Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/La goutte de pluie

La goutte de pluie's personal agenda

Thread moved from ANI [1] due to length.  Chzz  ►  23:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Response

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Temasek

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [2]. 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)

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)

A wildly uninvolved editor

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)

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)

Is there a way forward avoiding RFC/U and following

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Pretty interesting you should say that, because imo, you just did. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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

Taking all the above into account; the fact that La goutte de pluie (hereafter "Elle" or "Lgdp") has misused her admin tools while WP:INVOLVED; the fact that Lgdp has edited through page protection to restore her preferred version of an article' the fact that she has repeatedly ignored WP:RSN advice and included unreliable sources and original research; and that she has failed to and refused to recognise her inappropriate actions in doing so;

I hereby move for an indefinite topic ban on La goutte de pluie (talk · contribs) on all articles relating to Singapore politics, broadly construed. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - I've been looking at the evidence so far and don't see a justification for a topic ban. As far as editing through a page protection, is there evidence of whether the edits were reverted or an apology was made? -- Avanu (talk) 02:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Let me try to wrap my head around this. You're perfectly happy for a page listing what admins have "done wrong" to exist, but when it comes to actually sanctioning them for doing wrong, you're against it? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm ok with sanctioning someone, but I want to be clear it is warranted. The same is true with the other debate. Also, I would tend to err in favor of speech being allowed in userspace (versus mainspace). I tend to dislike topic bans, because I think they are harder to enforce than just a simple block or removal of power, etc. Suppose someone is topic banned from editing about hot dogs, and they edit a page about processed meat, or a page about sausage? violation or not? -- Avanu (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, Strange Passerby. I am unaware of where I have repeatedly ignored WP:RSN advice -- I have constantly listened to advice, but while Temasek Review is indeed a blog, it is a significant and notable one and can be cited in certain circumstances. When I have done so, I have been careful. Citing a TV interview is hardly using an unreliable source. Where I have been notified, I have corrected or made a compromise.

I have tried to use my tools very cautiously, and only in very blatant cases; my default mode of action is to post on a noticeboard or wait for intervention. I am unaware of where I have violated WP:INVOLVED since the last notice; the one case that I remember was an IP involved as a copyvio sock where other copyvio socks had been already been blocked by other admins -- I would also like for the community to note the circumstances where page protection was mistakenly edited through (most protections do not last more than 4 days, and I explicitly petitioned for discussion in multiple fora). elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 02:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

La goutte de pluie, did you revert your edits when you edited through page protection? If not, why, and what was your action instead, and how do you justify it? -- Avanu (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

See my request to Toddst1 here-- after 3-4 days, he never replied and I thought he saw my message. When it was first brought to ANI I was initially puzzled -- especially since I thought I had notified Toddst beforehand -- but after realising I had mistakenly edited through protection I wanted to wait to see if he agreed or not. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. La goutte de pluie makes positive (adding & updating content) & negative (breaching WP:OR) contributions to Singapore-related articles; the negatives are not on a scale where a ban is justified, and most of the time is dealt with swiftly by other editors.

A word of advice for La goutte de pluie: Your intransigence is digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole. I understand and admire your zeal in trying to prevent government-linked accounts from making COI edits and copyright violations, but you are losing the battle of wits against them by overplaying your hand. You misused your admin tools and were warned about it, in addition to being advised by multiple admins to keep in line with WP:RS, WP:LINKVIO and WP:OR. Instead of heeding community advice, you keep making exceptions for yourself, blaming the Singapore's lack of free press, which is really utterly irrelevant in Wikipedia. In fact, in most of the controversial articles you have been involved in, I noticed that most of the negative information on the subject you wished to add can readily be sourced from reliable internet news sites (like Yahoo! News). Your refusal to humbly accept other admins' courteous advice is making you look arrogant, and is probably what led to this topic ban proposal.

Your attitude has brought you on the verge of being topic-banned, which can only be good news for the government-linked COI and CCI violators. See what I'm saying? Sometimes you have to take a step back before you can move forward. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 02:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• • I'm sorry if I seemed arrogant. I am simply trying to explain my individual actions, and how I had carefully considered policy each time. In fact, initially -- having returned from a long break, I assumed many of the policies of 2006 were still in place, and then independent websites had less issues in being used as sources, albeit with the knowledge they were potentially partisan. With time, I used an assortment of different sources to give different positions on the same issue. I want to emphasise that I do take advice very seriously -- I am simply explaining my own position. I in fact intended to take many things to the RSN noticeboard, especially to challenge the idea that TR and TOC, etc. should never be cited (to me, they are comparable to such activist sites as MoveOn.org, which are citable), rather than argue endlessly about sourcing on talk pages, but due to real life, I simply did not have time to. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support but only to a temporary topic ban. She has been a good editor in other areas, and the election fevour may still be in the air, sitting on the sidelines for a while would allow her to cool off. But if possible, her admin tools in these same areas should be withheld for a much longer period than the topic ban jist in case. On our part we other admins and editors must pay more attention to the legitimate complaints that she makes rwgarding NPOV edits made by the IPs and take action on her behalf more actively. StrangePasserby and Todd are 2 that attempted to help her before, and their lack of COI made their action more objective based, which should be continued. Can I suggest that some senior admin be designated as her "conteoller/advisor" in a more permanant basis for the duration? By having an objective admin step in for legitimate concerns we are maintaining the neutrality of wikipedia while also making Elle tone down on her over-enthusiasm in this area if she has to ask properly and make convincing arguments to get action taken rather than herself making drastic and possibly COI action in the edits and administrative tool usage. Zhanzhao (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support - the user has been disrupting that area since they returned - seems to think he is defending against some conspiracy that hasn't been an issue till he showed up. As a clear political activist and a single purpose account in regard to attacking the opposition politicians using dubious picture uploads, youtube links and blog citations, (all of them living people and BLP articles) a topic ban is a very good idea. Off2riorob (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, Rob, she's "attacking" the government politicians, not the opposition. Not that it makes a difference, of course; either way her actions are questionable at best. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Whoa, what? Single purpose account? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 15:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• I'll hate doing this but Support – disruption would be blockable, when we get to discuss it, we could do the final decision. We shouldn't start something too big. ~~Ebe123~~ ^talk_Contribs 13:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• I was planning to support this, as I have very definite feelings about admins using their power or prestige in matters involving COI, but looking over the discussion, I think she now understands, and no further purpose would be served by a formal restriction. DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Elle/La goutte de pluie is still making edits over at Singaporean presidential election 2011 (which currently I didn't spot any COI between editors, I suppose it was targeted towards me), Vivian Balakrishan's page (I find nothing wrong with the line "elected unopposed", but Elle seems to like to introduce sarcastic remarks like "enjoyed a second walkover". "Enjoy"??? Seriously? Aside from that she's adding new references from Scoop. Refer talk page) and on Tin Pei Ling's page (where she re-added the reference link (youtube video). I had brought it up that it had no relevance much earlier on the talk page and she could not even back up with a proper claim on why it's required.)202.156.13.10 (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, there's no Youtube video cited in that link. I cited the news report directly (as with the original). Also "enjoy" is not sarcastic in this phrase has multiple meanings, including "benefit from". elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I'm supporting the topic-ban, as I think it could help with the immediate concern. However, I hesitate to do so, as I believe it will not resolve the core problem - that La goutte de pluie seems to continue to think it is acceptable to act outside of accepted practice because of the actions of others. The above requests, asking La goutte de pluie to agree to abide by policy/guideline norms, have been side-tracked by discussions of the IP-users. As StrangePasserby said, it's not a one-way street; however, two wrongs don't make a right, and a defence of I disagree with a topic ban, if only because a) the users involved are anonymous b) too little attention is paid in this area are not valid rationales for opposing this; again, it's WP:NOTTHEM. The user continued to add controversial material, even during this discussion [3] and their apparent misunderstanding of RS and copyvio still concerns me - even though it has been explained by several users above, e.g. still thinking it OK to cite something that was broadcast, despite it not being verifiable, just because we've got a "Cite video" template; also claims it is somehow more acceptable to use a non-RS when it is a 'supplementary source'; also saying blog posts from well-known journalists, despite scathing language, are frequently accepted as sources (which worries me particularly, in terms of BLP). The above specific discussions regarding SYNTH/OR belong on the article talk-page, not here - but, the concern right here is, that - despite past cautions about the same issues - the user continues to impose their interpretation without working towards consensus.  Chzz  ►  13:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not familiar with any legal or academic opinions in which broadcast items can be considered "not published". In all fairness, looking at various copyright case law sources, being broadcast is equivalent to being published. Furthermore, my use of "supplementary source" was an attempt at compromise; additional sources published from heavily-censored environments can be considered when cross-referenced with more reliable sources. I think this is a fairly reasonable thing to propose.

I would also request a clarification why you think I do not work towards consensus, a comment I am fairly surprised at, when that has always been my goal. I have always tried to compromise -- it is fairly easy to work with established editors. However, anonymous IPs have a tendency to revert without explanation, or the use of compromise. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support: per my comments above. Toddst1 (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Admin and editor are two different hats, and the bulk of valid points in this complaint appear to be relating to actions taken by the user while wearing the admin-hat (ie. admin tools misuse). The issues related to the validity and interpretation of the sources while the user is wearing their editor-hat don't warrant a topic ban. Deal with the admin-hat issues through appropriate channels, there's not enough to justify simultaneously sanctioning the user's ability to act under their editor-hat as well. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Re La goutte de pluie's use of sources, all I have to say is that I think we need to allow considerably more latitude in sourcing articles about a country where its government controls what appears in its "mainstream" media. More important is that, like others here, I also have the strong impression that our articles on Singaporean politics are the target of a coordinated government propaganda campaign, and that anon IP hoppers are a large part of that. It would seem naive to me to imagine that editors who act in opposition to this campaign, as La goutte de pluie does, would not be attacked by anonymous users in such a context. Also, while I recognize that using a named account isn't required, it doesn't impress me much when I see long-term established editors attacked here by IP users. If someone isn't committed enough to our community to even create an account ( e.g. to allow proper scrutiny ) then I generally apply a pretty steep discount to their credibility re a complaint like this one. That seems particularly called for in this subject area, where objectivity is so consistently and aggressively threatened by COI edits from socks, paid government propagandists, and IP hoppers. Having said that, I'll also say that these comments are not meant to apply to any particular user, and certainly not to any registered and long-established users, whose good faith I have absolutely zero basis to doubt or question.  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. While Ohiostandard raises mentions the valid possibility that the IPs are possible coordinated attacks, these can be easily controlled by a semi-protect. But then how about the need to protect the page from named editors who have anti-government sentiments, or worse, admins who can edit through normal protection as La goutte was shown to have done? She said it was a mistake, but still, it would not have been possible if she was not an admin in the first place, and as pointed out by a few others above, has COI issues to boot.

Lets not forget that wikipedia is a literally a free-for-all battleground for both sides. I speak from past experience from having to keep another unrelated page neutral from the actions of a anti-government leaning editor who was so blatant that he was even recruiting meatpuppets from external forums to wage their ideological war here, so I know such editors exist. The case is clearly "chronicaled" in my talk page if you guys care to read it.

Also, I note that from La goutte's edit history, she only resumed active duty around the period of the general elections (the last one and the current one). Even her user page comments on her desire to be more vocal regarding politics. That, plus her habit of using selective sources and attempting to bulldoze her way through via wikilawyering makes her a questionable editor in the political articles. Sometimes she even uses guidelines in opposing ways to support her objectives. Her quoting copyvio on the V.Balakrishnan articles is acceptable, but then she switches tact and plays free and easy with copyvio when she wants to insert something that is copyrighted [4]. Who watches the watchers?

Especially since she was already warned recently in another ANI of similar behaviour which is still being highlighted here. I suppose we can go through all this again if yetanother report is raised about her. After all, she does not seem to take corrective criticism to heart. Or a serious warning can be given to her this time, something that she finally has to take seriously. DanS76 (talk) 09:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. La goutte's seems to have a clear conflict of interest, just as her opponents, but just because your opponent is in the wrong doesn't give you license to do the same. Either Elle continues to use admin tools on Singaporean articles and refrains from any content changes, or contributes to content while refraining to use admin tools. She can't have it both ways. A topic ban, therefore, is a milder approach than outright desysopping. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternative: Put disputed articles on 1RR+semi

An alternative proposal to consider: Given the above-established facts, and noting the repeated edit warring between Elle and the anonymous IPs, all additions to the contested articles: Vivian Balakrishnan, Tin Pei Ling, Teo Ser Luck, Vincent Wijeysingha and Singaporean general election, 2011, are to be put under a one-revert-rule per user per article per 24 hours. On the IPs' side, this would mean semiprotection, with any changes to be proposed on the talk page. This much more sufficiently deals with the fact that this isn't a one-way street and only sanctioning Elle will not work in the long run. Elle would not be allowed to use her admin tools in this area. This will hopefully foster a more conducive environment where all additions, contentious or otherwise, are first discussed on the talk pages. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support 1RR on the contested articles and a full administration ban on Elle on the contested articles for the duration of the sanction. Considering it appears the flashpoint here is a current event, I'd support a sanction length of 3 months. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. In part for the reasons I gave above re SPB's initial proposal, but also because I think semi-protection would be a much more appropriate response to deal with the problem. I don't see that any other action or sanction is at all called for at this point. I don't edit in this topic area, btw.  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support We are heading in the rigth direction here as we are putting in some form of control. Admins should stay uninvolved, and know when they cross the threshhold. Whatever works. I feel that a semiprotect unbalances the playing field though. For example, I see that 202.156.13.10 is an IP that appears consistently and frequently, which means it is possibly a static IP, so it is unfair to him/her. The other IPs are quite random and e edits are outright disruptive without being participative so for all intent and purposes we can take them as one single bunch which can be ignored. Is there anyway we can do selecrive filtering of IPs for the semiprotect? DanS76 (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • No, the 202.156.13.10 editor has been hopping across several other IPs too (self-admittedly), and actually claims that simultaneously other editors have also been on this IP of his, so it's both shared and dynamic. It's long past the point where for this person to insist on his "right" to edit logged-out has become disruptive. He needs to get an account and stick to it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm you are right, I was only basing off the frequency of the IP appearing but guess I was off. In which case it still does not change my vote, but the the semiprotect would cut down on the warring from one side at least.DanS76 (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I dislike reverting more than once, and I would like it if some accountability was stressed on the part of the IP editors. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 16:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Disagreement with content should be resolved in Talk. As for the semiprotect, I guess this is unavoidable and I have no objections to it as I had already previously pitched the idea to them to register so as to faciliatate easier communication, plus this makes it easier to keep track of diacussions with him/her/them. Zhanzhao (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Elle should be free to take administrative actions that need to be taken (such as enforcing 1RR). ~Amatulić (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. A more balanced and constructive approach which will prevent troll-like reverts by the IPs. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 21:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Question: If one side is an "IP-hopper" (or group of them), how can you block to enforce 1RR? Would it be more accurate to state that this is imposing both wide semi-protection to stop the IP problem, along with 1RR for confirmed editors? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, you're right. A rangeblock here is bad, since Starhub and Singtel have big active clusters. I've updated the proposal slightly to make this clear. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Doesn't the "semi" part of 1RR+semi solve that? The IPs won't be able to post at all without an auto-confirmed account. FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support as TechnoSymbiosis (talk · contribs). ~~Ebe123~~ ^talk_Contribs 18:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit review request

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)

Wikistalking by anonymous editors

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

More problematic admin actions by La goutte

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Resolution

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)

• 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)
• Comment An ArbCom case could be requested but the best would be an RfCU. ~~Ebe123~~ ^talk_Contribs 17:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

• 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[5]. 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)
  • 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)

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).