Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/general 1

Templating regulars
I always have been opposed to construing the essay Don't template the regulars as a policy. However, it makes sense as a recommendation: Templating your opponents doesn’t give you the desired results, at least not when it’s just a plain template without a diff and a description that could convince administrators that the editor really needs to be blocked.

A case in point was the case that started the section “General problem with user warnings”, which I just archived. In that case, an editor whom I’ll call Reverter kept reverting a page to a version that clearly violated policies. Another editor whom I’ll call Warner kept putting the same warning message again and again on Reverter’s user talk page. Reverter never took the warning seriously and even came here to complain about the repeated warnings. Since the warnings were unspecific, and since Warner did not explain them, we did not know if they were justified. Then, a few days ago, Reverter reverted the page again, and someone posted this as an incident on this page. So I looked into it and realized that the warnings had indeed been appropriate, and I issued a warning and entered Reverter in our table at WP:SLR. Reverter now knows that, if does it again, ey will be blocked.

The lessons I am taking from this are:
 * On this page, we don't have to worry about accusations of inappropriate warnings on people's user talk pages. Usually, there’s something to them. Researching who is right would take too long and only distract us from our focus on content. I feel we only need to deal with specific, diffed incidents here. If one user is really pestering another, it is a violation of general Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NPA, and requires no knowledge of the SL situation, so we can refer to the other steps of WP:DR instead.
 * To anyone who has a concrete complaint about any content related edit, I recommend posting it here (with diff and explanation), since that gets results. &mdash; Sebastian 22:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Blue box
I really think the agreements gets eroded without the blue template on the "Human rights in Sri Lanka" article and would support any move have it there. Sinhala freedom (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems this article got merely forgotten in the agreement. Let's give it two days and see if there's any reason why it shouldn't be on the article. I feel we should make a habit of asking that question on the article itself, and I will do so in this case. &mdash; Sebastian 07:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Continuation of SLR agreement
I have come to the conclusion that SLR has now become a model for Wikipedia to resolve problems even without going to Arbcom and its model has been followed by other conflict related areas. The agreement (achieved through ANI/I and Mediation techniques) which gave power to any Admin to follow a stricter interpretation of Wikipedia rules should be extended beyond the initial 3 months to another 9 months (total of 12 months) Because the initial 3 month has brought to sanity to the situation and this cooling off period needs to be extended based on General sanctions so that we achieve permanent peace. It is because the Sri Lankan civil war is officially on (ceasfire agreement has been withdrawn) between warring parties and this tense situation may bring the worst out of human emotions on both sides making our effort at building an encyclopedia that more difficult. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Totally support this per Kanatonian. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been away for while, but have been studiously watching the agreement in action and I agree with Kanatonian, that agreement should be extended. It looks like it has helped cooled down the situation and ensure sanity prevails.  Sinhala freedom (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kanatonian, and especially the good argument about the ceasefire. However, since this is a change of an existing agreement, I feel this discussion needs to be notified to all signatories.
 * Since you bring up General sanctions: I would like it if our agreement could be endorsed by ArbCom, so that it could be listed on that page, too. It shouldn't take too much of ArbCom's time. Such a ruling may also make notification unnecessary, but I still feel we should first ask out of respect for all the signatories, without whom this agreement would not have been possible. &mdash; Sebastian 06:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree wiuth asking for Arbcom to rule on it first, that makes it official. How do we do that ? Kanatonian (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a mere formality, and I'm not worried about it. My impression was that we'd have to apply for it on WP:RfAr, but anybody could simply ask ArbCom what they prefer, or maybe Rlevse knows. I'm not worried about it because I trust that ArbCom has an interest in providing clarity on such conflict resolution measures. Once we agree here unanimously that having an ArbCom ruling is the best for Wikipedia, I'd volunteer to jump through any hoops they might have. &mdash; Sebastian 16:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So lets wait the customary two days Kanatonian (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is a bigger issue than usual; it does not just concern our project members, but all signatories. We can't expect all signatories to follow the discussion here that closely. I therefore notified everyone but you on their talk page. &mdash; Sebastian 05:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with this proposal put forward by Kanatonian. Watchdogb (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To be honest, this project proposed by the admin worked. This would be the first time that some sort of normalcy has been in place regarding the SL conflict articles. South Asian articles have been left in the dark, and this could be a starter with the SL articles. Furthermore, this policy could be enforced on the Tamil and other Dravidian related articles of India as well. Wiki Raja (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your vote of confidence! &mdash; Sebastian 04:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So, is this one for another 9 months then ? Kanatonian (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Since we had no objection in over two weeks, I will change it. &mdash; Sebastian 06:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good, Wikipedia has solved the Sri Lankan ethnic problem but will the international community do that in sri Lanka :((( Kanatonian (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussions should be held on talk page of affected article
I believe holding the discussion on SLR talk page about many Sri Lanka articles results in long, convoluted, messy discussions with no clarity on whcih article is being discussed.

furthermore when you raise different issues on the same article but hold the discussion on SLR talk page, it is hard to locate all the discussions for one article. This is because they located in different sections of the SLR page. if I want to find discussions for one article, I have to go through 4 archivesDutugemunu (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

therefore we should follow the example of other Wiki projects like the Buddhism project and conduct the actual discussion on the talk page of the relevant article. We should first raise the issue on the SLR talk page (with a link to the affected article). This ensures all relevant discussions to an article can be easily located on the articles talk pageDutugemunu (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see Sebastians excellent example on the buddhism project.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism#Please_vote_on_how_to_name_the_Buddha_.28general.29_article


 * Thank you for the compliment. We already discussed this here. I agree with Dutugemunu that it was a mistake not to post a note on the affected talk page, linking to the discussion here. I promised that we will do so in the future. That will avert the possibility for someone to overlook such a discussion from now on, which solves the problem.


 * Now, it's a different question where the best place for a discussion is. I even agree with Dutugemunu that there are good reasons to keep a conversation where it started, but I know that some of our members feel differently about that, and I don't see a reason to change this per request from a non-member. I encouraged Dutugemunu to join this project and I would welcome his membership. &mdash; Sebastian 02:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * One thing I would like to ask is a general question. What article are we talking about ? This may help other understand what is going on. One one hand, it is plausible to agree to Detugemunu. However, on the other hand, completely agreeing with Detugemunu might take away from the advantages of talking on this page. For example, I agree that it is good idea to hold discussions on the relevant talk pages of each article (relating it to topic). However, this page is seen as a primary place for concerned parties to take up and comment on concerns. It is highly probable that some admins who have watched this SLC related issues have this page on their watch list but it is a stretch to assume that they would watch every single SLC related article on their watchlist. Having this project is like a place to meet for people who have concerns about the SLC articles. It makes things more organized and less time consuming which is, of course, desirable. Furthermore, the agreement was that this is the best place for admins and users "to coordinate efforts for a better collaboration". Last, it should not matter if discussion is held on the talk page of an article or on this page as long as there is some sort of message saying that there is an important discussion talking place in place X rather than place Y. So , for the reasons outlined above, I think it is best to discuss things here rather than on the talk pages of each article. Watchdogb (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Watchdogb, I am not specifying one article but suggesting a standard that we should follow for all articles. The thing is there is a long list of issues usually connected with any article. it is too much painful to trawl through the the archives of this Wiki project to find all the discussions linked to a particular page. Its much better to have all discussions related to a particular article on the talk page of that article or we end up discussing the same topics again and again. But of course its good to raise the issue on this page and provide a link to the talk page of the article under discussion. I believe this is the general approach followed by most wiki projectsDutugemunu (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Discussions may be held at the talk pages of the affected articles but if there is a violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:SOAP,etc then it should be brought to SLR and the binding finding takes place at SLR. Also we should preserve the option to continue the discussion in SLR too. Kanatonian (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Creating a list of Reliable Sources
I believe that a list of RSs must be made. Since some users tend to remove statements on articles with refs saying that the it is not RS.Nitraven (talk) 04:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have a particular source in mind? If so, we could discuss adding it to our list of sources... Black Falcon (Talk) 18:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Just stopped by to see how you're doing, and I'm happy to see that this project seems to be going strong. Thanks everybody for the collaboration! --Sebastian (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah! me too. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  |  tool box  15:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

About archiving
This page hasn't been archived in a long time, and I just received an e-mail from someone asking me if I could do that. The person who asked me didn't feel so comfortable about it because ey was involved in some of the discussions. However, any project member can archive discussions here, as long as the discussion seems resolved. That is clearly the case for the sections which have a "resolved" tag for a week or longer. While I have probably done most of the archiving, I feel this is a community task that shouldn't rest on one person's shoulders. For some time, Lahiru was so kind to follow my request to do it, but he isn't very active now on this project. In addition, I will not be on wiki from Friday to Wednesday. Please, therefore, can some other kind project member archive the old discussions here?

For this year, I had started by separating the archives into General, Issues and Incidents. You don't have to follow that. You could just create give it an unspecific name, such as "archive 5" and put all together. But in case you want to follow my distinction, here's how I would classify the new sections of chapter 4. A project member could also move the unresolved sections in the appropriate chapter. This classification is only a suggestion, based on a very cursory glance over the sections. Please don't hesitate to classify otherwise, if you see fit. Sebastian (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) : Issue
 * 2) : Issue
 * 3) : Issue?
 * 4) : General (Please leave this one open - I'd like to get back to it later.)
 * 5) : Incident
 * 6) : Issue?
 * 7) : Incident
 * 8) : Incident
 * 9) : General
 * 10) : Issue?
 * 11) : General
 * 12) : General
 * 13) : Incident
 * 14) : Incident?
 * 15) : Incident
 * 16) : General (Please leave this one open)
 * 17) : General
 * 18) : Incident
 * 19) : Incident
 * 20) : General
 * 21) : Incident
 * 22) : General

Semi-retirement from WP:SLR
Because I am busy outside of Wikipedia I have been reducing my Wikipedia activities, while trying to remain active as a mediator/administrator for this project. However, I recently realized that I can not reconcile the very irregular workload here with the constant demand of my paid work. Wikipedia can be addictive, and I feel the only way to solve this problem is for me to go cold turkey and take a leave.

I will not regularly watch this project or my Wikipedia e-mail anymore. I may still lurk occasionally, but I have to retreat from active participation. This decision does not come easy to me and I have been waiting several days with this announcement. This was partly because I wanted to allow some things some of you discussed with me last week to reach closure; but since I have not seen any movement here, there remains nothing for me to do. This project has matured enough to keep running on its own; there are enough capable hands among our members and dedicated administrators.

16 months ago, we started with dreams, hopes, and visions. Now, we have essentially achieved the goals we set ourselves. I am immensely grateful to all the people who helped make this a reality. Without the cofounders Lahiru_k and Kanatonian, this project would have never started. Without the concerted effort of the admins of the SLRDA last October, it would have gotten stuck halfway. Without our members’ readiness to write good, well sourced articles, and to discuss issues on our talk page instead of edit warring, we would not have become the role model for the WP:WORKINGGROUP. Despite our limited manpower and a huge number of deep rooted conflicts, we have been able to resolve them more quickly than ArbCom.

Please make good use of the tools this project provides. Especially the positive tools get easily forgotten. Don’t forget to celebrate successes! Hand out the SL Hope Award and the SL Reconciliation Award! I had planned to hand out the latter to Watchdogb because he has made serious efforts to improve. This was delayed a bit, but if he keeps going on that path, I would be really happy if somebody with whom he had quarrels in the past could reward his efforts with the Award. If I had not received my first barnstar for “mediation skills”, I would never have cofounded this project. &mdash; Sebastian 20:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I have been abstinent long enough now to risk occasionally dropping by without getting addicted again. &mdash; Sebastian 13:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good to see that you can maintain control over these urges. U are 100% correct in identifying thsi as an addiction Kanatonian (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)