like a tabloid page, packed with trivia quotes. She also seems to hate her so much that she bothered to upload the image here and another on Tin Pei Ling's page which I have requested it to be checked and removed.

I would like to clarify I am not a sockpuppet. I was on the IP 218.186.16.x and now am usually on the IP add 202.156.13.x. The dynamic IP also tends to flip between 2 from time to time. This clarification is here just in case you confuse me with the other anonymous IP users on Vivian Balakrishnan's page (which added his photo). I am not related to those IPs in any manner.202.156.13.11 (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User notified. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is a chronic problem with this admin. I almost blocked her a few weeks ago after she violated 3RR on Teo Ser Luck. There were some calls for an RFC/U and desysopping at that time since she edited through full protection to continue her edit war on this topc. I'd support a topic ban on singaporean politics at a minimum. This problem is not going away by ignoring it. Toddst1 (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

for the record, I never came close to violating WP:3RR on that article, and I repeatedly asked for a discussion. You should note that the same IP repeatedly tried to delete my comments off that talk page. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the question is - what administrative action does the original poster want? A topic ban requires a community discussion, removal of tools requires a request to Arbcom, and we'd probably want an RFC/U first. Has the admin in question done anything actually blockable? Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If true, wouldn't the "edited through full protection" claimed by Toddst1 be immediately blockable? (Unless it is something admins don't immediately recognize because of the ability to edit still being present) If such changes weren't reverted immediately after discovering the accident, then what is the point of 'full protection'? -- Avanu (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That as I said, was a mistake. I posted on Toddst's talk page, saying his protection was a mistake, that the anonymous users involved were reluctant to engage in discussion and use the talk pages; most dispute blocks expire within 72-96 hours (as is the norm and the policy -- do not issue protections of excessive lengths) -- Toddst, who is an active admin, didn't reply to me within 72-96 hours, so I thought he had seen my proposal to restore the disputed edit if the IPs didn't use the talk pages within that time. And they didn't -- in general, they only reverted when their desired version was not on the page, never checking the talk pages when their desired revision was in place; they did not understand policy nor were they willing to engage in compromise in discussion, whereas I was seeking compromise and understanding with every step. It was my expectation that within that time protection would be over. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 18:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

My personal agenda, if I have one, is in protecting Wikipedia from conflict of interest agents that have descended upon the article lately; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geneva2011, where an absurd amount of sockpuppetry and anonymous IPs -- some which trace back to government institutions and ministry addresses -- do various things like remove various criticisms without explanation, add in promotional material of their own (for various ministries or programmes). The Young PAP by the way, have long been suspected by the Singaporean internet community of being hired trolls. It is very clear for example, that User:Eggsauto99 and others are "public relations managers" -- note the high-resolution official photos uploaded, and constant reversion to their favoured language, blatantly taken from government websites -- I would simply like for these editors to declare their affiliation and their COIs.

We have good evidence that these users are part of a government-endorsed smear campaign, by trying to include the accusations of "gay agenda" on opposition politicians' articles, but deleting all mentions of such accusations from politicians who made them, i.e. Vivian Balakrishnan. It is a terrible twist on BLP policy when homophobic accusers are allowed to escape "scot free" while their accusations are freely piled on on their victims' articles. See: contributions of one such user to Vincent Wijeysingha, where this user tried to add material accusing Wijeysingha of having a gay agenda (to scare off religious voters) at the same time his proven sockpuppet removed "gay agenda" material from his employer's article (this diff accessible to administrators only).

That Vivian Balakrishnan accused a Singaporean opposition politician of having a gay agenda is well-known issue among Singaporeans (shown by any google search). To reduce the summary of his actions (as titles are supposed to do) to "suppressing video" is nothing more than a government-supported attempt at whitewashing the article. I would like to draw attention to the matter I am drafting an RFC about this; the only reason why no one pays attention is because most editors hail from the United States. If a Congressman or a US government entity were doing this, there would be immense uproar: see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress.

elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of anything else, citing a random-uploaders prob (c) YouTube clip, and posting WP:OR in an article, with this edit is against many policies; do you accept that, or do we need to explain it?  Chzz  ►  23:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not against policy to cite a television interview by Channel 5 (Singapore). In fact, I kept it as a reference, without the link, if only to avoid potential copyright problems (but even then, fair use can be claimed for keeping a referenced link). There's nothing wrong with using Youtube videos as a source, if they are not self-published sources. Since when was a television interview a self-published source? YouTube is merely a host. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

La goutte de pluie, it seems evident from your own statement just above that you have too much COI in this general issue to use admin tools in this area. If people need to be blocked, or articles protected, or edits made on protected pages, you really should let other admins do it. If the troll situation is as bad as you say, the most helpful thing you could do is to use your experience to bring the various COI editors and sockpuppets to community attention in the appropriate places, instead of dealing with them personally, just as you would if you did not have admin tools. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have used my tools in this very sparingly, precisely for the concerns stated. I have repeatedly made pleas on various noticeboards, but usually people are a) new to the dispute b) do not realise I am an already an administrator trying to fight a long-term problem (for example, posting to the COI board generally brings a very specific block or remedy, and does not solve the sockpuppetry problem). I was about to make an RFC for this reason, to draw greater attention to this problem.

I do not think I have a COI, unless you take the IPs' word that being LGBT somehow is an inherent COI. My biggest ambition is to make the editors involve learn that a) they cannot make COI edits with impunity b) they should declare their conflict of interest c) some basic respect for the project. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been invited to comment here by the complaining IP editor on my talk page. I have made my views known previously at the first ANI link he provides above. I have no doubt that La goutte de pluie has a major COI in this area and would be well served laying off these pages, but the same goes for the countless IPs (more likely one user who's been socking; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geneva2011/Archive) — this is not a one-way street. The IP editor himself has a COI and POV in this area and should likewise be sanctioned here; this to me is a WP:BOOMERANG case. Both sides are strongly at fault. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the link has proven that I am a sockpuppet or part of the government conspiracy that La goutte de pluie has been insisting is happening.202.156.13.11 (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not as I'd like it to, because CheckUsers don't like linking accounts to IP addresses. So, it really is impossible to tell unless I take your word for it, which I'm sorry to say I'm not prepared to.

At this moment, I would strongly support a ban for both La goutte de pluie and the IP editor, certainly at the very least from interacting with each other; and in the longer run a topic ban from Singapore politics. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get someone to check then. I am not afraid. Kindly advise why I should be banned then. I do not see how this is fair. You have semi-protected Tin Pei Ling page and Vivian Balakrishnan page to deter IP editors from editing on several occasions and each time La goutte de pluie would go back to revert back to her edits. As I have have pointed out earlier, the problem with her edits lies with her POV which can never be kept neutral. I would also like to point out I am constantly updating Singaporean presidential election, 2011 at the moment but once again La goutte de pluie feels the need to question the anonymous editors on the page. Is there a need to declare government conspiracy on every single politician talk page and threaten semi-protection each time I do an edit on someone's page?202.156.13.11 (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These issues would be easily solved by getting an account, but you have refused to do so. What is my POV/COI, may I ask? The only reason I use semi-protection -- and I have used it sparingly -- is to prevent abusive sock/meatpuppetry when it is especially rampant on some articles, as your allies are wont to do. Get an account. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some ground rules would help. These are standard for all admins and all articles:-

• You can't admin and edit in the same article

  An admin may not semi or protect an article where they are editing the article. If the page is being vandalised, take it to RFPP

  An admin may not edit through protection to put their own preferred version in an article, and the admin who protected it may not edit the article AT ALL while it is protected.

  If you think a user is a sock, make a sockpuppet investigation request

Elle, if you breach these rules, you are likely to end up without your admin tools.

At the same time, it does sound as if the area could do with more eyes to help achieve neutrality. Any volunteers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs)

I don't actually think your "ground rules" match current practice. Simple non-controversial admin actions such as anti-Vandalism work (including routine semiprotection, vandal blocks, obvious sock blocks etc.) have always been exempt from "involvement" rules. What admins need to avoid is using their admin status to further their own position in a content dispute; where there is no content dispute -- e.g. with vandals or banned users --, involvement problems don't come into play. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we could take it as read that normally editors would not have a problem with an otherwise involved admin dealing with a vandal who replaced the entire lede with the word 'penis' 5 times. However, this is not your standard vandalism, is it. What we have here is an admin reverting content edits and insisting that they are vandalism by agents of the government, I think the instruction to post a request at RFPP is one that the community would expect as de minimis to avoid the appearance of bias. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do think if the users in question end up using sockpuppets and rapidly switching IPs ten times in a row to circumvent 3RR, then anti-IP-hopping action can be taken. In the past, these users' IPs were blocked for using open proxies, and would, despite my requested entreaties, refuse to use the talk page. None of this would occur if the users in question would stick to one IP (the hopping is far from accidental) or use accounts. Some of this action is probably coordinated from the YPAP messageboard (now hidden). elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 13:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time, I've always waited for other administrators to come in, i.e. hence my posts at ANI and the COI noticeboard, but the intervening admins treat it as a matter of routine, rather than looking at the overall pattern, so it is quite frequent that they simply block the latest incarnation and mark the issue as "resolved". Sometimes, they issue a rangeblock, but they do not at all address the continuing pattern that government-backed resources are being used to push a certain COI on Wikipedia, and thus many IP ranges are open to these editors' use. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 13:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

La goutte de pluie, I see you do not accept that this edit is a problematic effort, and thus unfortunately it seems I do need to explain this very important point of policies;

The point of 'verifiability' is, so that the reader is able to check the facts. If the referenced material is not available (such as, a TV show that was broadcast once, not published), it is not verifiable.

Occasionally, a television station will provide archives, or the broadcast could be available on media such as DVD, or they might have an official YouTube channel.

That is not the case here. The YouTube video was uploaded by a random-person-on-the-internet; we have no evidence to suggest it is free of copyright. That is covered in WP:LINKVIO.

I have no idea what you mean by "fair use can be claimed for keeping a referenced link"; frankly, that makes no sense to me.  Chzz  ►  12:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, your demands above, that users get an account, are totally inappropriate. This is the encyc. that anyone can edit; registration is not required.  Chzz  ►  12:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That video was actually linked via Temasek Review and Google News; plus CNA does actually archive all its news shows. Considering it was an interview with Lee Hsien Loong, you know, the Prime Minister of Singapore. If you are using a video as a source (albeit a primary one) and are not transcluding it in the actual article, it is not violation on our part to simply cite it (as opposed to transcluding any of its content in the article). elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 13:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a violation of our copyright policies to link to a site that contains a copyvio - that includes in a citiation. This is one of the reasons why YouTube citations are often removed on sight. The question is - is this particular upload part of CNA's archive, or was it uploaded by some random who had recorded it off their tv? Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That video does have an arguable claim for fair use though. It is less than 5-10% of the entire work (the episode). YouTube videos have been used as verifiable sources for various articles (see Christine O'Donnell and "I'm not a witch"), and very short clips from interviews and parodies are cited. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you see that's a complete misunderstanding of what the copyright policy says. The YouTube clip is a copyvio. We cannot link to copyvios. Non-copyvio videos can be a source - the organisation I work for hosts an entire set of videos on YouTube. Those are not copyvios. Those could be linked to if they provided a source for something. None of the Christine O'Donnell clips are copyvios because they are genuine transformative fair use. Ripping off the first 10 minutes of a 50 minute programme is not fair use, it is a copyvio. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I already amended my citation to not include a YouTube link, just to be sure. I would have clipped the entire clip to a 20-second-statement if necessary, but there is nothing wrong with the citation itself. It still is a reliable source. My beef with the IP is that he was out to game the system; he did not actually care about the spirit of the policy he cited; he did not try to change material to comply with policy (i.e. simply removing the link, rather than the entire reference), rather he cherrypicked policy to push a POV. We do after all, have Template:Cite video. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had removed it because of copyrights and because it was totally redundant towards bulding up her page. I find it most absurd that you argued for it to be placed there just because "It's a comment made by the revered and mighty PM Lee. How can that not justify an inclusion? ". PM Lee made remarks on overseas politicians. Why don't you try to add it on their pages?202.156.13.245 (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temasek[edit]

Should we really be using this "Temasek Review" as a reference? It's 'about' page says it is an internet socio-political blog, and their tagline is An Online Community Of Daft Singaporean Noises.

Currently, the article in question has a whole section dedicated to this purported "Cooling-off day controversy" - as I understand it, it's about a controversial comment posted on Tin Pei Ling's Facebook page, and the question of who posted it, with Tin saying it wasn't her, but an admin. The ref we use from Temasek declares this a lie, because on an election declaration, Tin filled in "moderator" as herself. This seems like tabloid pap, and I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia; at the least, it seems WP:UNDUE, and weakly-sourced for a strong BLP claim.

I apologize in advance, as I do realise this is a content concern, not normally for ANI; but given the above, it seems specific and apposite as an example, in relation to the actual complaint. Plus, of course, as a BLP issue it deserves our consideration.  Chzz  ►  15:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, we shouldn't, imo, and this has previously been reaffirmed at WP:RSN. It's been my experience that La goutte de pluie insists this and another anti-government site, The Online Citizen, are legitimate reliable sources, although this has been rejected in the past at RSN. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to the RSN discussion? So far, what we have here is a lot of pebbles going down a mountain, rather than a single clear offence that is by itself sufficient for any action. As such, an RFC/U followed by an RfAR if required, is looking like the correct way to go. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

electronic Singapore press sources at RS/N (drive-by link) 71.234.215.133 (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a supplementary source, which is supported by a primary source taken from a government website -- the election forms themselves are public. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 18:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain which policy/guideline applies to use of such a 'supplementary source'? Or do you accept it is OR?  Chzz  ►  18:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale given to avoid using these 2 sources are rightly explained in the RSN link. Especially with many of the articles there written by "Anonymous", reliability and verifiability is a big issue. Even when they claim to have a board of editors overseeing the content. The forms are indeed validly linked. However its the reported controversy surrounding the alleged offence on which the forms are based that is the point of contention here, specifically the accusation made by the blog, that is in contention here. As I recall, the incident was also reported by the mainstream press, so those sources are preferred. DanS76 (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, DanS76, but - the mainstream covers that posted on FB and that the police are investigating re. 'cooling off' but... they don't talk of this form, and the ""Tin Pei Ling is the ONLY approved moderator of her Facebook".

Again, sincere apologies for fixating on this example, but if we could establish the actual problem with that one case, which La goutte de pluie seems to say isn't problematic, perhaps we could make progress.

Maybe we cannot, and maybe an RFC/U is necessary; I admit it looks likely. But if we can avoid it, by getting somewhere re. the specifics, that'd be better. Right now, I think La goutte de pluie is misunderstanding several important policies; I was hoping through some discussion they might agree voluntarily to stepping away from this, from avoiding WP:INVOLVED, to adhere carefully to RS/V/BLP, and so forth.  Chzz  ►  18:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymity is a necessity because of the government's reputation of prosecuting political opponents. (I'd like to remind everyone that the press freedom of Singapore has an international rank of 154....i.e. very very bad.) I see no reason why the references from both sides of the dispute should not be included. The "mainstream press" has a well-known pro-government bias. Normally TR sources have borderline issues, but if they file an Exposé supported by verifiable sources, then I believe it deserves to be reported, as an important check on the mainstream press. That's the problem with sources in Singapore -- all sources in Singapore have issues. Fann Sim is a professional journalist hired by Yahoo (who by the way, writes very professional articles), who, on the topic of Teo Ser Luck, reported what everyone was thinking, but journalists working in Singapore Press Holdings were more reluctant to say. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 18:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize to some extent but, frankly, that is not Wikipedia's problem. If there are no RS, there are no RS, and we cannot fall back on user-generated content. You can't make the rules.

The journalist isn't important. If the most-respected journalist in the world writes on her facebook page, it's not a reliable source for news.

La goutte de pluie, can you think of a way forward here, other than RFC/U, to resolve these issues?  Chzz  ►  18:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But I argue that it is not user-generated content, given that TR already has a journalistic reputation, and that government censors pay a lot of attention to it, and has repeatedly tried to bully it into submission (by restricting its donations). The New Paper is not any less tabloidy than Temasek Review, if not more, and yet it is also treated as a reliable source. Surely it cannot be worse than MoveOn.org (which AFAIK, is also a verifiable source) or sources from well-known activist organisations. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My gosh, La goutte de pluie, you are not still fixated on that satire piece by Fann Simm, are you.... Yes, I call it that, because I doubt a serious news piece would include these lines "Teo Ser Luck transformed himself into somewhat of an overaged, over-enthusiastic cheerleader during one of the PAP rallies by yelling all the names of six-man Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC team. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports saved the best for last when he shouted for the estimated 1,000-crowd to chant his own name. The response was, er, less than encouraging.". Or in any case, it should not be taken seriously as was done in your edit here [22]. Which was already discussed to death in the subject's talk page. I think what we have here is a general confusion about what is/is not acceptable as a reliable source, on top of everything being discussed here.DanS76 (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles and blog posts from well-known journalists, despite scathing language, are frequently accepted as sources (see The Guardian, Huffington Post, The Register, etc. etc.) Furthermore, I reported as an opinion, rather than as a fact. The most important thing is editorial discretion, which Yahoo News! Singapore clearly has (after all, the tagline of their series is "Fit to Post"). elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A wildly uninvolved editor[edit]

The only reason I have seen this is because I was following my posting to this board. As far as I know, I have never interacted with anyone posting in this section beyond the drive-by link I supplied earlier.

Having said this, I think User:La goutte de pluie's actions have been beyond the bounds of a WP Admin. "elle" has been involved in edit warring, page protection violation, source protection argument, primary sourcing...

Editors must trust the Administrators as they are Administrators, yet I do not trust the Administrator as an editor. Wrap your brain around this as you will. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't get what's so controversial about reverting blatant copyright violations taken verbatim from government websites, especially when socks are involved. The edit through protection was a mistake, as I explained above. It has been my constant and every desire to have civil collaboration with every editor involved; however when there are anonymous editors editing on the behalf of an employer, whose interests are a higher priority than that of a project (the very definition of a conflict of interest) I cannot help my suspicion. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way forward avoiding RFC/U and following[edit]

Maybe we can avoid this getting messy simply by restating policy and asking Elle to confirm that she is fully signed up to it. Elle, would you be amenable to confirming that you understand and agree to stick to the following

Involvement (lifted from WP:ADMIN

• Conflict of interest, non-neutrality, or content dispute – Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions (like obvious vandalism) where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools.
• Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.
• it is still best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards.

Copyright (from WP:LINKVIO)

• If you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.

Reliable sources (from WP:USERG)

• Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write AND (emphasis mine) the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer

If you can agree to the above, and agree to take any disagreements over sources to WP:RS/N and seek wider consensus, then I believe the community will be reassured.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am of course agreeable to all of this. I would also like for the community would pay more attention to the matter at hand. That has been my every desire -- my approach so far has been to wait several days to see if anyone would intervene -- posting on noticeboards if necessary. Can I ask the community to notice:

• Pay attention to the entire issue, especially the COI involved:
• Notice that long-term abuse, and widespread IP-hopping is involved

Other Singaporean administrators have been inactive. I have been taking it to other noticeboards, but what happens is that intervening administrators issue short-term remedies and then I am left at a loss when perpetrators switch to a different IP range, hit a different article (after it has been semi-protected by an intervening admin) or try a new way to game the system. It has been my every desire to avoid using the tools in an involved manner. In the rare cases where I do use my tools in the area, it generally has been to follow-up on another administrator's similar, but incomplete action.

The IPs involved have a very interesting conception of "abusing the tools" -- being queer, or posting one's suspicions on a talk page -- count as guilty for these IPs. At one time, the IP constantly reverted my additions to an article talk page (see the page history of Talk:Teo Ser Luck), and I saw it as uncontroversial to reinstate my own comments.

My suspicion is that if this were a matter concerning Western politics, there would be widespread attention quite quickly. More vigilant (and complete!) eyes is what I ask for. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really matter that other administrators be Singaporean to be eligible to intervene? In fact, by getting non-Singaporean administrators involved, the likelyhood of COI is greately reduced, as they can remain more objective. And Elle, although you do make use of the talk pages, there have been cases when you dont and basically ignore discussions when editing. I.e.this edit when I had already for a discussion of the content on the talk pages. Plus the edit history basically shows an war in progress. And its not that other administrators have not taken action. They have been issuing warnings to both the IP and Elle, but both sides are choosing to ignore the warnings. Would you have them take punitive action immediately ratther than engage you in dialogue?Zhanzhao (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait what? I waited for a reply from the intervening IP on that talk page for weeks...which never came. I made two reverts, one was because the reversion by the IP was given without explanation, and the second time was with my own explanation. Upon getting reverted once more, I promptly ceased.

It seems to me that the IP simply has no interest in the project, other than that of his employer's. All that matters for that IP is to ensure that his/her employer is not associated with the remarks he himself made. I consider this especially grievous, since the accusation was splattered all over Vincent Wijeysingha's page by accounts linked to the government (User:Alverya was declared a "likely" sock of User:Geneva2011, and both edited from government IPs). elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The call for discussion was made to any and all editors who were making the changes/revisions that I asked to be settled in Talk before another edit war occurs. Which it did again. That includes both the IP AND you, Elle. If you had responded earlier, and not now, only the IP would have been guilty of not following protocol. As it is, both you and the IP are basically just warring with each other and reverting the exact same changes repeatedly, which if occuring within 24 hrs would have been an outright 3RRR matter. As it is, its still a 3RRR in spirit. As an admin, pardon the cliche, with great power comes great responsibility to do what is right. This is not the first time the issue is raised to you. Zhanzhao (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a gap of 2-3 weeks in which the IP never returned to discussion, satisfied that the right version had been reinstated, and never responded to my arguments. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) x some,

It sounds very much as though you are saying the ends justify the means; that you believe it acceptable for an admin to disregard policy, guidelines, consensus and due process because of exceptional circumstances. It is not.

I am sure that a number of us here sympathize with your concerns over freedom of the press in Singa. However, that is not, will never be, an excuse for disregarding WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:INVOLVED and other policy/guidelines. You cannot make claims, without proof. You cannot make accusations such as "socking" without launching an SPI.

Right now, here, we are teetering on the brink of requesting formal procedures toward sanctions, to enforce regard for established guidelines.

We're trying to find a way to avoid it. You'll need to make considerable concessions; perhaps agreeing to not edit any articles in this area for some time. You'll also need to accept that the aforementioned policies are not to be disregarded "because you think it is RIGHT".  Chzz  ►  22:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is actually not actually who "is right"; my gravest concern is WP:COI; I simply want these IPs to follow policy and I would prefer that the project not gain a reputation with government astroturfers that Wikipedia is an open hunting ground, or that criticisms can be removed with impunity. I disagree with a topic ban, if only because a) the users involved are anonymous b) too little attention is paid in this area. I have been very reluctant to use my tools but I will become even more so.

I am quite puzzled by the idea that I am making claims without proof. Users have generally agreed with me, that socks are involved; the SPI was launched by Strange Passerby after it happened after the nth time; I have in fact, posted previous evidence and proof on ANI before. I believe there is also "if it quacks like a duck" principle; initially, in the very early days of the dispute, and because CheckUser would be excessive (especially since it is likely only to catch registered users), I did not file an SPI report. SPI is not very good at identifying links between unregistered IPs.

I have never "disregarded" any policies and I have always considered the issues involved "carefully". For example, when a like to an interview used as a reference reverted by an anonymous user (linked in pattern to those with a likely COI and those who wish to game the system) on the grounds of "no Youtube videos" allowed; I have always double-checked policy to see if there are any grounds for such a removal. YouTube videos are frequently removed because a) of the fear of SPS b) of the fear of infringing copyright. I also read up regularly on fair use case law. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you assumed consensus after a period of inactivity to enter your edit which restarted the edit war. Even though there was already a Talk topic on the area of conflict. I would like to point out that this is almost the exact same pattern of behaviour that got you into the last ANI report, the only difference being that instead of editing through a protected page, you edited in spite of an existing Talk topic that specifically requested input from the warring parties (you included, as yoi were very actively defending your edit), changing what was a safer wording (which was taking directly from the source) to something you SYNTHESISED. Do you see the problem yet? Zhanzhao (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, where did I synthesise anything? My summary was taken straight from news sources. One of the headlines from the mainstream press (TodayOnline) was: "PAP: Will Wijeysingha pursue gay agenda? SDP: No, we will not". I cited this repeatedly (in addition to other mainstream mentions that Balakrishnan basically had a tiff with the SDP over an alleged gay agenda).

I disagree that it was "a safer wording" -- it is something that I believe is being used to whitewash the topic in favour of an employer. I actually don't really care what the title says or "the Truth" -- it is in the intention of the anonymous editing that concerns me most. For example, look at the history of Vivian Balakrishnan/deleted revisions (the original article was deleted because of six-year-old foundational copyvio issues) and look at the unexplained removals from likely government employee User:Eggsauto99 (and his related socks), where similar removals took place in order to whitewash articles that put his employer in a bad light. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the others -- you should take a look at the insertions of User:Geneva2011/ User:Eggsauto99 (among his IP allies) regarding text and photos taken verbatim from government sources, or from high-resolution privileged perspectives that betray being a government employee. This, in addition to occasional WHOIS of IPs contributing to socking occasionally turning up government ministries (I have cited the specific instances before in past reports), creates a very strong suspicion of COI. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q what do you mean by "SPS" in the above?  Chzz  ►  22:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published sources. SPS depends on author, the publishing organisation and editorial discretion; it is not a question of format. YouTube is frequently used to make SPS, but is not always used to make SPS. The IP who reverted me in that instance was out to game the system and cherrypick policy (oh Youtube videos are looked down upon! revert) without looking at the spirit of the policy or guideline, which in this case, is to inhibit the use of SPS. We can reference television interviews which have been broadcast; in fact, sources do this all the time. Under the fair use case law that I have seen, I never seen where already-broadcast news reports have been treated as unpublished material, and the use of citations of interviews and excerpts is supported by fair use case law.elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot reference something that cannot be verified. A broadcast TV interview is, often, not verifiable. Your 'evidence' of a person uploading it to YouTube, apart from almost certainly being a copyright violation, is not a reliable source.  Chzz  ►  22:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this supported by policy? There are tons of authoritative guides on how to cite TV interviews. The archives are physically accessible in Singaporean archives and libraries. (We have a National Archives of all past news broadcasts and publications, you know, and SPH is owned by the government.) In any case, even if the link to the video was problematic (which I removed as a concession, but I consider our link to it, fair use), its citation is not.

Some example articles where YouTube links to interviews are used without objection:

• Barack Obama
• Christine O'Donnell
• Milton Friedman
• Bob McDonnell
• Virginia gubernatorial election, 2009

Use for cases of critique or commentary, use for informational purposes, and nonfringing market share strengthen a claim for fair use. (The uploader is a press freedom watchdog organisation)elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The applicable policy is WP:V.

I checked Barack_Obama, and saw uploads from users "BarackObamadotcom" and "MoxNewsDotCom". Those are, apparently, official channels. I did not check the others.  Chzz  ►  03:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you revisit the source, you will see that the question was targeted at just one party member (individual) asking if he will pursue his "agenda" in the political arena, and the SDP (party) was only asked "about their position on their matter", to quote the article. And yet, you arrived at "Balakrishnan accuses the SDP of a "gay agenda"." Where its the whole party itself rather than the person being "accused". I'd like to further point out that the term "accused" was only used with the act of suppressing a videos in the related issue, not in the context of how that one member was questioned. Accused is a strong, and potentially non-neutral word, that should be used carefully.

Yes, Elle, this is a case of SYNTHESIS. What you call "whitewash", I call "safer wording", or insurance against prevent embellishment and exaggeration. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly whitewashing if performed by editors with a likely conflict of interest. That fact concerns me the most.

Zhanzhao, the press source still basically says Vivian Balakrishnan (as spokesman for the PAP -- it is common to use synecdoche in the news) accused the SDP of having a gay agenda. That is their summary -- which they cannot make lightly -- and since we were talking about summaries, this supports my argument to summarise it that way. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't get it. You are trying to explain that your summary says its SDP the party being accused, but the actual source only has one of the SDP members being questioned, while the party was only asked about their position or stance on the matter. I think you are starting to get confused yourself when you try to lump everything together, so thats why, with this case being a good example, it might be necessary to stick to the source wording rather than attempt to do a misleading summary. This could have been trashed out in talk instead of being discussed here. Hence the need for protocol. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the source interpreted this as the entire party being accused. I believe it is correct to use this source's interpretation to support what is clearly obvious to everyone: Balakrishnan accused an SDP politician (and the party he represents) of having a gay agenda. That a press source made this interpretation should be sufficient evidence. The claim that Balakrishnan made his initial "suppressing remark" without consciously trying to insinuate that the SDP had a gay agenda, is a fringe claim and should not be factored in titling the summary. Plenty of press sources make this interpretation, and no press sources make any opposing interpretations.

I am afraid Zhanzhao, what what you are doing is synthesis in itself. The idea then, that based "strictly on their original remarks" that it was possible, however unlikely, that Balakrishnan asked his "question" innocently is an original research statement unsupported by press sources. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The press did not make any such intepretation. 2 different questions were asked, one to the party member, one to the party. The article mentioned them together because it was from the same interview and on a related issue, but the 2 specific questions (and their targets )were still left separate. This is the exact quote ofrom the article

"The issue is not Wijeysingha's sexual orientation. That is a matter for him," said the team from Holland-Bukit Timah GRC in a joint statement. Rather, "the video raises the question on whether Wijeysingha will now pursue this cause in the political arena and what is the SDP's position on the matter".

You on the other hand, are trying to combine the 2 into a singular sentence that was very misleading, as explained above. which lead to the claim that it was the party that was being accused directly. This should have been discussed on the talk pages, but if you really wish to continue to justify your attempt at SYNTHESIS here, be my guest. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The headline was "PAP: Will Wijeysingha pursue gay agenda? SDP: No, we will not". How can that seriously be "two specific questions"? I would appreciate if you do not make bad faith accusations.

• The mainstream press referred to this accusation (otherwise why would the SDP have to defend itself against a phantom accusation of a gay agenda?)
• Temasek Review, Alex Au, and opposition press sources abundantly refer to this interpretation
• According to the Economist: "Social-networking sites filled up with the rebukes of Singaporeans disgusted at the PAP tactic."
• According to a New Zealand website: "Vivian Balakrishnan, on the SDP’s Vincent Wijeysingha. Balakrishnan via his Facebook and the media began what can only be described as a smear campaign, accusing SDP of having “a gay agenda”."

At some point, it really is a matter of semantics. If not "Balakrishnan accuses the SDP of having a gay agenda", then we can be inspired by The Economist's words. How about "Balakrishnan and the SDP's gay agenda", but that would assume the SDP actually has one. So then I would use "alleged gay agenda", and then "alleged by whom"? A mysterious person who is not Balakrishnan? I think we can use some NPOV and good common sense. In any case, I really would like if you took back the statement that I am a person who goes around sythesising original arguments to articles. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I am unable to take back my statement as you still do not see the problem. For the umtempth time, according to the source, 2 different questions were mentioned. One to the individual, one to the party. The problem is that the individual party member did not give his answer (If he did, I may have missed it so correct me if I am wrong here since it was not mentioned in the same article). Instead, it was the party who attempted to answer both questions together. "Let me state categorically, we are not pursuing the gay agenda and none of our Members of Parliament will," said Dr Chee(SDP Secretary General).". Problem is they were not asked if they had such an agenda,, just their position on their member's agenda. They assumed that the party itself was being questioned. The news report had no choice but to report it as it was. Just because the SDP chose to answer the question in that manner does not change the fact that the original question about the agenda was not directed at them. I.e. If I asked a person if he was from Singapore, and he answered that he was poor. Would I stand accused of calling him poor, even though he was the one that answered the question different from what I expected? As for the other points you mentioned, I just explained the mainsteam media bit, other admins already questioned the reliability of some of the sources, and the economist does not say what the tactic was or how it is evidence of the SDP being accused. Until you are able to objectively read what is being said without jumping to your own conclusions, or discern objective writeups from subjective ones, its quite difficult to continue editing like this. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation does not change the headline or the newspaper's succinct summary, and it is not OR to use an existing headline. Furthermore, I have already given you a source which echoes what everyone else was thinking: Balakrishnan was making a thinly-veiled accusation. The Economist uses very good prose -- how explicit does it have to be in order for a reader to link "the PAP tactic" with the accusation at hand? I am saying even if we do not call it an accusation of a gay agenda, it is Balakrishnan hinting that the SDP has some sort of agenda (oh by the way, it's a gay one) and I think it's fairly ridiculous to reject the title in light of three different sources basically supporting that in some way or other, Balakrishnan was adopting coercive tactics towards the SDP, associating it with "gay agenda". If there is a problem, it is not one of OR. I would really really really appreciate it if you would then accuse me of something else other than being a someone who would freely violate WP:SYNTH. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I employed heavy reliance on sources in that addition. Can you explicitly point out which statements are OR? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 02:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motion for topic ban on La goutte de pluie relating to Singaporean politics[edit]

Alternative: Put disputed articles on 1RR+semi[edit]

Edit review request[edit]

Can someone please review Off2riorob's revert of my revision here. I already tried to compromise, and I would like him to explain what is particularly wrong with that revision, since I added both the self-published statement from the politician himself, as well as an article from TodayOnline. Cheers. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistalking by anonymous editors[edit]

Can I ask for some intervention against wikistalking here by one of the anonymous IP ranges. For example, I just noticed this IP reversed the uncontroversial revert I made (I had removed agenda-pushing linkspam from The Clinton Chronicles). I am not sure what interest user:220.255.1.100 had in The Clinton Chronicles except to stalk my contributions. This is just one case out of many. In cases like these, I would see it fit to block on sight, since I would deem this incontroversial. In the past, when I have referred this other noticeboards, they taken very narrow remedies, and the editors involved are free to switch to some other IP range; I would like some help in dealing with these anonymous editors as a whole. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wouldn't semi-protection deal with it? I can see in context of this discussion that you'd rather not apply it yourself, but just let me know on or off wiki and I'll do it for you, in anything unrelated to singapore politics at least. I just did it for this one. I'd also block, but if they switch to other ip ranges, what would that accomplish? DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like some help (a more aggressive CheckUser) or perhaps some way of separating the IPs in question. I am definitely not in favour of WP:OUTING any individuals, but given that Eggsauto99 and Geneva2011 were in all likelihood, editing on behalf of some organisation, I would like help in determining what that organisation is. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, semi-protection wouldn't solve it either, given that switching to another article is also easy, but thanks. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it funny you constantly like to play victim when you are the one doing wiki-stalking. Reverting edits I've made, undoing the IP talk pages which I've cleaned up. 202.156.13.10 (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot clean up IP talk pages that you don't own, especially if you are deleting comments left by established members of the community. Individuals are allowed to patrol the edits of problematic IP such as yours, especially since it's a public IP. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was told it's fine to clean up. 202.156.13.10 (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That only applies to users who do not share accounts, or with unique identities. With public or sockpuppeteering IPs, it is less clear; it is better to err on the side of more info. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with OhioStandard in the sections above at least about one thing: the IP trolling needs to stop. Sure, it's one of our principles that we don't require registration, but that principle is meant to enable newcomers to quickly and easily make some uncontroversial fix here and there. It is not meant to enable people to engage in long-standing, personalized disputes with other, registered editors, while themselves evading WP:SCRUTINY. If you want to uphold a sustained presence in a dispute, especially in an area where disruptive sockpuppetry has already occurred, and especially if you are also willing to edit-war, and if you have repeatedly been asked to create an account, then you should damn well stick to an account, or be discounted as a malicious element. So, official admin warning to 202.156.13.10/202.156.13.11/202.156.13.226: stick to an account or be blocked. (And I encourage fellow administrators to respond to any more disruptive IP editing with liberal use of blocks and semiprotections). Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule that I must get an account. I have already explained why the IP jumps and that it is beyond my control that they flip even within seconds. It is you and LDPG who do not believe in it and the latter often accuses me of using some IP-jumping equipment. I would like to ask why LDGP couldn't keep her hands off articles I'm editing in then and start accusing me of sockpuppetry whenever she can even when I was reverting edits made done to vandalism on S.R. Nathan page. 202.156.13.11 (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm replying here since I can't seem to add it in at the top where La goutte de pluie questioned why I deleted her comment in Teo Ser Luck's talk page. This isthe comment which LDGP added with her sockpuppet (obvious sockpuppet since she reverted back to LDGP's edit to include the Yahoo! article). Was it wrong to remove a baseless accusation? So is she going to bring your government conspiracy talk to every single page? I see that LDGP have done so by adding COI in Tony Tan Keng Yam when there wasn't even much going on. And when COI was removed by another editor, LDGP's reply was that "Tempwikisc works in Tony Tan's office (by his own admission). hard to think of a more explicit COI." Baseless accusation again. As it isn't bad enough, what's with changing a perfectly normal heading "political career" to "rise to power"? Are you writing about Hitler? LDGP has some serious anti-governement issues. 202.156.13.11 (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this is the true basis of your complaint? That you think La goutte de pluie has "serious anti-government issues" is what you're really complaining about? You'll not find universal sympathy on that basis here, I believe: We're not discussing a morally-neutral question, some matter of personal taste, like whether one likes broccoli. Most of us consider the civil liberties on which our respective national governments were founded to be intrinsic human rights; most of us would have what you call "serious issues" if our governments censored our media or manipulated our elections so that they became a sham.

To admins: Will someone please block/rangeblock this IP and semi-protect the relevant articles? I'd feel differently if our friend who brought this complaint would avail his edit history of the wp:scrutiny that the person he's complaining about is subject to. But given that he refuses, and given the seriousness of the disruption from anon users in the topic area, this has gone on long enough.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come on OhioStandard, that's just whitewashing here. Your personal opinion of governments aside, Elle has been as guilty as the IP of pushing an extreme POV and COI. Sanctioning one side and letting the other get away scot-free, even when many good faith editors have expressed serious concerns, is absolutely the wrong thing to do here. You're trying to make it seem that Elle's edits are all totally forgiveable because of Singapore's media climate. Let's make it clear, they're not. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have some explanation of how I have been pushing "an extreme POV"? I have been doing my utmost to comply with policy. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@SPB: It may be that you're aware of actions that I'm not? I agree that the specific examples LGDP asks for to support the charge of pushing an extreme POV would be helpful. But please understand I do take the concerns you've expressed seriously. The only objection I have is that they appear due in large part to what I consider a misapplication of NPOV policy. That policy doesn't always demand that an editor blind himself to all moral judgments: We don't require editors to present a "neutral" view in our article about murder, if you'll allow so obvious an example. The lead there unapologetically includes the value judgment "the commission of a murder is highly detrimental to the good order within society".

Similarly, La goutte de pluie evidently edits from the belief that a person's right to govern others derives only from their collective consent, and that attempts to derive that consent based on sham elections of the sort that overwhelming evidence documents as the status quo in Singapore are likewise "detrimental". YMMV, but I can see nothing remotely inappropriate in such an editorial perspective when the facts it's based on cannot be seriously disputed and when the values that support it are so nearly universal. Nor can I see that acknowledging any of this is a matter of "personal opinions of governments" at all, or that doing so violates NPOV in any way.

On the contrary, elections subject to the kinds of manipulations that feature in Singapore aren't elections at all; they're public relations exercises carried out to justify the effective appointment of compliant supporters. It thus seems inappropriate to me to require editors to write about them with the NPOV we employ for legitimate elections, or to require that our articles about those individuals that the corrupt process there puts in power have the same popular mandate that genuinely elected officials in other countries rightly enjoy.

That said, I doubt that anyone is operating at the top of his or her form under the stress of this extended conflict, and the reinstatement of the notice that Future Perfect describes below does seem to demonstrate that. But from my perspective, the broader charge that La goutte de pluie's actions have been "pushing an extreme POV" can be supported only by accepting a misapplication of NPOV policy that would force us to treat sham elections in Singapore in exactly the same way we treat real elections in other countries.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV does not mean "the POV I support" or "the POV that most of the people here support" or even "the obviously right course for a democratic society". The reader will judge the situation is the article is dispassionate. If the article is politically charged, any reader would know to beware of what's expressed if they're looking for facts rather than an editorial or endorsement of the view presented. DGG ( talk ) 21:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Freedom of press is not the problem here. The concern with La goutte de pluie is her previous habit of adding opinion (or loading up facts to support an opinion) to articles. This in turn led to poor sourcing of material (example) and using sources the reliability of which were disputed by other editors. Note: I edit numerous articles on Malaysia (which has similar concerns about freedom of expression) and I see no excuse to use unreliable sources to compensate for lack of press freedom. Wikipedia chooses to err on the safe side and I agree with it. Also, my recent experience editing Singapore articles tells me that the conventional news sources cover each subject adequately (even the controversial topics), rendering the sites with questionable POVs unnecessary. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 02:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More problematic admin actions by La goutte[edit]

I hate to have to report this, but it seems LGdP hasn't really got the message about her admin actions yet. Here's what happened just today. LGdP had blocked the IP editor 202.156.13.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) last week. Yesterday, I again blocked that user, together with his other IP 202.156.13.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), for disruptive editing (according to my warning in the section above). Two other admins have so far declined unblock requests by them. So far so good. But now LGdP comes in again. The IP had been removing a talk page notice by LGDP made in the context of the now stale block discussion from last week. The talk page notice had no objective function any longer in the context of the present block. Nevertheless, LGdP decided to edit-war to re-instate it, while the unblock discussion of the present block was ongoing. She broke 3RR over it, and then decided to semiprotect the IP's talk page. By doing so, she was effectively preventing the IP from further requesting an end to the current block; a block which was made essentially to protect LGdP from the IP's trolling, and to which LGdP was thus clearly an involved party. I must say I find this highly troubling. I have undone the protection now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The review was related to an unblock request; and one admin had reverted the previous removal before. I did not think it would be controversial. Since it is a public IP, aggressive and selective removal of notices should be flagged, in the very least. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 07:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This notice was not of a kind that it would have been necessary to understand the context of the blocks; in fact, it had no function whatsoever at this point. Of course, the IP's decision to make a fuss over removing it is itself also a sign of a silly "I'll-remove-this–because-I-can" battleground mentality, but your decision of "I'll-restore-it-because-I-can" is not much better. In any case, nothing of what you said affects the gist of the argument about this being an illegitimate involved admin action, and a breach of 3RR at that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I certainly did not want to make any controversial edits; I did not see grounds for removing my comment, and I noted the user was combative even towards User:Jpgordon. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 08:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elle, read WP:BLANKING. Removing warnings is expressly allowed. This is a highly concerning new development. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We allow the removal of warnings, because when a warning is removed the assumption is that the editor is acknowledging receipt of the warnings. An admin of all people should know that. -- Atama頭 15:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid people like OhioStandard still fails to understand what's going on. I requested S.R. Nathan page to be protected, for vandalism initially but had to mention LDGP for being problematic editor over content dispute. La goutte de pluie still continues to add it in despite being the involved editor. When I was being blocked, LDGP went to Tony Tan Keng Yam to add in a Temasek review link (it's in the paragraph under the chuck of red text) despite being warned repeatedly earlier not to use it as sources as they are not accepted. After Off2riorob went in to revert and warned her not to do it, LDGP decides to take it out on her by posting this? Do you still not see what's her problem? I suggest actions to be taken fast as presidential elections are almost here. Or at least get her banned from those related pages first. She's trying to be funny on the candidate pages, in particular Tony Tan's (as like those politicians mentioned above, they are all under PAP). 202.156.13.10 (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution[edit]

This discourse has side-tracked, massively. As an ANI request, it needs specific resolution. I will *start* a draft, here; I'm not looking for !votes at this time; I'm looking for suggested ways to move forwards.

Suggested resolutions; please add to this, or comment, but please let's not dive into !votes yet; the following are not mutually exclusive, merely suggested resolutions; just possible options which might appease folks here, and might close this thread. All I'm saying here is, these are some ways we might close this thread;

1. No action needed
2. Voluntary;
   1. La_goutte_de_pluie clearly accepts previous errs concerning WP:INVOLVED, we accept that, and move along, pending recurrence
   2. La_goutte_de_pluie voluntarily stops editing in the area of "Singaporean politicians/politics" broadly construed
   3. La_goutte_de_pluie resigns SysOp status, which could be re-assigned through normal procedure (viz. RfA)
3. Enforcement
   1. La_goutte_de_pluie be topic-banned for some period
   2. Move this to an RfCU, or Arbcom case, or whatever
   3. Place all Singaporean politicians/politics articles on probation broadly construed with stricter rules on adding unsourced/poorly sourced content. Uninvolved administrators may place sanctions on any disruptive editor such as topic bans,revert limitations, and blocks of up to 6 months who does not adhere to policy after repeated warnings. All editors would be subject to 1RR.

I'm just being pragmatic here; the above does not constitute any stance by myself on this issue.

Please consider adding to the list of possible actions/outcomes; please do not offer opinion in support/opposition at this time; let's first try to get some list of things to agree upon.

I fully accept, it is quite possible this cannot be resolved via ANI, but the unfortunate consequence of that is, given our current norms, that it'll head to arb. I'm hoping we can avoid that, through community consensus/discussion. Everyone - and especially La_goutte_de_pluie - please understand, my intent here is merely to resolve the concerns, in the most DRAMA-free, amicable, collegiate and most expedient manner. Best,  Chzz  ►  23:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - IMO, the two proposals above regarding a topic ban and a 1RR/semiprotection on disputed articles both have consensus to pass, and that should be enough of a resolution to this for now. Your first suggestion (that Lgdp "clearly accepts previous errs") has been tried before, at her last ANI appearance. Obviously that hasn't worked out... Not in favour of a third chance here. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment An ArbCom case could be requested but the best would be an RfCU. ~~Ebe123~~ ^talk_Contribs 17:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  ArbCom would probably decline it anyways, as they almost always want to see prior DR before accepting something (the one recent exception I can think of was the longevity arbitration case, but that was because of gross personal attacks; there's nothing here even approaching that level). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Their may be a possible exception in this case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Expectation_of_prior_dispute_resolution However, I think this should go first to Rfc/U before contacting ArbCom.KeeperOfTheInformation (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Really, there's two, the first two (allegations of administrator misconduct, and extensive discussion with wide community participation (this discussion)) ~~Ebe123~~ ^talk_Contribs 10:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to RFC/U. The issues are too complex, and the potential sanctions too serious, for an AN/I thread.—S Marshall T/C 11:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - One thing I have noted about Elle is that she tends to "correct" articles/edits she considers to be skewed in one direction by taking it into the opposite direction, rather than bringing the article back to its neutral state, as she explains herself here[25]. I find this very unsettling for an editor. Recently she seems to have shifted her attention from General election topics to the Presidential election related topics, maybe because the general election is over and the presidential election is heating up. I hope she is not making Wikipedia into an extended political battleground. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly, this needs to stop. Can we get an uninvolved admin to look at the two proposals above and enact them if consensus exists? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be useful to also merge the last 2 instances of related ANI into this article? It might ha,e the article longer but that can be solved with the "show/hide" feature, and time for the people new to this case. Zhanzhao (talk).

I have now done so. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think a RfCU would be useful here mainly because it's difficult for someone uninvolved to extract a summary of the alleged wrongdoings from this discussion. I understand that editors wanted to avoid WP:TLDR in their opening statements, but then the whole discussion became a TLDR back-and-forth. A RfCU should be able to avoid that. I think there is consensus to put the articles in question on 1RR+semi in the mean time, which is a neutral decision with respect to the parties, unless you consider the requirement for the IP to register an account as burdensome, which I do not. FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're going to RFC/U, see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/La goutte de pluie OpenInfoForAll (talk) 05:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – La goutte de pluie indefinitely blocked by NuclearWarfare. Can be revisited if/when La goutte de pluie is unblocked

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

A1 Current context:

• Wikipedia:BLP/N#Grace Fu and User:La goutte de pluie : permalink
• User talk:La goutte de pluie#Your edits on Grace_Fu : permalink

A2 Also see:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/La goutte de pluie
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/La goutte de pluie
• User talk:La goutte de pluie#You were wrong about something

A3 This user has a history of tenacious editing on Singapore-related articles and has disregarded Wikipedia's policies on WP:BLP and WP:NPOV in the process. I encountered La goutte the day before while editing a BLP on a Singaporean politician – Grace Fu, subsequently, I tried to reason with the user with regard to her inclination with putting undue weight on less prominent events, and later reported the incident on the BLP noticeboard. The issue is not resolved as of yet. An uninvolved admin and other users have asked La goutte to take a break from editing articles under this topic (Singapore politics), but the user has disregarded this suggestion. She does not appear to have an interest in increasing the quality of the content of these articles but only appears to insert critical commentary wherever she can. I stand opposed to this whole-scale corruption of our articles and the vilification campaign.

A4 Grace Fu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — La guotte version 1, La goutte version 2, La goutte current version Grace Fu has received media coverage recently for certain remarks she made on her facebook page. La goutte's style of selectively picking up phrases and quoting them on article pages is very disturbing. According to WP:BLP, Wikipedia is not a tabloid and biographical articles on living persons should be written conservatively and dispassionately. She later makes a POINTy addition to the article: [26]

A5 Young PAP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [This article was created today.]

Quote: Lee's goal was to "keep the PAP as the sole...only main political party in Singapore" such that "when the people think about the government of Singapore, if they think about the future of Singapore, then they will think about the PAP".

La goutte has paraphrased Lee Hsien Loong's comments and then linked "only main political party" to the article on Single-party state.

Quote: Lee also said that the youth wing would be a channel in which the youth could communicate dissent, in which otherwise they might be "tempted" to vote for the Opposition and bring the PAP government down.

Again, I am disconcerted by the use of selective paraphrasing and quoting out of context. Quoting from the source:^[27]

"Indeed, BG Lee reflected the concerns of the leadership generally by pointing out the dangers that might lie in store if the Party did not work actively to involve the nation’s youth. Young people recruited into the new Youth Wing would find they had a tailor-made mechanism through which to voice dissenting opinions and be heard. Without such a mechanism, young citizens might grow frustrated with individual policies over the course of time; rather than working with the PAP to let their views be heard, they might be tempted to vote for opposition candidates instead, even though they might actually agree with the PAP fundamentals. And if enough young people felt that way, the PAP government could ultimately be brought down."

Under the section on "Internet presence", La goutte writes:

As part of the "dual strategy on the internet" in 1995, as usage of uncensored internet messageboards became more popular, the Young PAP began regularly commenting on the Usenet group soc.culture.singapore.^[28]

This constitutes original research, and though the material retrieved from Google Books mentions a "two-pronged strategy", it does not make a direct reference to the Young PAP, and therefore not relevant for the article; also "as usage of uncensored internet messageboards became more popular", is just another addition which La goutte has inserted all by herself.

A6 Central Executive Committee (PAP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Makes a reference to an "inner circle" in the lead paragraph, which is uncited. The rest of the article is pretty much unreferenced.

A7 George Yeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - recent edits

Quote: As an enticement for joining the YPAP, he said people joining the YPAP could take positions different from central party leadership.

Uses the word "enticement" to describe the George Yeo's actions.

A8 Lee Hsien Loong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – recent edits

This edit includes the same type of selective and out of context paraphrasing as demonstrated for the article on Young PAP.

This edit is not only a grammatical change, but it changes the meaning of the subject's words when quoted out of context.

Lee quickly rose through the civil bureaucracy as a brigadier-general in the 1980s and was one of the key leaders in the mid-1980s leadership transition. [29]

This assertion is unreferenced.

Lee was regarded as one of the next key leaders in the People's Action Party leadership transition that was taking place in the mid-1980s, as Lee Kuan Yew had declared that he would eventually step down as Prime Minister in 1984. Following the Singaporean general election, 1984, all the old Central Executive Committee members had resigned on 1 January 1985, except for Lee himself. ^[30]

This is entirely a false use of a JSTOR reference. The linked article does not contain these assertions.

A9 Population control in Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – recent edit

La goutte had initially created this article as – Eugenics in Singapore, it was later moved to Family planning in Singapore by some other user, and then moved to Population control in Singapore by La goutte. This article still bandies eugenics in Singapore prominently, frequently making references to "government eugenics policies" rather family planning or population control.

I request uninvolved administrators pay urgent attention to this issue, and recommend a topic ban for La goutte de pluime as it is clear that they cannot contribute to Singapore related articles in a constructive manner. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 23:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We've been down this road so many times with LGDP. Many of us have observed and commented, but I'll only speak for myself: I've observed protracted, problematic edits and interactions over the past 6-7 months on Singapore-politics related articles and more recently, China-politicsrelated articles. I think this has to stop. Toddst1 (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

La goutte's response to A1, A2 and A3: I fear that Toddst doesn't appear to have much expertise in the subject, when he decides to accuse me of biased editing, when I am reflecting mainstream consensus on the subject. I am also very hurt that he thinks I do not have an interest in increasing the quality of the content of articles. I want readers to understand how Singapore came about, how it came to be, how it is governed, etc. etc. which is why I have been writing articles on Singapore since 2004. Unfortunately, Toddst has conveniently overlooked my contributions to those articles. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Nuclear Warfare's suggestion on your talk page, not Todd. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

La goutte's response to A4: That's not pointy. That was a genuine attempt at compromise. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced users (including former administrators) are not expected to leave HTML comments like that within article space. But this isn't just it. There are quite a few threads on your talk page where other users have repetitively warned you against abusing {{cn}} tags on articles, but you still continue doing so. (relevant: NW's comment. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HTML comments can guide edits; I don't get how the use of citation tags is relevant here -- I am simply tagging statements that do not comply with WP:V. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

La goutte's response to A5: Um, most political scientists agree that Singapore is a single-party state; if it is not one now, it definitely was in 1980s. You can look this up. I did not think this was contentious. I merely summarised the essence of what the YPAP themselves said on their website. Again, I don't think this was contentious, and if it was so, I apologise. Tell me how to fix it. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit Wikipedia according to your personal understanding of events, in the event you quote someone, please mention whom you're quoting and do not quote them outside of the context. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should I say, my understanding of the mainstream consensus of events; we all edit with limitations on our knowledge. I did not quote Lee Hsien Loong out of context -- in fact, I explicitly said the quote came from him. Lee was the Chairman of the YPAP, and he gave several reasons for the purpose of the YPAP. You haven't shown what context I am not showing. I have tried to faithfully represent all viewpoints as far as possible. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free)

The YPAP's own website bolded those comments. How is it quoting out of context to pick up on them? Can you explain what the context is? Lee is saying, the youth should be encouraged to join the PAP via the YPAP, otherwise dissent will be voiced through other means. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to get into a content dispute with you on the noticeboard. I believe other users are competent enough to judge these edits. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe other users are competent to judge that these were quite reasonable edits. The only pitfall is that they may not read the original references in which they came from. Have you read them? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am summarising the narrative of the article. Did you read the whole chapter? It is rather slanderous of you to insist I am making up references because, the book does make a reference to the YPAP. Please read page 259. And FYI, you can start getting informed on the issue by reading Censorship in Singapore. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The author does not say that the YoungPAP began to comment on online message boards as a part of PAP's "dual strategy on the internet". Also, the author has used the words "two-pronged strategy" and not dual strategy. This again, is not a mainstream view point, and does not warrant creation of an article, which I believe is what you wish to do, going by the fact that you have created a redlink to the page. Your recent edits on almost all Singapore politics related articles show that you have attempted to put undue weight on particular viewpoints, rather than striving to achieve NPOV. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the preceding pages. I present to you the section header on page 256: The government's dual strategy on the internet. If he uses two-pronged strategy, it's unnecessary argument over semantics. As the author explains, the strategy is to 1) monitor citizens 2) reply to dissent. What is the mainstream viewpoint? Do you have an in-depth analysis that says otherwise? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

La goutte's response to A6: I planned to cite this soon. In any case, this is not a biography, so sourcing is less urgent. You can mark uncited statements if you want. I was planning to update that article later. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One citation here (From the Straits Times ). Another source here to the "three orbits of leadership". elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to continue your disruptive behaviour by revert-warring on the admin noticeboard? I request that someone else please restore the discussion above. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 01:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

La goutte's response to A7: My language reflects the author's own wording. The author had said George Yeo had "offered the inducement of". (footnote 35) I don't think this is very contentious. To paraphrase the YPAP's worries if you read the source, the young have been shying away from the YPAP. Therefore, allowing dissent in the YPAP, will entice them. I think this is neutral wording. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between inducement and enticement, but I am sure that you understand that. To entice is to lure, to induce is incentivize. — Nearly Headless Nick {C}

There is no practical difference. Please WP:AGF. Are you saying I used "entice" instead of "induce" out of my diabolical plan to portray the YPAP as a seductive group ensnaring the young? Maybe I was simply using my own words to avoid a copyright violation? And how does this affect the topic ban proposal? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

La goutte's response to A8: What? I am simply reflecting his role as a government leader in the 1980s. Do you know the subject? Please read the Library of Congress countrystudies, which looked at his influence in 1989. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this. The extra "the" was redundant -- that's why I removed it.

When you are quoting, mention whom you are quoting as a part of the text, and quote verbatim. The extra "the" was not actually extra. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does nothing to change the meaning -- you could dispute this and I can change this, but certainly I don't know why this is being used as evidence in support of a topic ban. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't; it's sourced through the Library of Congress references.

This is a misrepresentation of the source. The article does not mention "civil bureaucracy", but "bureaucratic and political responsibility". As a matter of rule, while writing lead sections for BLPs, try quoting sources verbatim or appropriately paraphrase the content within context. But I don't need to tell you this, surely you understand that better. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This affects WP:V and WP:NPOV how? I paraphrased the content within context to the best of my ability. We have to balance conciseness as well-- I was merely summarising large amounts of text into single statements. Considering we do this for BLPs I see no reason why we can't apply the same summarising strategy in other articles. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. Did you read the whole article? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but it doesn't. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read leadership transition in the People's Action Party where I used the same JSTOR source, plus more sources. I also used that source in Tony Tan Keng Yam. In any case, I believe the 1 January 1985 political transition event is well-documented; if I messed up, I am sorry, but I did not do that systematically and you are free to correct the error or point it out on the talk page. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

La goutte's response to A9: The Singapore Democratic Party and many other political analysts have referred these policies as eugenics policies. Even the Library of Congress has analysed these programmes like so. I am afraid that people have not been doing their research. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the two sources used on the article pertaining to the Library of Congress mention the word "eugenics" even once. – [31], [32]. You are using Wikipedia as a tool to advance your political agenda. I am alarmed by your brazen disregard for NPOV. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I messed up; I used many references in that article -- as you can see over 25. Here are some references that use "eugenics":

• Chadwick, Ruth (2000). Ethics, reproduction, and genetic control. Psychology Press. pp. 165. ISBN 978-0-415-08979-1.

Eugenics on the Rise: A report from Singapore

• Wong, Theresa; Brenda Yeoh (2003). "Fertility and the Family: An Overview of Pro-natalist Population Policies in Singapore". ASIAN METACENTRE RESEARCH PAPER SERIES (12).

. As such, population policies have been categorized into three main phases: the anti-natalist phase (1966-1982); the ‘eugenics’ period (1983-1987)

• Mui, Teng Yap (1995). [ http://www.un.org/Depts/escap/pop/journal/v10n4a3.htm "Singapore's `Three or More' Policy: The First Five Years"]. Asia-Pacific Population Journal 10 (4): 39–52.

"The last point mentioned has been the most controversial because of its eugenic implications." Note that this study comes from the United Nations.

Btw, from the second LOC ref:

Would someone please reformat the complaints and responses sections? Right now, the section above me is so irredeemably confused that I can't tell what's a complaint, what's a response, and what's a response to the response. Indentations and signatures with timestamps exist for a reason; please make use of them. No comment on the proposal until that's done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holy moly, where does one start? I wish someone had hit rollback the first time LGDP started ping-ponging here--I think it's their responsibility to clean this up, or maybe competence is an issue here. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just cleaned this up. I find it hard to believe that a former administrator cannot even properly comment on a thread without creating a mess which others have to clean up. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe WP:POINT and sowing confusion are part of her editing style? I recall [33] and see a repetition with [34]. So a topic ban from whatever area she disrupted now (Singapore, China?) won't be enough. She reminds me of User:TreasuryTag in that respect. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to insinuate that, nor is it entirely her fault, just that I can't consider arguments for or against a topic ban when I can't even tell who's saying what above. I don't think anyone's trying to be deliberately obfuscatory. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: La goutte de pluie is topic banned on Singapore politics related artices[edit]

• Support: as proposer. Toddst1 (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - absolutely time for this. From my experience, the User is apparently unable to edit the BLP articles in Singapore related articles from a WP:NPOV compliant position. I have no experience of the China topic area but I fully suspect as per Todd's experience, that the same is true of the users contributions in that topic area. Youreallycan (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have always sought to use appropriate sourcing. Can you please tell me how I have violated NPOV policy? I use the sources at my disposal, and I find my sources primarily through Google. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I go away for four months and still nothing's changed, I see. The previous efforts have failed and it is time to ratchet it up from a simple 1RR to a topic ban. Support. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have used high-quality third party references and high-quality books. I am puzzled. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose see nothing wrong with the edits in questions. they seem to have references etc Bouket (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the basis for this is simply "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", you should probably review the evidence produced above in more depth rather than simply saying you "see nothing wrong" because the edits "have references", considering that the charges include that said references are a fundamental part of the problem. It's not a question of whether she's referencing her edits, but rather how she is doing so. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 21:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh Strange Passerby, yet Toddst has yet to show what is really problematic with the references nor how they were improperly used. Has Toddst provided a sample survey of the literature to show that I am cherypicking references or distorting weight? Do you know why? Because he can't; he doesn't know what he's talking about; he hasn't looked at the academic literature, and I have cited a liberal amount of viewpoints, and in fact, I have no stance on the matter. I am merely interested in the facts -- and who said what.
    • Oh it's also ironic that you say that, considering that the above three votes are political in nature, based on friendship, and not based on sound logic. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose William M. Connolley (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And do you have any argument to back your stance up? No? Didn't think so. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 21:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ironic, as you, Strange Passerby did not provide any form of argument in your !vote either. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't believe I need to — I referenced the fact that "nothing's changed", indicating my stance to be similar to prior discussions on this issue, which are readily available at the very top of the main thread in Nearly Headless Nick's links... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 22:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could do without putting words in his mouth; he'll respond if he wants to, and if not the admin masochistic enough to close this will weigh it accordingly. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what?[edit]

And what did I do with China politics-related articles? The only thing I did was oppose the requested move from China to Chinese civilization. Since 2005, I have an interest in Chinese history. I am not out to push a POV. I did not selectively quote. Nick seems unhappy that political scientists online have not been entirely favourable to the Singaporean government. However, I am out to reflect mainstream consensus of the subject. I do not cherry pick and always seek a balanced view of the subject. I sought to thoroughly include many sources in my editing: a reader can read through population control in Singapore and note the diversity of viewpoints.

I am not sure what my crime is. I have thoroughly and painstakingly researched many of my articles, ever since I joined Wikipedia. I wrote PAP-UMNO relations, Battle of Singapore, much of History of Singapore (which still bears my language), many of the places for Singapore geography, and laid the foundation of many Singaporean articles. In these articles, I have sought references which explained and analysed historical events. Nick appears to be a newcomer who takes objection to any viewpoint unfavourable to the Singaporean government. Nick appears unfamiliar with much of my old work.

I would also like inquiry to Toddst's inappropriate use of admin tools to block me in a dispute, which was brought up earlier in an ANI thread. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. I've struck the china articles from the proposal. Toddst1 (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, "slap a bunch of accusations and see what sticks". This is convenient. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lgdp, whatever content contributions you've made in the past is irrelevant to your current spate of editing behaviour on Singapore politics-related topics. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, those claims against Toddst were completely unfounded and the complaint was thrown out, just for clarity's sake. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this is a real question. has an admin ever been mentioned here recently and people felt action should be taken against them? Bouket (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "In both cases here, I see no plausible reason for blocking whatsoever."
• " In brief, Toddst1 was involved and the block was a disproportionate response to the conduct in question." [35] elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I note that Toddst is canvassing for votes to support his proposal, if you look at his contributions. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not canvassing to notify with neutral wording possibly involved users or interested users of an ANI discussion. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is if he is cherry picking users to notify. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry picking - my ass. I notified the admin that unblocked you.[36] Toddst1 (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing disruption[edit]

User:La goutte de pluie is now stalking my edits to alter articles on my contribution history. – [44], [45], [46], [47] and also hiding my comments without my permission and revert-warring over them. It's very exasperating dealing with her. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 01:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I simply note that you take a rather excessive interest in Ahmedabad (as a member of one of its schools) and was worried about your neutrality, which is why I have tagged Ahmedabad for neutrality issues. I think you should find my edits reasonable. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 02:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

I note that NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has now blocked La goutte de pluie indefinitely for the above disruption. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is the 2nd time NW blocks her, I guess we will soon hear that he is another admin with a grudge on her... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He missed the last 3 meetings. Toddst1 (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]