User talk:La goutte de pluie/archive 8



TOC
As established at WP:RSN, The Online Citizen, as a groupthink blog, should be used sparsely and is not for most purposes a reliable source. Therefore I don't think you can characterise it as "valid". I've reworded the section to make it sound less POV. It was pretty anti-TPL, and as much as I don't like her or the fact that she's now an MP, we have to maintain neutrality. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It is perhaps not the most ideal standalone source -- but what is wrong with it having as supplementary source ? It is a source that supports the other sources. I do not think we should remove the source. WP:RS doesn't say that you should remove sources that do not fully qualify as WP:RS, but rather remove statements that are not backed by WP:RS. Furthermore what is a reliable source depends on context. We can be sure they did not fabricate the Elections Department document, and the depth of the reaction means we can cite both the TR article and the government document to avoid violating WP:OR. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 03:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's one thing to cite TOC as a supplementary source and quite another to cite it as a source in a blatantly biased paragraph, which only adds to the appearance that the entire section is POV. I'm quite happy for you to restore it (further discussion notwithstanding either here, on the article talk, or at RSN) if the section does not (as it did) take on an ostensibly anti-TPL or anti-PAP tone. This article is due to go up on T:ITN soon and we could do without a POV tag to scupper its Main Page chances. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is that POV -- we are almost covering all the facts of the case and we aren't given any more. The entire incident reflects badly on TPL obviously, but that is because that seems to be the majority view. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 03:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The majority view online, perhaps. As an administrator, if an editor raises a point to you that he or she thinks content you are adding may be POV, wouldn't it be wise to ask for a second; third; fourth opinion? Because I certainly think unsourced statements like "This fact was not covered in the state press." are POV. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That was not my intention -- that was just to help clarify that the "official" state press view of events and independent blogosphere's views (which occasionally source their own arguments credibly) are different. This is not POV, but reality. Singapore's situation, because of a lack of press freedom, is unique. Occasionally notable events are only discussed by independent, notable reporting. For now we can consider many independent blogs not to be prima facie reliable, but reliable on a case by case basis. In America, partisan views would have easily found a mainstream venue. (Fox News is considered a reliable source, after all.) Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 03:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Tin-Pei-Ling-Kate-Spade.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Tin-Pei-Ling-Kate-Spade.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. We hope (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am curious, why do you think the image is replaceable? The original image was an iconic one and a major election issue. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 20:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to go to the file and edit it as stated above, giving your reasons why the file can't be replaced. An administrator will look into the matter and decide. We hope (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I tagged the file because it is non free one with living subjects, that's all. We hope (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Temasek Review
The DYK project (nominate) 06:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Beautiful page — may I take inspiration from it?
Hello! I am anonymous for the moment, because of techinal problems of connexion: I can't create my user page and my mailer does not even work.

When these problems will be solved (after several attempts by the network operator; “Vive la France !”), would you mind if I create a user page which be rather like yours? And, just in case, if I don't understand how something is done, would you agree to give me explanations? --78.123.104.87 (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC) (actually: Eva, la Tahitienne)

No problem. Actually the initial concept was borrowed from user:mailer diablo =) Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 12:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Tin pei ling new paper.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tin pei ling new paper.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Before you accuse me of anything untoward, please do note I've not nominated the Kate Spade file for deletion as I agree that that one could reasonably be considered of, per WP:NFCI, "iconic status or historical importance". (And for the record, I voted SDP last Saturday. :)) Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, random thought/comment further to our discussion above and the other RFU notice you've received here, given you've not edited actively since March 2008, if you're out of touch with WP:NPOV, WP:RS and/or WP:Fair use, then perhaps it would only be right if you underwent a reconfirmation RFA? Just a rhetorical thought, I certainly don't expect you to do anything and I won't be offended if you decide not to. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

File:The New Paper Gay MP.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The New Paper Gay MP.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Vivian Balakrishnan fb screenshot.jpg
I hate to do this, but I've nominated this file for speedy deletion under G10 as a blatant attack. Not by you in uploading it, but the comments are a clear WP:BLP issue and they should have no place on Wikipedia. It can be replaced in his article by simply saying he was attacked online and sourcing this. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS / Vivian Balakrishnan
has—correctly—removed information in Vivian Balakrishnan regarding the controversy over the so-called "gay issue", specifically concerning comments by Alex Au. Just to leave you a note to say I fully agree with the removal per WP:RS (emphasis original): "There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. 'Self-published blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs; see WP:BLP and WP:BLP as a self-published source."

Please do not restore the material unless you find a non-self-published source (SPS including TOC and Temasek Review). Otherwise, I'm afraid your recent edits taken together would warrant review of your admin privileges as no prospective admin would honestly get away with violation of Wikipedia's five core pillars. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And please, if you haven't already, (re)read WP:BLP. Your recent edits show, intentionally or otherwise, an ignorance of that policy. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry if my edits seem like POV warring. If you haven't noticed, the YPAP has been rather active recently, which has pursued the strategy of trolling activist groups online, whitewashing articles and in general, making their employers "look better" than they actually should. The big blow-up portrait of Balakrishnan on Commons to me was suspicious -- that isn't published anywhere online and only seems to be a local copy the Young PAP wing seems on hand. (I am also the administrator of several groups online where I have had to deal with this rubbish.) The infamous online persona "John Tan" (meant to put a bad name to John Tan the SDP candidate) is just one example of this.


 * Also, perhaps we should move some of the information to a separate article, then. Alex Au is a respected activist and is one of Singapore's most visible spokespeople for the gay community, which Balakrishnan basically attacked clandestinely. The issue again is that when Singapore lacks a free press, intellectuals have to resort to other media to combat bias in government newspapers. We should also be using discussion pages more. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 08:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * At least years ago, the general consensus was that editors hired by the government to push the views of their employers should be treated rather severely, even "punished" on their talkpages. See: Requests for comment/United States Congress. I have caught Ministry IP addresses doing this. It is quite annoying. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 09:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree regarding the editing by government-linked editors (I did a whois on an anon yesterday and it returned a result for the Infocomm Development Authority). However, WP:RS and WP:BLP are clear on this. BLP is one of the most important policies on Wikipedia now and allows the removal of any unsourced, poorly sourced, or unreliably sourced contentious information—negative or positive—from an article on a living person. And I think RS is very clear on using blogs as sources for opinions and facts on living people. That said, Alex Au is prominent enough to be given coverage even in the government media, so his comments might have been published somewhere else. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, can I say that I'm concerned the "gay issue" is getting undue weight in the article. Might be better to (like at TPL's article) include a short paragraph on it and link to the election article, where a section on this would be better placed? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I share your concern. I plan to do that eventually, even draft a separate article. Right now I don't think that much harm is being done. Per Requests for comment/United States Congress, we should punish government/YPAP POV-pushers for their attempted censorship; the edits the Congressional staffers did then were small and of a much smaller magnitude, and were also quite juvenile. This whitewashing is far more malicious. Note they did not transfer it to a different page, transfer it to a discussion, they did not comment it out -- they deleted it outright. For that I think it should stay a few more days (also while I draft a new article to put it into, with an overall sourced analysis of the particular issues in a far less episodal manner).


 * Certainly (for the scope of his resume) and that if you google "Vivian Balakrishnan" you get a lot of criticism and less commendation on his ministerial activities, I don't think it's that great of an undue weight issue. In mind of a lot of educated citizens that is in fact the major association with Balakrishnan. Nevertheless I do agree we should eventually fork it off -- but we should mention there was a controversy -- the two summary articles from Today and the Economist work best. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 10:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have some personal agenda to have written all that on Vivian Balakrishnan. If you can't be neutral about politicians, don't go around making remarks people are doing whitewashing when it's just you going around to do smearing.

I see you just undeleted the article, please see the discussion at User_talk:Moonriddengirl for more information about the copyvio issue. Yoenit (talk) 11:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports
Your edits to Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports got blown away by an editor who restored the utterly uncritical tone. I reverted it back but without references I don't think it can all stay. There must be some critical reference material about this organisation, even allowing for the lack of internal criticism? If you can dig up a smaller amount of better referenced criticism then that can go in and be defended against whitewashing much more easily than the current content. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * My intention is to add some soon -- I'm just busy with other forms of research and peer review right now. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 20:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi hi, I think Daniel was referring to me who "blew away" the edits. :P Wasn't my intention to whitewash it, but it was obviously unreferenced and the tone seemed very POV to me. so like I said on Daniel's talk page, if the referencing by credible sources can be put in and a neutral tone is used (because everything has the negative and positive sides, so it's unfair to put an editor's tone into a fact-based article), i have no issue with it. Of course, based on fairness, if we have a critical reference, should there be a positive reference? Thanks! Alverya (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Teo Ser Luck
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Teo Ser Luck. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. illogicalpie (eat me) 00:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Point taken. Actually I'm about to start an RFC soon, concerning whitewashing of criticism by Young PAP agents and their allies. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 07:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

untitled
You should stop vandalizing people's pages and undoing people's works if your sole purpose is not to update with proper references. Smearing campaigns are not welcomed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.10 (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do think Yahoo News is a "proper reference"? We can discuss our disputes. Elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 10:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

BLPN - Teo Ser Luck
Hi, your contributions have been mentioned at the BLP noticeboard Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard - please comment there, thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

note - I removed you comment again - please don't replace it again without explanation as to its value and perhaps a citation WP:RS to support it. My comment about it - I do not see the value of this comment at all - clearly it is not here to improve the article and appears to be a personal opinion. Why an administrator is edit warring to keep it on this talkpage is beyond me completely. It is little more than a self professed opinionated partisan attack? Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you look at the article history, you will find the reliable citation you are looking for that this MCYS user keeps removing. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 08:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing WP:COPYVIO speedy from Narnian timeline
Hi, I noticed you removed the template from Narnian timeline. I'm wondering what the process is for validating that this is in fact a reprint of several pages of a book, with a few annotations. Is AFD still the proper channel? Shooterwalker (talk) 03:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy is for "obvious blatant copyright violations". I can't really verify that it's obvious, so could you provide a scan of the text and email it to me (or another administrator)? I mean it's not that I don't trust you, it's just a good idea to have some way of checking for myself, so I can also judge the similarity. Otherwise AFD (or other routes involving non-free use issues) is the way to go. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 03:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * blech. It's a pain but if the AFD is unpersuasive, I'll go back to the library and makes some photocopies and then scan it. I understand why it's necessary that an admin see it though. How hard is it to email you? Shooterwalker (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just email me from the button on my user page! Also how thoroughly is it copied -- just the plot points, or is it the entire language? Complex cases need to be examined by users who are copyright specialists. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 04:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * At many points it's the exact language verbatim, with the description of an event next to an exact year. At other points, Wikipedians have fleshed out the events. If I were to draw an analogy to song lyrics, imagine someone copied and pasted the entire "long time ago" introduction from star wars verbatim, and then annotated it with "the Galactic Empire is run by Emperor Palpatine", and "home for Princess Leia is the planet Alderon". So it's verbatim, plus. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We might need more expertise in this. I don't think I should speedy it unilaterally -- we probably have to remove much of the history, but it needs a rewrite. (I am not sure if matching event for event is necessarily a copyright violation; see idea-expression dichotomy). That said, I think we should push for a community process. Don't worry, I'll put a strong case for a need to clean up copyright issues with the article if you feel intimidated doing it yourself. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 18:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the best analogy for this kind of copying is our article on Star Wars opening crawl. We don't include an actual reprint of the text. We include whatever information there is around the text. We might even summarize the text, but we don't repeat the text, not even with a word or two changed. That's how we cover something encyclopedically without getting into copyright issues. Admittedly there is some stuff written about the Narnia timeline. I don't think it's enough to warrant an article, and I don't think it justifies copyright violation. I'm interested to see what a resident copyright expert would say though. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me La goutte de pluie, but there is the Duplication Report link at that time, and the url so you could of saw the vio.  EBE123  talkContribs 22:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing Talk page messages
Hi. I see you reverted at User talk:218.186.16.10 to reinstate a warning that you had added. However, users are allowed to remove warnings from their own Talk pages if they wish, and it at least shows they have read them - see WP:REMOVE. Also please note that when you reverted, you also reverted an admin's decline of the latest unblock request and returned the request to being open again, which was not really helpful -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The user is suspected of sockpuppetry. Furthermore "talk page ownership" is less clearcut for anonymous users. The reversion of the decline request was a mistake, though. However based on editing patterns the editors are likely the same. Elle <font color="#CC9920">vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 08:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen examples many times where IP editors have been told they're OK to remove old Talk page messages, so it seems like pretty standard practice to me. But I won't argue, other than to note that it should have gone back in the proper sequence before the unblock request - I've moved it now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well for one, the user is blocked, and the user who removed it has not declared that he or she is the same user as the blocked user. Normally I agree that IP users should be allowed to remove things on their talk page as they like. Elle <font color="#CC9920">vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 08:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion
Sorry I agree now it is not worth to be speedyed but there was 1 sentence when I looked at it therefore I thought it should be speedyed. Sorry. <font color="#00755E">Wilbysuffolk  <font color="#8A496B">Talk to me  09:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Spam tags can be used in user space
Greetings! I notice you removed a db-spam template from User:JoWiBu with the edit summary "this tag doesn't apply for user pages". The criterion for speedy deletion that applies to spam, G11, is a general criterion and applicable anywhere on Wikipedia, including User: and Talk: pages (and User talk: pages, though some care has to be taken there not to delete old messages and warnings).

That said, I agree with the assessment that said page, in its current condition, is not blatant promotion—so I agree with the removal of the tag. —C.Fred (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The DNA, RNA & protein article
Elle-- Thanks very much for your thoughts. The piece was written in response to student feedback that essentially said it was easy to get lost in the details of the individual articles on DNA, RNA and proteins, and that a clear, simple description of the main features, similarities and differences would be useful. I do understand your point that what I've written so far seems more like an essay or classroom piece than a proper wikipedia article.

I'm intrigued by your suggestion of blending it into the Central Dogma article, and will work on that concept tomorrow after I've had a decent night's sleep. I've copied all of the current text onto my local machine, so if you want to go ahead and delete the article, that's ok.

Thanks again for your suggestions and all of your good work. John Mackenzie Burke (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi! I'm glad you understand. We do need those essays in Wikibooks and the like, which can accomodate individualised styles of instruction. Wikipedia is after all, only an encyclopedia; Wikibooks has a much wider scope, although it is less popular. One of these decades... Elle <font color="#CC9920">vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 21:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

TB
Toddst1 (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Declining speedy deletions
I'm concerned that you're declining speedy deletions without understanding the underlying policy. Perhaps you should refrain from declining them for a while. Toddst1 (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I try to research a topic's notability before I proceed with deletion. If in doubt, I think another process like afd or prod is appropriate. Elle <font color="#CC9920">vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 17:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Newbie users when creating an article may not be aware of the need for references right away. It is good form to see what merits can be found in their contributions before pressing the delete button indiscriminately. Elle <font color="#CC9920">vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 17:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring
I've protected Teo Ser Luck in lieu of blocking you for continuing your edit war there. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on a talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring on this or other articles may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a general pattern of abuse by parties with conflicts of interest; it is in my every interest to reach consensus, but these users appear to only use the talk pages when they get reverted; when left on their desired revision they do not participate in discussion at all. See the general pattern of sockpuppeting and abusive behaviour in the (now deleted) edit history of Vivian Balakrishnan/deleted revisions; Singapore government ministry IPs are involved. I am happy to not revert, if the parties do not simply leave the discussion whenever they feel their aim has been achieved. The users are likely to be of a single party; I have also repeatedly used their talk pages in an effort to solicit discussion. Elle <font color="#CC9920">vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 17:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Page move
Thank you very much, La goutte de pluie, for this page move ! – Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  04:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits by Alyssa.xmasia
Re:, she(?) is simply cutting and pasting in press releases with links added, compare eg. and. Revert 'em all. Jpatokal (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently some of the reverts are incomplete because they go back for days and there were edits by other contributors between them. Can you help me go through her edits, and also reinstate legit content (I guess googling for duplicates might help) that I had reverted. I would do this all by myself, but Wikipedia is reaaaally slow for me. Elle <font color="#CC9920">vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 03:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Eternal telethon
I have removed the prod tag from Eternal telethon, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! TerriersFan (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI - ANI
Your editing has been mentioned in this thread at ANI - thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Recall
, you have not listed yourself at Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria. If you are truly open to recall, what criteria would you like to see? Toddst1 (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am supporting the recall if it happens, an sysop should know not to edit-war, also, I looked at the local and global log and didn't see any rights change on you.  EBE123  talkContribs 18:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am supporting recall also, for the reasons at ANI . Off2riorob (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Regretfully, I am also supporting a recall procedure against you. This is not simply because of this action (although it has contributed to it), but also because of your general editing over election-related articles which have included introduction of POV (imo). This now makes it four editors asking for a recall, please lay out the procedures you'd like to see followed for the recall. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, a sockpuppetry case as opened in your name.  EBE123  talkContribs 19:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you at least make it here?  EBE123  talkContribs 19:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You still appear to be defending your actions of editing through protection that you were involved in creating. Are you open to recall or not? If you are open to recall please outline your recall conditions. One position I have seen is that if six users in good standing feel your admin actions are below standard and request your recall you will request the permission removed by a steward and reapply for WP:RFA, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not going to work, recall is voluntary and this user is being a coward and continues to fight a losing battle. Accept consensus and resign. I'm saying this as someone who's been following this from the sidelines. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:40am • 01:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that just get a bit more consensus (there is lots already) and we could get ARBCOM to remove the privilege on meta. Simple.   EBE123  talkContribs 13:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * When you decided you'd be open for recall, you undertook to accept the community's opinion regarding your fitness to serve as an administrator; back then, you chose to trust the community, just like the community chose to trust you, when they gave you the bit. Now that the community ask you to make good on that commitment, it's too easy to try and wikilawyer your way out of it. Unfortunately, no one gets to pick the people who question his actions. Now, I know that recall is entirely voluntary and there's nothing, short of starting an Arbcom case, that anyone can do to have you desysopped, if you don't want to go through with it; however, before making the final decision, may I invite you to think about how this will affect your credibility? Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 13:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am still open to recall, but I must take recall requests from someone who called retired admins and former community members sockpuppets with a grain of salt. Elle <font color="#CC9920">vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 20:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that and also understand that you probably feel besieged at the moment, but, in my opinion, you should just trust the community. I have not really examined the dispute in depth: I'm only familiar with what has been written on ANI, but I see you believe you made the right call. My unsolicited advice would be to explain your actions in a RFC and see if the community agrees with you. If you're curios, here you can find my recall criteria (shamelessly stolen from 's). Cheers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 21:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I will be asking you to recall. I am waiting on meta.  Also, there seems to have consensus to de-sysop you.  I will be giving 5 days, or I am getting ArbCom.  There is consensus to de-sysop.   EBE123  talkContribs 15:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Copyright violations or not aside, with your protection of Vivian Balakrishnan today, you have continued to use your tools in an editorial dispute in which you are involved, the last thing any admin should do. If you felt strongly it was an issue warranting a protection and a block of the IP range, you should not have done it yourself but asked another admin to do it for you. You should know this. Please step down. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not a matter of an editorial dispute to block those who repeatedly commit copyright violations, which is a hard and fast rule. I have not intervened otherwise in matters of content dispute, but blatant copyright violations are unacceptable. It was also a semiprotection -- the IP-jumping user can easily get a non-anonymous account, which would also promote the use of discussion. Elle <font color="#CC9920">vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 01:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC/U
Do you really want to go through an RFC/U? Toddst1 (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears this user has gone WP:DIVA and ragequit, given it's been 5 days since they last edited. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:55pm • 08:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Since when was the heinous crime of not editing for five days (especially when I'm neck-deep in real-life research) a sign of being a diva? Could it occur to you that I'm simply busy? Elle <font color="#CC9920">vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 13:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It was an observation, not a claim... I'd kindly ask that you submit to recall, an RfC/U or Arbitration will not end with a pleasant outcome... — James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:50pm • 07:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting on meta. Me for another thinks that a higher thing from a recall will be not that good.   EBE123  talkContribs 22:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Request
Not wishing to pile on to the above, but I think it would be very helpful if you would undertake, in future, not to use the administrative tools on articles you are involved with editorially. This includes Vivian Balakrishnan of course. Please see WP:INVOLVED for background. Would you be able to agree to this? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Could I ask for a response to my question above? I do not believe this is an unreasonable request, being a basic part of the policy around administrators, and so shouldn't be difficult to agree to. If so, I believe we can put this issue to rest. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This I have always tried to do, in fact this principle is why I avoided many actions in the first place. Before Zhanzhao's report, I had asked for help and advice from others on ANI -- twice! In each one, no one said that help should not be given, and the advice I got was something along the lines of block them all. But I do believe tools can be exercised for non-editorial reasons, e.g. copyright violations. Elle <font color="#CC9920">vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 17:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Please resign
I am giving some more time because that I cannot send emails right now, so please go to Steward requests/Permissions. Remember that you can re-apply at RfA anytime. I have prepared the email to arbcom. There seems to have consensus to de-sysop you too. EBE123 talkContribs 12:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop being ridiculous. There is no consensus of any kind, and you cannot force someone to resign. I have asked the user to clarify above that they follow the spirit of WP:INVOLVED. I don't think your insistence is helping here. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Erm it appears my report opened up a bigger can of worms than I expected. I don't expect Elle to resign either. Just to take EXTRA CARE to remain objective especially on articles where she is overly passionate about. Zhanzhao (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed that any "forced" resignation claim is utterly ridiculous and that Ebe123 should back off. I do wish Elle held to her word on recall, but it is unenforceable, and as long as she does not continue to use her admin tools when involved, I see no reason to pursue this further. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of revisions at Vivian Balakrishnan
Re Vivian's article: if copyvio has been present from the start, every subsequent revision is to be considered copyvio; I assume the 63 revs you restored are post-first deletion. If they aren't, please undo your move. If they are from after the original deletion, can I ask why you deleted the article a econd time before restoring? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrPby (talk • contribs) 14:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No only the last two revisions were copyvio. The other deleted copyvio revisions are at Vivian Balakrishnan/deleted revisions (279 revisions). Government-linked editors have this annoying tendency of introducing language from official websites over and over again, so we are forced to delete revisions time and time again. Elle <font color="#CC9920">vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 14:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)