Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/archive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

General discussion

Wikipedia:WikiProject NCSLC

Have you ever considred joining this project, now that dust has settled down I am thinking about it myself. Thanks Kanatonian 19:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yet another project to join! Actually, I did consider joining, but I wasn't sure if it would be perceived as being neutral, since the member list seemed to have some bias. However, I love the idea, and I'll ask some people from the GoSL-friendly side if they'd like to join, too. — Sebastian 18:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I would respectfully decline your offer for the reason you mentioned above. The member list is biased with one particular user User:Elalan found to be a sock puppet too. Thus i would prefer to temporarily observe the situation for the moment as a independent editor. Granted there should be a way in which people from differing camp's can work together for the benefit of a common goal namely a better coverage of the sri lankan crisis however for the moment i would respectfully decline your offer.Kerr avon 23:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I am not familiar with the situation that lead to User:Elalan's block. I asked very sympathetically there, but I got no reply. Could I persuade you to join if they agreed with removing User:Elalan from their member list? I could also ask very generally if all stale members can be removed.
Or do you think it would be necessary to recreate such a problem project under a different name? Would you support me in such a project? In that case, of course, we would have to recruit some members from the other faction. Would you have any proposals? — Sebastian 02:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I replied in my talk page sir..ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 04:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I would be willing to help any project/idea to give a neutral coverage of sri lanka if it is a genuine effort. The problem with the above existing project is that the memebers edit's show them to be having a anti-government and pro-LTTE view, thus questioning the so called claimed "neutrality" of their project. They will call the government of Sri Lanka a terrorist organisation yet they will cry foul when the LTTE which has exploded bus bombs killing and injuring young children is called a terrorist organisation.
The main point is that there are a massive amount of Tamils living in Sri Lanka peacefully in colombo and its suburbs with singhalese. However a few tamils who have the pleasure of living abroad, not having to worry about LTTE tax collectors, not having to worry about whether a LTTE bomb will explode in the bus they are travelling, not having to worry if they would ever return home from a days work, who are dependant on the LTTE front end sites for distorted views of the conflict, are hell bent on using the wikipedia to defame my country and promote the LTTE. Most of the tamils i have met in Sri lanka are more easy going and less rabid than their counterpart's abroad.
If you start a project i would be willing to join it hoping to achieve some compromise.Kerr avon 23:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am half way around the world and I cant get over this, yes remove user elalan as discussed User Kanatonian, i cant sign in properly because I am using a foreign language computer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanatonian (talk • contribs) 16:37, January 22, 2007

I'm not sure I understand. I can't remove any member from a WikiProject of which I'm not even a member. If you think they should remove a member then I think it should be discussed there. As for me, I have no immediate desire to have them remove Elalan. I would support it, or even propose it there, if it were a condition for Kerr avon and other reasonable users to join the group. — Sebastian 20:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

New WikiProject?

Of course, my intention as a mediator is to bring both sides to the table. I would have preferred to use the existing 'table'. But apparently, that's not an option. So I'm fine with creating a new project. However, I will invite reasonable people from the other side. What should we call the new project? How about "LankaMediation"? — Sebastian 20:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, one of the first things we could discuss is User:SebastianHelm/Sri Lanka#Recommended guideline for editing Sri Lanka conflict related articles. — Sebastian 21:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply by Sharz

I would be somewhat interested in such a group, however I have been wishing for a while now to divert my attention to other parts of Wikipedia where fair editing wouldn't be quickly and beligerently deleted for no particular reason besides alledged 'POV pushing', I did however think of starting a new Sri Lanka Coverage WikiProject that would bar known vandals, puppeteers etc etc whether they be pro Government or Pro LTTE. Please draw up a draft for your said project and I will get back to you about it.--Sharz 06:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be a pity if you left for greener pastures. Diverting some attention is a good idea, though - I do it myself. If you see the POV pushing in proportion - which you can do mathematically by dividing it by the importance of the issues - then I would say, the POV/importance quotient is probably one of the lowest here. That's what keeps me here. From the feedback that other reasonable editors gave me, I see that there is a big demand for excluding known vandals, puppetteers &c, so we should write that into our statutes. I personally do believe that people can improve, so I would like to include a rule that allows for past mistakes if people behaved well since. How about something like this: They need 40 good edits in articles covered by the project (since their last bad edit) or four weeks (whichever comes later) before they get admitted?
What do you have in mind, when you speak of "draft"? A draft of the statutes? I would like to discuss that with everyone right here; at least up to the point where we feel comfortable creating the WikiProject. — Sebastian 09:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
To refer to the redemption of users, I agree with this in theory, however, there should be a look towards establishing a user's modus operandi. I suggest that we take a cross-section of edits by the user when investigating and the related talk pages and establish the user's editing pattern, for example, a user may choose to simply delete content and leave it at that, or become abrasive when questioned etc etc. Essentially we should say take a user in questions most standing out 20 edits or so on related pages and then create consensus among project members about this users trends and editing patterns and whether such patterns are what is needed for the project at hand. As for a draft, I believed that you would sketch out a skeleton WikiProject with a basic Guideline and from that it could be worked upon. --Sharz 10:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: redemption of users: I like your proposal because it uses common sense, and it focuses on "what is needed for the project at hand". My concern was that achieving consensus always takes time and energy. These are limited resources which I would rather use directly for the goals of the group. But we certainly can do it the common sense way first and only think about rules if that doesn't work out.
Re: draft: I like NCSLC's stated goals. Any thoughts about just copying them? Anything else you would expect in a guideline? This should not be just my idea - I'm only a mediator, and my goal is for us to work together. — Sebastian 20:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, one thing I would add over NCSLC's stated goals is that the project actively seeks the cooperation of people with different POVs, or something along those lines. Personally, I think failing to do so is what killed NCSLC. It should also be clear that it is completely OK to have a POV and that WP:NPOV does not, as e.g. Netmonger seems to believe, say anything to the contrary. — Sebastian 20:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that we are building upon very active users who log in once a day at least, so consesus shouldn't be as difficult as with other projects in and around Wikipedia. As for the POV, it stands to reason that we should avoid having the Sri Lankan Government commenting upon the Tigers and vice versa to an extent, because we could just have a "Yo Mama" contest instead. Also, certain governmental sources and Tamil Tiger support sites have based alot of their accusations upon no facts....but this is still regarded as their opinion, which really leaves us in a position to exclude it all together. I would be far happier to use reliable impartial souces for all opinions and referances, groups like the UN, U.S State and Amnesty. As for NCSLC, you would have noticed that I left the group quiet early on, why? because it became quickly aparent that it was simply a cabal of no really Pro-LTTE activists, but Anti-Government activists.
--Sharz 03:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
consensus: We do have some good experience with consensus building, above all I was really impressed and grateful how reasonable people were in the LTTE mediation, so we can be cautiously optimistic.
POV: Good point - that would define our limit. We certainly don't want to get bogged down in never ending POV wars - "Yo mama" is an apt comparison! I think the people who I invited are all reasonable, though, at least when it's not right after a bus bombing. So I think we will be able to work out our differences together.
NCSLC: That's sad about the bias. I don't have first hand experience, but I heard similar sentiments from others. That's why I want to add the goal of cooperation.
types of sources: I addressed this issue on User:SebastianHelm/Sri Lanka#Proposed qualifications. UN, U.S State and Amnesty would be considered "RS", other sources would be "QS" or "0S". Does this address your concern, or am I misunderstanding you? — Sebastian 08:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat, my question is, how will be qualify disputed sources, for example, The Asian Tribune. Some would see them as reliable, whereas I find their reporting so lacking that if it was not for freedom of the press it would simply be slander what they produce. --Sharz 00:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you provide proof to substantiate your allegation ie "that you find asian tribunes reporting to be lacking"? Just because the asian tribune is not pro-ltte doesn't mean that you can lable it as pro-government or unreliable. If it is slanderous as you suggest, by now it would have been sued. So your statement is wrong.Kerr avon 01:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
That's a very good question! I'll move it down into the appropriate section. Gotta keep it all neatly organized - someone just ot critizized me for lack of organization on these pages! ;-) — Sebastian 03:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject (from Lahiru_k)

If you can start a new project, I'm happy to join with that. As Kerr avon said[1], not even my dog will step there. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 21:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the "dog" part, but I'm happy that you're willing to join. That said, the whole project makes no sense if it's not endorsed by people from the other side. That's why I asked NCSLC if people would like to join. If they honestly want to contribute e.g. to guidelines, then we can all be grateful. Please remeber to AGF. Even somone who opposes your POV can honestly share your goal for having workable guidelines. — Sebastian 21:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think those current NCSLC guys n girls can help on this matter. Elalan is a proven sockpuppet. Sechzehn, Sudharsansn and Cerebral Warrior are currently inactive. Nina Leembruggen, harlowraman and Trengarasu, I don't think that they will join with the new project. Though Kanatonian and Sharz are not current members of NCSLC, hopefully they will join with the new project. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 21:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for being the first who had the courage to name people individually. Elalan has been blocked indefinitely anyway, so he couldn't even join. It sounds you wouldn't have a problem if any of the others joined, which is good. I'll ask Kanatonian and Sharz. — Sebastian 21:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I would be more than willing to join a project by you which will genuinely bring a neutral coverage to the sri lankan war.Kerr avon 13:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

NCSLC project (from Snowolfd4)

First of all sorry I took so long to respond but the new semester just started and I really needed to get some stuff done so I took a self imposed leave of absence from Wikipedia for about a week.

About joining the NCSLC, I really don't think thats going to happen. From its incepetion, when the creator of the project chose to name it against the recommendations of the administrator who helped them set it up, it was way too contrvorsial. I think it will be a lot better to wipe the slate clean and form a new project.

But if we do start a new project, I would like to know what you intend to do in it? Is it something like colectively editing selected articles? While it will be great if we really can talk and resolve disputes, I'm sorry but I really don't see it happening. Articles like Velupillai Prabhakaran, Mahinda Rajapakse, Sri Lankan Civil War and Tamilnet saw numerous discussions on the talk pages, but they (you know who I mean) just don't seem to agree to reason. With these articles, it took an admin to warn users like Elalan, Lankaupdate and the others that they were getting out of line and faced been blocked if they continueed to edit the same way, to make them see reason (Lankaupdate though did not and was eventually indef blocked). In the end the admin who helped prvent Elalan adding nonsense to the Mahinda Rajapakse article seemed to have quit Wikipedia a few days after the dispute. I have a feeling it had something to do with that dispute. And I don't think he has returned.

Even the LTTE article mediation, I really doubt we could have come to an agreement about it if Elalan wasn't banned from Wikipedia. The same intro as is now was proposed several times in the article talk page and he and some others just didn't agree with it.

But I guess I am been quite pessimistic here, and if we are able to get more nutral editors like yourself and Nina (don't remember her last name :( invloved we may be able to make some progress. Think you can do that? Otherwise, I've found arguing with the pro LTTE lobby is a complete waste of my time.

Also just to make you aware, we did form Wikiproject Sri Lanka, although since most of us are studing and don't have much time, we really only use it to let new editors know that there are other Sri Lankans editing Wikiepdia and encouraging them to edit further and helping them out. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 20:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


BTW this is probably the longest talk page message I've ever left. Oh and sorry about your computer, and I was just wondering whether you you tried a data recovery program to get back your lost files? As long as your hard drive is works you should be able to. Good luck with that anyway. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 20:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the extensive message. Of course I understand that we have outside pressures, and I'm happy that you're back! I'm too tired now, so I can't give you the thorough reply it deserves now, but I'll reply more extensively tomorrow. Luckily, my computer is back; they had to replace the HD, but they managed to rescue all the data from the old one.
Interesting information about NCSLC's history. Now I understand why nobody wanted to join. This really confirms my resolve to add the goal of cooperation.
What was the name the admin proposed for NCSLC? Maybe we could use that one? — Sebastian 09:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You're asking what I intend to do in the project. I collected everything from several pages in one project page, and I would like to know what you think of it. That's a big agenda already! I agree that collectively editing selected articles needs a lot of trust than we have at the moment - it's a dream, but not for the immediate future.
I have further reaching goals, which I haven't written down yet. With this project, I want to create a firm middle ground. The middle ground is always despised by extremists of both sides, and it's so fragile! It's not that there are not enough people in the middle; it's just that they are so afraid - and rightly so: One wrong movement and you got all the extremists of one side against you. I've had baseless accusations thrown at me, and I don't want to think about what would have happened if I lived in Sri Lanka. Moreover, nobody can be exactly in the middle, because how would you define that anyway? On top of that, everybody wants to claim that they are in the middle, so people are very distrustful when they hear that. So, even honest, thoughtful people align themselves with one side, rather than the middle.
But there is hope. To see it, we all need a different mindset. Instead of staring fearfully at two estranged gangs, we need to raise our view to see and value courageous people. People who dare to break the box in which the extremists want to put them. People who do not just take pride in being Sinhalese or Tamil, but also in being openminded. If this ideal becomes our paradigm, then we, the middle, will find our own identity.
And it can work. We will gain strength through a virtuous cycle: We will help and encourage people who move towards the middle, and each person we help will strengthen us. We will accept real people, not our ideals of them. Not even the extremists are ideal extremists! Even a sockpuppeteer or a POV fighter can have moments when he feels some sympathy for the other side. What happens now, when someone shows these feelings? His own "friends" will call him a traitor! He needs real friends! People who see the good in him, and help him. We will be a group of knights who help those in need, and who take pride in doing so. I want the membership in this group to become a badge of honor. That is my mission. — Sebastian 23:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


By subject

This section contains discussions that correspond to sections in the project page; it is arranged by the project page's outline.

Purpose

Name

How about if we named it "WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation"? I just got this idea when I created the Sri Lanka Reconciliation Barnstar. — Sebastian 21:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, I'll follow you --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 20:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Old version of table:

Source Explicit attribution Note
tamilnation.org The LTTE-friendly tamilnation.org reports that ...
defense.lk The GoSL-friendly defense.lk reports that ...
  • Agree but would like to use the term pro, or considered to support, proxy for, or such terminologyKanatonian 19:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    "pro" sounds good to me, "considered pro" could be used in cases where we can't agree. I'm not so familiar with "proxy" in this context. — Sebastian 07:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree However alot more sites are needed and it needs to be established that certain sites can be used for certain things, for example, if TamilNet has uploaded a popular primary source video of some Human Rights Abuse or something of the sort, could this be used as a reliable source? Also if defence.lk posts a video (such as with the Pottuvil Massacre) that people suspect, can this be grilled on the basis of the providence of the source?. P.S I found your backstory quiet interesting...--Sharz 06:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    Good points! We could have different classes of sources:
    • RS = Reliable sources. These can always be used without explicit attribution.
    • QS = Qualified sources. These can always be used with explicit attribution.
    • 0S = Unreliable sources. Can usually not be used. Individual exceptions possible if all project members agree. All sources that have not been categorized yet are treated like 0S.
    I don't currently see a need to say: Source S is RS in area A, and QS in area B, but the possibility exists.
    I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "grilled". It should always be allowed to question a statement by citing a contradicting reference. If two QS contradict each other, we can always explain that in text, as in "According to pro-X source S, such and such happened. However, according to pro-Y source T, it didn't happen." — Sebastian 07:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't entirely agree with the whole idea of "all project members agree" about Unreliable Sources, I think that this would lead to a massive backlog of discussion about the use of certain sources. It should be clear cut, something like Primary Sources hosted on such sites can be used as well as cited to express that particular groups veiwpoint or stance, however, cannot be used to substantiate infomation. --Sharz 07:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Good point! I'll look into this tomorrow, when I'm less tired. In the meantime, pls feel free to edit the wording I proposed on the project page. — Sebastian 09:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Goals

I would like to propose the following new goal:

  • To resolve conflicts between editors, e.g. by mediation and by providing specific guidelines for conflict resolution.

This is the reason why I wrote Cool editing. In the future, I am thinking that we could mediate cases like Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-20 Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam together as a group. — Sebastian 04:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Dreams, hopes, and visions

I just created this section from two statements I picked up on this talk page. Please feel free to add your own there, or discuss existing ones below. — Sebastian 18:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Members

Lahiru_k (talk · contribs)

Hi Sebastian, I'd like to join the project. Please do add me to the member list if you are happy with that . Is there any space for me? I haven't stepped in empty handed, have a look at this. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 06:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome! I just added you. And thanks a lot for your artwork! Would you like to add it to the project page? — Sebastian 06:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Wait a sec before adding it. The artwork would be best as a subpage. It doesn't make sense to move a lot of pages. Maybe we should create the real project, first? Since nobody objected to the name, I think it can't hurt if I just go ahead and do it. — Sebastian 06:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Kanatonian (talk · contribs)

I’m applying for membership. Kanatonian 20:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. Also, since Lahiru said above that he hoped you'd join the project, I can't see why he wouldn't support you, too. Since he just went to bed, and since I'm very happy to welcome you, and since I can be quite impatient sometimes, I don't want to wait till he wakes up. I'm therefore making an exception and will officially accept you. — Sebastian 21:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support:Welcome aboard --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 05:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Kerr avon (talk · contribs)

I would like to apply for membership.Kerr avon 00:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This vote is closed and can be archived next time. Kerr has been listed in the member list.

Sharz (talk · contribs)

I’m applying for membership. --Sharz 05:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest, and for your contributions in this project so far. While I invited you some time ago, I now have a concern. In our recent interactions, you weren’t quite as open as I would like our members to be.

  • In User talk:SebastianHelm/Sri Lanka#Elalan (last edit: [2]), you accused people of being “abrasive”, and when I put you on the spot, you did not back up your complaint.
  • In Talk:Special Task Force#Using Classification of sources (last edit: [3]), you first said “I'll go after him under the new WP: Censorship”, and when I pointed out that “"This proposal was rejected by the community" as of April 2006”, you again didn’t address that, but instead replied with “Ummn dude, ...” and immediately created a POV fork without telling me. After I spent 20 minutes trying to move your information back, you apologized by saying “Sorry about that, but it didn't seem that all parties were willing to discuss so I acted unilaterally.” This does not fit to the fact that we were busily talking and you created the POV fork immediately after your reply, without waiting for my reply.
In response to your question about Elalan, "Though Elalan pushed a heavy Pro-LTTE view on Wikipedia and he was also abrasive towards opposing Wikipedia editors", your comment did not make sense to me so I left it alone, hoping that you would re-read by fore statement. As for the STF article, I do confess that I acted badly in not resolving more on the talk page, but it became clearly aparent that I was discussing with you, whilst the other parties concerned were nowhere to be seen. Also see that the Spork is up for deletion it may be a policy held by few but I am a believer that unilateral action can only be headed off by immediate action, sometimes this is unilateral action in itself. --Sharz 00:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply - I feel better now! I see this now as a (mere) difference in opinions; clarifying such differences is what this project is for. How about if you just committed to writing trustworthy edit summaries from now on? Would that be acceptable for you? — Sebastian 01:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I've give it a try, but I admit sometimes my editing gets sloppy, spelling and edit summaries start dropping off etc. --Sharz 05:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Normally, I would have said this is not enough. But I'm softened today by Kanatonian's hope, so, as a further compromise, all I'm asking is that you confirm you meant "I will give it a try". (Because it's only human to forget this, Wikipedia has a nice feature, which I recommend because I'm using it myself:You can set your user preferences to "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" If you really want to keep it empty, you can just confirm the message or enter a blank space to avoid the message.) — Sebastian 19:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • A related concern that should be no biggie is that you hardly ever use edit summaries.

I therefore would prefer to wait a week to see if you can improve on this. (If you like, we can stay in contact via e-mail in the meantime and I will assist you with any questions you may have, or give you some feedback.) — Sebastian 13:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to go down another path and hence have chosen to retract my application for membership, the 2/4 support played a role in my decision, but not a major one. --Sharz 00:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Oh P.S I have changed my preferances to prompt for edit summaries, I didn't know such a function existed.
That's a pity. I respect your decision, but I herewith state that if you should decide to change your mind, I will support you now. — Sebastian 08:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Any one who wants to join this agrees that they believe in the goals of this organization. I.E any contentious issues that cannot be resolved by sticking to wiki rules will be resolved by discussing here. Hence I support User:Sharz application to join. Any personal disagreements over edit patterns and behaviors with other editors should be resolved in the appropriate talk pages.Asking people to wait around and requesting modification of behavior when we already have Wiki rules that can be used to resolve them in my opinion are counter productive. User:Sharz in the has demonstrated like all of us in Wikipedia to evolve from a marginally potentially partisan editor (we were all at one point) to a neutral editor who sticks to the rules as much as possible. He should be encouragedKanatonian

I am re-admitting my application for membership, per discussion with Kanatonian. --Sharz 10:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)--Sharz 10:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Support: You have kept your promise of keeping edit summaries, so I will keep mine of supporting you. — Sebastian 20:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No opposition after more than 48 hours, which means: Welcome, Sharz! Since Kanatonian actively lobbied for Sharz, I think we can assume that he just forgot his support vote, and I would like to give him the honor of entering Sharz into the member list. — Sebastian 19:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Support:Kerr avon 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Neuralolive (talk · contribs)

(Original headline: "Thanks and membership")

Hi, and a big thank you to Kanatonian for the warm welcome. As someone interested in the situation in Sri Lanka, but with no political/cultural/religious ties to the country or indeed anyone in it, I would very much like to join your group. As you can see I am also new to WP, and my editing skills aren't what they could have been, but I do feel that I can make a good effort substantively, and would like to contribute to the clearly well considered goals of this group. Thus, with a caveat that I will probably need quite a bit of support, I would like to apply for membership Neuralolive 06:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. — Sebastian 08:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Based on the opinions of SebastianHelm and Kanatonian--Sharz 10:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No objections within 48 hours, which means we have a new member! Welcome, Neuralolive! — Sebastian 17:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Krankman (talk · contribs)

Hello. The invitation to this project came just at the right time. Only yesterday I thought about how to find people who might help with the Sri Lanka article, because I find the work really depressing. Not engaging in edit wars takes a lot of self-restraint. So does not quitting editing Wikipedia. Although I'm not too optimistic, I hope a group like this might help reduce the frustration. I'd like to cooperate with you. Cheers, Krankman 08:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support haven't had any 1 - 1 experience with your editing however had a quick glance over your contributions. --Sharz 08:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The reason why I invited him was that I liked this example of good communication. — Sebastian 20:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: German who can understand English, Sinhalese and Tamil? Ummm... look like the service pack of Sebastian --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 09:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    ROFLOL! — Sebastian 21:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No objections within 48 hours, which means the new member is accepted - welcome! — Sebastian 17:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Lexicon (talk · contribs)

I've been invited to participate in this group several times by e-mail (probably to my old username, Osgoodelawyer). I have had some conflicts in the past with editors on Sri Lanka-related pages, and have tried to use logic and appeal to the rules, not emotion, to put my views forward. Since I just found myself having to clean up some POV hidden as POV-removal, I feel I'm ready to join. Lexicon (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support — Sebastian 19:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Kanatonian 21:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support--Sharz 07:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Watchdogb (talk · contribs)

I would like to be a member.


Trengarasu (talk · contribs)

Hi, I would like to join the Project. I would like to contribute towards article related to civil conflict of Sri Lanka. added May 30

  • Support. I didn't see any evidence of bad faith. Not many SL related edits, but all have a correct edit summary. — Sebastian 05:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Kanatonian 23:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Suport as per Sebastian Watchdogb 17:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Harlowraman (talk · contribs)

I would like to join the project ,You can see my contributions and decide.Harlowraman 22:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. The edits I checked all show good faith. — Sebastian 05:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I am impressed by his decision to talk things over rather than get into rever war. Watchdogb 12:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • SupportKanatonian 00:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thusiyan (talk · contribs)

Hi guys, I'm fairly new but contributed quite a bit to the Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War article before i joined wikipedia as well. I would like to join this project. Thanks.

  • SupportKanatonian 20:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject - How can you support a user that has been editing for two days, Kanatonian? You realize that allowing obvious sock or meatpuppets to join the group makes a mockery of its intended purpose, yes? Lexicon (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I may have only officially joined for 2 days, but I was editing before I joined. And I do intend on contributing fully to the civil war related articles. I might be a newbie, but I'm enthusiastic!
User Lexicon, you have good reasons to reject but I am not assuming that someone is a meat or sock because I am following WP:AGF so don't attribute lack of reasons to me. So how long do you think an editor should edit before he can become a member?, because we have a welcome message for brand newbies asking them become members. Thsu assumption being a newbie can be an SLR member. Please read my reasons for creating this forum in the mission statement. It says

The more I think about it in reality this forum or club’s primary (but unstated) goal is to function as a place to acclimatize emotionally charged new Sri Lanka centric Wikipedians about following Wikipedia rules. Most who have been around 6 months or are no longer overtly partisan or overtly disruptive even if they harbor malicious feelings about each other. That is a good equilibrium to achieve. All what this forum can do is to point such emotionally charged editors that hey look what we have achieved why don’t you try it ? If we are perssitant, they will and may be become members too.

[4].Thanks Kanatonian 15:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. When I see someone making constructive edits for a couple months around here, then I'll support their joining the group. It's not as though they can't function entirely as if they were part of the group without joining it--if they want to be neutral about the issue, they can do that all on their own. This group, however, should, in my view, be for those seasoned editors we know are going to be neutral in their edits. Lexicon (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Then we should have that as a policy ? not just ad hoc decide on a voting right ? we should say it in the welcome mesagge too that although we are inviting we really like to see 2 months of activities ? Kanatonian 17:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
No, that's just my criteria (that is, at the moment: I'm sure they will change, and will vary according to the situation). If you have different criteria or who should be allowed to join, you go ahead and vote with yours. There should be no policy as to who is acceptable as a member, or else there would be no reason to vote on potential members. Lexicon (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
This makes it really confusing for newbies when we invite them to join SLR, one one side we say please welcome and on the other hand we may reject them because we dont have enough edit time. Wikipedia is a great place to work because we have consistant policies. Either you use reputable source or not, is it verfiable or not, is it neutral or not. Are you being civil or not. So an SLR membership is not a previledge like an Admin position. It is a position that requires people who otherwise hate each other to talk to each other about a conflict. What is the goal of the project? To resolve conflicts, who else will resolve conflicts? only those who agree to resolve conflicts. To be clear we are having this conversation only because you had asked me to clarify my vote. Thanks Kanatonian 21:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
So don't invite newbies. A potential member already has to be voted on, so simply make it that potential members can't even be voted on until an established user nominates them (which you did, so that part would have been satisfied here). Lexicon (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
What is our goal ? To resolve conflicts. You created the welcome message for newbies. The intention was to invite inexperienced users here to participate was'nt it ? Kanatonian 21:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
K i don't mind waiting a few months, then maybe my experience won't be a problem. It's fine though, because I'll stil continue to contribute :)Thusiyan 20:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The edits I checked all show good faith. I regret the above discussion, which has nothing to do with the user and should be discussed below, in the user independent section. — Sebastian 05:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Now that the user has been here for a while and has contributed in good faith. Watchdogb 21:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Politics rule (talk · contribs)

Politics rule added themself to the member list[5], apparently without reading the instruction to add applications here. I just removed the entry so it can be handled appropriately. — Sebastian 04:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Reject. Apart from the addition to the member page, which messed up the whole project page, and a deleted opinion, I didn't see any SL related edits among the 1000 or so edits of last month. OTOH, I am touched about the user box "this user is a proud member of SLR", so conceivably someone could convince me to support. — Sebastian 05:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Anybody who wants to be part of the bloody mess when they dont have to be must be crazy:) I go to sleep with dead and raped women articles in my dreams (not a healthy life style when you have a wife and children) I welcome any input in these discussions, however marginal it is. Thanks Kanatonian 03:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sharz (talk · contribs) (Withdrawal)

This is my withdrawal from membership of the SLR, for the following reasons.

  • - Lack of productivity
  • - Increasing polarisation, inactivity and POV pushing
  • - Bickering that will eventually lead to bans for NPA WP:STALK etc
  • - There being a far greater hope in the successfullness of mediation and drawing towards Sri Lanka related articles the watchful eyes of admins to stop POV pushers and blatant vandalism, essentially, increasing the rule of Wikipedia over these bitterly disputed articles will do alot more than trying to reason with those who will not listen to reason.

If you respect my decision, you will not email and/or leave messages on my talk page about my reason to withdraw, the Sri Lanka articles, are in an essence, completely time consuming, and ridicously hard to maintain, I would far rather spend time on articles that I am more interested in and where my edits won't be torn apart after I turn from them for a second. --Sharz 23:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thusiyan (talk · contribs)

Seven weeks passed since Thusiyan's application. Back then, two members opposed his membership because he had only two days of experience; this concern should be moot by now. I therefore would like to start the application again. — Sebastian 21:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Support — Sebastian 21:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Support No sign of bad faith edit. User's ability to talk things over is highly appreciated Watchdogb 21:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed recipients for barnstars

Shunpiker (talk · contribs)

[...] User:Shunpiker needs a Barnstar for resolving the Nagerkovil school bombing article Kanatonian 20:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have heard of him/her before favorably. Could you please elaborate how they resolved it? For the previous barnstars, we had three diffs that showed good edits or talk contributions; something like that would help. — Sebastian 21:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Here are three critical edits he made
I love the first example already! The other two are deletions, which is something I'm usually skeptical of; but both of these have been written by you, if I'm not mistaken. Therefore I completely trust your judgement on this. Actually, I'm so impressed that you even want to give a barnstar for deleting something you've written that I feel like we should give you a barnstar, too. My only concern is that I don't want this project to appear like we created it to give each other barnstars. Anyway - we're ready to vote!
What would you like for the text? The standard text? I like your bullets instead of [numbers]. Also, we could use Lahiru's dove instead of the flower. — Sebastian 00:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC) amended 00:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to support his contributions over Nagerkovil school bombing article. I even recommended a barnstar for him on Kanatonian's talk page. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 04:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Wonderful! So Kanatonian should present it, then. — Sebastian 04:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Support
— Sebastian 00:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Support
— --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 04:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

NinaOdell (talk · contribs)

Nina deserves a barnstar also for resolving number of issues on the massacre series pages. More to come late Kanatonian 14:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Question: I like Nina, and I'm not opposed to the barnstar, but I don't see what the diffs are showing. They all compare Nina's version with the current version. Is that really what you meant? Or did you mean to refer to Nina's original edits ("older edit" link in diff)? That would be [9], [10], [11]. But these are just copyedits, which is of course a good thing, but I don't see why you think that three copyedits deserve a barnstar. — Sebastian 03:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
On two massacre series articles she got involved and did her best resolve the issues. Not only that she posted helpful comments of the concerned editors to calm the situation. I have followed her edits fully in Sri Lanka related issues. For a busy editor whose primary concern is not Sri Lanka related issues, she took a valuable time to get involved. If you look at scheme of things Sri Lanka related pages are miniscule compared to Wikipedia. It’s conflicts are nothing compared to larger issues effecting the Wiki community. We need to encourage such editors and edits. If she doesn’t deserve one that I don’t know who else would.
Personally and primarily I am in Wikipedia to contribute and edit. This reconciliation effort is secondary. We all have roles to play in Wikipedia. For me this reconciliation effort cant take more time than creating an article and belive me I have a lot to create.
A small task like saying thank you cannot take more time. I can always give her any barn-star. I just hoped as Sri Lanka specific editors, you guys may have noticed her efforts, that’s all. Thanks Kanatonian 18:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
This does not answer my question. Why are you digressing instead of simply correcting your diffs? — Sebastian 01:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Because like I said, I dont have the time, with a full time job and a drive to create more wikipidia articles my involment with SLR has to be secondary but important but a mere task like thanking someone cannot take more time of any one of us. We have important issues to talk about than this in SLR. Within SLR I rather work on deciding weather UTHR is RS or not because it will reduce tension in editing not whether Nina should or not get a banner. If you guys think she doesnt deserve it just say no dont ask for more details because it is so trivial an issue. We need to get our priorities set, why are we here? Let's move on. I hope you understand. ThanksKanatonian 14:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand that you want to move on and I think that's a good idea. We can always resume it later. I promise that if you come here with some good diffs I will consider them favorably, and that if I notice something I will bring it up here. Nina may be on a wikibreak anyway - she hasn't contributed in over two weaks!
I have to take exception, though, at your putting words in my mouth. When I say "I need diffs" I mean "I need diffs". It's that simple. Assuming bad intentions when all someone did was ask you to correct your wrong references is clearly against WP:AGF. But it is even more important for us, since you yourself said: "this forum or club’s primary [...] goal is to function as a place to acclimatize emotionally charged [...] Wikipedians [...]." I think you're hurting this goal when you emotionally charge even simple copyediting questions.
It also makes me angry when you depreciate our barn star. To me, it means more than just a "trivial" "thank you". Please respect that. — Sebastian 20:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • abstain: I feel that there is nothing special amongst the edits that Kanatonian has highlighted to deserve a barnstar. I am not opposed to giving it either, she is a good contributor and there must be better edits possibly amongst her contributions. Anyone who does good work regarding sri lanka should deserve recognition, and if such edits are found then by all means i will support it.Kerr avon 13:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Black Falcon (talk · contribs)

He has been very active in trying to maintain the neutrality of Special Task Force article and has also intervened many times trying to coach Sri lanka specific editors in following wiki policies. Some of his contributions are [12][13][14]Kanatonian 16:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Why dont you do him the favor :) Kanatonian 13:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
--♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 15:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Lexicon (talk · contribs)

For his tireless work realted resolving conflict realted articles about Sri lanka. The examples are numerous Kanatonian 16:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Support Watchdogb 16:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Question: Are these the right links? "Trying to resolve Chemmani mass grave" doesn't show a resolution - it is a mere copyedit. "resolving Hoax tag" is an example for tough words, which may well have been justified, but it doesn't show that his words resolved the conflict. Likewise "Trying to resolve Chemmani mass grave": He states his honest opinion, which sounds very reasonable and well founded to me, but stating a good opinion is not necessarily conflict resolution. Could you please check the first link and explain how the other two resolved a conflict? — Sebastian 08:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Guideline: Classification of sources

Wording for explicit attribution

Will the terminology "Pro" as in "Pro-LTTE", "Pro-government" be confirming with wikipedia's neutrality principles? Kerr avon 13:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly - that's the whole point of this section! As WP:NPOV specifies: "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly." We want to get together and find a fair terminology. If we could find some wording that applies to all QS, that would be nice because that would keep it easy, but we might just as well come up with different wordings for different sources. — Sebastian 03:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Classification of individual sources

The following was a reply to Kerr avon's comment about 13:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC). I'm moving it into it's own section to keep the wording question separate from the classification problems. — Sebastian 03:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm yes, maybe the sources should simply be qualified as "unreliable" because of their reporting practises, which might involve un-bridled hostility to a certain party. — Sharz — continues after insertion below

So far, TamilNet and Asian Tribune have been proposed as examples where people disagree about the classification. Which one should we discuss first? — Sebastian 03:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

TamilNet

With sites like defence.lk it's easy to qualify it as the government site, so thus it has inherent bias in inherent interests, but with TamilNet and TamilNation, they are not officially an arm of the Tamil Tigers, so thus no inherent bias can be proven, however, reading their articles and looking at the providence of their sources makes them biased. All very complicated, we should probably just stick with Sebastian's original proposal. --Sharz 00:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Tamilnet is biased towards the tigers, with several wrong reports, see Tamilnet#Controversy.Kerr avon 01:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Also please see [15] which shows tamilnets bias towards eelam.Kerr avon 01:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not questioning their biased, it's quiet obvious. --Sharz 10:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Tamilnet is a biased source but is a WP:RS as it has an editorial board and editor and number of reporters and senior journalists who report to it in a pro bona basis. All reports are checked according to published reports. But still controversy exists such as it exists about BBC and CNN too. Everybody works for Tamilnet for free means for a cause. Tigers tolerate them because they need them but I was around the internet when some alleged Tiger operatives in the net was questioning the bias of Tamilnet as it was not enough. Just like Taraki who died for his beliefs but was never an LTTE member most Tamilnet contributors are Sri Lankan Tamils and others who have a point of view yet others do it out of the need to get information out about the plight of civilians caught in a civil war situation. I know for fact that the local Army commanders are always looking for who these reporters are and if caught they are warned and if the warning is not adhered (most stop reporting at that point) then the fate of Taraki and Mylvaganam awaits them.As a source it can and should be used in writing about Sri Lankan affairs but a tag as pro-rebel or pro-Tamil Tiger can be used to describe it. Just my opinion.Kanatonian 14:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Asian Tribune

[...] my question is, how will be qualify disputed sources, for example, The Asian Tribune. Some would see them as reliable, whereas I find their reporting so lacking that if it was not for freedom of the press it would simply be slander what they produce. --Sharz 00:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I'm not sure. Let's find out! This could be our first experiment in discussing the reliability of a source here. — Sebastian 03:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you provide proof to substantiate your allegation ie "that you find asian tribunes reporting to belacking"? Just because the asian tribune is not pro-ltte doesn't mean that you can lable it as pro-government or unreliable. If it is slanderous as you suggest, by now it would have been sued. So your statement is wrong.Kerr avon 01:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
They're articles lack reporting integrity and reliable sources, they rely mainly upon highly biased government sources, I will elaborate later. --Sharz 10:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
As a person who has contributed to Asian Tribune(AT) and will in the future if I find time, I can say AT will fail WP:RS test if we take it to its logical conclusion and Tamilnet will not although it is is not a neutral source. But here we are to find compromise. I am amenable to pro Government Asian tribune as long as we find one reputable citation which says that. But to find that citation reputable and citable people have to take AT seriously. No one outside of a narrow group of Sri Lankan Wikipedians have the need to take AT seriously. It is considered to be a personal blog of Mr. K. T. Rajasingham whom I consider to be on friendly terms.He publishes a point of view that would surely be not allowed under Tamil nationalistic circles in Sri Lanka or aboard. Just because he does a valuable service to a perspective like R Hoole with his publication it cannot be taken uncritically because unlike UTHR it does not make any pretensions of being neutral or even reliable. It is run on shoe string budget with a dedication of a single man who doesn’t like what the Tigers are doing to the Tamil people. I am all for using his website (yes it is a website not a news portal) but with a label that it is either anti-rebel or pro government. Thanks Kanatonian
I really admire your honesty about this - with each contribution I'm reading here from you I'm happier and happier that you joined!
The way I see it, AT is a clear case for a QS. After another discussion I now realize that we should distinguish two components of reliability: truth and notability. AT could rank higher on the truth score, but lower on the notability score. — Sebastian 01:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I wish to state that going from Asian tribune's reports, I think it would be more correct to highlight them as anti-ltte rather than pro-government of sri lanka. It is my honest feel that the asian tribune is meant to counter the LTTE and pro eelam based sites which glamorise the LTTE. The site is notable enough there is no doubt about it, for example when the noted indian politician Subramaniam Swamy issued a statement critical of Karunanidhi's decision to praise the noted terrorist Balasingham when he (Bala) died, Swamy issued his statement first to the asian tribune[16] thus showing that AT is notable.Therefore I would request that the Pro-gosl tag be changed to something like anti-ltte after discussion.Kerr avon 07:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
What I prefer is this anti-rebel for AT and pro-rebel for TN. It is elegant. Thanks Kanatonian 23:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I'll change it! — Sebastian 23:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


Miscellany

Banners on project and talk page

I added two different banners to the project and the talk page. Do all members agree with the wording for each? — Sebastian 23:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

How to avoid NCSLC's pitfalls?

I started this project because NCSLC did not achieve its goal of neutrality. So much so, that many good editors would have nothing to do with it. Let's sympathetically look at what went wrong so we can learn from it.

Let's assume good faith and assume that NCSLC started out in a true attempt to achieve neutral coverage. That went awry when they accepted disruptive users. From then on it was a downward spiral: Many reasonable users, even to this day, do not want to join NCSLC because they said they had a problem with that member account. Since NCSLC has no way to remove a disruptive member, I had to start this new project.

This problem is even more severe for us, because we specifically have a goal of a diverse membership. (By this goal, I fervently promise, and I'm sure you will too, that we will never exlude anyone because of their opinion on Sri Lanka related issues.) Naturally, this diversity makes it even more likely that there will be conflict among our members.

The only solution I see for this is to decide now what we want to do if that situation occurs. Let's not put our heads in the sand - let's face the problem now! — Sebastian 04:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Does termination of membership address the issue?

The following text was written before I introduced the problem it is supposed to solve. I'm leaving the wording, although it's an awkward transition.

This is an unpleasant topic, and there's no immediate reason to think about it now. But that's the kind of thing you need to think about in advance, rather than when it happens. What if we have a member that disrupts the project? One thing that could easily happen is if the member blocks all or most decisions. Should we in this case deviate from the rule that everything is decided by consensus? Should the other members be able to kick a member out under certain conditions? What if there are two disrupting members? (I'm thinking way far ahead, that might happen when we will have a dozen or more members.) — Sebastian 05:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If some one wants to join this group that we should make every effort to keep that person because not many are willing to join to begin with. Although we have more than a dozen Sri Lankan born editors just 2 have volunteered so far which shows the middle is pretty narrow now, we need to expand it and retain it. As long as a person follows all wiki ruleshe/she should be a member. If a member does not follow wiki rules then the wiki process will take care of that editor. I don’t think we have to deviate from the consensus rule on that after a lengthy wiki process finds that person to be banned. Kanatonian 16:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I just realized that I put the cart before the horse when I wrote this section. I first should have pointed out what problem I want to solve with this. Please see #How to avoid NCSLC's pitfalls? above.
I do appreciate that you're so openminded. You're more so than I am.
"the wiki process will take care": Let's face it: Relying on the wiki process alone is not enough. It didn't help NCSLC. If you have an idea for achieving our goals in a more NCSLC-like project or even NCSLC itself, I'll be all for it - see #How to avoid NCSLC's pitfalls? above and #Relations with our sister project WP:NCSLC below.
"not many are willing to join to begin with": That may be true, but that's in the nature of things. Truly working for reconciliation is no piece of cake. (See also my dream above.) It's not our primary goal to drive the number of member accounts up, come who may. We need members who are committed. There are 3,402,053 registered user accounts. I hope you agree with me that we don't want to attract those that would only join if we can't show them the door, but that we want to attract those who like what we're doing and honestly want to participate. — Sebastian 21:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC), changed 04:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I just realized another reason why I'd like to have this rule: If there is no way to end a membership we have to be much more cautious about who we accept. This is classic case of a protection rule that backfires. (An example of such a rule that I know very well is that unemployment in Germany is higher than in the US to a large part because people can't get fired so easily. And within Germany, it's harder for women to be employed because they have very long paid maternity leave.) — Sebastian 13:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Membership to this group is not a privilege it is the other way around. It should not be a restrictive club. In Sri Lanka we have enough restrictive clubs. LTTE, EPDP, JVP, TNA, TMEVP, SU all what they demand is blood sacrifice. What we here demand is a chance to talk to each other instead of shouting at each other. We should consider it a privilege that even a marginal member considers that he/she can belong here. Once they are here, they are bound to talk about the differences. That is exactly what we want this to do. We should always stick to the rule that only consensus decision making can and will resolve will all issues including membership issues.Kanatonian 17:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I'm beginning see what sensitivities I'm hitting with my request. I see how reconciliation can clash with restrictiveness.
I still would like if you could address my concerns, too. Please understand that I'm not just making this up because I love rules. You said: "Membership to this group is not a privilege it is the other way around", but I think it's both ways. Committed members are vital for the group, and the group strengthens all members. Nobody proposes to exclude committed members. Members who undermine our goals are not vital for the group - in the contrary: they can kill it.
I need to say something for the record: Much as I sympathize with your sensitivities, I think you are wildly exaggerating. Nobody asks for blood sacrifices. Most fully harmless clubs are just as restrictive as what I'm proposing. If you want to join a choir, it is not enough that you follow the laws of your country, but you have to show that you're able to sing. Naturally, anyone who wants to join a reconciliation project has to be able to show that he/she can reconcile with others, or at least build up trust with opposing editors. — Sebastian 01:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
My point is same as reconciliation is not an art such as singing but a hope. Anyone can have a hope with or without a demonstrated ability in the past with a simple key stroke by applying here to be a member here that they want to reconcile their differences; it is wish in the future. This project is not even a club, it is a hope that people can reconcile even in the midst of a bloody carnage. I am a living witness to all dead bodies around me when I was a child, my wife even today cannot watch war movies because it brings back memories of indiscriminate bombing of Jaffna peninsula. This is simply one sided of the story. It took me a long time to come to conclusion about the futility of it all but if some one is somewhere on that same long path but has not reached the conclusion yet but stillwants to chat to see whether his/her beliefs and doubts can be reconciled that person should be given 1000% chance. If that person is disruptive towards others then everyone reasonable person will conclude that they don’t belong. But then what ? Are they going to be less disruptive ? This is Wikipedia, we in this so called club don’t own any of the articles about Sri Lanka . We can’t even set policies or procedures. We can only set guidelines and for people to follow it there must be a large number of Wikipedians who want to write about Sri Lanka agree to it.The only way we can succeed is by roping in as many Wikipedains and come up with guidelines that bind them most of the time. Personally I feel these guidelines are already there in Wikipedia. If we stick to them we will not have many problems. Infact I have found consensus with most Sri Lanka centric Wikipedians outside of this forum. The more I think about it in reality this forum or club’s primary (but unstated) goal is to function as a place to acclimatize emotionally charged new Sri Lanka centric Wikipedians about following Wikipedia rules. Most who have been around 6 months or are no longer overtly partisan or overtly disruptive even if they harbor malicious feelings about each other. That is a good equilibrium to achieve. All what this forum can do is to point such emotionally charged editors that hey look what we have achieved why don’t you try it ? If we are perssitant, they will and may be become members too.Kanatonian 14:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
While this still doesn't answer my concern, it contains something much more precious: A beautiful vision! I'm putting this in Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation#Kanatonian's hope. As to the point "Does termination of membership address the issue?", we can cross that bridge when we get to it. — Sebastian 18:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
BTW, re "if some one [...] wants to chat [...] that person should be given 1000% chance.": Everybody is already invited to chat here, so they already have 100% chance. But I understand that you want to give them more than that. — Sebastian 18:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Voting by consensus for everything?

I just noticed that I only wrote "consensus" for voting on barnstars. I had wanted to use consensus also for other votes, namely on new members and new guidelines. Would that be OK? We could say that whenever there is no "Oppose" within 24 hours, it counts as accepted. — Sebastian 05:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Since we all are living in a democratic world, you and Kanatonian advocates for the democracy on each other userpages and even I'm living in a democratic country, we all have to give the priority for the democracy. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 16:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I take that as support. — Sebastian 21:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I now realized that I proposed two different periods: 24 hours above, 48 hours for the source discussion. What do others think? Maybe we could say it's 48 hours unless there's a good reason to speedy it? (I'd first like to discuss before we vote on this) — Sebastian 21:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Waiting for new members

Also, I propose that, when we have new member applications, we offer them to hold off all issue votes on which they would like to vote until 24 hours after the membership votes are closed.

(Reason: I want to create an incentive to not drag out membership votes for such tactical reasons. The opposite case would of course be that someone delays his or her application for tactical reasons, but I'm not worried about that: It would backfire because if people felt that were the case they simply could vote against him/her.) — Sebastian 21:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please vote here:

Relations with our sister project WP:NCSLC

My goal is truly to work for reconciliation; it would be a bitter irony if two projects that state the goals of neutrality and reconciliation should not be able to find together. Much as I love this project (especially its name), I am open to all paths that lead to my goal, but only, of course, if all members agree (per Voting by consensus).

What Kanatonian wrote above made me aware that that there is a good point for keeping both projects: NCSLC is open to anyone, and SLR is for members who have a proven track record of constructive work. There is a need for both.

At least, I want to have very friendly relations with our sister project. Therefore, I left messages on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NCSLC#Is anyone still listening, or should I create a new project? and User talk:Sudharsansn#Sister projects. So far, nobody has replied. Depending on the reply, I would like us to honestly consider our options. We have several of them, such as

  1. One of us could join WP:NCSLC as an ambassador.
  2. We could encourage our members to participate in NCSLC and honour work done for NCSLC (such as with barnstars or when new members apply).
  3. They could join us as a member. (They would have one vote in our decisions, in addition to any individual votes users already have, who are members of both projects.)
  4. We could join them (as a group).
  5. We could merge under a combined name, such as "WikiProject Sri Lanka Neutrality and Reconciliation".

If you have any other ideas, please let me know. — Sebastian 21:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the project in question exists is name only, most of it's predominant editors do not edit, nor does the project as a whole fucntion to any real capability. As Lahru_k has already started doing, SLR should replace it completely. --Sharz 05:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
We should ask them to merge it with this Kanatonian 17:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Having inactive members would severly reduce the ability to make consensus quickly and effiencently, I will reframe from project discussion until membership issues are resolved however. --Sharz 00:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Credible problems and NPOV probles

Here are some problems with the current articles and such:

As requested:

the page "Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE" under the 2007 bus explosion insident the writer has written as if that that was the truth and has given a refrence to the reuters (which is fine). However, on that article it just says that the Srilankan forces has said that they suspect this to be an attack by the tigers. This is NOT the NPOV that wiki should share. I want to ask you to take a look at it and tell me what to do. I believe this should be taken off but I don't want to go in a edit war against the two major contributers to the articles. We should take immediate action about this problem. I will take a more indept look at the article now to see if there is any other accutations like this. Thanks and sorry for disturbing you. I just want to keep this whole part of wiki clean...

Central Bank bombing: No citations given. This is written by a single POV and does not give any credible citations. Does not belong in wiki unless refrenced to a credible source. Please fix

Gomarankadawala massacre: Found reference but it seems that the article does not have a NPOV.

More dirt!

Under the 2006 heading:

March 01, 2006: Suspected but not proven so cannot belong in the article because refrence doesn not assume.

April 23, 2006 : This is based on a article which is on wikipedia but is missing sitations. Infact there is no citation on that article and it is again a violation of wiki. Nothing shows that this is true... furthermore doesn not involve Tamil Tigers.

May 27, 2006: No mention in the refrence about Tamil Tigers hence not NPVO to assume it was them

May 29, 2006: Refrence is not a NPOV article it seems. Not wiki stranders but could let it slide by.

September 18, 2006 Are you kidding me ? refrence from defence.lk…. What a joke!

I am slowly working my way around all the sri lanka related sections. Please do not mistake me of trying to sabotage these artiles or of supporting any one group. I am just trying to clean wiki from rubbish [Things that do not meet wiki standards]. Watchdogb 21:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sebastian's replies

Thank you for your post. I now realize that you had specific questions to different articles rather than general questions. Sorry, that was my mistake; I should have directed you to the article talk pages. But anyway, let me quickly reply here. (When you do any of the changes that have been proposed here, please add the reason for the change and "per [[WT:SLR#Credible problems and NPOV probles]]" in the edit summary so people know why you're doing them. If you encounter any trouble, let us know.)

Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE - 2007 bus explosion
I think the first sentence (" The LTTE are the only ...") can be cut completely because it only repeats and, as you correctly point out, twists the attribution, which is given more correcly later.
Central Bank bombing
Indeed, there are no sources at all! You can tag this article with the template {{Unreferenced}}.
I have added several cites namely CNN and BBC so i have removed the unreferenced tag.Kerr avon 12:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Gomarankadawala massacre
Not clear what you mean. Please be specific. (It's probably better to write that on Talk:Gomarankadawala massacre. Sorry again for the confusion!)
March 01, 2006
It says clearly "suspected" in the article, so it's described correctly. Maybe you can clarify what you mean by "refrence doesn not assume". It sounds like you have an idea for a general principle which could be an interesting discussion for our group.
April 23, 2006
That's the same as Gomarankadawala massacre above, isn't it? The article has a reference. If you feel that some statements are not covered by it you can add the {{fact}} template at the end of those statements.
May 27, 2006
You're right, the reference doesn't mention LTTE. For now, I would add the {{fact}} tag to that entry, and explain why; either on the article talk page or with a comment (Like this: <!-- LTTE not mentioned in this reference, ... -->)
May 29, 2006
That's a good topic to bring up in our section #Guideline: Classification of sources. If you'd like to discuss this there, pls make a new headline like "===satp.org===" in that section and write your concerns below.
September 18, 2006
No, it's not a joke to reference defence.lk. Wikipedia's official policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view explains that our ideal is not to censor individual sources but to put them in the right context. This is why WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation is compiling a list of sources people might use, along with our recommended way to cite them. According to our recommendation, the reference should be changed to read: "According to the anti-rebel defence.lk, ...". That way, readers can judge by themselves how credible they think it is.

I hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any further questions! We certainly don't mistake you for trying to sabotage anything - you are clearly trying to bring up things that do not meet our standards. Thank you for Esperanzathat! — Sebastian 01:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Assasinations during the Sri Lankan civil war

I wanted to create a more neutral article[17] from the above two it seem's to be ok with Netmonger and neutral editors others but now there is a problem. I will take it to mediation and I know I will win because I am creating an NPOV article from two POV articles but meanwhile I want to give this organization to try to resolve it for the time being. Thanks Kanatonian 18:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

More discussion at [18]Thsoe who are interested should discuss it al central location as pointed out. Thanks Kanatonian 17:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Mass graves in Sri Lanka

OK I like an idea of creating together this unsavory side of our conflict both the government and the LTTE has indulged in it. Any takers for discussing thsi here. See details [[19]]Kanatonian

Thanks

Lahiru et al,

Thank you for the welcome in my talk page. I look forward to reading about what you guys do. This seems to be a reflective group. Good luck with the initiative.

I only hope that this group does not take upon itself the role to edit the input of everyone who makes changes in a Sri Lanka specific article. I have not made any edits in conflict related articles - with minor exceptions - but I tend to focus on history related issues.

Best regards--Dipendra2007 05:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to include the fact that we're bipartisan somehow. Maybe we can shorten the article related wording to compensate for it. How about the following wording: "... a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Sri Lanka Civil War."? — Sebastian 08:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC), changed 08:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC) (Deleted my discussion of the name "Civil War". Since "Sri Lankan Civil War" is the name of the article, it seems to be the preferred name at Wikipedia, so let's stick with that.)

Yeah that would be nice. Please feel free to suggest. The project belongs to everyone. :-)--♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 08:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
No, not everyone. Just its members! ;-) I changed the wording as agreed. Later, when I wrote the banners on top of this page and the project page, I came up with a wording which I think is even better. What do you think? — Sebastian 00:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Lahiru

I want to say a big "thank you" to Lahiru for archiving this page. This wasn't easy since there already were several copies of some topics in the archive, and I admit I contributed to this mess. — Sebastian 19:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/archive&oldid=1160867137"